Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[richard pallo]

8 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

What if like last year, 9-8 not only doesn't win the division, but causes us to miss the playoffs by one game again. Do you agree Ballard should be fired? That would be 3 times in 4 years we'd miss the playoffs by one game, with a bottom 5 finish sandwiched in between.

If you fire Ballard then you should fire Shane too right?  He coached the team and called all the offensive plays.  Not Ballard.  He wanted Gus back.  He loves continuity.  He is in lock step with Ballard on FA.  He wanted his core players back.  He and Ballard will be on the same page with the draft too.  They are in lock step.  Ballard’s history has shown he supports his coaches wishes.  The Rivers, Wentz, Ryan, Minschew acquisitions are proof of that.  Did you notice it was Reich who was fired for not delivering when Ballard gave him everything he asked for.  Not Ballard.  If it happens again and the coach fails when he also is given everything he asked for you think it’s Ballard’s fault when he does not deliver.  Hard for me to blame just the GM.  GM’s want to hire their own coach.  We all know that.  So if you fire Ballard you might as well fire Shane too.  Get a new team and try again.  If you don’t do both you’re just postponing the inevitable imo.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah he’s not the one trolling here if anyone is.

 

45 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I can confidently write that plenty of America knows the heroes of the Chiefs this season. Pat Mahomes isn’t even the most popular currently. Travis Kelce is. Every football fans knows about Chris Jones. Millions watched Sneed force a game altering fumble at the goal line of the afc championship. Millions mocked Toney online all season for dropping dimes in key situations. 
 

I don’t have a problem with your opinion, I just don’t agree with it. And you are correct, I am just trolling. I generally try and mirror the behavior of people I don’t agree with. 

How is explaining my opinion trolling?  OTOH, I've gotten responses with a meme of a teenage diva.  A meme with a muscle heads rolling his eyes.  And response that says blah, blah.  All from the same guy.   

 

Again, I like the heros dispersed throughout the team....in positions that matter....and not relying on MJ ball hogs when it comes to it being about "one guy".  And I like process. 

 

So as a matter of process, I like teams that are designed to have the hero dispersion in positions that matter, and keep those players as the core players.  Any player can make a hero play, but ...like Sneed....if they are not considered core, the team trades him, LOL. 

 

Kelce and Jones are what I'm talking about, but more than two more is better.

 

Ballard has not done this.  He seems to think heros are made along the oline and interior dline.  After 7 years, the only heros in meaningful positions that can be considered core players are Pittman and JT, and there is some question if RB is even that kind of position.   Every other player is in wait and see mode.  Yawn.

 

Edit:  To the bolded.  I'm not talking about popularity of players, but do you think dating Taylor Swift and delving into the  non-football entertainment industry is helping his popularity?

[ColtStrong2013]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To the bolded.  I'm not talking about popularity of players, but do you think dating Taylor Swift and delving into the  non-football entertainment industry is helping his popularity?

im not going to even address the rest of your post, but to this point, unequivocally yes. You asking this question demonstrates how little you understand about Taylor Swift and her influence. I have two swifties in my home who couldn’t care less about football until they started dating. Her influence is bigger than you can even imagine, let alone understand. 

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Actions speak louder than words.  A team is more interesting when its heros are dispersed throughout the team and not focused on one Michael Jordan and his stats.  You obviously have a problem with that opinion or else you wouldn't be trolling trying to irritate me. 

 

 Joe Montana played very much like Mahomes does. The difference is that Montana had much better players around him. What Mahomes has accomplished year after year, clutch play after clutch play, is extraordinary. 

 And Michael Jordan won Championships with a lot of help.

  

 AR is going to play very well, when he plays. And I am going to greatly enjoy watching our line compete, and our offensive weapons under Steichen's guidance.

And I have no faith that Ballard/Gus can put up enough defense to get us to the playoffs.

 

 Sneed was at the top of the list as core.

They ran out of $$ for LOL.  

[jvan1973]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

How is explaining my opinion trolling?  OTOH, I've gotten responses with a meme of a teenage diva.  A meme with a muscle heads rolling his eyes.  And response that says blah, blah.  All from the same guy.   

 

Again, I like the heros dispersed throughout the team....in positions that matter....and not relying on MJ ball hogs when it comes to it being about "one guy".  And I like process. 

 

So as a matter of process, I like teams that are designed to have the hero dispersion in positions that matter, and keep those players as the core players.  Any player can make a hero play, but ...like Sneed....if they are not considered core, the team trades him, LOL. 

