Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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.

That doesn't tell me if Ballard didn't want either. 

 

So you admit, Ballard wanted both Wentz and Ryan...but maybe a pinch less than the other two.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, DougDew said:

That doesn't tell me if Ballard didn't want either. 

 

So you admit, Ballard wanted both Wentz and Ryan.

I am not sure "want" is the right word to use. He was ok with it would be better to say because he allowed it. 

[shasta519]

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?

 

I don't think Bill Polian was even making the day to day decisions...it was Chris at that point. So not sure what his involvement would have been.

 

But it was reported that Bill was at the Stanford/Duke game (in Duke) on September 11 scouting Luck...the day before the Colts got smacked by HOU in Week 1. I know they scout year-round, but interesting nonetheless that the Colts are scouting the no-doubt #1 overall pick, while there are nonsense stories about Manning coming back that year.

 

There are certainly levels to this whole thing. Like Irsay agreeing to Peyton's big new contract, despite Manning having two failed surgeries that offseason. Per Manning, he couldn't even throw at that point. Now I don't know what he told Irsay or what Irsay knew, but if he knew anything, he didn't do do his due diligence at all.

 

And then you have Manning insisting on a massive $28M option bonus as part of his new contract. When have we ever heard of this happening? It would have been a risk on its own to pick that up regardless (cause of the neck), but it was also due right before the start of the league year, so the Colts had to pick it up and pay him $28M if they wanted to trade him. So it effectively acted as a poison pill and granted Peyton his free agency. We all know Manning wanted more shots at a ring, and the Polian-era team was done. 

 

Because of the lockout, the contract was agreed upon in late July...like right before TC started. Within a few weeks, Manning has a setback in TC and then JMV leaks about neck surgery.

 

And fast forward to March of 2012, the Colts have the #1 pick and the rights to Luck...and Manning is now recovered and on a FA tour de force.

 

It could all just be a coincidence, but it sure worked out very neatly.

 

 

 

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

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.  

 

I did call it what I wanted and I'd do it again.  Also, I've looked at all of the facts for far longer than 2 seconds.  You can no more prove that it didn't happen than anyone can prove that it did.  Plain and simple.

 

Quote

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.  

 

I addressed this in my first post on the subject.  Feel free to reread it.  Did Christiansen get fired?  No.  And again, Caldwell did not get fired until AFTER Spags turned down the opportunity to be Caldwell's defensive coordinator.  Bill Polian retired.

 

Quote

From there like Superman said if they were truly tanking why would take Painter out before you clinched the top pick?  Why win two games to even put the top pick in jeopardy?  

 

If you saw Superman's question then you should have also seen my response to him about it.

 

Quote

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.  

 

No you don't.  You just need them to call the plays that are called.

 

Quote

That’s a lot of buy in for guys who never benefited from the Colts having Andrew Luck…

 

Essentially the only point I've been trying to make is that this part is simply not true.  It does not require an entire team or even the entire staff.  Less than a handful of people could have made it happen. ;) 

[GoColts8818]

Just now, Jason_ said:

 

I did call it what I wanted and I'd do it again.  Also, I've looked at all of the facts for far longer than 2 seconds.  You can no more prove that it didn't happen than anyone can prove that it did.  Plain and simple.

 

 

I addressed this in my first post on the subject.  Feel free to reread it.  Did Christiansen get fired?  No.  And again, Caldwell did not get fired until AFTER Spags turned down the opportunity to be Caldwell's defensive coordinator.  Bill Polian retired.

 

 

If you saw Superman's question then you should have also seen my response to him about it.

 

 

No you don't.  You just need them to call the plays that are called.

 

 

Essentially the only point I've been trying to make is that this part is simply not true.  It does not require an entire team or even the entire staff.  Less than a handful of people could have made it happen. ;) 

you are entitled to your opinion but flat earthers prove opinions can be wrong.  

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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. 

 

Reich doesn't get blamed for roster failures. He gets tied to the QB decisions specifically.

 

Quote

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.

 

This is mental gymnastics. Reich was the driving force behind the Wentz trade, and it's pretty obvious.

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Or some are overexaggerating the influence of a HC?

