Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[DougDew]

56 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).

The QB position is important, but its a tad bit overrated, because its starting to sound like you need a Michael Jordan at QB to win the SB.  You could say that Mahomes is MJ, but SFs defense took a turn when Greenlaw went down. 

 

If we had a better defense and offensive weapons around a limited Philip Rivers, we probably would have gone deeper into the playoffs.  Not affixing blame for failure, just illustrating an example where you don't need an MJ.

 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Jason_ said:

 

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.  

The report was made after the Colts traded Wentz, but the report was saying Irsay wanted us to draft and develop our QB after Luck retired, but Frank and Ballard convinced him to go for vets. Of course... this could all be revisionist history coming from Irsay himself to make himself look better but... honestly, I don't have much of a reason to doubt it. It sounds exactly like something he would be in favor of after having witnessed the franchise blessed with 2 great QBs from the draft. 

[ColtStrong2013]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The QB position is important, but its a tad bit overrated, because its starting to sound like you need a Michael Jordan at QB to win the SB.  You could say that Mahomes is MJ, but SFs defense took a turn when Greenlaw went down. 

 

If we had a better defense and offensive weapons around a limited Philip Rivers, we probably would have gone deeper into the playoffs.  Not affixing blame for failure, just illustrating an example where you don't need an MJ.

 

San Francisco has lost how many conference championships/superbowls now in the modern era due to inferior qb play against the winner? How many non-elite qb’s can we actually point to as Super Bowl winners? Without checking myself, I know it’s not very many. It’s not an overrated position. There is no position like it in sports. Especially this era of football. Manning and Brady changed the game and the rules to elevate the current QB importance to where it is. It is what it is. 
 

Had a rookie Pittman not dropped a touchdown in the 2nd half of the Bills game that playoff, we would have gone further. He’s never had a chance to redeem himself since because of mediocre to sub par qb play. 

[Jason_]

Just now, stitches said:

The report was made after the Colts traded Wentz, but the report was saying Irsay wanted us to draft and develop our QB after Luck retired. Of course... this could all be revisionist history coming from Irsay himself to make himself look better but... honestly, I don't have much of a reason to doubt it. It sounds exactly like something he would be in favor of after having witnessed the franchise blessed with 2 great QBs from the draft. 

 

I do remember reading about it after the Colts traded Wentz...but I remember it differently.  Besides, like you said it could be revisionist history.  The reports also could have been more speculation that actual reports.  

 

In my opinion, the most logical explanation is that both Ballard and Irsay preferred to draft a QB, but Reich wanted Wentz and had to convince both Ballard and Irsay.  I wouldn't doubt if he had to convince Ballard first, but ultimately I believe he'd have had to convince them both.  This is also something I don't fault Ballard for.  Like I said earlier in the thread, if you hire a former QB as your offensive minded HC, the ONE position where that HC should get the most say is at QB.  

 

The biggest mistake I feel that has been made by Ballard (and Irsay by extension) is keeping Reich around too long.  IMO he should have been let go when Wentz was traded.  Reich got the guy he wanted, that he believed in and it didn't work.  I'd have shown them both the door.

[DougDew]

1 hour 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. 

Okay, I don't want to go into history here...or trigger others hopefully not...but when you have Luck, TY, AC, and Mathis playing the 4 most important positions in professional football, there really isn't a whole bunch else you need to hit on right away.  Yet Grigs was fired after 4 years.  His problem was not hitting on his EDGE and his second fast guy, Werner and Dorset as 1st round picks, while Ballard has gotten a pass for hardly even trying to find those guys until about year 6 of his employment. 

[Solid84]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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

To be clear, I'm not pointing the finger at you here. It's about "missing the QB" being the sole reason for a lot of people here and I just think that's wrong. I feel everything (but the QB) gets dismissed when trying to identify reasons the team isn't in contention. That's willfully overlooking flaws and that's giving a free pass in my book?

 

Quote

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.

