Who on the current staff is the "scapegoat" in waiting?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

Just now, Superman said:

 

So if we run the same basic defense with the same basic results, and Bradley gets fired, do you think he will have been scapegoated? Or will he have been held accountable for his own shortcomings?

No, I said at the beginning of this discussion that I'm not a fan of mentioning the term scapegoat at all, I don't agree to that and you wouldn't have found me in such discussions other than specific point I initially replied. 

 

Everyone needs to be accountable for their role in it. Bradley for not being able to make his defense successful as Ballard expects. And, Ballard will need to be accountable for what led to the firing (if it happens) and if he's forcing specific scheme because he wants to draft and build a team in certain way that doesn't work or if it's just a problem of not getting the DC right. Ballard will be judged on how he responds, as in every direction he leads the franchise throughout his tenure. 

[John Waylon]

Bradley will have the finger pointed at him next, as if we’ve done #all to do anything help the defense.

 

Even Gordon Ramsay couldn’t cook an edible meal with 2 mustard packets, a half-spoiled grape, and a can or sardines.
 

How anyone could expect this defense to take any kind of measurable step in the right direction with the lack of help we’ve given it so far this offseason and by adding whoever we do in the draft is beyond me. 
 

We’ve set him up to fail, and he will be the next sacrifice for the Ballard excusers to finger as “the problem”. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

No, I said at the beginning of this discussion that I'm not a fan of mentioning the term scapegoat at all, I don't agree to that and you wouldn't have found me in such discussions other than specific point I initially replied. 

 

Everyone needs to be accountable for their role in it. Bradley for not being able to make his defense successful as Ballard expects. And, Ballard will need to be accountable for what led to the firing (if it happens) and if he's forcing specific scheme because he wants to draft and build a team in certain way that doesn't work or if it's just a problem of not getting the DC right. Ballard will be judged on how he responds, as in every direction he leads the franchise throughout his tenure. 

 

Got it. The idea that a bad DC is a scapegoat if he's fired is crazy to me. Seems like we're on the same page there.

[John Waylon]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Got it. The idea that a bad DC is a scapegoat if he's fired is crazy to me. Seems like we're on the same page there.

Merriam-Webster defines scapegoat simply as “one who bears the blame for others”. 
 

Is Bradley a good DC?

 

No. 

 

How is it even remotely possible for him to improve with what he has to work with? Give a % cook % ingredients and you get a % meal. 
 

After that plays out before our eyes this fall and the defense serves up % sandwiches by the platter full, they’ll fire Bradley and bring in a new guy, all because they stunted any ability Gus had to be any better at his job this season, and because they’ll say someone else could have done better.
 

He’s bearing the blame for his superiors stocking the cupboard with spare parts, and he’s a bad DC. These are not mutually exclusive truths. In fact, they’re issues that compound each other. 
 

Ballard will skate away from the defensive dumpster fire after the season free of any blame because he was able to foist it all off on the bad DC. 
 

How is that not scapegoating?

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

all because they stunted any ability Gus had to be any better at his job this season

...

How is that not scapegoating?

 

I disagree with a lot of your position on this. On a fundamental level, it seems like you believe that the Colts are setting Bradley up for failure, I guess so Ballard can specifically have someone to fire while he keeps his own job. And I don't see it that way at all.

 

But specific to the first part, I think what stunts the defense's ability is Bradley's ultra conservative approach. And when the defense struggles to make plays within that conservative framework, his response is to become even more conservative. And this is historical with him.

 

My big question: What is Bradley bringing to the table?

 

He's conservative because his number one objective is to take away big plays, so little blitzing, and soft coverage -- and it doesn't matter what the roster looks like, that's always his approach. We gave up big plays anyway, so we don't get any benefit from being conservative, and the pass rush gets no bonus from the occasional blitz. He offers little to no disguise on the outside, so even a casual observer can see the difference between his two main coverages with just a glance. And he and his staff are supposed to be good teachers, so why wouldn't they be able to coach up a young secondary?

 

If we want to talk about the defensive roster not being good enough, fine. We might not fully agree, but fundamentally, we all know the defensive roster needs to be better. But if the only hope for the defense to play better is to add better players, then what is the point of the defensive coordinator to begin with?