 

Kelce and Jones are what I'm talking about, but more than two more is better.

 

Ballard has not done this.  He seems to think heros are made along the oline and interior dline.  After 7 years, the only heros in meaningful positions that can be considered core players are Pittman and JT, and there is some question if RB is even that kind of position.   Every other player is in wait and see mode.  Yawn.

 

Edit:  To the bolded.  I'm not talking about popularity of players, but do you think dating Taylor Swift and delving into the  non-football entertainment industry is helping his popularity?

Can you give any examples of those types of teams?

[Superman]

On 4/7/2024 at 12:28 AM, stitches said:

Ballard's main hope for this team to be better next year is AR. Which is pretty ironic.

 

I don't really see the irony. I actually think this argument is a misrepresentation.

 

I think the more accurate way to describe the team's approach is they think the roster is good, and having a playmaking QB will make a huge difference. We all agree with the second part, in principle, right? Whether or not the roster is good enough remains to be seen, but that's probably where the disagreement lies. 

[Superman]

On 4/7/2024 at 8:52 AM, BlackTiger said:

I think some are forgetting that this thread is meant to be complaints about Ballard lol.  This is where people who are negative about the gm are supposed to post.  Nothing is going to change their minds now.  We didnt even have much current news to talk about.

 

I have not even said much about him but if he got fired today Id be ok with it too.  We have not won anything

 

 

Not just complaints about Ballard, but a place to discuss and litigate and in some cases bellyache and call for him to be fired, which there's not necessarily anything wrong with. But in the interests of not having every discussion devolve into another back and forth about Ballard and his philosophies, having a grievances thread allows a place for those discussions to continue in a robust manner, while other threads can stay more on topic.

 

That said, even in this thread, posters need to respect the rules and each other. There's way too much name calling, labeling, and personal bickering in this thread, and it inevitably spills out into other interactions. 

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Can you give any examples of those types of teams?

Examples, in what way?  If I said that even KC has a few heros, I still think the weighting of it is bent more towards Mahomes being more of a dominant hero than the others.  So the teams I list in terms of who has the best hero dispersion is going to be based on my opinion and not any type of objective criteria that you can Google and compare against...which I assume you are looking for.

 

Off the top.  Cincy, Philly, SF, Det, probably JAX is striving to get there.  

 

Not structured the way I like.  BAL, BUF, KC.

 

I'm not talking about having good players.  I'm talking about heros..and who the fans typically look to to make a winning play, which is subjective in itself.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Examples, in what way?  If I said that even KC has a few heros, I still think the weighting of it is bent more towards Mahomes being more of a dominant hero than the others.  So the teams I list in terms of who has the best hero dispersion is going to be based on my opinion and not any type of objective criteria...which I assume you are looking for.

 

Off the top.  Cincy, Philly, SF, Det, probably JAX is striving to get there.  

 

Not structure the way I like.  BAL, BUF, KC.

 

I'm not talking about good players.  I'm talking about heros, which is subjective in itself.

How many of those teams have won the Superbowl?

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't really see the irony. I actually think this argument is a misrepresentation.

 

I think the more accurate way to describe the team's approach is they think the roster is good, and having a playmaking QB will make a huge difference. We all agree with the second part, in principle, right? Whether or not the roster is good enough remains to be seen, but that's probably where the disagreement lies. 

The team was whatever it was last year(if they thought it was good, then good, if they thought it was mediocre, then mediocre) and it should be pretty much the same this year, except for AR. I have no idea how much of a difference he would make, but I think it's fair to say whatever improvements they expect, they expect them to come mainly from AR. Hell, you can read Atkins and Holder's pieces, who seem to have talked to Ballard and this is pretty much what emanates from those pieces. It's about AR, the whole point of those pieces is precisely this - to explain how not making any moves is good and getting AR back will make the difference. 

 

You know what I think about this roster and where I think we are weak. AR doesn't fix any of those areas.

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

How many of those teams have won the Superbowl?

None recently.  You can say that about NBA championships when Jordan was with the Bulls.  That's the problem, it gets reduced to finding that one guy who is better than that one other guy.

 

But I'm talking about holding my interest as a fan and holding it over a period of time.  As I've mentioned here, winning a SB "just because" is not what holds it.  Certainly just winning a Division "just because" wouldn't even move the needle for me.

 

It might work for you.  It doesn't for me.

[Superman]

22 hours ago, csmopar said:

He’s expressed his regrets for some of his choices, namely QB, many a time in his various pressers. Yet people ignore that

 

I don't remember exactly what words he used, but he all but called the Wentz trade a mistake.

