Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, csmopar said:

Reading these posts proves this conversation is about as productive as trying to wipe your butt with a bicycle tire, it never ends and just gets messier… 

 

seen this once in a third world crap hole, literally. 

 

[throwing BBZ]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

 It's exactly true. He was pathetic, and if they wanted to win he would have been replaced much sooner. Wasn't it Orlovsky that did finally replace him and darned near cost us Luck? No way we get Luck if Orlovsky started just a few more games.

One can say we came into the season with Collins with hopes of being .500.

Once it failed, we were all in for Luck.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

Wait where did that come from? 

The presser where Irsay said Frank was fired and Saturday was hired.  Speculation was that Ballard didn't lead the firing of Frank.  And who knows how the rest of the season would have gone.  I think we wer about .500 at the time of the firing.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Offensively, probably on every player that was drafted. That doesn't mean they are telling who they want and Ballard and co. are just going along with it. That means they are working together, and telling the HC who they are targeting and the strategy behind the board stacking, and asking for input on those players... Hence, the offensive minded/playcalling head coach likely influences the way the board is ultimately stacked. It's just another data input to factor. 

Regarding qb's, you've identified a few teams out of many that have had success. Purdy is an anomaly, and if it were that easy, then we wouldn't be starting at 3 top qbs each year in the draft.  We wouldn't be watching teams shuffle qb's the same way. I saw enough with CJ Stroud last season to know that that team doesn't win half the games they did without him, including the last one with the division on the line. Garapolo? the guy that was groomed behind Tom Brady? Yeah, he had success on a good roster. Hurts? The guy that plays for a team that won a superbowl with a backup qb... Yeah, he's had success. Dak? The guy that throws for mvp numbers? How convenient to throw a few successful qbs out of many to imply that Houston would do the same. Sure, they could... Would they? Very unlikely

So did Frank have bout 70% of the control over offensive personnel?  And does SS now have about 70% control over offensive personnel, or less?

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So did Frank have bout 70% of the control over offensive personnel?  And does SS now have about 70% control over offensive personnel, or less?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Have we had a qb as good as any of those teams? 
 

I think not…

One of those teams, Philly drafted Jalen Hurts when Ballard was shopping the FAs for QBs (ironically he doesn't like to shop for needs in other positions).

 

It's okay that Ballard wanted to get Wentz and other FA QBs possibly to make it work with Reich's system but at the same time Ballard could've evaluated better about Hurts and drafted him when there's a high potential while still having got FA QB, whereas Philly actually did well there - which is why one of those teams have had better QB than Indy. 

[shasta519]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

It was pretty clear he was terrible by about the 4th game, yet he did go on to start and finish 4 more games. And they had Dan O. who had outplayed him in the preseason (and would later in the season when finally started).

 

But it's not like I was unhappy about the outcome. I can just see why some find it sketchy.

 

The Colts aren't the only ones who have done this though. Cherry-picking some data, I found that (since 2011) Painter's 6-game stretch (his 3rd-8th games) was only the 4th worst by EPA for QBs who have started 6 or more games consecutively in a season. Behind Painter are Deshone Kizer, Zack Mettenberger and Josh Rosen. 

 

3 teams wound with the #1 overall pick and drafted a QB and the other with the #2 overall pick and drafted a QB.

 

Colts were sort of trendsetters I guess. 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Funny how you're avoiding the question and now trying to make the question the issue.

 

So, did Frank and Ballard collaborate on personnel decisions to the same level as SS and Ballard do now? Or does one HC have more influence over Ballard...in this dynamic that you describe?

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Sounds like you think the Colts are what the Washington Generals are to Harlem Globetrotters in basketball - a bunch of JAGs.

 

 What do we have that is SB caliber?

 7 d-lineman

 4 o-lineman

 1 WR

 1 slot

 1 RB

 I think our TE room can be that good, Woods must kick tail.

  It's mystery meat with our secondary, and our LB's have to improve. As does our WR contribution.

 And it takes one heckuva QB to beat Playoff teams. Show me. 

 As we anxiously await our draft results. We need two future high end starters to come from this draft.  