So, hypothetically, let's say AR doesn't work out. For a new GM would that get him fired or would he get another chance? I don't think everything is forgotten because Ballard drafted a QB. I think there's pressure on him to win, pressure that wouldn't be on a new GM to the same extent. I do agree it depends on AR, but I don't think he has 5 years which is a typical GM tenure.

 

Quote

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

That's possible, but to bring up part of Defjamz26's post from earlier in this thread (I believe you commented on it) - it's also about "the current pace to improve the roster". When fans get frustrated with the results and the GM's seat starts heating up, waiting on 2-4 years projects won't be perceived as helpful to improving the situation NOW.

 

I hope Brents and Jones will turn out great - of course I do - but man, the thought of having to watch another season of terrible coverage makes my head hurt.

 

Are we still waiting on Paye and Dayo or can we start judging their play as the final product? If not how much more can we expect, because we're pretty far behind when it comes to pass rush?

 

Quote

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. 

Good to hear and fair enough. 👍

[2006Coltsbestever]

Since 1992 when Troy Aikman won his 1st SB, every team that has won a SB has had or will have had a Hall of Fame QB on it except:

 

2000 - Trent Dilfer (Ravens) best defense ever!

2002 - Brad Johnson (Bucs) top 5 defense ever!

2012 - Joe Flacco (Ravens) top 5 defense ever!

2017 - Nick Foles (Philly) great defense + all-around team!

 

Eli, Ben, Stafford, and Wilson will all make the Hall because they were great at times. They got the Stats and overall wins is why as well. So, I factored them in. 4 teams in 32 seasons we have had an average QB to win a SB as starter = 1992-2023. 4! Even the year Flacco won it, he had 11 TD's and no INT's during that run so Flacco wasn't even a fluke/lucky QB to win it. 

 

By my calculations 4 in 32 years means, if you don't have an Elite/Hall of Fame QB 87.5% of the time, you aren't winning the SB.

 

Brady - 7

Aikman -3 

Mahomes - 3

Peyton -2

Elway - 2

Ben - 2

Eli - 2

Young - 1

Favre - 1

Warner - 1

Brees - 1

Rodgers - 1

Stafford - 1

Wilson - 1

 

The only way to have an average QB and win a SB, is have an all-time great defense and all-time great coach. Rare, it happens 12.5% of the time over 3 decades as I pointed out with facts. 

 

[RollerColt]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

San Francisco has lost how many conference championships/superbowls now in the modern era due to inferior qb play against the winner? How many non-elite qb’s can we actually point to as Super Bowl winners? Without checking myself, I know it’s not very many. It’s not an overrated position. There is no position like it in sports. Especially this era of football. Manning and Brady changed the game and the rules to elevate the current QB importance to where it is. It is what it is. 
 

Had a rookie Pittman not dropped a touchdown in the 2nd half of the Bills game that playoff, we would have gone further. He’s never had a chance to redeem himself since because of mediocre to sub par qb play. 

Since Super Bowl 37, I can only think of four: 

 

Dilfer

Wilson

Flacco

Foles

 

It's very, very rare for a team to win it all without a superstar QB. 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

 

In my opinion, the most logical explanation is that both Ballard and Irsay preferred to draft a QB, but Reich wanted Wentz and had to convince both Ballard and Irsay.  I wouldn't doubt if he had to convince Ballard first, but ultimately I believe he'd have had to convince them both.  This is also something I don't fault Ballard for.  Like I said earlier in the thread, if you hire a former QB as your offensive minded HC, the ONE position where that HC should get the most say is at QB.  

People continue wanting me to excuse Ballard for it and put it all on Reich because it was Reich that was fired. I'm sorry... I just cannot. I fully believe Reich told them he wants Rivers... and then Wentz... I fully believe that he probably vouched for both of them and told them he can work with them. I still do NOT absolve Ballard. This is his job! His job is to make the hard decisions and to determine the general direction the team is going. Of course, he can listen to his offensive minded HC. But his job is still to make the decision after he's taken all the information he can into consideration. You cannot just decide to put it all on the coach and wash your hands off this decision. Those are BIG decisions. Ballard himself said in an interview he wanted to trade up for QB in the 2020 draft! Then they signed Rivers and traded the pick for Buckner. Those are HUGE decisions for the future of the team, you cannot give that decision to the coach. If you make that decision, it's YOUR decision... with the input of the coach... not the other way around. 

