Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I would not say spoiled. But I do think there's a segment of Colts fans that don't appreciate how tough it is to win when you don't have a really good QB, and probably don't appreciate how difficult it is to acquire a really good QB. There is some perspective that can be gained by looking around the league, and through its history, to gain better appreciation for how most teams operate when they're struggling to find their guy. 

I know and appreciate it's tough to win - with or without a QB. But, there are examples of winning without a QB because the rest of the roster is bang on target. I won't give Ballard a free pass because the Colts haven't figured out the QB situation (until now hopefully).

[2006Coltsbestever]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This tweet has me thinking colts players are ok with mediocrity because they know Ballard is going to overpay them to keep them here.

 

 

And he still has done nothing.

Or maybe that tweet is Zaire's way of saying the SB isn't won in the offseason and fans are counting us out already. So why even play in 2024 according to some.

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, Solid84 said:

I know and appreciate it's tough to win - with or without a QB. But, there are examples of winning without a QB because the rest of the roster is bang on target. I won't give Ballard a free pass because the Colts haven't figured out the QB situation (until now hopefully).

I don’t give him a free pass. I’m just not sure about knocking it all down and starting new like a lot of folks on here think is not only going to be better, but is necessary. I don’t think it’s either. It’s not necessary, last season showed that. And it absolutely would not guarantee better. Could be a lot worse. Hence, why I think we are spoiled. Our expectations are to be the best, and for a lot of organizations it’s really unreasonable. But it isn’t for us, because it’s come to be expected… 

[Jason_]

13 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

It's fine you think you're spoiled, doesn't mean the rest of us agree we are.

 

Flat earthers don't agree that the earth is round.  That doesn't make them right.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

There have been games where a lot of the leaders of this team, Franklin included, have not brought it. Do I need to remind everybody about how that 2022 season ended?

 

Let's zero in on this. Did the Colts lose those two games at the end of the 2022 season because Franklin didn't care enough about winning? And do you think it's fair and reasonable to hang that collapse over any particular player's head two years later?

 

Quote

So when they start being... snarky towards the fans wanting more after just having been paid generational wealth, then yeah... I won't be too pleased. 

 

Fine if you're not pleased, but it's snark on social media, not a representative display of his mindset. In his case, it's probably mostly him being defensive because fans have spent the last two weeks complaining about him (and his teammates) getting new contracts. But I think accusing a player like Franklin in particular of a lack of desire to be better is just misplaced frustration.

[stitches]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay, so my gut instinct is to push back HARD against this, for obvious reasons. So I stopped and paused and read it again, and I've let it sink in, and I've read your subsequent posts. I get what you're saying. I still strongly disagree.

 

Bottom line, what Grigson had was Andrew Luck. A franchise level QB who raised the tide for the entire operation. The one year Ballard had Andrew Luck -- not even at 100%, and probably being held back for the first half of the season -- the team looked just as capable as any of the 2012-14 teams looked. And I'd stack up the 2019-2021 rosters with those teams as well.

 

I'll give him some credit for recognizing the moment after 2012. He did a terrible job of rising to it, though. His big move was trading a first for a RB, so it's not like he was especially focused on premium positions either. Outside of Luck, Hilton (third rounder, not a top pick, Ballard has done just as much and more at WR), and Davis (second rounder, again Ballard has done just as much), everything Grigson tried was an abject failure, and his ineptitude was papered over by having a great QB. 

I really don't want to boil down everything to "Grigson had Luck"... You know how I feel about the QB position. It's incredibly important. But even at the peak of evaluation of its importance, it's what? Like... 20-25% of the success of the team? You still need a team around that one guy who can give you an advantage, but you cannot waste that advantage with the rest of the roster and that's what Grigson did. 

 

As a volume, I agree that Ballard has done "more" at certain positions but IMO that has a lot to do with the pure volume of picks he accumulated(and this is absolutely to his credit, you know I like this approach). And again, I'm not here to defend Grigson. But Grigson hit big on his important positions(or inherited his big time players - AC) and his teams had more success than Ballard's teams have had so far. Grigson was truly a terrible GM and evaluator of talent. But the (few) hits he had at important positions elevated his team" to heights that Ballard's hits on guards and linebackers and running backs have not been able to replicate, despite me preferring Ballard as an evaluator and drafter. 

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

And you provided backlash to the spoiled rotten comment, though I'm also pretty sure he was referring to all colts fans, himself included.

