Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

It happened in KC. That was a complicated situation though. There was an issue in power structure since both Reid and Dorsey reported to Clark Hunt. Of course KC didn't want to lose Reid, so they extended him, but Dorsey didn't get a deal at that time. Eventually, Dorsey got fired and Veach (who pushed for Mahomes) replaced him as GM. 

 

And with Steichen looking to be the guy, there could soon be some parallels for the distribution of power. I am sure IND doesn't want to lose him.

 

But I also don't think there are any issues between Ballard and Steichen, like there might have been with Reid and Dorsey. And Jim Irsay is not Clark Hunt. But if his daughter is running things, she might be less sentimental and more pragmatic.

 

It obviously worked out really well for KC.

 

So maybe in IND's case, Ballard is Dorsey, Dodds plays the KC Ballard role and moves on to be a GM somewhere else (he also didn't seem as sold on AR early on as others anyways)...and Brown (who pushed for AR) becomes the GM. 

 

Personally, I don't think it would go quite as well as it did in KC. It worked because Mahomes was the guy. If AR not panning out is getting Ballard fired...Brown should be going with him.

 

So I would much prefer a reset over continuity, instead of a revamped version of the same approach that hasn't led to much success. Plus, there are plenty of good NFL org. to pilfer talented execs.

Dorsey became a loose canon that went against a lot of wisdom in the organization, especially with contracts. One can wonder if Ballard leaving was a major factor in letting him go when they did. I’ve read that Ballard was often the voice of reason with him. They probably felt the timing was right to not risk anything with Reid, nor with Veech who was actually behind Ballard in the chain of command. I agree with your points. It won’t be AR not panning out that leads to someone else in the organization being in charge, unless maybe it’s Dodds, who at one point was not in favor of AR, but came around. 
 

 

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Go for it. It's the offseason.

 

But I am curious how 2023 was a "if everything goes wrong" kind of thing?

• The OL bounced back to being a top 5 unit, despite Smith missing games
• Steichen showed he can be the guy at HC
• JT got extended and the holdout ended
• The DL set a franchise sack record
• The Colts faced 9-10 bad QBs

Yes, AR got hurt and had to have surgery. That was the big one. But they still managed a 9-6 record in games where their backup QB played the majority of snaps.

 

I would argue that things went more right than wrong last year. 2022 set the standard for things going wrong.

Yeah AR was the big injury but I believe we also lost Woods, Dulin, Hull and Pinter before the season started and Flowers early in week 4.  We also lost three 2023 draft picks before the season started in Scott, Leo and Witt.  That’s an unusually large number of players to IR to start the season.  Throw in Brent’s missing half a season and JT’s holdout and somehow they still managed to finish with a winning record.  So things went more wrong last year for me which makes me think a monster season is in front of us if just a little normalcy returns on the injury front.

[Creekside]

25 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Yeah AR was the big injury but I believe we also lost Woods, Dulin, Hull and Pinter before the season started and Flowers early in week 4.  We also lost three 2023 draft picks before the season started in Scott, Leo and Witt.  That’s an unusually large number of players to IR to start the season.  Throw in Brent’s missing half a season and JT’s holdout and somehow they still managed to finish with a winning record.  So things went more wrong last year for me which makes me think a monster season is in front of us if just a little normalcy returns on the injury front.

 

 

And don't forget Zach Moss' broken arm, Ryan Kelly's concussion, and Grover Stewart's suspension

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, Creekside said:

 

 

And don't forget Zach Moss' broken arm, Ryan Kelly's concussion, and Grover Stewart's suspension

Correct and Rodgers was lost early as well.

[IinD]

7 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Correct and Rodgers was lost early as well.

I feel like Rodgers would've been a good CB for us for a long time. Looked to be a great late rd pick. 

 

His 100 yd kickoff against Cleveland was also awesome. 

 

I liked him a lot. 

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

Ballards job is more likely tied to Shane than it is to AR. 

[Solid84]

17 minutes ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

Ballards job is more likely tied to Shane than it is to AR. 

Interesting. I think it's way more tied to AR than Steichen. IF AR flops Ballard is almost certainly getting fired. IF turns out to be great, but Steichen can't get them to the later rounds of the playoffs (for instance), I think Steichen is gone, but not necessarily Ballard.