1 minute ago, Jason_ said:

The biggest mistake I feel that has been made by Ballard (and Irsay by extension) is keeping Reich around too long.  IMO he should have been let go when Wentz was traded.  Reich got the guy he wanted, that he believed in and it didn't work.  I'd have shown them both the door.

I think I agree... 

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Okay, I don't want to go into history here...or trigger others hopefully not...but when you have Luck, TY, AC, and Mathis playing the 4 most important positions in professional football, there really isn't a whole bunch else you need to hit on right away.  Yet Grigs was fired after 4 years.  His problem was not hitting on his EDGE and his second fast guy, Werner and Dorset as 1st round picks, while Ballard has gotten a pass for hardly even trying to find those guys until about year 6 of his employment. 

And what continues to be the big elephant  in the room? The one you downplayed in the prior post? who was under center… Grigson had pressure to build a Super Bowl caliber team around Andrew luck and he failed miserably. I don’t think it’s far off to say the 2019-2021 roster with Andrew Luck under center could have been Super Bowl caliber. They were a hell of a lot better than what he had under Grigson. 

[Solid84]

31 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

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. 

I don't think he's indifferent at all. I think he overvalues his own guys meaning the self-scouting and evaluation of current talent is flawed.

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Since Super Bowl 37, I can only think of four: 

 

Dilfer

Wilson

Flacco

Foles

 

It's very, very rare for a team to win it all without a superstar QB. 

And the year Flacco won it he played like a superstar QB, especially in the playoffs.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

And the year Flacco won it he played like a superstar QB, especially in the playoffs.

You and I are on the same page see above 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Grigson had pressure to build a Super Bowl caliber team around Andrew luck and he failed miserably

Huh?  What pressure?  It was 4 years.  Great Qbs tend to have longevity.  Rivers played for San Diego for like 3 decades.

 

How long did it take PM to win a SB under Polian?  He went 6-10 like in year 4 and PM wasn't even injured.

 

Grigsy took some shots at finding olinemen, failed, and got fired after 4 years.  How many shots does Ballard get to find an EDGE and a #1WR.  It's taken him three shots to find a LT.

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Since 1992 when Troy Aikman won his 1st SB, every team that has won a SB has had or will have had a Hall of Fame QB on it except:

 

2000 - Trent Dilfer (Ravens) best defense ever!

2002 - Brad Johnson (Bucs) top 5 defense ever!

2012 - Joe Flacco (Ravens) top 5 defense ever!

2017 - Nick Foles (Philly) great defense + all-around team!

 

Eli, Ben, Stafford, and Wilson will all make the Hall because they were great at times. They got the Stats and overall wins is why as well. So, I factored them in. 4 teams in 32 seasons we have had an average QB to win a SB as starter = 1992-2023. 4! Even the year Flacco won it, he had 11 TD's and no INT's during that run so Flacco wasn't even a fluke/lucky QB to win it. 

 

By my calculations 4 in 32 years means, if you don't have an Elite/Hall of Fame QB 87.5% of the time, you aren't winning the SB.

 

Brady - 7

Aikman -3 

Mahomes - 3

Peyton -2

Elway - 2

Ben - 2

Eli - 2

Young - 1

Favre - 1

Warner - 1

Brees - 1

Rodgers - 1

Stafford - 1

Wilson - 1

 

The only way to have an average QB and win a SB, is have an all-time great defense and all-time great coach. Rare, it happens 12.5% of the time over 3 decades as I pointed out with facts. 

 

 

Excellent post!!!

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Okay, I don't want to go into history here...or trigger others hopefully not...but when you have Luck, TY, AC, and Mathis playing the 4 most important positions in professional football, there really isn't a whole bunch else you need to hit on right away.  Yet Grigs was fired after 4 years.  His problem was not hitting on his EDGE and his second fast guy, Werner and Dorset as 1st round picks, while Ballard has gotten a pass for hardly even trying to find those guys until about year 6 of his employment. 