  

[ColtStrong2013]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Funny how you're avoiding the question and now trying to make the question the issue.

 

So, did Frank and Ballard collaborate on personnel decisions to the same level as SS and Ballard do now? Or does one HC have more influence over Ballard...in this dynamic that you describe?

the question is the issue. It’s the way you want the conversation to go, which is irrelevant to anything I said in the first place. You created a strawman and want me to engage with it. I’m not. I don’t know who has more influence and it’s making me laugh that you expect me to guess a percentage of influence? What…? 😂 

 

They both had/have influence. I don’t know who had more. I don’t know if Shane influenced Richardson as much as Reich did Wentz. I have no idea. There’s zero way to know that. You want me to make a claim that doesn’t matter, except in whatever weird agenda you have for me to engage with, and is impossible to even form an opinion on. 
 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

of course it would. Because there is a very high probability they don’t replace him with even close to the same level of talent. They could easily be in the same qb shuffle we experienced. 

Or Texans could opt for drafting another QB.

 

Getting FA QBs rarely work out, apart from any HOF worthy QBs moving to another team. Ballard made inexplicable move of going after FA QBs one after another, instead of evaluating each draft class heavily with very intent of finding next franchise QB, and Philly did that at the same time.

 

If Stroud retires, most good GMs would look to draft next franchise QB, rather than selling fan base that team is championship Caliber and a FA QB is all they need to get close to winning it all.

 

Just as how Texans GM didn't believe the hype of Young, and evaluated well about Stroud, there's a high chance he could find another successful QB or at least a good pocket passer in the draft.

 

It's not right to say Texans would go after FA QBs one after another if Stroud retires just because Ballard did that. 

[NewColtsFan]

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So did Frank have bout 70% of the control over offensive personnel?  And does SS now have about 70% control over offensive personnel, or less?

Is it hard to believe that Ballard tries to get his head coach the players they really want?    
 

Frank wanted Parris Campbell

Frank wanted Kylen Granson

Frank wanted Pittman

Frank wanted Taylor.  
And these are just the guys that we know about.  I’m sure there were others. 
 

And Ballard got them.

 

Now Ballard has Steichen.  Is there any reason to think he won’t get his new head coach the players he wants?   He’s already demonstrated that he’s willing to draft or sign smaller, quicker receivers:  Downs and McKenzie.  I think that demonstrates those tall receivers that Ballard acquired were Frank-types, not Ballard-types.  Ballard tries to get his HC the players he wants if at all possible and within reason. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

It was pretty clear he was terrible by about the 4th game, yet he did go on to start and finish 4 more games. And they had Dan O. who had outplayed him in the preseason (and would later in the season when finally started).

 

But it's not like I was unhappy about the outcome. I can just see why some find it sketchy.

 

The Colts aren't the only ones who have done this though. Cherry-picking some data, I found that (since 2011) Painter's 6-game stretch (his 3rd-8th games) was only the 4th worst by EPA for QBs who have started 6 or more games consecutively in a season. Behind Painter are Deshone Kizer, Zack Mettenberger and Josh Rosen. 

 

3 teams wound with the #1 overall pick and drafted a QB and the other with the #2 overall pick and drafted a QB.

 

Colts were sort of trendsetters I guess. 

 

Why replace Painter at all? If the goal is to secure the #1 pick, why wouldn't they have kept Painter out there until that was locked down?

 

The other QB on the roster was Dan Orlovsky. The same guy who played the 2008 Lions into an 0-16 record. He and Painter were two sides of the same coin. Orlovsky might have had a couple of moments in preseason, but he didn't look like much of anything. Both of them were so uninspiring that the Colts signed Kerry Collins halfway through preseason. 

 

Painter himself seemed not completely awful in his first three starts. We lost by 7, 4, and 10. Then everyone hit rock bottom against the Saints, and the next four games weren't close. Painter was always bad, but his first three games were just regular bad, and then it got BAD bad. And then he got benched. Orlovsky came in and was a little bit better than Painter had been.

 

We could do this all day. The crux of my argument is that if the Colts were playing Painter to tank for the #1 pick, they would have just kept playing him. 