 

What is Bradley's contribution to defensive success?

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with a lot of your position on this. On a fundamental level, it seems like you believe that the Colts are setting Bradley up for failure, I guess so Ballard can specifically have someone to fire while he keeps his own job. And I don't see it that way at all.

 

But specific to the first part, I think what stunts the defense's ability is Bradley's ultra conservative approach. And when the defense struggles to make plays within that conservative framework, his response is to become even more conservative. And this is historical with him.

 

My big question: What is Bradley bringing to the table?

 

He's conservative because his number one objective is to take away big plays, so little blitzing, and soft coverage -- and it doesn't matter what the roster looks like, that's always his approach. We gave up big plays anyway, so we don't get any benefit from being conservative, and the pass rush gets no bonus from the occasional blitz. He offers little to no disguise on the outside, so even a casual observer can see the difference between his two main coverages with just a glance. And he and his staff are supposed to be good teachers, so why wouldn't they be able to coach up a young secondary?

 

If we want to talk about the defensive roster not being good enough, fine. We might not fully agree, but fundamentally, we all know the defensive roster needs to be better. But if the only hope for the defense to play better is to add better players, then what is the point of the defensive coordinator to begin with?

 

What is Bradley's contribution to defensive success?

If he comes out and decides he wants to throw everything he’s ever done out the window and start calling new more aggressive games, who is he going to ask to go out there on the field and carry that stuff out?

 

Yeah, we need to blitz more because our pass rush doesn’t get home enough. Who do we send? Who helps alleviate the increased pressure on the secondary with sending someone? There’s no dog in that secondary that you can rely on to keep a blitz from blowing up in our face. Theres no dog on that defense that can go on a blitz and provide any more chances pressure than what we’re already getting. 
 

He’s just as hamstrung by the talent he’s been given to work with as he is by his own shortcomings. One problem just accentuates the other. 
 

And he’ll turn into the fall guy for it, then a new guy will come in and likely wind up fighting the same kind of uphill battle, even if he does blitz and disguise coverages. 

[DattMavis]

3 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Bradley will have the finger pointed at him next, as if we’ve done #all to do anything help the defense.

 

Even Gordon Ramsay couldn’t cook an edible meal with 2 mustard packets, a half-spoiled grape, and a can or sardines.
 

How anyone could expect this defense to take any kind of measurable step in the right direction with the lack of help we’ve given it so far this offseason and by adding whoever we do in the draft is beyond me. 
 

We’ve set him up to fail, and he will be the next sacrifice for the Ballard excusers to finger as “the problem”. 

I don't disagree that our defense has lacked elite talent, but Gus can't expect to get the Legion of Boom again. His defense is simple and depends on elite players to just dominate. Teams with worse defensive players need to throw in some interesting and complex coverages and blitz packages. If Gus doesn't change, Stroud will sit back and accurately pick us apart two weeks every single year. Texans fans are already insufferable as it is.

[chad72]

14 minutes ago, DattMavis said:

I don't disagree that our defense has lacked elite talent, but Gus can't expect to get the Legion of Boom again. His defense is simple and depends on elite players to just dominate. Teams with worse defensive players need to throw in some interesting and complex coverages and blitz packages. If Gus doesn't change, Stroud will sit back and accurately pick us apart two weeks every single year. Texans fans are already insufferable as it is.

 

 

But Gus Bradley didn't coach the Legion of Boom to 2 Super Bowl appearances, it was Dan Quinn as DC, who parlayed that into a HC job in Atlanta then.

 

2009-2012 - Gus Bradley was DC (no SB appearances, they make 2 SB appearances with Dan Quinn as DC right after he leaves)

2013-2016 (Jaguars HC, never even win the division, let alone make an AFCCG, he is fired after 2016)

2017 - Jaguars make their first AFCCG with Todd Washburn as DC and Doug Marrone as HC

 

That man, Gus Bradley, when he leaves, good things happen right after he leaves. Just an observation.  

