Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

Well, yes, I meant fire Frank when Frank was actually fired.  It strongly seems that Ballard didn't do that.   I don't know where the team would have gone the rest of the way, or if Ballard would have fired him at the end of the season.   I characterized it as near .500, but still 3-5-1 could have turned a season into something other than a crapshow.

 

Also, Irsay just signed Frank.  A GM doesn't just make the Owner pay a HC for three more years while sitting on a beach. Obviously the owner is always involved.  Its his money.

[danlhart87]

 

Dropping this randomly every few pages here

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

 

Dropping this randomly every few pages here

 

sounds kinky

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

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.

 

Okay, but Polian would have been in on it though, right? We're not talking about some unknown director of football administration. 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay, but Polian would have been in on it though, right? We're not talking about some unknown director of football administration. 

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary that he had to be in on it.  Irsay could have had a conversation directly with Caldwell. 

 

However, I could see a more likely scenario where, after Collins got hurt, Irsay sits Polian down for a conversation about the state of the roster.  They agree it's time to part ways at the end of the season. Polian's ready to retire anyway, but Irsay has no problem firing him instead so that Polian still gets paid.  A favor for so many years of service and the success he helped bring to the city.  

 

 

Oh, I have been meaning to add though that your previous point about, why replace painter at all, is a very good point, and I can only think of 2 admittedly flimsy possibilities...1 being that Painter got banged up and wasn't totally healthy.  The other far less likely possibility being that TPTB wanted to show the fans and/or the league that they were still "trying".  I don't think that is the case though because, at that point why even bother?

[RollerColt]

Just now, Jason_ said:

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary that he had to be in on it.  Irsay could have had a conversation directly with Caldwell. 

 

However, I could see a more likely scenario where, after Collins got hurt, Irsay sits Polian down for a conversation about the state of the roster.  They agree it's time to part ways at the end of the season. Polian's ready to retire anyway, but Irsay has no problem firing him instead so that Polian still gets paid.  A favor for so many years of service and the success he helped bring to the city.  

The thing is, if Caldwell was in on it, wouldn’t he have spoken out or filed a grievance against Indy once he was fired by Grigson? 
 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

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. 

Y'all are trying to make points without actually answering pretty simple questions. 

 

So it sounds like you are in the HC/GM 70/30 roster construction camp.  That may in fact be accurate.  That's fine.

 

Hypothetically, do you think its fair to blame Frank for past personnel failures and not to praise SS for future personnel successes?    

 

Or even simpler.  Was Frank 70% responsible for the River/Wentz/Ryan acquisition?   Was Steichen 70% responsible for the AR acquisition?  Or was the latter Ballard?

 

Those are pretty easy questions to answer straightforwardly.

 

To the bolded.  Why are Downs and McKenzie Ballard types, and not SS types? 

[KB]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.  

I think that's completely up to Ballard and how he operates. Something none of us would know for certain.

 

One of the scouts was pounding the table for Jaylon Jones last year and Ballard said the picks on him. I'd imagine his input goes a little further this year. 

 

As far as head coaches like Reich, probably not. Ballard has to build the head coaches team. Even when Pagano was in the last year, and everyone knew he was going, he got the guys he wanted.

 

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

The thing is, if Caldwell was in on it, wouldn’t he have spoken out or filed a grievance against Indy once he was fired by Grigson? 
 

 

 

If he does that then he acknowledges that he was in on it too and then he likely never works in the league again.

[RollerColt]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Y'all are trying to make points without actually answering pretty simple questions. 

 

So it sounds like you are in the HC/GM 70/30 roster construction camp.  That may in fact be accurate.  That's fine.

 

Hypothetically, do you think its fair to blame Frank for past personnel failures and not to praise SS for future personnel successes?    

 

Or even simpler.  Was Frank 70% responsible for the River/Wentz/Ryan acquisition?   Was Steichen 70% responsible for the AR acquisition?  Or was the latter Ballard?