How does this change anything? If he calls every Colts fan blithering buffoons he's going to get backlash no matter if he included himself or not?

 

Quote

Here's the difference, in my opinion...the spoiled rotten comment was an opinion provided based on the types of responses that have been given by various members.  The "Good to know others are OK with that sort of results. " comment was an (incorrect) assumption offered as being factual due to nothing other than the person not being as outraged as he was.  The good ole, "if you don't agree with me then you obviously feel the complete polar opposite" rebuttals that are so common these days.  There is almost always a ton of grey area between 2 extremes.

I was completely on-board the Ballard bandwagon until around the 2021 season. I thought he did a lot of things right and I was fine with the building process. Then it all crashed and burned and we've gone nowhere since. He makes the same decisions he's always done and keeps expecting a different outcome. What does that have to do with the Manning era?

 

I want us to win. I want to see progress and see the process work. That's got nothing to do with Manning and the "spoiled" argument is pure deflection from that.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I know and appreciate it's tough to win - with or without a QB. But, there are examples of winning without a QB because the rest of the roster is bang on target. I won't give Ballard a free pass because the Colts haven't figured out the QB situation (until now hopefully).

 

Neither will I, so it would be nice to table this talking point for a while. 

 

I replied about the "spoiled" thing because I think Colts fans expectations are really high, and part of that is because the Colts had really good QBing for 20 straight years. And now, we're kind of seeing how the rest of the league operates, and it's not as much fun. I don't think fans are hyper focused on Raekwon Davis level signings, for instance, when they're getting high level QB play.

 

Also, I think any examples of winning without a QB are pretty rare, and mostly 20 years old. Just take the AFC. You have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that made the SB without high level QB play -- and they had a generationally great defense that will probably never be duplicated because of the way the game has changed. The worst QBs to go to the SB in the AFC since then were Rich Gannon (who was MVP the year the Raiders went), rookie Big Ben, Flacco (who went nuclear in the playoffs), and cooked Peyton Manning in 2015 (who was still able to beat the Chargers and Patriots with his mind). Since then, it's been Brady, Mahomes, and Burrow.

 

You know all of this, I just wanted to put it all out there. And we can talk about the Colts messing around with the position instead of drafting someone, and the reasons why. But my point is that Colts fans are not used to not having a QB who can make everything better the moment he steps on the field. Our experience from 2019-2023 is pretty typical for other teams around the league.

[Solid84]

10 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

Flat earthers don't agree that the earth is round.  That doesn't make them right.

Sure, but that's not really anywhere near the same argument is it?

[Jason_]

Just now, Solid84 said:

Sure, but that's not really anywhere near the same argument is it?

 

no, but it was my nicer way of saying that just because you don't agree that you're spoiled, doesn't mean you're not.

 

Btw, saying colts fans are spoiled and calling them blithering buffoons are also no where near the same argument either now are they?

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

And you provided backlash to the spoiled rotten comment, though I'm also pretty sure he was referring to all colts fans, himself included.  And 2006Coltsbestever explained it very well:

 

 

 

Here's the difference, in my opinion...the spoiled rotten comment was an opinion provided based on the types of responses that have been given by various members.  The "Good to know others are OK with that sort of results. " comment was an (incorrect) assumption offered as being factual due to nothing other than the person not being as outraged as he was.  The good ole, "if you don't agree with me then you obviously feel the complete polar opposite" rebuttals that are so common these days.  There is almost always a ton of grey area between 2 extremes.

We haven't won a Division Title under Ballard so I can see why fans are upset. My patience is even wearing thin with Ballard. Having said that I have been a fan for so long and I have seen a lot of winning we have done compared to most of the other teams over the last 20 years. The Lions had a dream season last year, we have had those type seasons with Peyton and Luck numerous times and just expected it. That is where we are spoiled when you look at the whole picture. Imagine being a Lions fan for 20/30 years, Jets fan, Browns fan, Chargers fan, even Texans fan for some other examples. Texans have never made an AFC Title Game in their history and that goes back to 2002. Hell, since in Indy, we have made 5 with 3 different QBs. 

 

Bills, Vikings, and Falcons have been elite franchises and have never won a SB. Matt Ryan just take 3 knees, your kicker makes 1 kick and you win your SB  .

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's zero in on this. Did the Colts lose those two games at the end of the 2022 season because Franklin didn't care enough about winning? And do you think it's fair and reasonable to hang that collapse over any particular player's head two years later?