 

[John Waylon]

32 minutes ago, DattMavis said:

I don't disagree that our defense has lacked elite talent, but Gus can't expect to get the Legion of Boom again. His defense is simple and depends on elite players to just dominate. Teams with worse defensive players need to throw in some interesting and complex coverages and blitz packages. If Gus doesn't change, Stroud will sit back and accurately pick us apart two weeks every single year. Texans fans are already insufferable as it is.

I think it’s a fool’s errand to try to recreate the legion of boom. It’s going to be hard for any GM to go on a run of draft hits that click together like those guys did and just work. 
 

Gus is going to do whatever Gus is going to do. It certainly couldn’t be worse with better players. 

[ColtStrong2013]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

What is Bradley's contribution to defensive success?

I’m going to answer this below the following post, as my answer to what he possibly contributes is correlated…

 

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

But Gus Bradley didn't coach the Legion of Boom to 2 Super Bowl appearances, it was Dan Quinn as DC, who parlayed that into a HC job in Atlanta then.

 

2009-2012 - Gus Bradley was DC (no SB appearances, they make 2 SB appearances with Dan Quinn as DC right after he leaves)

2013-2016 (Jaguars HC, never even win the division, let alone make an AFCCG, he is fired after 2016)

2017 - Jaguars make their first AFCCG with Todd Washburn as DC and Doug Marrone as HC

 

That man, Gus Bradley, when he leaves, good things happen right after he leaves. Just an observation

my answer to what Gus Bradley contributes to on defense is development of players. I’m not sure we’ve seen it yet, but @chad72’s observation (and a good one by the way) could be what Ballard has studied and views as a strong development coach. I hope that is the case. And in that case, he likely won’t be the guy that leads our defense to a championship level as a defensive coordinator. It would be the next guy. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, John Waylon said:

If he comes out and decides he wants to throw everything he’s ever done out the window and start calling new more aggressive games, who is he going to ask to go out there on the field and carry that stuff out?

 

Yeah, we need to blitz more because our pass rush doesn’t get home enough. Who do we send? Who helps alleviate the increased pressure on the secondary with sending someone? There’s no dog in that secondary that you can rely on to keep a blitz from blowing up in our face. Theres no dog on that defense that can go on a blitz and provide any more chances pressure than what we’re already getting. 
 

He’s just as hamstrung by the talent he’s been given to work with as he is by his own shortcomings. One problem just accentuates the other. 
 

And he’ll turn into the fall guy for it, then a new guy will come in and likely wind up fighting the same kind of uphill battle, even if he does blitz and disguise coverages. 

 

So is it okay for a defensive coordinator to be fired for his own shortcomings? And if so, why would he be characterized as a fall guy?

 

I'm not asking him to throw out everything he's ever done. I'm asking him to bring something to the table, though. If the only hope to improve the defense is better players, then what's his value?

 

Fundamentally, I disagree with the idea that Bradley is hamstrung by anything but his own lack of variety. I don't know why we just accept that a defense can't blitz because there's no 'dog' in the secondary. There's a symbiotic relationship between pressure and coverage, and when both are passive, you don't stand a chance. That's one problem accentuating another.

 

If the foundation of your defense is 'we rush four because we don't give up big plays downfield,' then what you're selling is that we have to put up with some conservative game planning, but the trade-off is containment on the back end. When you give up big plays anyway, then we gain nothing, and the scheme is broken. 

 

We're also not playing into their strengths. Our secondary is made up of guys with size, length, explosiveness, and speed. The corners play 8 yards off the line of scrimmage; except when we call Cover 4, in which case they play 10+ yards off the line of scrimmage. What would happen if we allowed the corners to engage at the snap, disrupt the timing of the receivers, and force the QB to hold the ball for an extra beat? Could that result in some increased pressure, and some smaller windows in the second level? Yeah, the secondary is young and they'll make some mistakes, but at least we'd be giving them a chance, and it doesn't involve blitzing more.

 

Again, this is what Gus Bradley does, historically, and it doesn't matter what players he has. If the only way he can succeed is to give him Legion of Boom level talent, then he's just taking up a seat in the room. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, John Waylon said:

It certainly couldn’t be worse with better players. 