 

It's really confusing to me how many people paint Ballard as a megalomaniac. 

[stitches]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I don't remember exactly what words he used, but he all but called the Wentz trade a mistake.

 

It's really confusing to me how many people paint Ballard as a megalomaniac. 

He's not megalomaniac, but he is stubborn and sometimes pretty arroggant for the limited success he's had with this team. 

[DougDew]

50 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Joe Montana played very much like Mahomes does. The difference is that Montana had much better players around him. What Mahomes has accomplished year after year, clutch play after clutch play, is extraordinary. 

 And Michael Jordan won Championships with a lot of help.

  

 AR is going to play very well, when he plays. And I am going to greatly enjoy watching our line compete, and our offensive weapons under Steichen's guidance.

And I have no faith that Ballard/Gus can put up enough defense to get us to the playoffs.

 

 Sneed was at the top of the list as core.

They ran out of $$ for LOL.  

In addition to Rice. Taylor, Dwight Clark, Roger Craig in an era when RBs mattered more, Joe Montana still made plays based upon more of his football traits, not so much personal athletic traits.  That's is a distinct difference in entertainment value for me. 

 

But that goes way back before the salary cap, when SF stacked the team.

 

I hope Ballard builds out the roster with talent in the "right" places.  

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's not megalomaniac, but he is stubborn and sometimes pretty arroggant for the limited success he's had with this team. 

Sincere question:   How do you measure Ballard’s arrogance?   Perhaps you’re using it in a way I might not.   And that’s ok.   I’m just trying to understand your thinking on that viewpoint.  

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

im not going to even address the rest of your post, but to this point, unequivocally yes. You asking this question demonstrates how little you understand about Taylor Swift and her influence. I have two swifties in my home who couldn’t care less about football until they started dating. Her influence is bigger than you can even imagine, let alone understand. 

I know that Swift is making Kelce more popular, to the extent that his popularity is even relevant to what I was talking about.  The question was rhetorical.

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, stitches said:

The team was whatever it was last year(if they thought it was good, then good, if they thought it was mediocre, then mediocre) and it should be pretty much the same this year, except for AR. I have no idea how much of a difference he would make, but I think it's fair to say whatever improvements they expect, they expect them to come mainly from AR. Hell, you can read Atkins and Holder's pieces, who seem to have talked to Ballard and this is pretty much what emanates from those pieces. It's about AR, the whole point of those pieces is precisely this - to explain how not making any moves is good and getting AR back will make the difference. 

 

You know what I think about this roster and where I think we are weak. AR doesn't fix any of those areas.

 

I think those pieces from Atkins and Holder are puff pieces, and I don't find them particularly insightful. It's laughable that Atkins teased his article the day before like he was going to be offering some meaningful perspective, only to repeat the same things we heard for two weeks with some week old Ballard quotes sprinkled in. So if your response here is basically an extended eye roll at that kind of stuff, let me get out of the way so you can cook. I'm fully with you there.

 

But if we're talking about the Colts roster, then there's two things to consider, IMO. First, what the Colts think of their roster. If they think they have talented young DBs, and feel like Pierce and others (including Pittman) have more to offer with a playmaking QB, and maybe think the pass rush can be improved with better coaching (this is NCF's angle, I'm not so sure about it), then I think it's pretty clear what the strategy is. Specific to WR, we know very well that the passing game has been held back by QB. We also know how important good QB play is to any team. So it's not 'we're going to put the entire weight of our team's future on the shoulders of our QB.' It's more like 'we think we have a good roster already, and with better QB play, we think we can go further.' And I think your early point about Ballard's approach being ironic is kind of off the mark.

 

The second thing to consider is whether they are right in their assessment. I know you disagree. I've voiced my own concerns. But it could be that as the season plays out, the corner position is better than we think, maybe we see better pass coverage over the middle of the field, maybe the pass rush is better. On offense, maybe Pierce and Woods give us some explosives, maybe JT healthy and locked in makes a dynamic pairing with Richardson, etc. I wouldn't bet on all of that working out, but I think any of those prospects is realistic on its own. Even if you don't agree, it doesn't mean they're just waiting for the QB to fix everything.

 

Another element is whether they could feel great about their current guys, but still do more than they've done so far. Some veteran insurance at corner and safety -- especially after Ballard called himself out for having such a young secondary; some OL competition, etc. There's still the draft, and I think some of the areas we're all eager to see improved -- WR, DB, edge -- will be addressed there. But I think they could do more, and I think they'll probably add a vet player who can supplement one of those groups.