He inherited Mathis and AC. His only real hits were TY and Vontae. But you are correct having really good to great players at the 4 most important positions does wonders for your team. 

 

He missed on other players too... He missed on Richardson, Werner, Dorsett, he missed on D'Joun Smith, TJ Green... 

[Solid84]

Noone is saying the QB isn't important or the most important part of a football team. But the Chiefs had a defense with probably the best DT in the league right now and a top 5 CB duo - just a great defense. Ours is not near that level. Or the level of the 9'ers defense. Or the level of the Ravens' defense.

 

We're not a contender just because AR works out.

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Huh?  What pressure?  It was 4 years.  Rivers played for San Diego for like 3 decades.

 

How long did it take PM to win a SB under Polian?  He went 6-10 like in year 4 and PM wasn't even injured.

obviously he had pressure from Irsay… given he failed in 4 years. He spent big in free agency. I think the lessons from Grigson is largely why Ballard is still here driving a great deal of this forum crazy with his process…

[RollerColt]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

And the year Flacco won it he played like a superstar QB, especially in the playoffs.

And Foles too. 

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

People continue wanting me to excuse Ballard for it and put it all on Reich because it was Reich that was fired. I'm sorry... I just cannot. I fully believe Reich told them he wants Rivers... and then Wentz... I fully believe that he probably vouched for both of them and told them he can work with them. I still do NOT absolve Ballard. This is his job! His job is to make the hard decisions and to determine the general direction the team is going. Of course, he can listen to his offensive minded HC. But his job is still to make the decision after he's taken all the information he can into consideration. You cannot just decide to put it all on the coach and wash your hands off this decision.

 

like I said before...fundamental disagreement.  I agree that that is Ballard's job 99% of the time.  The QB position being the one exception.  I also never suggested to absolve Ballard.  But those decisions you're referring to were never his alone to make.  more below:

 

 

Quote

Those are BIG decisions. Ballard himself said in an interview he wanted to trade up for QB in the 2020 draft! Then they signed Rivers and traded the pick for Buckner. Those are HUGE decisions for the future of the team, you cannot give that decision to the coach. If you make that decision, it's YOUR decision... with the input of the coach... not the other way around. 

 

again.  you're also leaving Irsay out of the equation.  Irsay has always been heavily involved in those most important of decisions, particularly related to the HC and QB positions.  they don't sign Rivers or trade for Wentz without Irsay's approval.  who convinced who of what is something we'll never know 100%.  

 

IMO, it makes sense that they would all have been on board with Rivers.  Wentz is where the divide started imo.  I believe that Reich was the one pounding the table for Wentz and both Ballard and Irsay ultimately acquiesced...in what order they acquiesced we'll never know.  

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, stitches said:

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. 

 

To the bolded, those were very different problems, were they not? In 2021, we saw a lack of heart. In 2023, there was maybe a lack of discipline. 

 

I don't think of Reich and Wentz as sacrificial lambs. I think of them as the source of the foul smell in the kitchen. You take out the rotting trash (it's an analogy, not calling them rotting trash), and the air clears. You don't have to side eye everything else in the kitchen just because it was there at the same time as the rotting trash.

 

Regarding keeping it in mind, to each his own. It seems petty to keep pointing at it and directing blame for it at an individual player who gets a little snarky on social media. Especially when that player is saying a lot of the same things you're saying -- it's time to make it happen on the field, it's about wins, get some banners, etc. 

[stitches]

39 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

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. 

Do you really want me to spell it? The organization tanked for Luck after it was clear Manning won't play that season. There. I said it. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Do you really want me to spell it? The organization tanked for Luck after it was clear Manning won't play that season. There. I said it. 

- damn right I ordered the Code Blue (actually it is Code Red  ) , I wanted Andrew and did what it took to make it happen (sarcasm)  

[RollerColt]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Do you really want me to spell it? The organization tanked for Luck after it was clear Manning won't play that season. There. I said it. 