I don't know why him and the rest of the team didn't show up. Was it lack of desire/care, was it lack of preparation? Was it lack of skill? Was it lack of leadership? Who cares? They didn't show up. My problem with his tweet was not that he doesn't care... my problem with his tweet was that he was being snarky/dismissive to fans who want their team to be better.

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fine if you're not pleased, but it's snark on social media, not a representative display of his mindset. In his case, it's probably mostly him being defensive because fans have spent the last two weeks complaining about him (and his teammates) getting new contracts. But I think accusing a player like Franklin in particular of a lack of desire to be better is just misplaced frustration.

Again... I want you to point me to the spot where I accused him of lack of desire? I accused him of being "cocky and dismissive", which you suggested was more akin to "defensive and snarky", towards Colts fans not being happy with Ballard maintaining the status quo. I can work with either description.

[Jason_]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We haven't won a Division Title under Ballard so I can see why fans are upset. My patience is even wearing thin with Ballard. Having said that I have been a fan for so long and I have seen a lot of winning we have done compared to most of the other teams over the last 20 years. The Lions had a dream season last year, we have had those type seasons with Peyton and Luck numerous times and just expected it. That is where we are spoiled when you look at the whole picture. Imagine being a Lions fan for 20/30 years, Jets fan, Browns fan, Chargers fan, even Texans fan for some other examples. Texans have never made an AFC Title Game in their history and that goes back to 2002. Hell, since in Indy, we have made 5 with 3 different QBs. 

 

Bills, Vikings, and Falcons have been elite franchises and have never won a SB. Matt Ryan just take 3 knees, your kicker makes 1 kick and you win your SB  .

 

Agree all around.  I'll be the first to admit that I got spoiled as well.  It got to the point that 12 wins and a division title were just assumed.  I miss those days but also acknowledge that those are definitely not the norms and not something we can just take for granted.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

his teams had more success than Ballard's teams

 

Isn't that absolutely about the difference at QB? I don't think there's any doubt.

 

My point is not to shield Ballard from blame. My point is it seems like you're arguing that Grigson did a better job of stocking high value positions because he had a better strategic focus on those positions, and I don't think that's accurate. His best WR was a third rounder, he didn't do anything at CB that Ballard hasn't tried, he inherited his LT, and the QB fell in his lap. His 'swing for the fences' moment was trading a first for a RB, so his strategic focus was flawed as well.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

Agree all around.  I'll be the first to admit that I got spoiled as well.  It got to the point that 12 wins and a division title were just assumed.  I miss those days but also acknowledge that those are definitely not the norms and not something we can just take for granted.

Yeah, once we got really good in 2003, if we lost I thought it was the end of the world. I just expected victory every week. That went on through 2009 so your brain over 7 years is trained like that. Then after Luck went 11-5 in his rookie season, I excepted 11-5 every year at worse. I got it at least in 2013 and 2014 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Neither will I, so it would be nice to table this talking point for a while. 

That's fine, but the QB gets brought up as the sole argument we're not winning over and over in this very thread, so how exactly is "giving Ballard a free pass for not figuring out the QB" not a valid talking point?

 

Quote

I replied about the "spoiled" thing because I think Colts fans expectations are really high, and part of that is because the Colts had really good QBing for 20 straight years. And now, we're kind of seeing how the rest of the league operates, and it's not as much fun. I don't think fans are hyper focused on Raekwon Davis level signings, for instance, when they're getting high level QB play.

Again, we're talking QB? I feel I've brought up my concerns regarding several positions or position groups on this team and it always comes around to "Oh, we don't have the QB...".

 

I don't feel this roster is good enough at several postions/position groups - the QB does not matter in that regard.

 

Quote

Also, I think any examples of winning without a QB are pretty rare, and mostly 20 years old. Just take the AFC. You have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that made the SB without high level QB play -- and they had a generationally great defense that will probably never be duplicated because of the way the game has changed. The worst QBs to go to the SB in the AFC since then were Rich Gannon (who was MVP the year the Raiders went), rookie Big Ben, Flacco (who went nuclear in the playoffs), and cooked Peyton Manning in 2015 (who was still able to beat the Chargers and Patriots with his mind). Since then, it's been Brady, Mahomes, and Burrow.