 

My gripe with your argument is just that I think it misrepresents the approach. It also downplays a fundamental fact that we all agree with -- good QB play is crucial to any team's prospects.

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's not megalomaniac, but he is stubborn and sometimes pretty arroggant for the limited success he's had with this team. 

 

Stubborn, yes. I think he believes in his process, for better or worse.

 

Arrogant, I don't agree. There have been a couple times when Ballard bristled a little bit, got somewhat defensive, etc. In general, he appears to be collaborative, takes blame when things go wrong, assigns credit when things go right, doesn't air dirty laundry (I think he protected JT more than he should have, for example), gets along well with other people, etc. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sincere question:   How do you measure Ballard’s arrogance?   Perhaps you’re using it in a way I might not.   And that’s ok.   I’m just trying to understand your thinking on that viewpoint.  

When he makes snide remarks towards reporters asking him legit questions about the pass-catchers of this team for example. When he continues professing the same damn philosophy that has brought little to no success to this team... I just don't see any sign that he actually has learned something or changed anything in his approach to team building. I think he's dug in and unwilling to move. This to me is stubborness and arroggance. 

[ColtStrong2013]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I know that Swift is making Kelce more popular, to the extent that his popularity is even relevant to what I was talking about.  The question was rhetorical.

the extent of what you were talking about was that they are painted as a one man team, to which I dispute entirely. I don’t view them as such. In fact, I don’t think Pat Mahomes wins a single Super Bowl without Travis Kelce. That’s a bold statement, but that’s how I view their offense. They removed arguably the best receiver and still won back to back without him. They wouldn’t have made the superbowl without Kelce this year. Nor would they have without Jones, Sneed and company on defense. 

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

the extent of what you were talking about was that they are painted as a one man team, to which I dispute entirely. I don’t view them as such. In fact, I don’t think Pat Mahomes wins a single Super Bowl without Travis Kelce. That’s a bold statement, but that’s how I view their offense. They removed arguably the best receiver and still won back to back without him. They wouldn’t have made the superbowl without Kelce this year. Nor would they have without Jones, Sneed and company on defense. 

As I said to Jvan, its subjective as to how dominant I think Mahomes is relative to how somebody else might see it.   I'm not going to convince others to see it a different way.

 

I agree about Kelce, but they seem to be able to churn through WRs like NE did with Brady and Gronk.  I didn't care for NE during that period either, and its not just because they were direct rivals of the Colts. 

 

Mahomes/Kelce are two players specifically that can't really be replaced...very special.  I think their defense is more about pass rush, coverages, and schemes; so its not as one specific person dominant like you're saying with Jones, IMO.

 

I don't like BAL and BUF.  Lamar and Allen are two pretty unique players...one of a kind each in their own athletic way..... that are handed the responsibility to win games for their team. 

 

That's the way I see those three teams, and I hope Ballard isn't relying upon AR to be that player for the Colts this coming season or beyond.  

 

[w87r]

everyone ready?

 

Protect those eyes.

 

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

When he makes snide remarks towards reporters asking him legit questions about the pass-catchers of this team for example. When he continues professing the same damn philosophy that has brought little to no success to this team... I just don't see any sign that he actually has learned something or changed anything in his approach to team building. I think he's dug in and unwilling to move. This to me is stubborness and arroggance. 

My response would be this….  I listen to every Ballard presser he gives, long or short.   I’ve never heard him give a snide response to a reporter, though I realize that’s all in the ear of the listener.   And I more typically hear him say “That’s a fair question” to anyone who asks a tough question.  
 

As to changing his approach….  I don’t think Ballard believes his approach has been the problem for the lack of success.  
 

I think he believes he’s built a good roster except at one position, quarterback.   And certainly not because he didn’t try.   If Wentz had worked out I think the conversation around here would’ve been very different these last years.  

 

 

[richard pallo]

4 minutes ago, w87r said:

everyone ready?

 

Protect those eyes.

 

I’m ready.  Starts at 2pm here with totality at 3:20 pm. Western NY here.  Should be a great experience.  The countdown has started.

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think those pieces from Atkins and Holder are puff pieces, and I don't find them particularly insightful. It's laughable that Atkins teased his article the day before like he was going to be offering some meaningful perspective, only to repeat the same things we heard for two weeks with some week old Ballard quotes sprinkled in. So if your response here is basically an extended eye roll at that kind of stuff, let me get out of the way so you can cook. I'm fully with you there.