 

The same would be true of anyone running the defense.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I’m going to answer this below the following post, as my answer to what he possibly contributes is correlated…

 

my answer to what Gus Bradley contributes to on defense is development of players. I’m not sure we’ve seen it yet, but @chad72’s observation (and a good one by the way) could be what Ballard has studied and views as a strong development coach. I hope that is the case. And in that case, he likely won’t be the guy that leads our defense to a championship level as a defensive coordinator. It would be the next guy. 

 

That's part of what was sold when he was hired. He brought in his group of guys who were supposed to be high level teachers and developers of young players, and that hasn't exactly worked out in two seasons. In fact, the defense got worse last year in a lot of ways, and then one of his group developmental coaches got fired.

 

It's not all Bradley's fault. There were a ton of injuries in the secondary, we wound up playing practice squad level reserves for a large part of the season. The idea was for Brents, Flowers, Jones, Rodgers, to grow together. Rodgers was gone, Flowers got hurt, Brents wasn't able to stay on the field, Jones started to fade in the second half. And guys like Baker and Brown wound up playing way more snaps than anyone expected. I think the hope is the main group is able to stay on the field, and everyone has benefited from the forced experience last season.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That's part of what was sold when he was hired. He brought in his group of guys who were supposed to be high level teachers and developers of young players, and that hasn't exactly worked out in two seasons. In fact, the defense got worse last year in a lot of ways, and then one of his group developmental coaches got fired.

 

It's not all Bradley's fault. There were a ton of injuries in the secondary, we wound up playing practice squad level reserves for a large part of the season. The idea was for Brents, Flowers, Jones, Rodgers, to grow together. Rodgers was gone, Flowers got hurt, Brents wasn't able to stay on the field, Jones started to fade in the second half. And guys like Baker and Brown wound up playing way more snaps than anyone expected. I think the hope is the main group is able to stay on the field, and everyone has benefited from the forced experience last season.

 

I feel like it's a large part of the sales pitch for Ballard, and the Irsay fam has largely bought in because he has had success defensively here. 2021 was one of the better defensive units we've seen with the Colts. Unfortunate injuries/suspensions kept that from progressing over the last few years, more so than Eberflus leaving, IMO. But that unit was looking like it was developing into a game changing defense, but with no consistent help on the other side of the ball. 

But... I do agree with you that Gus' system isn't going to work unless he changes his way, which is unlikely. It just feels like the system is ultra conservative in order to develop young players. Perhaps some are right in the thought that patience will wane, but it sure feels like an organization buying in on a longterm plan. Ballard's always been thought highly by colleagues throughout the league as a very detailed-oriented executive. I can't imagine there isn't that type of planning on the defensive side of the ball. 

[bluephantom87]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:16 PM, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Of course you would... You and everyone else that has bashed him nonstop like broken records on this forum. You all will try and gaslight the hell out of everybody on here like you didn't want him fired for the entire duration of his career.

 

It's hypocrisy at best. I won't support the team while they are trying to build it the right way instead of the way I think we should be approaching it from my living room couch/ipad... but you better believe I'll be the first one on here pumping myself up when the tide is turned, and the titles start flying. 

 

 

 

Dear God...  I'll never give undeserved credit when it's not earned. I know you probably think that Ballard is one of the top gms in the league but I don't. IMO he's more middle of the pack and based on his sub .500 record that might be a stretch. He could dip even further if we finish near the bottom of a newly talent infused division. As a matter of fact some early predictions have us doing just that for the upcoming season. To me this draft has to produce some elite talent or have some noticeable upgrades in positions of need.

 

Ballard has done some decent things in his tenure as gm but he hasn't done enough to move any needles as far as getting the team back to upper tier status. I am a season ticket holder and have been for years through good times and bad so no bandwagon fan here just one who's invested like many others who are. Trust me this forum is NOT the only place where Ballard's welcome has worn thin due to the team's minimal accomplishments. As a matter of fact this board is tame compared to other sights that speak on his job performance.