 

You know all of this, I just wanted to put it all out there. And we can talk about the Colts messing around with the position instead of drafting someone, and the reasons why. But my point is that Colts fans are not used to not having a QB who can make everything better the moment he steps on the field. Our experience from 2019-2023 is pretty typical for other teams around the league.

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions (I hope you know and understand this even when we disagree), but the QB gets brought up too much and too often and it IS used as a way to give Ballard a free pass when it comes to the rest of the roster. You don't have to go back more than a handful of pages in this thread to find examples of it.

[jvan1973]

14 minutes ago, stitches said:

I really don't want to boil down everything to "Grigson had Luck"... You know how I feel about the QB position. It's incredibly important. But even at the peak of evaluation of its importance, it's what? Like... 20-25% of the success of the team? You still need a team around that one guy who can give you an advantage, but you cannot waste that advantage with the rest of the roster and that's what Grigson did. 

 

As a volume, I agree that Ballard has done "more" at certain positions but IMO that has a lot to do with the pure volume of picks he accumulated(and this is absolutely to his credit, you know I like this approach). And again, I'm not here to defend Grigson. But Grigson hit big on his important positions(or inherited his big time players - AC) and his teams had more success than Ballard's teams have had so far. Grigson was truly a terrible GM and evaluator of talent. But the (few) hits he had at important positions elevated his team" to heights that Ballard's hits on guards and linebackers and running backs have not been able to replicate, despite me preferring Ballard as an evaluator and drafter. 

2010 Colts. 10-6

2011 Colts 2-14

 

What was the difference in those 2 seasons?

 

 

 

[Solid84]

11 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

no, but it was my nicer way of saying that just because you don't agree that you're spoiled, doesn't mean you're not.

 

Btw, saying colts fans are spoiled and calling them blithering buffoons are also no where near the same argument either now are they?

Calling Colts fans spoiled is subjective opinion. Calling them blithering buffoons would also be subjective opinion. The earth being round is not. 

[jvan1973]

Just now, Solid84 said:

Calling Colts fans spoiled is subjective opinion. The earth being round is not. 

 

How about Pyramid earth?

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Isn't that absolutely about the difference at QB? I don't think there's any doubt.

Is the QB position somehow not in the purview of the GM? Should Ballard not be blamed for not having acquired a potential franchise QB until this last draft? 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

My point is not to shield Ballard from blame. My point is it seems like you're arguing that Grigson did a better job of stocking high value positions because he had a better strategic focus on those positions, and I don't think that's accurate. His best WR was a third rounder, he didn't do anything at CB that Ballard hasn't tried, he inherited his LT, and the QB fell in his lap. His 'swing for the fences' moment was trading a first for a RB, so his strategic focus was flawed as well.

 

I guess, I can concede the point about the strategic focus. Although I think him spending 1st and 3d on WR after he hit on TY and after he signed Andre Johnson still qualifies as him hunting that specific position with more persistance than what Ballard has shown. 

 

But I still maintain that Grigson hit on CB and WR like Ballard can only dream about hitting at this point. And I still think hitting on those + having AC was integral to the success that team had, despite the rest of the roster IMO not being as good as what Ballard has built. In general, my point is - few hits at important positions >= many hits on unimportant positions. 

 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

2010 Colts. 10-6

2011 Colts 2-14

 

What was the difference in those 2 seasons?

 

Focus on winning... 

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

I don't know why him and the rest of the team didn't show up. Was it lack of desire/care, was it lack of preparation? Was it lack of skill? Was it lack of leadership? Who cares? They didn't show up. My problem with his tweet was not that he doesn't care... my problem with his tweet was that he was being snarky/dismissive to fans who want their team to be better.

Again... I want you to point me to the spot where I accused him of lack of desire? I accused him of being "cocky and dismissive", which you suggested was more akin to "defensive and snarky", towards Colts fans not being happy with Ballard maintaining the status quo. I can work with either description.

 

I went back to your post yesterday because I thought Franklin's actual comments would speak better to your criticism of what he tweeted yesterday.

 

I don't personally have a problem with his tweet yesterday, however we want to characterize it, because Twitter is a cesspool and he's probably been targeted with some really awful stuff over the last couple weeks. I saw it as him rolling his eyes at the emotional reaction from people on social media. I did not see it as a window into his psyche. For that, I point you to what he said a couple weeks ago.