 

like who?  I don't recall anyone saying that any HC was dictating (you used that word) anything to Ballard.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

you are entitled to your opinion but flat earthers prove opinions can be wrong.  

 

say that again, but in the mirror 

 

we are very much done here though.  If you think that what I've suggested is in the same category as flat earthers then so be it.  I would vehemently disagree that they're even close to the same thing.  Really want to say more but not going to.

 

Enjoy your weekend

 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Or some are overexaggerating the influence of a HC?

 

Do you think Reich's influence over the Colts signing Rivers or trading for Wentz is overstated?

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

say that again, but in the mirror 

 

we are very much done here though.  If you think that what I've suggested is in the same category as flat earthers then so be it.  I would vehemently disagree that they're even close to the same thing.  Really want to say more but not going to.

 

Enjoy your weekend

 

It is just as crazy because you are ignoring facts so yeah you are denying truth for a crazy conspiracy just like a flat earther.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am not sure "want" is the right word to use. He was ok with it would be better to say because he allowed it. 

That's fine.  I see what you're saying. 

 

A step further:  Its safe to say that in this 33.33% dynamic that's going on with QBs and personnel, for which only one gets directly paid to evaluate, is there any reason to think that Ballard was telling the other two that both QBs were going to stink badly before he allowed them to be acquired?

[Jason_]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

It is just as crazy because you are ignoring facts so yeah you are denying truth for a crazy conspiracy just like a flat earther.

 

what facts exactly have I ignored?

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

what facts exactly have I ignored?

The ones that have been stated over and over in this thread in response to you, throwing out laughable conspiracy theories to try to get around them is ignoring them.  It’s exactly what flat earthers do when you present them with facts that show the earth isn’t flat.  

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you think Reich's influence over the Colts signing Rivers or trading for Wentz is overstated?

It depends upon who is stating it., but yes, most comments seem to overstate it. 

 

In this way.   The impression I get is that the one-sided statements tend to imply that Ballard was overruled...that he didn't ALSO think they would be good, but that he sort of had to be convinced or sold by Frank before he himself thought they would be good acquisitions.  That neither QB would be here if Frank didn't influence,  That Ballard did not think they were the best option at the time absent of Frank's influence.  Yes, I think that is an exaggeration.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's fine.  I see what you're saying. 

 

A step further:  Its safe to say that in this 33.33% dynamic that's going on with QBs and personnel, for which only one gets directly paid to evaluate, is there any reason to think that Ballard was telling the other two that both QBs were going to stink badly before he allowed them to be acquired?

I don't think Ballard thought Wentz or Ryan would stink but maybe envisioned wanting someone different that might be better. Ryan stinking even blew me away and I admitted I was wrong about him but then again, that was something many didn't expect. I loved the Rivers signing by the way and I do think Ballard wanted him simply because we traded our 13th pick for Buckner going into that season and Ballard knew Rivers could win games and was the best option at that point. We had a good roster in 2020 when Rivers came aboard, damn near beat Buffalo in the playoffs. 

[shasta519]

1 hour 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.

 

Never ends well for whistleblowers, does it? Better to take your soft landing spot in BAL on Harbaugh's staff and then try to work your way back into a HC gig if you can. Which is exactly what he did.

 

 

 

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The ones that have been stated over and over in this thread in response to you, throwing out laughable conspiracy theories to try to get around them is ignoring them.  It’s exactly what flat earthers do when you present them with facts that show the earth isn’t flat.  

 

Negative champ.

 

but also, ugh..forget I asked that.  PM if you want to respond, but I've ignored nothing.  I've addressed every point where possible and clearly admitted points that could not be refuted.  Several others have discussed this with at least some level of intelligence.  All you've done is compare me to a flat earther, say I'm ignoring facts and denying truth and of course your original dismissive comment about your moon real estate.  You can be as dismissive of the possibility as you want, and it might dampen your opinion of Irsay but it really isn't that outlandish of an idea.

[RollerColt]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

Reich doesn't get blamed for roster failures. He gets tied to the QB decisions specifically.

And for the locker room falling apart and for crafting one of the worst offense systems of late. I don't think Wentz was the reason Frank was fired. I think it was a catalyst for Irsay becoming skeptical, and then the offense performed so badly the next season enough was enough. 

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

Negative champ.