[ColtStrong2013]

10 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Or Texans could opt for drafting another QB.

 

Getting FA QBs rarely work out, apart from any HOF worthy QBs moving to another team. Ballard made inexplicable move of going after FA QBs one after another, instead of evaluating each draft class heavily with very intent of finding next franchise QB, and Philly did that at the same time.

 

If Stroud retires, most good GMs would look to draft next franchise QB, rather than selling fan base that team is championship Caliber and a FA QB is all they need to get close to winning it all.

 

Just as how Texans GM didn't believe the hype of Young, and evaluated well about Stroud, there's a high chance he could find another successful QB or at least a good pocket passer in the draft.

 

It's not right to say Texans would go after FA QBs one after another if Stroud retires just because Ballard did that. 

I didn’t say they wouldn’t. I just said they could play the same qb shuffle. They could draft a player to replace him. And that player could be like the majority of qb’s coming into the league and not lead them anywhere. They could shuffle to a vet, or to another draft pick. And again and again, wishing they still had their franchise qb that they were building around. It’s all hypothetical. It’s just funny that Caserio gets all this credit, when several teams were inquiring about #1 and they chose to sit put at #2. They lucked into CJ Stroud. They didn’t know it was going to the panthers passing them and preferring little man. They just took a gamble so they didn’t have to do it for Stroud… or- they were content with whoever was left if Stroud went #1. Nobody wants to talk about that. It’s chosen to be ignored while propping him up. 

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

the question is the issue. It’s the way you want the conversation to go, which is irrelevant to anything I said in the first place. You created a strawman and want me to engage with it. I’m not. I don’t know who has more influence and it’s making me laugh that you expect me to guess a percentage of influence? What…? 😂 

 

They both had/have influence. I don’t know who had more. I don’t know if Shane influenced Richardson as much as Reich did Wentz. I have no idea. There’s zero way to know that. You want me to make a claim that doesn’t matter, except in whatever weird agenda you have for me to engage with, and is impossible to even form an opinion on. 
 

Then a reset. 

 

You believe there is a dynamic between the GM, HC, and Owner when it comes to personnel decisions....specific players....not just general philosophies.  Do you think that dynamic changes when a new HC is hired in a way that he has more or less influence than the previous HC?

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Then a reset. 

 

You believe there is a dynamic between the GM, HC, and Owner when it comes to personnel decisions....specific players....not just general philosophies.  Do you think that dynamic changes when a new HC is hired in a way that he has more or less influence than the previous HC?

 

 

It could. I still don't know why that matters to what I initially said, outside of baiting me into whatever point you want to make. What point are you trying to make?

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The presser where Irsay said Frank was fired and Saturday was hired.  Speculation was that Ballard didn't lead the firing of Frank.  And who knows how the rest of the season would have gone.  I think we wer about .500 at the time of the firing.

 

At the presser, Ballard signaled that there was a disagreement between him and Irsay about the decision to make the change from Reich to Saturday. He called the discussions "spirited." I don't know if that was more about firing Frank midseason, or about hiring Saturday, but his comments made me think he wasn't happy with the combination of decisions. At that time. Whether he would have been on board with replacing Reich after the season is a different story.

 

At the time, the team record was 3-5-1. I don't think that's 'about .500.'

 

But more importantly, that team was broken, and so was Reich. I remember watching the Denver game in Week 5, and thinking that Reich could be fired after that game if they lost. And that's significant, because the idea of the Colts firing a coach midseason was pretty much unheard of that point. But it was well warranted.

 

As time went on, my level of interest dropped dramatically. I watch every game, I follow all the news, pay attention to practice reports and injury info... and I was emotionally checked out. Firing Reich fired me back up. My point is that I don't need to speculate about how the rest of the season would have gone. I was done with Reich, and I think it's obvious that Irsay was done with him also. 

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Yep. Prob should have lost to BAL and should have beaten CLE.

 

This is my issue with the "one play away" narrative I keep hearing. It was a mis-execution. They happen throughout games. If the Colts were "one play away" from beating HOU, they were also "one play away" from losing to NE, when Jones threw a duck with Gesicki open in the EZ late 4Q. It was a truly terrible pass that most QBs don't make. Colts couldn't score that game, so even if they only needed a FG to tie after, they probably don't get it.