 

Now if Ballard suddenly turns the corner with a slightly different approach to elevate the team PAST mediocrity and actually follows through with some of the things that he usually says at his season ending presser then maybe we'd be having a different conversation. Enough of the "It's on me", "We need more explosive players" and the "I've got to do better." Yada yada...

 

I say again I will have no problem applauding him IF he gets the team to a place where they can compete for a division title, make a couple of playoff runs or ultimately hoist a Lombardi. Trust me I won't gaslight because I stand on what I say. Your opinion is that Ballard is doing things the right way but his Colt's resume of nearly 8 yrs says differently. It has no division titles to list and reflects ONE playoff win courtesy of an inherited Andrew Luck. Those are the facts that somehow seem to fall under the term "bashing" as you and some others defend him. I say to each his own and for the record I was a Ballard fan initially but MY opinion has changed over time. It doesn't matter regardless because like I've said on several occasions until Irsay is fed up with this low reward journey of Ballard it shall stay status quo.

[ColtStrong2013]

8 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

Dear God...  I'll never give undeserved credit when it's not earned. I know you probably think that Ballard is one of the top gms in the league but I don't. IMO he's more middle of the pack and based on his sub .500 record that might be a stretch. He could dip even further if we finish near the bottom of a newly talent infused division. As a matter of fact some early predictions have us doing just that for the upcoming season. To me this draft has to produce some elite talent or have some noticeable upgrades in positions of need.

 

Ballard has done some decent things in his tenure as gm but he hasn't done enough to move any needles as far as getting the team back to upper tier status. I am a season ticket holder and have been for years through good times and bad so no bandwagon fan here just one who's invested like many others who are. Trust me this forum is NOT the only place where Ballard's welcome has worn thin due to the team's minimal accomplishments. As a matter of fact this board is tame compared to other sights that speak on his job performance.

 

Now if Ballard suddenly turns the corner with a slightly different approach to elevate the team PAST mediocrity and actually follows through with some of the things that he usually says at his season ending presser then maybe we'd be having a different conversation. Enough of the "It's on me", "We need more explosive players" and the "I've got to do better." Yada yada...

 

I say again I will have no problem applauding him IF he gets the team to a place where they can compete for a division title, make a couple of playoff runs or ultimately hoist a Lombardi. Trust me I won't gaslight because I stand on what I say. Your opinion is that Ballard is doing things the right way but his Colt's resume of nearly 8 yrs says differently. It has no division titles to list and reflects ONE playoff win courtesy of an inherited Andrew Luck. Those are the facts that somehow seem to fall under the term "bashing" as you and some others defend him. I say to each his own and for the record I was a Ballard fan initially but MY opinion has changed over time. It doesn't matter regardless because like I've said on several occasions until Irsay is fed up with this low reward journey of Ballard it shall stay status quo.

I don’t think he’s one of the best GM’s at all. I’m not sure why you would put those words in my mouth. I think he’s one of the better in certain aspects. I certainly think he’s one of the more respected ones, and that’s substantiated by comments throughout the league. I think he’s very direct and well-intended. Results of course matter, and you are correct, they have been middle of the road. My argument to those that think he will be fired, is who is going to replace him that will be better? It’s always walking in circles “well I think Malcom Brown would be better”… why? If AR pans out, then the results will improve with the same exact plan that has been in place for 8 years now. So firing Ballard, hiring Malcom Brown and then having success will be attributed to Brown? That makes little sense. No one has a good idea, except for firing Ballard. Things could get worse. He’s been pretty consistent putting competitive teams on the field. I think people forget some of the blowout losses we had with Andrew luck under center… As if those years were more acceptable than what we have experienced. In my opinion, they are not and should not be at all. We had a generational qb and didn’t win squat. Division titles? So what… those were squarely on his shoulders and what did it get us? To the point we are at currently- complaining about the results since he left. 
 