 

As for the 'they didn't show up' thing, I think it's overboard to continue hanging a team failure from two years over the heads of players who remain from that team. You're using it as license to throw a team failure in the face of an individual player who said something you didn't like. I agree with you that the 2021 (we've been saying 2022, but we're talking about the end of 2021, right?) team had a big problem somewhere, but I think it's unfair and unreasonable to keep holding it against the remaining players from that team. Especially since I think the main issues were probably Reich and Wentz, who are no longer here. (I don't think last year's loss to the Texans is close to the same thing; overachieving team with a backup QB that barely lost on a heartbreaking play, not a team that melted down in the last two weeks and wasn't even competitive in the final game.)

[jvan1973]

Just now, stitches said:

Focus on winning... 

Winning is far easier with a great qb

[Solid84]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Winning is far easier with a great qb

Absolutely it is. But it's not 100% tied up on the QB.

[jvan1973]

Just now, Solid84 said:

Absolutely it is. But it's not 100% tied up on the QB.

It was an 8 game swing from 2010 to 2011

[2006Coltsbestever]

I remember losing in 2005 to the Steelers, I had never been in more shock in my life. I still didn't want to believe it days after it happened. We were so dominant that year. My mom couldn't even believe we lost, that is saying something because she watched as a novice fan but knew how great that team was. 

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Calling Colts fans spoiled is subjective opinion. The earth being round is not. 

 

oh good lord.  you're right.  I'm wrong.  I know the flat earth analogy wasn't perfect.  I'll stop trying to use analogies and just be blunt moving forward.

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Winning is far easier with a great qb

It is... it isn't 8 wins easier... The highest WAR any QB has ever achieved is probably about 5(I don't have the number, this is a ballpark guess)? The rest is just... yeah... lack of focus on winning at different points throughout the organization. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It was an 8 game swing from 2010 to 2011

Then Luck in 2012 = 11-5. 9 game swing. 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Focus on winning... 

 

gtho lol

[Jason_]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

Is the QB position somehow not in the purview of the GM? Should Ballard not be blamed for not having acquired a potential franchise QB until this last draft? 

 

that depends on where Irsay stood on the matter.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

It is... it isn't 8 wins easier... The highest WAR any QB has ever achieved is probably about 5(I don't have the number, this is a ballpark guess)? The rest is just... yeah... lack of focus on winning at different points throughout the organization. 

Impossible to know.   One thing that is certain.  The qb play was different 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

That's fine, but the QB gets brought up as the sole argument we're not winning over and over in this very thread, so how exactly is "giving Ballard a free pass for not figuring out the QB" not a valid talking point?

 

Because identifying the reason the team isn't contention level is not the same as giving the GM a pass.

 

Just to flesh this out a bit, I said in 2020 that the Colts should draft a QB, and I would have been fine with Ballard being dismissed in 2022. But I think the reason he wasn't fired and Reich was is because Irsay held Reich responsible for the QB direction. Right, wrong, or indifferent, if that's the case, then I'm viewing 2023 and beyond as a reset. So I personally don't see the point is harping on the prior QB direction when talking about Ballard. I think he's taken a different approach, and has some rope to see it through.

 

Quote

Again, we're talking QB? I feel I've brought up my concerns regarding several positions or position groups on this team and it always comes around to "Oh, we don't have the QB...".

 

I can't speak to that. We can talk about the roster in general, but my comment about "spoiled" and my response to stitches about Grigson is very QB centric, because I think that's the root of the discussion in those particular areas. When I talk about the defense, I'm not saying 'it will get better when the QB is better.' I'm saying I think we need to handle things differently, and I put some of that on Ballard in particular.

 

Quote

I don't feel this roster is good enough at several postions/position groups - the QB does not matter in that regard.

 

I agree, but I think in general, we're somewhat dismissive of the potential of some of the young players on the roster. 

 

Quote

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions (I hope you know and understand this even when we disagree), but the QB gets brought up too much and too often and it IS used as a way to give Ballard a free pass when it comes to the rest of the roster. You don't have to go back more than a handful of pages in this thread to find examples of it.

 

I respect you and your opinions as well. For the most part, I don't engage with people who I think are unreasonable. I wouldn't keep going back and forth if there wasn't mutual respect.

 

To the bolded, even if you think I put more importance on the QB situation than we should, it does not mean I'm giving Ballard a free pass. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Impossible to know.   One thing that is certain.  The qb play was different 

In 2009 our team was loaded at 14-0 but as soon as we took Peyton out and put Painter in, we looked like a college team playing against grown men. We couldn't do anything against the Jets when Peyton was out. 