Alright, so I guess we’re tanking this season for something better. Win win.

[ColtStrong2013]

In 2017 when Ballard came to Indianapolis the Colts value was about $2.3 billion. It’s roughly $4.3 billion now. 
 

In a league of 32 franchises, winning is important, but let’s not confuse it with the most important aspect… That’s not me crediting Ballard with anything on the financial end (although I do think he’s been a good salesman for the Irsay’s.) But rather me saying when things are working from a financial standpoint, you just don’t care as much about winning like you did it when it was worth billions less… 

[stitches]

 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, those were very different problems, were they not? In 2021, we saw a lack of heart. In 2023, there was maybe a lack of discipline. 

 

I don't think of Reich and Wentz as sacrificial lambs. I think of them as the source of the foul smell in the kitchen. You take out the rotting trash (it's an analogy, not calling them rotting trash), and the air clears. You don't have to side eye everything else in the kitchen just because it was there at the same time as the rotting trash.

 

Regarding keeping it in mind, to each his own. It seems petty to keep pointing at it and directing blame for it at an individual player who gets a little snarky on social media. Especially when that player is saying a lot of the same things you're saying -- it's time to make it happen on the field, it's about wins, get some banners, etc. 

I think it's everything. It's lack of positive leadership. It's the captain lying to the media about being vaccinated amid global pandemic, it's allowing anti-vax sentiments to spread in your locker room to the point where you were the least vaccinated team in the league in a year where being vaccinated conferred competitive advantage and of course it bit you in the * as half your offense was in protocol in the last weeks of the season. It's whatever the deal with Wentz and Reich was... it was lack of discipline and myriad of suspensions for variety of things. It was the team crumbling in the most important games... and then responding the next season with complete and utter collapse. A team with 7 pro bowlers the previous season won 4 games!

 

In general it seems like a locker room that lacks strong positive voice to the point where it had to be Steichen that was setting the standard and he had to do some out of the ordinary things like suspending players without information about what they had done. 

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

As a counter, I think the primary force multiplier for any contention level team is the QB. (Coaching as well. We're talking about the roster, but I think Steichen made a huge difference for the offense last year, and I think the biggest problem on the defense is Gus Bradley.)

Agree with this here, because this is what we’ve seen with CJ Stroud. Made a team that had as many holes as any team in the league look way better than it was. No one thought Nico Collins was a number 1 receiver before Stroud get there. In a perfect world, you’d see that same effect with AR on Pierce.

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

So again, yeah the roster building needs a boost, no question. But I think the potential of some of our young players is being overlooked. And I think we have some veteran players who can perform at a higher level than we've seen over the last two seasons -- MPJ, JT, Buckner, Moore, etc. 

So we’re in agreement that the roster needs a boost. My argument that the boost needs to be from FA and not the draft though going forward. There are certain positions like RB, TE, and guard that you can easily fix in the draft. But DB, Edge, and WR aren’t positions where you should look for a rookie to be the boost you need. However, if you are going to go that route then you need to get the best rookies if you’re looking for day 1 and most guys. So the aggressiveness that you subvert in free agency, you can apply to the draft. 
 

Package your picks and go get two impact players in the first round. Instead of trading back and stockpiling day 3 picks so you can draft the Titus Leo and Eric Johnson’s of the world doesn’t really do anything for you. Thats what I would like to see change with this strategy. Instead of trading down for more picks to use on players who won’t move the needle, trade up and get impact players.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Alright, so I guess we’re tanking this season for something better. Win win.

Huh? I don't get your point. I don't think we are tanking this season. I think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. In the post you quoted I was responding to jvan about the reason for the difference between the 10 wins in 2010 and the 2 in 2011 and that 8 wins cannot be solely attributed to the difference in QB play. 

[Superman]

1 hour 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? 

 

Slow down there. You said 'Grigson's teams had more success.' I said Grigson had a franchise QB fall into his lap, and when Ballard had that same QB, his team had similar success. 