 

But if we're talking about the Colts roster, then there's two things to consider, IMO. First, what the Colts think of their roster. If they think they have talented young DBs, and feel like Pierce and others (including Pittman) have more to offer with a playmaking QB, and maybe think the pass rush can be improved with better coaching (this is NCF's angle, I'm not so sure about it), then I think it's pretty clear what the strategy is. Specific to WR, we know very well that the passing game has been held back by QB. We also know how important good QB play is to any team. So it's not 'we're going to put the entire weight of our team's future on the shoulders of our QB.' It's more like 'we think we have a good roster already, and with better QB play, we think we can go further.' And I think your early point about Ballard's approach being ironic is kind of off the mark.

Yes, we've seen this type of approach work wonders in the past for us... not addressing OL followed by complete collapse of the OL, not addressing DB followed by disastrous DB season, not addressing DL and relying on the youth followed by meagre pass-rushing season. What could possibly go wrong with just sitting on our deficient roster and hoping that various groups will just... improve? And yes... there are usually internal improvements to be made from young players, don't get me wrong... but those improvements in huge number of cases are incremental, not huge jumps. 

 

BTW if they rely on AR to turn Pierce, Pittman and Downs, who were a bottom 10 receiving corps in the league into a great one, that to me screams even MORE reliance on AR, rather than less. In essence what they would be wanting out of him is to do what Luck used to do - turn mediocre receiving groups into great producing units. I'm not sure if AR is ready for that. I think at this point he needs more help from his receiving group, rather than the other way around(although, Pierce might indeed benefit purely from the style of play we can practice with AR, compared to Minshew). 

 

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

The second thing to consider is whether they are right in their assessment. I know you disagree. I've voiced my own concerns. But it could be that as the season plays out, the corner position is better than we think, maybe we see better pass coverage over the middle of the field, maybe the pass rush is better. On offense, maybe Pierce and Woods give us some explosives, maybe JT healthy and locked in makes a dynamic pairing with Richardson, etc. I wouldn't bet on all of that working out, but I think any of those prospects is realistic on its own. Even if you don't agree, it doesn't mean they're just waiting for the QB to fix everything.

Yep... as I've said before and above... I disagree with their assessment. 

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

Another element is whether they could feel great about their current guys, but still do more than they've done so far. Some veteran insurance at corner and safety -- especially after Ballard called himself out for having such a young secondary; some OL competition, etc. There's still the draft, and I think some of the areas we're all eager to see improved -- WR, DB, edge -- will be addressed there. But I think they could do more, and I think they'll probably add a vet player who can supplement one of those groups.

Oh they will definitely add more vets after the draft. This is what Ballard does every year. he fills the holes with what is left over after the first and second wave of FA. Doubt any of them will be difference makers of any sort. 

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

My gripe with your argument is just that I think it misrepresents the approach. It also downplays a fundamental fact that we all agree with -- good QB play is crucial to any team's prospects.

Good QB play is very important to any team's success, indeed. My problem is that we are not doing enough to support our QB and improve the chances that he has a season of good QB play. Young QBs need support... especially ones as green as AR is and the very fact that we are relying on a rookie scale QB should have been enough to allow us to actually splurge on some weapons for him. While Stroud will have Diggs and Mixon, Levis will have Calvin Ridley and Pollard, as it stands right now, AR will have Ashton Dulin. 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't remember exactly what words he used, but he all but called the Wentz trade a mistake.

 

It's really confusing to me how many people paint Ballard as a megalomaniac. 

I wasn’t painting him as a megalomaniac. That’s a really extreme take. 

 

Irsay was the one who publicly called Wentz a mistake.
 

After that 2021 season, Ballard said he had no regrets about making that move…that they thought it was the right move at the time. Maybe he later changed that, but I can’t really find that quote.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yes, we've seen this type of approach work wonders in the past for us... not addressing OL followed by complete collapse of the OL, not addressing DB followed by disastrous DB season, not addressing DL and relying on the youth followed by meagre pass-rushing season. What could possibly go wrong with just sitting on our deficient roster and hoping that various groups will just... improve? And yes... there are usually internal improvements to be made from young players, don't get me wrong... but those improvements in huge number of cases are incremental, not huge jumps. 

 

Again, one can disagree with their assessment. You think the roster is deficient. Do you think they think the roster is deficient? 