 

It just tends to balance out by the end of the season. 

They were also one play more away from beating Houston.  If they execute that play it gets a first down.  They still had to score.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

 

It could. I still don't know why that matters to what I initially said, outside of baiting me into whatever point you want to make. What point are you trying to make?

That if previous failures could be blamed on Frank's influence with Ballard deserving little blame in a defense of Ballard, then future successes would be based upon Shane's influence, with Ballard deserving little praise for the turnaround.

 

I'm not asking you what you are going to say in the future.  I'm asking if you understand the logic of the point I just made.

[ColtStrong2013]

4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Will you give Steichen credit for the turn around?  What I don't understand about the Frank blamers, is that you'll now have to turn it around and become Steichen praisers, or else it looks a bit hypocritical.  Why defend a GM who you must think is pretty irrelevant?

 

And BTW, Irsay has a hand in who the HC is...so its not like Ballard hired the good HC but Irsay hired the bad HC.

 

I will absolutely give a lot of credit to Steichen. 
 

and btw- Irsay wasn’t involved really at all in Steichen’s hire. His daughters were. But they let Chris drive it. Frank was a last minute makeshift that worked out initially better than anyone expected. He was recommended by Irsay, Polian, etc. 

 

I’m not an exclusive Frank blamer. I admit that Ballard was a major part of the equation to not solve the qb issue. I don’t think Frank was a good development coach and that he lost the locker room with Wentz and accountability. The pendulum swung hard the other way when we hired Steichen. I think Steichen is a better coach. I think coaches can grow, just like I think players and executives can grow. This organization is banking on that, which is why Frank needed to be gone at the end of 2022. He was clearly not growing nor leading the team in the right direction. 

 

What point are you trying to make Doug? This was my initial response before you started throwing percentages at me to throw darts at like I'm Chris Ballard on draft day... 

 

I said I'm not an exclusive Frank blamer. I blame him more for losing the locker room, and not being a great coach, more than vouching for Wentz (that's not me clearing Ballard for the qb woes.) I think Steichen's a better coach, and it showed last year. There weren't a whole of roster moves made, and Steichen did more offensively (and the same wins/situation) with less than Frank had. He didn't have a defense leading the league in turnovers, he didn't have the league leading rusher. He had the locker room (and a lot of fans, contrary to what the Ballard haters online say,) believing in the franchise again. That's all. 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, DougDew said:

That if previous failures could be blamed on Frank's influence with Ballard deserving little blame in a defense of Ballard, then future successes would be based upon Shane's influence, with Ballard deserving little praise for the turnaround.

 

I'm not asking you what you are going to say in the future.  I'm asking if you understand the logic of the point I just made.

 

I don't think I do see your logic. It's not * for tat. Most people that blame Frank believe he was more to blame than Ballard. If the same roster construction aside from a few new HC influenced players make the difference between a miserable 4 win season and being a couple plays away from a division title, I think that speaks more to the coaching than it does to the roster makeup/General manager. 

 

If we are successful in the future, then I will credit Shane for being a necessary change and bringing a winning culture to the locker room. I already think he's done that, like I said. If we have future success utilizing the processes that everyone complains hard on Ballard about, then I will credit Ballard for sticking to his principles and making the necessary changes (including hiring Shane Steichen and drafting AR)... It's not * for tat.

[GoColts8818]

47 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

It was pretty clear he was terrible by about the 4th game, yet he did go on to start and finish 4 more games. And they had Dan O. who had outplayed him in the preseason (and would later in the season when finally started).

 

But it's not like I was unhappy about the outcome. I can just see why some find it sketchy.

 

The Colts aren't the only ones who have done this though. Cherry-picking some data, I found that (since 2011) Painter's 6-game stretch (his 3rd-8th games) was only the 4th worst by EPA for QBs who have started 6 or more games consecutively in a season. Behind Painter are Deshone Kizer, Zack Mettenberger and Josh Rosen. 

 

3 teams wound with the #1 overall pick and drafted a QB and the other with the #2 overall pick and drafted a QB.