 

but also, ugh..forget I asked that.  PM if you want to respond, but I've ignored nothing.  I've addressed every point where possible and clearly admitted points that could not be refuted.  Several others have discussed this with at least some level of intelligence.  All you've done is compare me to a flat earther, say I'm ignoring facts and denying truth and of course your original dismissive comment about your moon real estate.  You can be as dismissive of the possibility as you want, and it might dampen your opinion of Irsay but it really isn't that outlandish of an idea.

Again, think what you want you are entitled to any opinion you want to have but just like you said flat earthers are proof opinions can be wrong and you are very much being a flat earther on this subject which is bit surprising because you honestly have good opinions about most things.  

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't think Ballard thought Wentz or Ryan would stink but maybe envisioned wanting someone different that might be better. Ryan stinking even blew me away and I admitted I was wrong about him but then again, that was something many didn't expect. I loved the Rivers signing by the way and I do think Ballard wanted him simply because we traded our 13th pick for Buckner going into that season and Ballard knew Rivers could win games and was the best option at that point. We had a good roster in 2020 when Rivers came abord, damn near beat Buffalo in the playoffs. 

I can believe Ballard taking Frank's side against Irsay when it comes to going with a vet Frank knew (Rivers) over taking a QB high...especially having to trade up for.....but I can't see him accepting Wentz if he didn't think Wentz was also the best option at the time, regardless of what Frank thought.  

 

IIRC, rumors were that we were in the market for Stafford, which appears to have been their first choice.  I think they both came together to choose Wentz as the best option after Stafford moved on.   Frank may have vouched for Wentz' personality, but I don't think Ballard had some other QB he preferred more after he lost on Stafford .

[Jason_]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Again, think what you want you are entitled to any opinion you want to have but just like you said flat earthers are proof opinions can be wrong and you are very much being a flat earther on this subject which is bit surprising because you honestly have good opinions about most things.  

 

again, we're done here.  You are also entitled to your opinion.  But you've provided nothing other than "no you're wrong that never happened"

 

I've ignored facts?  I asked you what I've ignored. I have responded to every post that responded to me.

 

I could literally say the same thing about you because, unlike others who have provided some discussion and specific questions, all you've done is this:

 

 

I will not respond to you again on this topic.  Feel free to PM if you'd like.  

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It depends upon who is stating it., but yes, most comments seem to overstate it. 

 

In this way.   The impression I get is that the one-sided statements tend to imply that Ballard was overruled...that he didn't ALSO think they would be good without influence, but sort of had to be convinced or sold by Frank before he himself thought they would be good acquisitions.  That neither QB would be here if Frank didn't influence,  That Ballard did not think they were the best option at the time absent of Frank's influence.  Yes, I think that is an exaggeration.

 

I think the second paragraph is a misrepresentation, and it seems born out of your desire to make a nuanced topic strictly black and white, for a very specific reason.

 

It's pretty obvious what happened. Reich was the driving force behind the Colts having Rivers and Wentz. If not for Reich, it's likely that the Colts would not have acquired either of them. I also think it's pretty obvious that Irsay judged it that way.

 

10 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

And for the locker room falling apart and for crafting one of the worst offense systems of late. I don't think Wentz was the reason Frank was fired. I think it was a catalyst for Irsay becoming skeptical, and then the offense performed so badly the next season enough was enough. 

 

Sure, but I was limiting my comments to roster decisions. Agreed with all the above, though.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you think Reich's influence over the Colts signing Rivers or trading for Wentz is overstated?

BTW, speaking of QB decisions, Ballard took full responsibility for JB and there was little indication of Frank influencing that, or the contract.  For the broader discussion of taking so long to find a QB.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I can believe Ballard taking Frank's side against Irsay when it comes to going with a vet Frank knew (Rivers) over taking a QB high...especially having to trade up for.....but I can't see him accepting Wentz if he didn't think Wentz was also the best option at the time.  

 

IIRC, rumors were that we were in the market for Stafford, which appears to have been their first choice.  I think they both came together to choose Wentz as the best option after Stafford moved on.   Frank may have vouched for Wentz' personality, but I don't think Ballard had some other QB he preferred more.