 

Those are pretty easy questions to answer straightforwardly.

 

To the bolded.  Why are Downs and McKenzie Ballard types, and not SS types? 

How about  33.33% between Irsay, Ballard and Reich? 

 

Reich for pushing for Wentz and Ryan and losing the locker room. 

Ballard for agreeing to Wentz and Ryan and not pushing back more. 

Irsay for signing off on the whole thing. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary that he had to be in on it.  Irsay could have had a conversation directly with Caldwell. 

 

However, I could see a more likely scenario where, after Collins got hurt, Irsay sits Polian down for a conversation about the state of the roster.  They agree it's time to part ways at the end of the season. Polian's ready to retire anyway, but Irsay has no problem firing him instead so that Polian still gets paid.  A favor for so many years of service and the success he helped bring to the city.  

 

 

Oh, I have been meaning to add though that your previous point about, why replace painter at all, is a very good point, and I can only think of 2 admittedly flimsy possibilities...1 being that Painter got banged up and wasn't totally healthy.  The other far less likely possibility being that TPTB wanted to show the fans and/or the league that they were still "trying".  I don't think that is the case though because, at that point why even bother?

 

It takes a lot of conjecture to put together an explanation for this stuff. I get why people say it, but I think scrutiny debunks these theories.

 

Regarding Painter/Orlovsky, it's just funny that Orlovsky is the guy who went 0-7 and blew a game by stepping out of the back of his own end zone, and was part of the 0-16 Lions, but people are saying 'if they wanted to win they should have went with Orlovsky!' All of our QBs were terrible that year.

 

Add to that a roster that was already falling apart, a coaching staff that brought little to the table, and an offense that even even at its best was basically an extension of Peyton Manning, and then you take him away, with no offseason program and a shortened training camp... there was little hope for that team. I don't think shuffling between bad QBs was going to make a big difference. Sure, Painter got really bad, and Orlovsky played a little better in a couple games, but the Colts were always going to be one of the very worst teams in the league once Manning couldn't go.

[RollerColt]

12 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

If he does that then he acknowledges that he was in on it too and then he likely never works in the league again.

Hmm... 

 

Well I suppose if he ever is done with coaching he'd have one heck of a breaking story. I'd say he could talk at this very moment, but I believe he's on the Panther's staff as an assistant or advisor or something... 

[Jason_]

Just now, Superman said:

It takes a lot of conjecture to put together an explanation for this stuff. I get why people say it, but I think scrutiny debunks these theories.

 

I totally get that.  I also want to reiterate that I don't think that this happened, but rather I'm not completely convinced it didn't.  Also, it could have been as simple as Irsay saying something like, "hmm, let's no try too hard" because it was pretty obvious they didn't really NEED to try too hard to lose lol.

 

Quote

Regarding Painter/Orlovsky, it's just funny that Orlovsky is the guy who went 0-7 and blew a game by stepping out of the back of his own end zone, and was part of the 0-16 Lions, but people are saying 'if they wanted to win they should have went with Orlovsky!' All of our QBs were terrible that year.

 

just, for the record, I've never made that argument.  One thing I will point out though is that with painter, the offense still looked like the Peyton offense.  3+ WR sets, same playcalls etc.  Once Orlovsky took over there was a lot more I formation, a more simplistic offense.  It just seemed like they were expecting Painter to make the same reads and plays that Peyton would make and only changed that up when Dan took over.  Obviously that was 13 years ago...but that was a strong feeling I had at the time.

 

 

Quote

Add to that a roster that was already falling apart, a coaching staff that brought little to the table, and an offense that even even at its best was basically an extension of Peyton Manning, and then you take him away, with no offseason program and a shortened training camp... there was little hope for that team.