 

I take issue with the bolded. The OL isn't an issue right now. The DB group wasn't left unaddressed last season. Rodgers got cut, Flowers got hurt, Brents was in and out of the lineup with injuries. Corner was a weak spot in 2023, but it's not because the position was left unaddressed. And at DL, they aren't relying on guys like Turay and Banogu like they did in 2021; Paye and Dayo are on a much different level than those guys.

 

Quote

BTW if they rely on AR to turn Pierce, Pittman and Downs, who were a bottom 10 receiving corps in the league into a great one, that to me screams even MORE reliance on AR, rather than less. In essence what they would be wanting out of him is to do what Luck used to do - turn mediocre receiving groups into great producing units. I'm not sure if AR is ready for that. I think at this point he needs more help from his receiving group, rather than the other way around(although, Pierce might indeed benefit purely from the style of play we can practice with AR, compared to Minshew). 

 

We agree that they can do more at WR. I don't agree that they are relying on Richardson to turn our group in a great one. I think they believe that our pass catchers have been held back by limited QBing, and I think that's an obvious fact. Pierce is more of a weapon with a QB who can actually threaten downfield, which is one of Richardson's strengths.

 

And I don't agree about what Luck used to do. Luck didn't turn a mediocre group into a great producing group. Luck fed his best WR -- TY Hilton most of the time -- and everyone else continued to be mediocre to serviceable. When Luck played with Ebron, he didn't turn a mediocre TE into a great one. He did however help a good TE produce at a higher level. This is normal. Pass catcher is the position most dependent on QB play. If you put a good receiver with a good QB, you'll get better production than if you put the same receiver with a limited QB. Again, they can do more at WR. I expect that from this draft.

 

Quote

Good QB play is very important to any team's success, indeed. My problem is that we are not doing enough to support our QB and improve the chances that he has a season of good QB play. Young QBs need support... especially ones as green as AR is and the very fact that we are relying on a rookie scale QB should have been enough to allow us to actually splurge on some weapons for him. While Stroud will have Diggs and Mixon, Levis will have Calvin Ridley and Pollard, as it stands right now, AR will have Ashton Dulin. 

 

Okay, this is pretty laughable, IMO. Not only are you highlighting Dulin instead of the three WRs ahead of him who are actually pretty talented, you're also pumping up players that you didn't think the Colts should have targeted. The Texans signed Mixon. the Titans signed Pollard; Richardson has JT, who is better than both. I guess part of this is intentionally absurd and sarcastic, it just doesn't land for me. 

 

There are also diminishing returns with pass catchers. Just take the Texans -- they already have Collins, Dell, Schultz... add Diggs, and part of Mixon's appeal is presumably his pass catching. They'll figure it out, but just adding guys to the mix doesn't raise the level of production as significantly as it seems. And if one guy isn't getting the targets he wants -- like Diggs -- it could raise other issues. 

 

Yes, young QBs need support. My thinking is that there's more potential among the Colts pass catchers and offensive weapons than you are giving them credit for. Sure, I'll take a monster WR, but that's a different conversation. I'm not as concerned about splurging for weapons. I think the defensive side of the ball is where we need more attention. I feel pretty good about the offense, assuming Richardson is good, JT is good and healthy, and guys like Woods and Ogletree are available.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I wasn’t painting him as a megalomaniac. That’s a really extreme take. 

 

Irsay was the one who publicly called Wentz a mistake.
 

After that 2021 season, Ballard said he had no regrets about making that move…that they thought it was the right move at the time. Maybe he later changed that, but I can’t really find that quote.

 

Irsay did use the word "mistake."

 

I think Ballard's quote was: "We thought it was a good move... at the time." And he repeated this line, stressing at the time, like 'we definitely wouldn't have done this if we knew what we know now.' He even strongly suggested that they would have moved on from Wentz even if the team made the playoffs. He's pretty careful about what he says publicly, so using the word mistake probably wouldn't happen, but it was pretty obvious that he regretted trading for Wentz.

 

I don't think anyone has directly called him a megalomaniac, but that's kind of the portrayal, at least by some. He sets up scapegoats so he can protect his job, he has to be the smartest guy in the room, he doesn't accept responsibility for his mistakes, etc. I don't think any of that is remotely true of Ballard, but that's how some people say they see him. And it's kind of wild to me.

 

Edit: By the way I see that csmopar was responding to you, so I understand why you replied to me. I wasn't necessarily pointing that comment at anyone in particular. 