You remembered correctly, I also wanted Stafford. Ballard has had his moments that tick me off and puzzles me. I think he is a middle of the pack GM, doesn't stink but isn't great = around 16th out of 32. I was glad he brought back our players this offseason but was hoping for 1 big splash from him to make me go WOW. It hasn't happened. He is gambling bigtime IMO thinking AR will be great. I think AR will be good, but he has to be great with an above average roster around him to win anything big. I do like our chemistry but we need a another playmaker at WR and secondary help still. If we signed Justin Simmons to like a 2 yr deal I would feel better about this team.

[KB]

45 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.

From the reports I've seen, Frank wanted Wentz. Ballard had to be sold on it, but got the QB his head coach wanted. So 70/30 Frank there.

The AR one I'd say 50/50. They had to of talked about the QB selection at 4 during the interview process. I wouldnt think Ballard would hire the guy then ask what he wanted at QB. So I'd say they either both came in with it, or someone had to be sold and it's more 60/40.

[Superman]

Just now, DougDew said:

BTW, speaking of QB decisions, Ballard took full responsibility for JB and there was little indication of Frank influencing that, or the contract.  For the broader discussion of taking so long to find a QB.

 

The JB contract decision didn't appear to influence the Colts' decision to do something different at QB. They moved on from JB as the starter after 2019. In 2020, they carried Luck's dead money, JB's extension, and Rivers' $25m, while JB was the backup and short yardage sneak man. And then JB was gone in 2021, with no continuing cap ramifications (Luck's dead money was also gone, and Rivers was retired with no cap penalty in 2021).

 

So it's safe to say that the JB decision didn't have anything to do with the Colts taking so long to find a QB. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

It's pretty obvious what happened. Reich was the driving force behind the Colts having Rivers and Wentz. If not for Reich, it's likely that the Colts would not have acquired either of them. I also think it's pretty obvious that Irsay judged it that way.

Driving force is still not the issue.  Who was a nose in front and a nose behind is not how the comments typically present the situation at all.    Pounding fist is an expression used when one person has to fight over others OBJECTIONS, because the other has a different option in mind.  There is no indication that Ballard ever liked any other QB better at the time than the QBs that were eventually brought here.

 

Good lord.  Just because Irsay fired Frank doesn't mean he sees the QB situation like you do.  The HC was probably fired because the HC lost the team.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The JB contract decision didn't appear to influence the Colts' decision to do something different at QB. They moved on from JB as the starter after 2019. In 2020, they carried Luck's dead money, JB's extension, and Rivers' $25m, while JB was the backup and short yardage sneak man. And then JB was gone in 2021, with no continuing cap ramifications (Luck's dead money was also gone, and Rivers was retired with no cap penalty in 2021).

 

So it's safe to say that the JB decision didn't have anything to do with the Colts taking so long to find a QB. 

He was signed to starters money instead of pursuing other options.  That's called a whiff in the Qb eval. process, for which Ballard acknowledged.  

[GoColts8818]

Just now, Jason_ said:

 

again, we're done here.  You are also entitled to your opinion.  You're just throwing out crap with zero substance.

 

I've ignored facts?  I asked you what I've ignored. I have responded to every post that responded to me.

 

I could literally say the same thing about you because, unlike others who have provided some discussion and specific questions, all you've done is this:

 

 

I will not respond to you again on this topic.  Feel free to PM if you'd like.  

Yeah that’s not true.  I gave you the very reasons why this didn’t happen you just choose to deflect them with crazy conspiracy theories that are laughable just like a flat earther does when confronted with facts.  
 

When Polian was in charge nothing happened with the Colts without him knowing it and approving it.  This has been well documented over the years.  So no Irsay didn’t just go around him to do it because at some Polian would have gone what’s going on here get Painter out of there Caldwell and when it didn’t happen gone ballistic and probably fired Caldwell or resigned when Irsay wouldnt let him.  
 

So that means Polian would have had to be in on it.  Why would he be in on something that resulted in him and his son, who was trying to set up to be a GM in his own right, their jobs?  If he wanted out he would have just quit.  So this idea that he came up with some back room deal with Irsay is just as laughable.  
 

There was also a report that part of what lead to Polian’s firing was Polian was in the trade the top pick to get more picks and players to around Peyton.  Doesn’t sound like a guy who was in on it. 
 