[shasta519]

20 hours ago, stitches said:

 

My point is... it's super rare. Even if we find an example or two they are the exception, not the rule. When a GM gets fired, usually it's because the owner is looking for a change, not continuation of the same management. 

 

Agree that it makes it awkward with Steichen, especially if we think of him as a good coach. And BTW that's the reason I wanted Irsay to fire Ballard in 2023 and start over with a blank slate - new GM, new coach, new QB.

 

Agree. It's incredibly rare. And in this case, it would be due to a failure to address QB long-term, so continuity of that brain trust doesn't make sense, unless there was some clear division among them (which is doubtful). It's just easier to reset. 

 

Any GM that comes here will do so knowing that he's likely the HC for a while. Some might think that will shrink the candidate pool, but it's a big pool anyways. It could be an advantage too because it gives an incoming GM a good HC or the opportunity to play the new HC card if he's not successful early on.

 

Let's remember that Ballard came here with Pagano still here.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Interesting. I think it's way more tied to AR than Steichen. IF AR flops Ballard is almost certainly getting fired. IF turns out to be great, but Steichen can't get them to the later rounds of the playoffs (for instance), I think Steichen is gone, but not necessarily Ballard.

 

Steichen has a six-year deal and is only on his first QB. He will get at least 1-2 more cracks at coaching one up. 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

Ballards job is more likely tied to Shane than it is to AR. 

Some don’t want to hear that. It’s likely that Ballard was given a reset, and that his moves since the reset have pleased the Irsay family. Him hiring Steichen was an impressive start. I see growth in his drafting. He’s real close to solving issues at key positions that he struggled with early on (Qb, left tackle, edge rusher, cornerback, receiver.) There is always going to be a lot of pressure on those positions, and he’s put a lot of weight into getting it right. Time will tell. I don’t think they are going to rush that process at this point. It’s a good mix of youth at the key positions and veterans across the roster to get those guys into their prime years. I can imagine the Irsay’s would think it would be unfortunate for those guys and Steichen to develop into something special a year or two after Ballard’s fired, only to find a worse off management team that doesn’t do anything with them. As long as they are seeing consistent growth from here, they won’t make any big moves. That’s my opinion, of course. It could always be entirely wrong, and we could of course nose dive. I don’t expect that though. 

[shasta519]

18 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Yeah AR was the big injury but I believe we also lost Woods, Dulin, Hull and Pinter before the season started and Flowers early in week 4.  We also lost three 2023 draft picks before the season started in Scott, Leo and Witt.  That’s an unusually large number of players to IR to start the season.  Throw in Brent’s missing half a season and JT’s holdout and somehow they still managed to finish with a winning record.  So things went more wrong last year for me which makes me think a monster season is in front of us if just a little normalcy returns on the injury front.

 

AR's injury, Stewart's PED suspension, Rodgers' suspension, Ogletree, Woods MIA. Not to say nothing went wrong off-field.

 

I am sure there will be injuries this year too unfortunately. 

 

But, outside of an injury to AR, I think a lot more went right on-field. So we will just have to disagree about that part, but agree about some return to normalcy (esp with AR's shoulder soreness).

[CoachLite]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Some don’t want to hear that. It’s likely that Ballard was given a reset, and that his moves since the reset have pleased the Irsay family. Him hiring Steichen was an impressive start. I see growth in his drafting. He’s real close to solving issues at key positions that he struggled with early on (Qb, left tackle, edge rusher, cornerback, receiver.) There is always going to be a lot of pressure on those positions, and he’s put a lot of weight into getting it right. Time will tell. I don’t think they are going to rush that process at this point. It’s a good mix of youth at the key positions and veterans across the roster to get those guys into their prime years. I can imagine the Irsay’s would think it would be unfortunate for those guys and Steichen to develop into something special a year or two after Ballard’s fired, only to find a worse off management team that doesn’t do anything with them. As long as they are seeing consistent growth from here, they won’t make any big moves. That’s my opinion, of course. It could always be entirely wrong, and we could of course nose dive. I don’t expect that though. 