 

I'm not talking about blame, not in this arm of the discussion. I'm talking very narrowly about the difference between the Colts under Grigson, and the Colts under Ballard. Any difference in their level of success is not because Grigson did something better than Ballard has. It's because Grigson had Andrew Luck, and there's nothing else to it.

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

I think he did a little bit more than Ballard has done so far at WR (with mostly poor results). Other than that, I don't think there was anything about his focus that helped him build the roster. I will not try to take credit away from him for Hilton, that was easily his best draft pick ever, and he deserves credit for it. He traded up and everything. But the two previous picks were TEs... I guess you could argue that Grigson was highly interested in adding offensive talent around Luck in that first draft... But Ballard has spent three second rounders on WRs, so again, it's not about strategic focus, I don't think. 

 

To the bolded, I'm leaning away from that. I think it was about the QB. Even with AC, Luck was one of the most sacked/hit QBs in the league. And I think if we had to watch Grigson flop around trying to find a QB, it would have been much, much worse than what we've seen with Ballard for the last five years.

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

In general it seems like a locker room that lacks strong positive voice to the point where it had to be Steichen that was setting the standard and he had to do some out of the ordinary things like suspending players without information about what they had done

I don’t disagree with what you posted. It sounds like a leadership issue from the coach though. “Had to be Steichen.” Yeah… that’s the coach’s job to keep a locker room together. Frank lost them a long time ago. it all worked out to get where we are though… 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Do you really want me to spell it? The organization tanked for Luck after it was clear Manning won't play that season. There. I said it. 

 

Just in the interest of being on the record here, I could not disagree more. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Agree with this here, because this is what we’ve seen with CJ Stroud. Made a team that had as many holes as any team in the league look way better than it was. No one thought Nico Collins was a number 1 receiver before Stroud get there. In a perfect world, you’d see that same effect with AR on Pierce.

 

So we’re in agreement that the roster needs a boost. My argument that the boost needs to be from FA and not the draft though going forward. There are certain positions like RB, TE, and guard that you can easily fix in the draft. But DB, Edge, and WR aren’t positions where you should look for a rookie to be the boost you need. However, if you are going to go that route then you need to get the best rookies if you’re looking for day 1 and most guys. So the aggressiveness that you subvert in free agency, you can apply to the draft. 
 

Package your picks and go get two impact players in the first round. Instead of trading back and stockpiling day 3 picks so you can draft the Titus Leo and Eric Johnson’s of the world doesn’t really do anything for you. Thats what I would like to see change with this strategy. Instead of trading down for more picks to use on players who won’t move the needle, trade up and get impact players.

 

Mostly agree. I don't think we need to trade up this year to get a difference maker, though. That's just the way I see the draft going. 

 

My point though is that I think it's legitimate to think that good QB play enhances the quality of other position groups. And I think some are too quick to dismiss the potential of some of the young players.

 

I still think the roster building needs a shot in the arm, aside from whatever boost we hope to see from having good QB play. 

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

I still think the roster building needs a shot in the arm, aside from whatever boost we hope to see from having good QB play

preferably in a game wrecker at the edge? 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I think it's everything. It's lack of positive leadership. It's the captain lying to the media about being vaccinated amid global pandemic, it's allowing anti-vax sentiments to spread in your locker room to the point where you were the least vaccinated team in the league in a year where being vaccinated conferred competitive advantage and of course it bit you in the * as half your offense was in protocol in the last weeks of the season. It's whatever the deal with Wentz and Reich was... it was lack of discipline and myriad of suspensions for variety of things. It was the team crumbling in the most important games... and then responding the next season with complete and utter collapse. A team with 7 pro bowlers the previous season won 4 games!

 

In general it seems like a locker room that lacks strong positive voice to the point where it had to be Steichen that was setting the standard and he had to do some out of the ordinary things like suspending players without information about what they had done. 

 

I don't think there's a real connection between the stuff you mention in the first paragraph to anything that happened in 2023, or the way the season ended. 

 

To the bolded, most of them were injured in 2022. And I think the real problem was with the HC, who was fired in the middle of the season.