 

Colts were sort of trendsetters I guess. 

The problem with this is Polian got fired.  Do we really believe he ordered tanking the season that lead to him losing his job?  Nothing happened in the Colts organization back then without Polian’s approval.  He was that kind of control freak.  He also one of the largest egos in the history of football.  Often times people with egos don’t like to admit they made a mistake and Polian is the one who decided to draft Painter to be a backup and I think he got stubborn and was determined to be right.  That happens with people with egos like that despite when it’s clear to the rest of the world they are wrong.  

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

At the presser, Ballard signaled that there was a disagreement between him and Irsay about the decision to make the change from Reich to Saturday. He called the discussions "spirited." I don't know if that was more about firing Frank midseason, or about hiring Saturday, but his comments made me think he wasn't happy with the combination of decisions. At that time. Whether he would have been on board with replacing Reich after the season is a different story.

 

At the time, the team record was 3-5-1. I don't think that's 'about .500.'

 

But more importantly, that team was broken, and so was Reich. I remember watching the Denver game in Week 5, and thinking that Reich could be fired after that game if they lost. And that's significant, because the idea of the Colts firing a coach midseason was pretty much unheard of that point. But it was well warranted.

 

As time went on, my level of interest dropped dramatically. I watch every game, I follow all the news, pay attention to practice reports and injury info... and I was emotionally checked out. Firing Reich fired me back up. My point is that I don't need to speculate about how the rest of the season would have gone. I was done with Reich, and I think it's obvious that Irsay was done with him also. 

I get that. but its a far thing to imply that Ballard led the charge to fire Frank at that time, especially when it was Irsay or Saturday who admitted that Irsay called Jeff to nearly hire him before Frank was told he was fired.   I think its safe to say that Irsay drove the bus to fire Frank more than Ballard did.

 

Ok 3-5-1 isn't 500.  Frank had lost the team by then, but it still didn't seem like Ballard was wanting to fire Frank right then and then finding an interim, especially since the OC was fired a bit before.

[KB]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Then a reset. 

 

You believe there is a dynamic between the GM, HC, and Owner when it comes to personnel decisions....specific players....not just general philosophies.  Do you think that dynamic changes when a new HC is hired in a way that he has more or less influence than the previous HC?

https://youtu.be/juUGda4Awqg?si=3iMT2Ck5GCM99Myx

 

Not to interject. I was listening to this the other day and I think it lines up with what you're asking. During the interview here with Coach Partridge he talks about how he got to his desk, got settled in, then Chris hit him with a list of FAs that he wanted him to rate and rank off the bat. So even position coaches have influence coming in the door. Their opinion on these matters are one of the things they are brought in for.

I'm sure the dynamic does change with a new coach to a degree. He dosnt know what he likes as much as he did Frank's who he has been working with for the last few years. Now he has to figure out what the new coach wants so he can bring that to the roster.

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I get that. but its a far thing to imply that Ballard led the charge to fire Frank at that time, especially when it was Irsay or Saturday who admitted that Irsay called Jeff to nearly hire him before Frank was told he was fired.   I think its safe to say that Irsay drove the bus to fire Frank more than Ballard did.

 

Ok 3-5-1 isn't 500.  Frank had lost the team by then, but it still didn't seem like Ballard was wanting to fire Frank right then and then finding an interim, especially since the OC was fired a bit before.

 

I thought there were reports that Ballard specifically urged against Saturday as the interim, when there were capable people already on staff. That was all I remember. I don't think he led the charge at all. But why does that matter? What would have been done differently if we lost the same amount of games with Frank and he was fired at the season's end? Or are you suggesting Frank would have kept them from drafting at #4. I can understand that... But there would have no difference otherwise. Frank was done. They would have conducted the same interview process in the offseason.

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, KB said:

https://youtu.be/juUGda4Awqg?si=3iMT2Ck5GCM99Myx

 

Not to interject. I was listening to this the other day and I think it lines up with what you're asking. During the interview here with Coach Partridge he talks about how he got to his desk, got settled in, then Chris hit him with a list of FAs that he wanted him to rate and rank off the bat. So even position coaches have influence coming in the door. Their opinion on these matters are one of the things they are brought in for.