From there there is zero reason to pull Painter before you had the top pick locked up and put the top pick at jeopardy by winning a couple of games before the top pick was locked up.  
 

You also have to get the players to buy in.  The coaches can do whatever they want but the players aren’t going to go for tanking because they are going to lose jobs which is what happened.  They tried to do the best they could, they just weren’t very good without Peyton.  
 

Also if Irsay was this true level of mastermind why wouldn’t he have repeated it after Luck retired to get one of the elite QBs who went number one overall since then?  

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Driving force is still not the issue.  Who was a nose in front and a nose behind is not how the comments typically present the situation at all.    Pounding fist is an expression used when one person has to fight over others OBJECTIONS, because the other has a different option in mind.  There is no indication that Ballard ever liked any other QB he liked better at the time than the QBs that were eventually brought here.

 

Good lord.  Just because Irsay fired Frank doesn't mean he sees the QB situation like you do.  The HC was probably fired because the HC lost the team.

 

Reich apologized to Irsay for Wentz. We know because Reich told us so. And then Irsay fired Reich in the middle of the season, and kept Ballard. 

 

We're not even talking about what might have happened if the Colts didn't acquire Rivers or Wentz. Maybe they acquire a different veteran who bombs, maybe they draft a guy who bombs... who knows? But those are hypotheticals. We can look back and see what actually happened.

 

Like was said earlier, you're being pedantic. You want to make sure that no one who blamed Reich for the QB situation gives Ballard credit if Richardson works out, and you're trying to push this topic through a tiny pinhole so all the context gets left behind.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He was signed to starters money instead of pursuing other options.  That's called a whiff in the Qb eval. process, for which Ballard acknowledged.  

 

What options was he supposed to pursue in August 2019? And what impact did that have on whether the team could pursue other QB options during the typical QB acquisition time period? 

 

This is a major stretch. Ballard traded a depth WR for a backup QB in 2017, and that guy wound up being a pretty decent backup / spot starter. Then they overpaid him for 2019 to protect against his potential free agency, and when it was obvious that he wasn't the guy, they moved on. If you think that's a whiff in the QB evaluation process, have at it. But it's not as strong of a point as you think.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Superman said:

 

What options was he supposed to pursue in August 2019? And what impact did that have on whether the team could pursue other QB options during the typical QB acquisition time period? 

 

This is a major stretch. Ballard traded a depth WR for a backup QB in 2017, and that guy wound up being a pretty decent backup / spot starter. Then they overpaid him for 2019 to protect against his potential free agency, and when it was obvious that he wasn't the guy, they moved on. If you think that's a whiff in the QB evaluation process, have at it. But it's not as strong of a point as you think.

In 2019 we only had JB, Ballard's hands were tied on that one. That is a fact for sure 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah that’s not true.  I gave you the very reasons why this didn’t happen you just choose to deflect them with crazy conspiracy theories that are laughable just like a flat earther does when confronted with facts.  
 

When Polian was in charge nothing happened with the Colts without him knowing it and approving it.  This has been well documented over the years.  So no Irsay didn’t just go around him to do it because at some Polian would have gone what’s going on here get Painter out of there Caldwell and when it didn’t happen gone ballistic and probably fired Caldwell or resigned when Irsay wouldnt let him.  
 

So that means Polian would have had to be in on it.  Why would he be in on something that resulted in him and his son, who was trying to set up to be a GM in his own right, their jobs?  If he wanted out he would have just quit.  So this idea that he came up with some back room deal with Irsay is just as laughable.  
 

There was also a report that part of what lead to Polian’s firing was Polian was in the trade the top pick to get more picks and players to around Peyton.  Doesn’t sound like a guy who was in on it. 
 

From there there is zero reason to pull Painter before you had the top pick locked up and put the top pick at jeopardy by winning a couple of games before the top pick was locked up.  
 

You also have to get the players to buy in.  The coaches can do whatever they want but the players aren’t going to go for tanking because they are going to lose jobs which is what happened.  They tried to do the best they could, they just weren’t very good without Peyton.  
 

Also if Irsay was this true level of mastermind why wouldn’t he have repeated it after Luck retired to get one of the elite QBs who went number one overall since then?  