 

I don't think there's a direct link from that stuff to 2023, and I definitely don't think any of that is relevant to Franklin's attitude or his tweet, which was my initial point.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

preferably in a game wrecker at the edge? 

 

That's one particular area. But I think we could use high level difference makers at several positions. We can raise the ceiling at pass catcher, DB, LB, DL in general... I think we must if we want to compete for a SB.

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

relevant to Franklin's attitude or his tweet

I think Franklin’s attitude online is just influencer talk to grow his presence online. 

[Jason_]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Huh? I don't get your point. I don't think we are tanking this season. I think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. In the post you quoted I was responding to jvan about the reason for the difference between the 10 wins in 2010 and the 2 in 2011 and that 8 wins cannot be solely attributed to the difference in QB play. 

 

When you're talking about the difference between Peyton Manning and Curtis Painter then yes, I do think that can be the sole reason for the 8 win discrepancy.  HOWEVER, having said that, I've never been fully convinced that there wasn't some help from the 2 members of the coaching staff that they tried to retain...Caldwell and Christiansen. 

[stitches]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Slow down there. You said 'Grigson's teams had more success.' I said Grigson had a franchise QB fall into his lap, and when Ballard had that same QB, his team had similar success. 

 

I'm not talking about blame, not in this arm of the discussion. I'm talking very narrowly about the difference between the Colts under Grigson, and the Colts under Ballard. Any difference in their level of success is not because Grigson did something better than Ballard has. It's because Grigson had Andrew Luck, and there's nothing else to it.

 

 

I think he did a little bit more than Ballard has done so far at WR (with mostly poor results). Other than that, I don't think there was anything about his focus that helped him build the roster. I will not try to take credit away from him for Hilton, that was easily his best draft pick ever, and he deserves credit for it. He traded up and everything. But the two previous picks were TEs... I guess you could argue that Grigson was highly interested in adding offensive talent around Luck in that first draft... But Ballard has spent three second rounders on WRs, so again, it's not about strategic focus, I don't think. 

 

To the bolded, I'm leaning away from that. I think it was about the QB. Even with AC, Luck was one of the most sacked/hit QBs in the league. And I think if we had to watch Grigson flop around trying to find a QB, it would have been much, much worse than what we've seen with Ballard for the last five years.

On the AC thing, agreed... team OL play is actually influence much more by the weakest links than by the best links. Meaning - even though AC was great pretty much for entirety of his career, he couldn't do anything for the rest of the line being horrible. 

 

I REALLY REALLY don't want to seem like I'm defending Grigson. But Grigson's Colts teams have played a few games without Luck. They are 6-4 without Luck. Ballard's Colts without Luck are 44-54... Sample is small for the Grigson team, but it didn't crumble when Luck got injured and didn't play. Now I would absolutely agree with you that Grigson would probably do a much worse job without a Luck in the long-term starting from a blank slate. But in this case... with these inherited players(Mathis-AC) and with those hits (TY and Vontae), he did give his team some undeniable strengths outside of the QB and those were at important positions that contribute to winning more than a guard, a linebacker and running back would. 

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just in the interest of being on the record here, I could not disagree more. 

I don't think the intention was to tank from game 1, no team has that in them. Players have pride (want to win) and playing for contracts, coaches want to win too. They all want to win but I also think once we got to 0-8, things could have changed knowing Peyton wasn't coming back either in 2011. Players and coaches realized the season was over at that point, the organization knew Andrew Luck was there at #1 as well. Just a thought you may consider knowing that the best QB prospect since Peyton was there and your team is 0-8 that certain things could have changed drastically. I honestly can't remember if we played a lot of backups from week 9 to 16 but I know with the QBs we had = Painter and Orlovsky our chances of winning were small.

[BeanDiasucci]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It's tough to hate Ballard because IMO he has a great football mind, he is a good family man, and good for the city, but after a while it is about winning.

I don't hate or even dislike Ballard, and agree he has many great qualities. But I think we may need a GM with a higher RAS—quicker, better wingspan, more explosive, and with a higher ceiling.