I'm sure the dynamic does change with a new coach to a degree. He dosnt know what he likes as much as he did Frank's who he has been working with for the last few years. Now he has to figure out what the new coach wants so he can bring that to the roster.

 

It's data... This team is so centered around data now. Every team and multi-billion dollar company is. The more data, the better. You want inputs, from all over. You want measurables. You want commentary. You want stats. How many different sets of eyes can be put on a certain aspect, so that nothing gets missed in the collection of data? And then when it's sifted through and organized, you have a very clear picture to build a strategy around. 

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

It's data... This team is so centered around data now. Every team and multi-billion dollar company is. The more data, the better. You want inputs, from all over. You want measurables. You want commentary. You want stats. How many different sets of eyes can be put on a certain aspect, so that nothing gets missed in the collection of data? And then when it's sifted through and organized, you have a very clear picture to build a strategy around. 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gstarek

Greg Starek - Director of Football Analytics - Indianapolis Colts | LinkedIn

 

San Francisco Giants

Data Scientist

Aug 2019 - Dec 2021 2 years 5 months

+ Built predictive and descriptive models to aid in player evaluation at scale
+ Led development of new biomechanics software and data pipeline, transforming raw data into actionable insights
+ Built API to enable easy, seamless interaction with complex motion capture data
+ Optimized performance of computational tasks with GCP infrastructure
+ Created web dashboard to democratize access to data for all stakeholders (front office, coaches, analysts)

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

The presser where Irsay said Frank was fired and Saturday was hired.  Speculation was that Ballard didn't lead the firing of Frank.  And who knows how the rest of the season would have gone.  I think we wer about .500 at the time of the firing.

 

ok...so you remember there being speculation.  I honestly do not.  Still though, that's not quite the same as what you originally said.  I also don't believe that.  If anything, I believe that Ballard would have fired Reich sooner if he'd been able to.  This, of course, is just speculation on my part.

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

ok...so you remember there being speculation.  I honestly do not.  Still though, that's not quite the same as what you originally said.  I also don't believe that.  If anything, I believe that Ballard would have fired Reich sooner if he'd been able to.  This, of course, is just speculation on my part.

I will say, Jeff has been very candid about the entire ordeal and process. He confirmed Jim called him during the Pats game, but it was about the pass protection.

You can watch some of Jeff’s interviews on YouTube, including with Pat Mcafee.  

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I will say, Jeff has been very candid about the entire ordeal and process. He confirmed Jim called him during the Pats game, but it was about the pass protection.

You can watch some of Jeff’s interviews on YouTube, including with Pat Mcafee.  

 

We tanked for AR once Jeff took over and we benched Matt, (JOKING).

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I don't think I do see your logic. It's not * for tat. Most people that blame Frank believe he was more to blame than Ballard. If the same roster construction aside from a few new HC influenced players make the difference between a miserable 4 win season and being a couple plays away from a division title, I think that speaks more to the coaching than it does to the roster makeup/General manager. 

 

If we are successful in the future, then I will credit Shane for being a necessary change and bringing a winning culture to the locker room. I already think he's done that, like I said. If we have future success utilizing the processes that everyone complains hard on Ballard about, then I will credit Ballard for sticking to his principles and making the necessary changes (including hiring Shane Steichen and drafting AR)... It's not * for tat.

It seems like you are saying that the players that don't make much of a difference are the ones that the HC influences.  But the good players, like AR, are the ones Ballard picked without the same influence from the HC?

 

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, KB said:

https://youtu.be/juUGda4Awqg?si=3iMT2Ck5GCM99Myx

 

Not to interject. I was listening to this the other day and I think it lines up with what you're asking. During the interview here with Coach Partridge he talks about how he got to his desk, got settled in, then Chris hit him with a list of FAs that he wanted him to rate and rank off the bat. So even position coaches have influence coming in the door. Their opinion on these matters are one of the things they are brought in for.

I'm sure the dynamic does change with a new coach to a degree. He dosnt know what he likes as much as he did Frank's who he has been working with for the last few years. Now he has to figure out what the new coach wants so he can bring that to the roster.