you say IF he gets the team to a place where they compete for a division title? Didn’t we just experience that in year 1 of our new coach and without our top 5 draft pick under center? Everyone is predicting we are going to regress this season. I’m not sure I see it that way, and I’m confident Shane Steichen and company do not. Time will tell, but I’m way more optimistic moving forward than I was a few years ago. If players take time to develop in this league, and coaches do as well, then why wouldn’t Ballard continue developing as a manager and becoming something really good. I don’t think he’s as far off as everyone thinks he is. And I’m confident that if he is fired, whoever inherits the team is not going to complain much and blame him for anything that he left, because we will be in pretty damn good shape compared to the rest of the league when they fire their GM’s… I’m not loyal to Chris Ballard, I’m loyal to the Indianapolis Colts. I just see things differently than many on here do- I don’t see us being far off, and I know 100% that things could be (and would be under Ryan Grigson) far worse… 

[RollerColt]

25 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

I say again I will have no problem applauding him IF he gets the team to a place where they can compete for a division title, make a couple of playoff runs or ultimately hoist a Lombardi. Trust me I won't gaslight because I stand on what I say. Your opinion is that Ballard is doing things the right way but his Colt's resume of nearly 8 yrs says differently. It has no division titles to list and reflects ONE playoff win courtesy of an inherited Andrew Luck. Those are the facts that somehow seem to fall under the term "bashing" as you and some others defend him. I say to each his own and for the record I was a Ballard fan initially but MY opinion has changed over time. It doesn't matter regardless because like I've said on several occasions until Irsay is fed up with this low reward journey of Ballard it shall stay status quo.

Not to mention, he isn’t getting fired right before the draft just because of free agency. 
 

Doing things like that would completely collapse an organization quick. 

[Dingus McGirt]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:39 PM, bluephantom87 said:

 

If that's the case then Ballard should surround Richardson with multiple offensive weapons like the Titans have done with Levis because they will find out real soon if Will is the man or not. Stroud has options and so does Lawrence. Every year Ballard is waiting according to some on this board to the tune of being under .500 and accomplishing absolutely nothing but I'm starting to see the OVERALL gameplan now.... Plod along for another decade or so and wait for everyone else to decline.

 

Some laughed at John Lynch when he became a gm around the same time as Ballard but guess what he's ran circles around the "polished" talking Ballard who couldn't even take advantage of a formerly weak AFC south. The Niners haven't won a SB but they've lost two close ones while we continue to wait as Ballard uses the 80's blueprint to build a team which hasn't worked so far after years of wash, rinse, repeat.

Good lord, man.  

[bluephantom87]

44 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Good lord, man.  

 

You do realize you have the option to bypass right? It wasn't addressed to you anyway.

[bluephantom87]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I don’t think he’s one of the best GM’s at all. I’m not sure why you would put those words in my mouth. I think he’s one of the better in certain aspects. I certainly think he’s one of the more respected ones, and that’s substantiated by comments throughout the league. I think he’s very direct and well-intended. Results of course matter, and you are correct, they have been middle of the road. My argument to those that think he will be fired, is who is going to replace him that will be better? It’s always walking in circles “well I think Malcom Brown would be better”… why? If AR pans out, then the results will improve with the same exact plan that has been in place for 8 years now. So firing Ballard, hiring Malcom Brown and then having success will be attributed to Brown? That makes little sense. No one has a good idea, except for firing Ballard. Things could get worse. He’s been pretty consistent putting competitive teams on the field. I think people forget some of the blowout losses we had with Andrew luck under center… As if those years were more acceptable than what we have experienced. In my opinion, they are not and should not be at all. We had a generational qb and didn’t win squat. Division titles? So what… those were squarely on his shoulders and what did it get us? To the point we are at currently- complaining about the results since he left. 
 

you say IF he gets the team to a place where they compete for a division title? Didn’t we just experience that in year 1 of our new coach and without our top 5 draft pick under center? Everyone is predicting we are going to regress this season. I’m not sure I see it that way, and I’m confident Shane Steichen and company do not. Time will tell, but I’m way more optimistic moving forward than I was a few years ago. If players take time to develop in this league, and coaches do as well, then why wouldn’t Ballard continue developing as a manager and becoming something really good. I don’t think he’s as far off as everyone thinks he is. And I’m confident that if he is fired, whoever inherits the team is not going to complain much and blame him for anything that he left, because we will be in pretty damn good shape compared to the rest of the league when they fire their GM’s… I’m not loyal to Chris Ballard, I’m loyal to the Indianapolis Colts. I just see things differently than many on here do- I don’t see us being far off, and I know 100% that things could be (and would be under Ryan Grigson) far worse… 