Fans and a lot of poor management rely on "gut feelings" and intuition for decisions. This has proven to be a really bad move. Finding the right metrics for making good quantitative decisions is really hard, but once they are discovered and the statistical correlations between them are established, better decisions can be made. It's a shame that people don't understand statistics better - even people trained in statistics.

[Solid84]

29 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Steichen has a six-year deal and is only on his first QB. He will get at least 1-2 more cracks at coaching one up. 

Possibly, but not under Ballard. If AR flops, Ballard is done.

[2006Coltsbestever]

For some reason, many don't understand that the QB makes the Coach and GM. Had Ballard had Andrew Luck all these years he would have a SB win by now and be way above .500 as a GM. 

 

Look how great a Coach Andy Reid was in Philly and his first few years in KC (won a lot of games). He even had good QB's in McNabb and Alex Smith and didn't win a SB. Not until Mahomes came along is when everyone labeled him a Top 5 Coach ever. Without acquiring Mahomes, KC would be another dot on the map, and their FO would be similar to ours. = FACTS!

 

Without Brady, Belichick would be just another good Coach.

[RollerColt]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

For some reason, many don't understand that the QB makes the Coach and GM. Had Ballard had Andrew Luck all these years he would have a SB win by now and be way above .500 as a GM. 

 

Look how great a Coach Andy Reid was in Philly and his first few years in KC (won a lot of games). He even had good QB's in McNabb and Alex Smith and didn't win a SB. Not until Mahomes came along is when everyone labeled him a Top 5 Coach ever. Without acquiring Mahomes, KC would be another dot on the map, and their FO would be similar to ours. = FACTS!

Can’t argue there. Look at Hoodie’s record before and after Brady. 
 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

For some reason, many don't understand that the QB makes the Coach and GM. Had Ballard had Andrew Luck all these years he would have a SB win by now and be way above .500 as a GM. 

 

Look how great a Coach Andy Reid was in Philly and his first few years in KC (won a lot of games). He even had good QB's in McNabb and Alex Smith and didn't win a SB. Not until Mahomes came along is when everyone labeled him a Top 5 Coach ever. Without acquiring Mahomes, KC would be another dot on the map, and their FO would be similar to ours. = FACTS!

 

Without Brady, Belichick would be just another good Coach.

idk about belichick. I think there’s a number of qb’s that could have won with those defense being allowed to manhandle receivers. Even Brady admits he rode the coattails of those defenses the first several superbowls. It allowed him to build a confidence like no other. He was given the ultimate handicap as a quarterback… 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Can’t argue there. Look at Hoodie’s record before and after Brady. 
 

 

See above, I added that to my post 

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Possibly, but not under Ballard. If AR flops, Ballard is done.

 

Right. Ballard is gone either way. But Steichen could stick around. He has shown what he can do with QBs. 

 

It's all a hypothetical though, because we are two years away min. from anything happening (barring something catastrophic).

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

idk about belichick. I think there’s a number of qb’s that could have won with those defense being allowed to manhandle receivers. Even Brady admits he rode the coattails of those defenses the first several superbowls. It allowed him to build a confidence like no other. He was given the ultimate handicap as a quarterback… 

Number of QB's would have won with that defense and SP Teams but would they have won SB's in 2001, 2003, 2004 without Tom. Tom was the difference between a team just making the Final 4 and winning the SB. 

[jvan1973]

24 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

Fans and a lot of poor management rely on "gut feelings" and intuition for decisions. This has proven to be a really bad move. Finding the right metrics for making good quantitative decisions is really hard, but once they are discovered and the statistical correlations between them are established, better decisions can be made. It's a shame that people don't understand statistics better - even people trained in statistics.

You can find a statistic to make any argument.    Please explain exactly the " the metrics for making good quantitative decisions "  also what statistical correlations?    You post this stuff a lot and never delve into exactly what you're talking about. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

You can find a statistic to make any argument.    Please explain exactly the " the metrics for making good quantitative decisions "  also what statistical correlations?    You post this stuff a lot and never delve into exactly what you're talking about. 