 

I said...PM me if you want to continue.  Quick question though (rhetorical of course) am I ignoring facts or deflecting them with laughable conspiracy theories?  can't be both now can it?

 

Honestly though, you seem to be the only one who really got their panties in a twist over this.  Is it because someone dared suggest Irsay might have done something a tiny bit shady?  who knows.  again though.  Done here.  Literally the last time I'm saying it.  

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

Literally the last time I'm saying it.

 

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

I said...PM me if you want to continue.  Quick question though (rhetorical of course) am I ignoring facts or deflecting them with laughable conspiracy theories?  can't be both now can it?

 

Honestly though, you seem to be the only one who really got their panties in a twist over this.  Is it because someone dared suggest Irsay might have done something a tiny bit shady?  who knows.  again though.  Done here.  Literally the last time I'm saying it.  

Yeah this is the third time you’ve said you were done with this yet you keep replying.  It’s not up to you to dictate how I respond to you.  If I wanted to PM you I would have.  
 

Also I told you how you were ignoring facts by trying to deflect with crazy conspiracy theories.  It’s exactly what flat earthers do when confronted with facts.  So no it doesn’t have to be one or the other.  You are using one to do the other.  
 

Also, if you think “my panties are in a twist” you are wrong.  I disagreed with you told you why and used your own line you threw at someone else in this thread who you disagreed with and you couldn’t take it.  That doesn’t mean I am upset about this at all.

 

if you truly want this to be done let it be done you don’t have to respond to me, but I felt it necessary to restate the facts again since you said I hadn’t done so and then shockingly you over locked them again to try to go after me.  We don’t agree fine.  Won’t be the first or last time. 

[Jason_]

 

those flat earthers and sovcits...amirite?  

[Jason_]

26 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

It’s not up to you to dictate how I respond to you.  If I wanted to PM you I would have.  

 

You are correct.  What I should have said was, PM if you wanted to continue the discussion.  My intention was to provide an alternate path to continue the conversation, not to dictate anything to you.  That was my bad.   

[DougDew]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What options was he supposed to pursue in August 2019? And what impact did that have on whether the team could pursue other QB options during the typical QB acquisition time period? 

 

This is a major stretch. Ballard traded a depth WR for a backup QB in 2017, and that guy wound up being a pretty decent backup / spot starter. Then they overpaid him for 2019 to protect against his potential free agency, and when it was obvious that he wasn't the guy, they moved on. If you think that's a whiff in the QB evaluation process, have at it. But it's not as strong of a point as you think.

We don't know any other viable options that existed in any of these QB decisions.  We don't know how much Ballard preferred the final decision on any of the QBs absent of Frank's influence.

 

All we know is what Frank wanted and Irsay wanted, supposedly.  We don't actually know to what degree Ballard wanted those exact same QBs too, or if he objected much in any way because he had other ideas.

 

Since we don't know this, we have know idea what level Frank influenced Ballard.

 

Example. Rivers:  Did Ballard side with Frank about Rivers over a new young QB because of what Frank was even saying, or because to get a young QB it would mean that Ballard would have to trade his precious 2nd or 3rd round picks to actually move up.  Saying Frank pushed for Rivers and we got Rivers doesn't mean we got Rivers BECAUSE Frank wanted him.  We may have gotten him because the GM had already discarded other options.

 

But many comments I have read over the years speak to how vehemently someone other than Ballard wanted a player.  In that context, its presented as if Ballard had ideas that would have worked out better, but that he gave in to some degree to others who led the bad decisions. 

 

That's why I'm asking folks how much influence Frank had, because influence means how much you sway or change someone's mind away from another idea they may have had.  And we have no idea what Ballard was thinking relative to other options, other than we probably know he wanted JB and he wanted Stafford, neither of which appear to have been "Frank guys".  He probably settled on the Frank guys because he thought they were the best options too, not because of being sold a bag of coal by Frank

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

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

Rivers, Wentz , Ryan. You seem to want to blame Ballard exclusively for all 3 "failures". In your humble opinion, based on the circumstances at the time, what would you have done?????

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

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

Rivers, Wentz , Ryan. You seem to want to blame Ballard exclusively for all 3 "failures". In your humble opinion, based on the circumstances at the time, what would you have done?????