 

If they hadn't tried to bring back Caldwell and did actually bring back Christiansen then I don't think this would have even occurred to me as a possibility.  But that, plus the defensive playcalling and the comments made by Coyer after being fired....there was just too much there to not at least be suspicious. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Or even simpler.  Was Frank 70% responsible for the River/Wentz/Ryan acquisition?   Was Steichen 70% responsible for the AR acquisition?  Or was the latter Ballard?

 

I think Reich's reputation as a QB guy, his prior connection to Rivers and Wentz, and the Colts trying to salvage their window all played into the way the QB situation was handled in those years. And while I think the QB decisions would be collaborative between the GM and HC all the time, it's likely that Reich's input had more weight at that time than it might have under different circumstances.

 

By the time Steichen gets hired, the decision was already made that the Colts would be drafting a QB, not going after another veteran. The dynamic and the circumstances were very different. And in the process of evaluating draft prospects, I would assume there was a typical collaboration between the GM and the HC.

 

It seems like your objective is to preemptively make sure that Ballard receives no more responsibility for Richardson than he did for Rivers and Wentz. 'If Ballard didn't get the blame for the vets, then he shouldn't get the credit for Richardson.' You should just say it and get it over with. Everyone sees where you're going, and some might even agree with you, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone. 

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, KB said:

I think that's completely up to Ballard and how he operates. Something none of us would know for certain.

 

One of the scouts was pounding the table for Jaylon Jones last year and Ballard said the picks on him. I'd imagine his input goes a little further this year. 

 

As far as head coaches like Reich, probably not. Ballard has to build the head coaches team. Even when Pagano was in the last year, and everyone knew he was going, he got the guys he wanted.

 

You guys keep coming back to opining about how things operate internally.  I'm confident that it operates the same way it has been, I would wager.  In fact, I  may be the only one who thinks that.

 

My question was not about how you think it operates:  What I'm asking is does the level of input (of anybody under the GM) change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.  

[GoColts8818]

1 hour 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.  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. 

Yeah I am not buying that conspiracy level thinking.

[Jason_]

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah I am not buying that conspiracy level thinking.

 

That's fine....but there have been a number of conspiracies throughout history far more outlandish than this one that people said the same thing about and they were eventually proven true.  Obviously there are far, FAR more that have not been proven true...but still. 

 

Oh and you can keep that moon property for yourself. 

[ColtStrong2013]

36 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

How about  33.33% between Irsay, Ballard and Reich? 

 

Reich for pushing for Wentz and Ryan and losing the locker room. 

Ballard for agreeing to Wentz and Ryan and not pushing back more. 

Irsay for signing off on the whole thing. 

Dont engage man. It’s not going anywhere you think it is… 

[GoColts8818]

8 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

That's fine....but there have been a number of conspiracies throughout history far more outlandish than this one that people said the same thing about and they were eventually proven true.  Obviously there are far, FAR more that have not been proven true...but still. 

 

Oh and you can keep that moon property for yourself. 

Let’s just say you are sounding like a flat earther on this.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Let’s just say you are sounding like a flat earther on this.

 

sorry, but I think that's very naive on your part.  Also, one big difference is that flat earthers truly believe that the earth is flat.  I've said repeatedly that I just can't completely discount this.  That in itself is a pretty big difference.

[DougDew]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think Reich's reputation as a QB guy, his prior connection to Rivers and Wentz, and the Colts trying to salvage their window all played into the way the QB situation was handled in those years. And while I think the QB decisions would be collaborative between the GM and HC all the time, it's likely that Reich's input had more weight at that time than it might have under different circumstances.

 

By the time Steichen gets hired, the decision was already made that the Colts would be drafting a QB, not going after another veteran. The dynamic and the circumstances were very different. And in the process of evaluating draft prospects, I would assume there was a typical collaboration between the GM and the HC.

 

It seems like your objective is to preemptively make sure that Ballard receives no more responsibility for Richardson than he did for Rivers and Wentz. 'If Ballard didn't get the blame for the vets, then he shouldn't get the credit for Richardson.' You should just say it and get it over with. Everyone sees where you're going, and some might even agree with you, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone. 