 

I can respect the time and thought put into that response which by the way I agree with some but not all. At the end of the day we want the same thing.... I gave Ballard big kudos last season for the Shane hire, the AR pick and the Minshew signing. We did have some success last season and that's a start. I just don’t feel with how the division is shaping up that now is the time to sit pat but I also said we'll see how the draft pans out. I just  expected a few more moves considering what Chris said at seasons end about improving the team with more explosive players and by changing up some of the things that he did in the past. If the gm shines that means the Colts shine and that's all I want whether it comes from Ballard or someone else but again I have no control over that. Cheers! 

[Dingus McGirt]

36 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

You do realize you have the option to bypass right? It wasn't addressed to you anyway.

LOL.  Everything on the forum is "addressed" to everyone on the forum.  I believe, however, there is a private message feature.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

Not to mention, he isn’t getting fired right before the draft just because of free agency. 
 

Doing things like that would completely collapse an organization quick. 

yes- and even if he were to be fired at the end of the upcoming season (or the middle of it,) Ed Dodds, Brown, and co will still be the ones leading the draft come next offseason. So this process plays out for another offseason again next year. 
 

If you need to blow the current organization up, by all means. I don’t think that’s going to ever be the case under Ballard’s management. He’s good enough for that to not be the case, and I think most people will agree on that. From key executives, to coaching staff, etc. I don’t forsee tearing it down and starting again. If you need to pull a Kansas City, and just need to get rid of the GM for someone internally, you would have to have reasoning like they did- erratic contracts and decision making against the advice of others in the organization. Again, I don’t see that ever happening. So, the question becomes- why are we making that big of a decision? Can he vouch for himself on why the results have been mid? If so, what is the plan going forward to get us to the next level? That conversation likely already happened- and Irsay’s agreed/were satisfied with the answers which is why we are where we are with Ballard and this process. 
 

18 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

I can respect the time and thought put into that response which by the way I agree with some but not all. At the end of the day we want the same thing.... I gave Ballard big kudos last season for the Shane hire, the AR pick and the Minshew signing. We did have some success last season and that's a start. I just don’t feel with how the division is shaping up that now is the time to sit pat but I also said we'll see how the draft pans out. I just  expected a few more moves considering what Chris said at seasons end about improving the team with more explosive players and by changing up some of the things that he did in the past. If the gm shines that means the Colts shine and that's all I want whether it comes from Ballard or someone else but again I have no control over that. Cheers! 

 

I agree on expecting more too. The reports- and my thinking is maybe he did try and it didn’t pan out. QB stability matters for Free agents too. Maybe this year isn’t it. Maybe a healthy (healthier) season by AR is what it will take to show some big players we are worth coming to. I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong entirely and it’s not going to change. 
 

I don’t mind the division being the way it is shaping up. I think we can compete within the division, and we showed it this year. I know the Steelers and Ravens didn’t mind when they were making postseason runs / winning superbowls with it. Seahawks and 49ers made runs with each other playing great. Tough divisions mean tough teams in the playoffs, imo. Competition either breaks you or makes you elevate your game. I don’t see us breaking. 
 

and hopefully we still get some of those explosive / explosive disrupters type players yet this offseason. 

[lester]

On 3/25/2024 at 3:40 PM, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Agreed fully about Bradley.

 

I think it only will be known later at the end of their tenure if Ballard has been stubborn on sticking to the DC and scheme or if Steichen himself wanted to retain the existing DC when he was hired. It's a grey area where it could be either of those.

 

The last two seasons worth of leadership moves could be as simple as a desire by the regime for consistency.

 

Anyone here ever try to fix a business that was under-performing? You don't cut the whole thing to pieces all at once. That is counter productive.

 

The leaders knew which of the big things they wanted to tackle last year. Now they have new challenges to solve for this year. Solve those, then decide if another change makes the machine work better.