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

 

Okay, this is pretty laughable, IMO. Not only are you highlighting Dulin instead of the three WRs ahead of him who are actually pretty talented, you're also pumping up players that you didn't think the Colts should have targeted. The Texans signed Mixon. the Titans signed Pollard; Richardson has JT, who is better than both. I guess part of this is intentionally absurd and sarcastic, it just doesn't land for me. 

It's not laughable. I only included the new players the respective QB will have. I'm talking about new additions and helping your young QB. I'm talking about intent to support your QB and make his life easier compared to the previous year. In addition to those... Stroud will have Nico Collins(better than every single one of our receivers), Diggs(Better than every single one of our receivers) and Tank Dell(better than everybody except MPJ... but might surpass him too). Lets play this game... you let our receiving corps on the Texans roster. Does ANY of them start? I don't think they do. I think both Collins and Diggs start over Pittman and I think Tank Dell would be ahead of him too because he's more of the speedster Z type. And Dalton Schultz starts over any of our TEs too... 

 

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

There are also diminishing returns with pass catchers. Just take the Texans -- they already have Collins, Dell, Schultz... add Diggs, and part of Mixon's appeal is presumably his pass catching. They'll figure it out, but just adding guys to the mix doesn't raise the level of production as significantly as it seems. And if one guy isn't getting the targets he wants -- like Diggs -- it could raise other issues. 

 

Yes, young QBs need support. My thinking is that there's more potential among the Colts pass catchers and offensive weapons than you are giving them credit for. Sure, I'll take a monster WR, but that's a different conversation. I'm not as concerned about splurging for weapons. I think the defensive side of the ball is where we need more attention. I feel pretty good about the offense, assuming Richardson is good, JT is good and healthy, and guys like Woods and Ogletree are available.

Well... I guess we will have to wait and see. You know where my bet is... (that we keep having bottom 10 receiving corps in the league) 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think he believes he’s built a good roster except at one position, quarterback.   And certainly not because he didn’t try.   If Wentz had worked out I think the conversation around here would’ve been very different these last years.  

Really, do you think the WR and TE room would be any different now than what it was?

 

I think Wentz would have had a much better chance to  succeed if the total WR and TE room was better than it was then...which is pretty much the same as it is now, and folks are now starting to see the need for other viable options besides Pittman.

 

Not discounting Wentz' issues, but he had the same WR and TE room to work with that everybody wants to be improved now, even worse without Downs.  (who were the WRs opposite Pittman and in the slot during the Wentz year?)  I think the conversation back then needed to be exactly what the conversation has been this offseason.  Make that change, and I think Wentz had a decent chance of working out as the QB.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's not laughable. I only included the new players the respective QB will have. I'm talking about new additions and helping your young QB. In addition to those... Stroud will have Nico Collins(better than every single one of our receivers), Diggs(Better than every single one of our receivers) and Tank Dell(better than everybody except MPJ... but might surpass him too). Lets play this game... you let our receiving corps on the Texans roster. Does ANY of them start? I don't think they do. I think both Collins and Diggs start over Pittman and I think Tank Dell would be ahead of him too because he's more of the speedster Z type. 

 

Well... I guess we will have to wait and see. You know where my bet is... (that we keep having bottom 10 receiving corps in the league) 

 

Ironically, I think Nico Collins speaks to the benefit of having good QB play. He wasn't on anyone's radar before 2023 when he was playing with random QBs like Davis Mills and Tyrod Taylor, then Stroud comes along and now he's the anchor of a great WR corps...

 

Random WR 1, first two seasons: 24 games, 126 targets, 70 catches, 927 yards, three TDs

Random WR 2, first two seasons: 33 games, 143, 73 catches, 1,107 yards, four TDs

 

You can guess which is Nico Collins, and which is Alec Pierce. Collins is the argument for giving Pierce some rope as a third year guy who will finally have a QB who can throw down the field. And it illustrates why I don't think saying Richardson can help the WRs produce better is the same as asking Richardson to drag a bad WR corps into the top tier. 

 

To answer your question, I think Pittman vs Diggs is a discussion, because I think Diggs is on the way down and Pittman is a more well rounded X receiver. But please note that I never argued that the Colts have a better pass catcher group than the Texans. I argued that the Colts pass catchers have more potential than you're giving them credit for.

[w87r]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

everyone ready?

 

Protect those eyes.

 

My view

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ironically, I think Nico Collins speaks to the benefit of having good QB play. He wasn't on anyone's radar before 2023 when he was playing with random QBs like Davis Mills and Tyrod Taylor, then Stroud comes along and now he's the anchor of a great WR corps...