 

My objective is to opine that its highly unlikely that blaming Frank for the roster failures will result in giving SS the same level of praise for the roster successes.  It will then flip to Ballard.

 

I think its more linear to simply say that the guy who runs the draft room for 8 years is the guy responsible for the name that goes to the podium, for the last 8 years,  and for giving whatever pick it takes to get the HC the QB he wanted.  While a HC may want any player, he isn't the one handing out specific draft picks (AP or Woods at 54?, give up what to move up to take Cross) or making salary cap allocations to secure the desired player.  The GM decides if the price for the player is correct relative to the weighting he gives to the HCs wishes, and that's why the player is here.  The deal gets done because the GM wants it done, not because the HC also wants it done.  Regardless of the level of influence a HC has.  JMO.

 

My opinion is that despite the GM giving the player the HC wants for his scheme, (duh, is that how it works?), he also has to believe in the HCs scheme.  He's not going to give the HC a bunch of players for a scheme he thinks won't work or is outdated.  So yes, it still all comes back to the GM.  Its his call, unless the owner gets fed up and has to step in and fire the HC.

 

 Specific to the Wentz deal.  The reason Wentz was here is because Ballard accepted the price of a 3rd/2nd.  If the price was a 1st, or 2 1sts, or 3 1sts, its doubtful that Frank would have gotten the  QB "he pounded his fists for", when weighed against other options.  What Frank wanted is not the reason Wentz was here.

 

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

he also has to believe in the HCs scheme.  He's not going to give the HC a bunch of players for a scheme he thinks won't work or is outdated.  So yes, it still all comes back to the GM.  Its his call, unless the owner gets fed up and has to step in and fire the HC.

 

Why would a GM, Ballard in particular, hire a HC if he (Ballard) doesn't agree with the schemes that HC wants to run?  

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

Why would a GM, Ballard in particular, hire a HC if he (Ballard) doesn't agree with the schemes that HC wants to run?  

He wouldn't. All of the evidence that we have, from pressers to secondary accounts of Chris Ballard point to him being a collaborative guy. He wants to hear dissonant opinions from what it sounds like. He doesn't seem like a micro-manager, and he also doesn't appear to be a "my way or the highway" type of leader with his coaching staff. 

[John Hammonds]

I can't wait for the season to start.

This "Ballard Grievances" thread is quickly becoming an "Each Other Grievances" thread.

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

Why would a GM, Ballard in particular, hire a HC if he (Ballard) doesn't agree with the schemes that HC wants to run?  

He wouldn't.  He hired Frank and Gus because those are the coaches he wanted to supply personnel for..  You know, symbiosis, not the HC dictating to the GM.  That would be weird..

 

 

 

[KB]

42 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You guys keep coming back to opining about how things operate internally.  I'm confident that it operates the same way it has been, I would wager.  In fact, I  may be the only one who thinks that.

 

My question was not about how you think it operates:  What I'm asking is does the level of input (of anybody under the GM) change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.  

The answer to your question lies within how the team operates internally. Which nobody on here will know. Sorry, but you won't find answers here for that question.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Jason_ said:

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary that he had to be in on it.  Irsay could have had a conversation directly with Caldwell. 

 

However, I could see a more likely scenario where, after Collins got hurt, Irsay sits Polian down for a conversation about the state of the roster.  They agree it's time to part ways at the end of the season. Polian's ready to retire anyway, but Irsay has no problem firing him instead so that Polian still gets paid.  A favor for so many years of service and the success he helped bring to the city.  

 

 

Oh, I have been meaning to add though that your previous point about, why replace painter at all, is a very good point, and I can only think of 2 admittedly flimsy possibilities...1 being that Painter got banged up and wasn't totally healthy.  The other far less likely possibility being that TPTB wanted to show the fans and/or the league that they were still "trying".  I don't think that is the case though because, at that point why even bother?