[stitches]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I went back to your post yesterday because I thought Franklin's actual comments would speak better to your criticism of what he tweeted yesterday.

 

I don't personally have a problem with his tweet yesterday, however we want to characterize it, because Twitter is a cesspool and he's probably been targeted with some really awful stuff over the last couple weeks. I saw it as him rolling his eyes at the emotional reaction from people on social media. I did not see it as a window into his psyche. For that, I point you to what he said a couple weeks ago.

 

As for the 'they didn't show up' thing, I think it's overboard to continue hanging a team failure from two years over the heads of players who remain from that team. You're using it as license to throw a team failure in the face of an individual player who said something you didn't like. I agree with you that the 2021 (we've been saying 2022, but we're talking about the end of 2021, right?) team had a big problem somewhere, but I think it's unfair and unreasonable to keep holding it against the remaining players from that team. Especially since I think the main issues were probably Reich and Wentz, who are no longer here. (I don't think last year's loss to the Texans is close to the same thing; overachieving team with a backup QB that barely lost on a heartbreaking play, not a team that melted down in the last two weeks and wasn't even competitive in the final game.)

I am not a fan of sacrificial lambs and I don't think putting all the sins on 1 player and 1 coach and slaying them for the benefit of the village is fair. I have been consistent in saying the leadership of that team had serious problems and this includes players who are still on the roster and are still leaders on the roster. We saw problems even this season... 

 

On if we should hang it over their heads forever? Forever maybe not... 2 years... in which they have not achieved anything and instead completely crumbled the year before? Yeah... I'm still keeping it in my mind. Sorry. 

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

that depends on where Irsay stood on the matter.

There were reports that Irsay wanted us to draft and develop our QB the moment Luck retired. Ballard and Reich convinced him otherwise...

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It was an 8 game swing from 2010 to 2011

Well, I've brought this up before, but:

 

Ranking Total pressures from the defense for the 14 playoff teams in 2023:

1 Ravens - 397 -- 61 Sacks, 56 Hits, 280 hurries

2 49'ers - 389 -- 58 Sacks, 66 Hits, 265 hurries

3 Dolphins - 376 -- 62 Sacks, 80 Hits, 234 hurries

4 Cowboys - 361 -- 51 Sacks, 51 Hits, 259 hurries

5 Browns - 356 -- 53 Sacks, 57 Hits, 246 hurries

6 Lions - 354 -- 41 Sacks, 77 Hits, 236 hurries

7 Bills - 353 -- 61 Sacks, 62 Hits, 230 hurries

8 Chiefs - 351 -- 66 Sacks, 64 Hits, 221 hurries

9 Eagles - 350 -- 52 Sacks, 68 Hits, 230 hurries

12 Packers - 346 -- 53 Sacks, 56 Hits, 237 hurries

14 Texans - 328 -- 49 Sacks, 69 Hits, 210 hurries

15 Rams - 326 -- 53 Sacks, 48 Hits, 225 hurries

19 Buccaneers - 310 -- 50 Sacks, 45 Hits, 215 hurries

 

12 of 14 in the top 14. 13 of 14 in the top 15. This is defense, not QB.

 

By the way:

25 Colts - 281 -- 60 Sacks, 53 Hits, 168 hurries

 

We have deficiencies on this roster that a QB won't fix.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I think QB play is so critical. Let's just say Alex Smith would have stayed healthy and had been the Chiefs QB all these years, he is 39 now so possible. Does anyone think the Chiefs would have won even won 1 SB? I don't and Smith was even good but Mahomes is on a different level. 

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

There were reports that Irsay wanted us to draft and develop our QB the moment Luck retired. Ballard and Reich convinced him otherwise...

 

The moment Luck retired?  I don't remember reading those reports at all.  Now after Rivers and before Wentz, what I remember reading is that Reich wanted and had to convince both Ballard and Irsay to go with Wentz instead of drafting a QB.  

[RollerColt]

17 minutes ago, stitches said:

It is... it isn't 8 wins easier... The highest WAR any QB has ever achieved is probably about 5(I don't have the number, this is a ballpark guess)? The rest is just... yeah... lack of focus on winning at different points throughout the organization. 

So the organization is just sitting around at different points doing nothing on purpose because they “don’t care about winning?”. I really find that hard to believe, and if it were true that Ballard and his entire staff were indifferent on making the team better, then I sure as hell would think Irsay would have a problem with it.