 

Random WR 1, first two seasons: 24 games, 126 targets, 70 catches, 927 yards, three TDs

Random WR 2, first two seasons: 33 games, 143, 73 catches, 1,107 yards, four TDs

I mean... all it took is the best rookie QB year since when? Forever? And just because one player has made the jump doesn't mean another with similar early stats will. In fact, what Nico Collins did is the outlier, not the rule. 

 

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

You can guess which is Nico Collins, and which is Alec Pierce. Collins is the argument for giving Pierce some rope as a third year guy who will finally have a QB who can throw down the field. And it illustrates why I don't think saying Richardson can help the WRs produce better is the same as asking Richardson to drag a bad WR corps into the top tier. 

 

To answer your question, I think Pittman vs Diggs is a discussion, because I think Diggs is on the way down and Pittman is a more well rounded X receiver. But please note that I never argued that the Colts have a better pass catcher group than the Texans. I argued that the Colts pass catchers have more potential than you're giving them credit for.

My argument was that other teams in similar position to us - cheap young QB who needs support and support can be afforded, were able to give that support to their QB. We on the other hand are relying on our super inexperienced QB to raise the level of our pass-catchers. Can it happen? I guess it can... I just hope in 2 years we are not still wondering what could have been if we gave AR more/better weapons. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, w87r said:

My view

That was wild, like something out of a movie. I thought Aliens might come down and get me  . It went dark for a few minutes like it was 12 at night. 

[w87r]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That was wild, like something out of a movie. I thought Aliens might come down and get me  . It went dark for a few minutes like it was 12 at night. 

It was pretty wild, then the sun came back with a vengeance quickly.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, w87r said:

It was pretty wild, then the sun came back with a vengeance quickly.

Yep. When it went dark, the birds quit chirping even, then when the Sun came back, the bird started chirping  

[NewColtsFan]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Really, do you think the WR and TE room would be any different now than what it was?

 

I think Wentz would have had a much better chance to  succeed if the total WR and TE room was better than it was then...which is pretty much the same as it is now, and folks are now starting to see the need for other viable options besides Pittman.

 

Not discounting Wentz' issues, but he had the same WR and TE room to work with that everybody wants to be improved now, even worse without Downs.  (who were the WRs opposite Pittman and in the slot during the Wentz year?)  I think the conversation back then needed to be exactly what the conversation has been this offseason.  Make that change, and I think Wentz had a decent chance of working out as the QB.

Wentz was here in 2021.   I don’t think he was impacted by the talent around him. 
 

It’s my understanding of the primary reason the Colts moved on from him was how Wentz dealt with COVID.  He didn’t get the shot and I think Irsay felt he was a very poor leader.  I don’t think Wentz failed because he didn’t have enough talent around him.   Numbers-wise, Wentz had a decent season.  Much better than the last season he had in Philly. 

 

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wentz was here in 2021.  He did not have the same rooms as we currently have.  
 

And my understanding of the primary reason the Colts moved on from him was how Wentz dealt with COVID.  He didn’t get the shot and I think Irsay felt he was a very poor leader.  I don’t think Wentz failed because he didn’t have enough talent around him.   Numbers-wise, Wentz had a decent season.  Much better than the last season he had in Philly. 

 

Yes to most of those things.  Your comment about Wentz not working out struck me as a decent comparison to the WR/TE room then as now...and a receiver room that many folks think needs to get even better in the draft.

 

I think Wentz would have had a decent chance of working out if it wasn't Zach Paschal who played opposite Pittman.  Paschal went to Philly and got buried in the depth chart behind actually good players.  I can't even remember who played slot, since PC was on IR?.  I think Doyle was TE...the F role?, and Mo was a younger version of himself.  Godawful help for a QB who liked to sling it downfield, IMO.   

 

Just an OT divergence about the past.  And maybe a comment about Ballard.  Carry on.

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wentz was here in 2021.   I don’t think he was impacted by the talent around him. 
 

It’s my understanding of the primary reason the Colts moved on from him was how Wentz dealt with COVID.  He didn’t get the shot and I think Irsay felt he was a very poor leader.  I don’t think Wentz failed because he didn’t have enough talent around him.   Numbers-wise, Wentz had a decent season.  Much better than the last season he had in Philly. 

 

Several players didn't get the shot that didn't get traded

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Several players didn't get the shot that didn't get traded

True.  But they were players like Nelson and Kelly and I think Smith.  Trading them was never going to happen.
 

 I’ve always read here that Irsay thought Wentz was a bad leader.  That’s not what you want from your quarterback.