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, KB said:

The answer to your question lies within how the team operates internally. Which nobody on here will know. Sorry, but you won't find answers here for that question.

Then to you.  Did Frank or Ballard bring Wentz here ("for frank's offense")?  Did SS or Ballard pick AR ("for SS offense")?   I know nobody knows.  I'm asking your opinion.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Then to you.  Did Frank or Ballard bring Wentz here?  Did SS or Ballard pick AR?   I know nobody knows.  I'm asking your opinion.

Frank has openly admitted he brought Wentz here. 

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Then to you.  Did Frank or Ballard bring Wentz here ("for frank's offense")?  Did SS or Ballard pick AR ("for SS offense")?   I know nobody knows.  I'm asking your opinion.

Frank wanted Wentz, to most it is pretty clear by how it happened and by what Frank was saying about being able making Wentz great again. I also believe Irsay wanted Ryan. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Frank has openly admitted he brought Wentz here. 

You are likely summarizing something else that he said.  I remember him saying that he "vouched" for him...and apologized to Mr Irsay for vouching for him.  That's not the same thing as bringing him here.  

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Frank wanted Wentz, to most it is pretty clear by how it happened and by what Frank was saying about being able making Wentz great again. I also believe Irsay wanted Ryan. 

Fine.  Did Ballard NOT want either?

 

Now the other half of the question.  Who wanted AR?

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

You are likely summarizing something else that he said.  I remember him saying that he "vouched" for him...and apologized to Mr Irsay for vouching for him.  That's not the same thing as bringing him here.  

Fine.  Now the other half.  Who wanted AR?

Ballard but I think Shane had input in that because he likes that style of QB, like a Hurts type. That is just opinion, I have no fact to back that up but wanted to answer your question.

[GoColts8818]

45 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

sorry, but I think that's very naive on your part.  Also, one big difference is that flat earthers truly believe that the earth is flat.  I've said repeatedly that I just can't completely discount this.  That in itself is a pretty big difference.

Call it what you want but you are lending credibility to something that didn’t happen and  if you look at any facts for two seconds it’s clear it didn’t.  The guys who had to orchestrate it got fired and the only way to get around it is to throw out a wild conspiracy theory that’s frankly laughable at best.  From there like Superman said if they were truly tanking why would you take Painter out before you clinched the top pick?  Why win two games to even put the top pick in jeopardy?  You also have to get all 53 guys on the roster to buy into it with their play.  Many who lost their jobs and wound up out of football altogether after that season.  That’s a lot of buy in for guys who never benefited from the Colts having Andrew Luck…

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You are likely summarizing something else that he said.  I remember him saying that he "vouched" for him...and apologized to Mr Irsay for vouching for him.  That's not the same thing as bringing him here.  

 

Kinda feels like your just being pedantic

[cdgacoltsfan]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Frank has openly admitted he brought Wentz here. 

I actually like the way things were going until the last two games....something weird happened between Wentz, Irsay, Ballard, Frank .

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, cdgacoltsfan said:

I actually like the way things were going until the last two games....something weird happened between Wentz, Irsay, Ballard, Frank .

I hated the Wentz deal when it happened but when we got to 9-6, I was ready to eat major crow. I was thinking Wentz proved me wrong and I was glad. Then the last 2 games happened 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ballard but I think Shane had input in that because he likes that style of QB, like a Hurts type. That is just opinion, I have no fact to back that up but wanted to answer your question.

Ballard wanted AR.  Did Ballard NOT want Ryan or Wentz?

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

Kinda feels like your just being pedantic

Or some are overexaggerating the influence of a HC?

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Ballard wanted AR.  Did Ballard NOT want Ryan or Wentz?

I agree with your 1st statement, but I think Frank wanted Wentz more than the other 2. Irsay wanted Matt Ryan and even admitted he did.