That's fine.  I'm not disputing to what level a coach may or may not have in an organization.  What I'm asking is does the level of input change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.  

[Jason_]

39 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The problem with this is Polian got fired.  Do we really believe he ordered tanking the season that lead to him losing his job?  Nothing happened in the Colts organization back then without Polian’s approval.  He was that kind of control freak.  

 

No matter what kind of control freak Polian was, Irsay could still do whatever he wanted with or without including Polian in the decision.  It's also entirely possible Polian also saw the mess that the roster had become and decided that was going to be his last year.  He and Irsay agree it's time for both to move on.  Polian says he'll resign.  Irsay says don't do that, I'll fire you that way you still get paid.  Seems like something the guy who opted not to go after any of Luck's money would do. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Reading these posts proves this conversation is about as productive as trying to wipe your butt with a bicycle tire, it never ends and just gets messier… 

 

seen this once in a third world crap hole, literally. 

[Jason_]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

At the presser, Ballard signaled that there was a disagreement between him and Irsay about the decision to make the change from Reich to Saturday. He called the discussions "spirited." I don't know if that was more about firing Frank midseason, or about hiring Saturday, but his comments made me think he wasn't happy with the combination of decisions.

 

My interpretation of it was that the "spirited" discussions were about Saturday being the replacement.  I could obviously be wrong.

[ColtStrong2013]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It seems like you are saying that the players that don't make much of a difference are the ones that the HC influences.  But the good players, like AR, are the ones Ballard picked without the same influence?

 

Nah- that’s just what you want me to say to fit your weird agenda… 

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I get that. but its a far thing to imply that Ballard led the charge to fire Frank at that time, especially when it was Irsay or Saturday who admitted that Irsay called Jeff to nearly hire him before Frank was told he was fired.   I think its safe to say that Irsay drove the bus to fire Frank more than Ballard did.

 

Ok 3-5-1 isn't 500.  Frank had lost the team by then, but it still didn't seem like Ballard was wanting to fire Frank right then and then finding an interim, especially since the OC was fired a bit before.

 

I agree with the bolded. I also think the entire unconventional situation isn't what Ballard would have wanted, for obvious reasons. Even if he agreed that Reich should go, let John Fox or Gus Bradley serve as interim HC. Bringing in Saturday was strange, but I think Irsay wanted that for a specific reason. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

No matter what kind of control freak Polian was, Irsay could still do whatever he wanted with or without including Polian in the decision.

 

The only way it happens, and no one ever talks about it for over a decade, is if everyone was in agreement. 

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

ok...so you remember there being speculation.  I honestly do not.  Still though, that's not quite the same as what you originally said.  I also don't believe that.  If anything, I believe that Ballard would have fired Reich sooner if he'd been able to.  This, of course, is just speculation on my part.

Well, since i thought about this more as to why I had that opinion.  I now remember that Saturday said that Irsay basically offered him the job before Frank was even fired.  Which was an inference that Irsay fired Frank because he knew he had his replacement secured, and it wasn't an assistant coach.   Nowhere was it mentioned that Ballard took the lead on that or was consulted much before Irsay called Jeff, for which I'm sure Ballard was angry about.

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The only way it happens, and no one ever talks about it for over a decade, is if everyone was in agreement. 

 

I'm not disputing that at all.  I'm only saying that it wouldn't have required nearly as many people as most claim it would have and it's not as far fetched as those same people believe.

 

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well, since i thought about this more as to why I had that opinion.  I now remember that Saturday said that Irsay basically offered him the job before Frank was even fired.  Which was an inference that Irsay fired Frank because he knew he had his replacement secured, and it wasn't an assistant coach.   Nowhere was it mentioned that Ballard was involved in that process, for which I'm sure he was angry about.

 

Sure I could see Ballard being angry if he had not been included in the decision.  The original post I responded to said "it didn't seem as though Ballard wanted to fire Frank".  Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant, but I do think that Ballard was ready to fire Frank and probably had been.  But I could see him not agreeing with the timing and even moreso the Saturday decision.