 

There are posters who may disagree with what I am trying to describe. I know from my career in business that doing it all at once makes the process seem faster (action!) but does not mean the changes are necessarily the right changes; and speed does not ensure the change is in the right direction. Ever notice how some teams blow it all up every couple years? Again and again? That is what I am describing.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, lester said:

There are posters who may disagree with what I am trying to describe. I know from my career in business that doing it all at once makes the process seem faster (action!) but does not mean the changes are necessarily the right changes; and speed does not ensure the change is in the right direction. Ever notice how some teams blow it all up every couple years? Again and again? That is what I am describing.

 

It makes sense for 2023, coming off a year of significant instability (and multiple years of QB changes). New HC, and knowing you want to draft a QB, just leave the defensive staff alone for now, especially since the HC is already familiar with him. 

 

I think it makes less sense for this offseason. 

[GoColts8818]

On 3/26/2024 at 1:10 PM, bluephantom87 said:

 

You do realize you have the option to bypass right? It wasn't addressed to you anyway.

And you realize he has the right to react to your post even if he doesn’t like it.  Works both ways.  It’s forum, he’s not doing anything wrong reacting to your post and doesn’t have to bypass it just like you didn’t bypass his response and you are entitled to that too.

[bluephantom87]

3 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

And you realize he has the right to react to your post even if he doesn’t like it.  Works both ways.  It’s forum, he’s not doing anything wrong reacting to your post and doesn’t have to bypass it just like you didn’t bypass his response and you are entitled to that too.

 

Yawn...

[AKB]

Gus Bradley will be the scapegoat.

[BeanDiasucci]

On 3/23/2024 at 4:03 PM, RollerColt said:

Ballard will be on the hot seat and Bradley would be gone. 
 

Just to play devils advocate, what will you all say if the defense continues to collect a large amount of sacks, stays within the top 20 and we make the playoffs?

Who had the Colts in the top 20 on defense? I see them at 24th in yards allowed and 28th in points allowed. 

[Jason_]

On 3/26/2024 at 1:10 PM, bluephantom87 said:

 

You do realize you have the option to bypass right? It wasn't addressed to you anyway.

 

Yawn...

[RollerColt]

47 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Who had the Colts in the top 20 on defense? I see them at 24th in yards allowed and 28th in points allowed. 

ESPN during points of the season, though the stats indeed don’t match up. We gave up a ridiculous amount of points each game, even in wins. 

[throwing BBZ]

56 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Who had the Colts in the top 20 on defense? I see them at 24th in yards allowed and 28th in points allowed. 

 

 Pay attention Beans, he was asking about next season.

And we did stink on D against a lot of 2nd rate teams with 2nd rate QB's. It would have been a franchise changing draft if we could be drafting at 4, about where our talent was. 

 2024 will be fun with good health.

 

[throwing BBZ]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:31 AM, lester said:

 

The last two seasons worth of leadership moves could be as simple as a desire by the regime for consistency.

 

Anyone here ever try to fix a business that was under-performing? You don't cut the whole thing to pieces all at once. That is counter productive.

 

The leaders knew which of the big things they wanted to tackle last year. Now they have new challenges to solve for this year. Solve those, then decide if another change makes the machine work better.

 

There are posters who may disagree with what I am trying to describe. I know from my career in business that doing it all at once makes the process seem faster (action!) but does not mean the changes are necessarily the right changes; and speed does not ensure the change is in the right direction. Ever notice how some teams blow it all up every couple years? Again and again? That is what I am describing.

 

 The Ryan and Leonard guaranteed $$ cost us at least one real nice free agent add. That is a setback. We are free and clear with the ability to add a few really good players in areas of significant need in the draft and still room for another hole filler for this season. 2024 will be a much more solid team.

 And we have the HC to get the best out of our guys. 

[BeanDiasucci]

6 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Pay attention Beans, he was asking about next season.

And we did stink on D against a lot of 2nd rate teams with 2nd rate QB's. It would have been a franchise changing draft if we could be drafting at 4, about where our talent was. 

 2024 will be fun with good health.

 

He said "if the defense continues to collect a large amount of sacks, stays within the top 20 and we make the playoffs?'

 

Don't you have to be already in the top 20 to stay in the top 20?