Statistics are a thing of beauty. I say that because, one can say QBR decides who the best QB is. Another can say who throws the most TD passes is the best, or most Yards. That is why I have always put so much weight on MVP, because MVP is a mixture of everything + winning after 17 games. That is who the best QB in the league is. Peyton won 2 SBs = great, but 5 MVP's is why he is on Mt. Rushmore on everyone's list.

[shasta519]

29 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

Fans and a lot of poor management rely on "gut feelings" and intuition for decisions. This has proven to be a really bad move. Finding the right metrics for making good quantitative decisions is really hard, but once they are discovered and the statistical correlations between them are established, better decisions can be made. It's a shame that people don't understand statistics better - even people trained in statistics.

 

I don't disagree about the need to stack good quantitative decisions. But AR was a qualitative decision. They saw potential and upside (due to his traits) and took him at #4 to be the guy. If they are wrong, a change will be necessary.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Number of QB's would have won with that defense and SP Teams but would they have won SB's in 2001, 2003, 2004 without Tom. Tom was the difference between a team just making the Final 4 and winning the SB. 

Idk. it's a hypothetical, just like the question could Brady have won at a young age without Bill Belichick and a stacked defense. He proved he could win elsewhere, but after nearly two decades working with Belichick and becoming a genius on the field. He wasn't that caliber of a qb when they won those superbowls early 2000s. 

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Idk. it's a hypothetical, just like the question could Brady have won at a young age without Bill Belichick and a stacked defense. He proved he could win elsewhere, but after nearly two decades working with Belichick and becoming a genius on the field. He wasn't that caliber of a qb when they won those superbowls early 2000s. 

I’m not even the biggest Brady guy, but he did have the clutch gene even when he was young. All he needed was just a few minutes and a few key throws here and there that made the difference. Gotta remember that in those early Super Bowls, he was often down a score and had to drive down the field just for Adam to kick the winning goal.
 

So yes the defense was important because it kept the game close and gave him chances, but he had to return the favor and get the offense down the field to win. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

I’m not even the biggest Brady guy, but he did have the clutch gene even when he was young. All he needed was just a few minutes and a few key throws here and there that made the difference. Gotta remember that in those early Super Bowls, he was often down a score and had to drive down the field just for Adam to kick the winning goal.
 

So yes the defense was important because it kept the game close and gave him chances, but he had to return the favor and get the offense down the field to win. 

Sure. He absolutely had winning in his blood. I would never dispute or discredit what he accomplished and what he was. 
 

Little chance he does it on any other team in those years. I don’t think that is crazy to think. They were an excellent partnership for way too long… 

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Sure. He absolutely had winning in his blood. I would never dispute or discredit what he accomplished and what he was. 
 

Little chance he does it on any other team in those years. I don’t think that is crazy to think. They were an excellent partnership for way too long… 

I think that’s the key to the whole thing, much like it is with Mahomes and the Chiefs. It’s the right combination of everything.

 

Brady needed the defense to keep it close and give him back the ball. The defense needed Brady to score when it mattered most. 
 

We’ve seen what happens with incomplete teams that have an elite defense but no QB (Jets) and high scoring offenses with poor defense (Dolphins). 
 

Same thing happened with Denver and Manning. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I’m not even the biggest Brady guy, but he did have the clutch gene even when he was young. All he needed was just a few minutes and a few key throws here and there that made the difference. Gotta remember that in those early Super Bowls, he was often down a score and had to drive down the field just for Adam to kick the winning goal.
 

So yes the defense was important because it kept the game close and gave him chances, but he had to return the favor and get the offense down the field to win. 

 

Not knocking Brady, what you say is true. But that first SB vs the Rams, he was a non-factor all game long, and then they get the FG drive at the end. Meanwhile, the defense holds the greatest show on turf to 17 points, using a brilliant gameplan to keep Marshall Faulk bottled up. And of course, Brady didn't even finish the AFCCG that year; he got knocked out in the second quarter, Drew Bledsoe came back in, and the defense and special teams did what they had been doing all year, including putting the game away in the 4th quarter with a timely FG and multiple turnovers. But Brady gets credited because he led a nice FG drive in the SB... 

 

I don't think it's arguable that the defense was the main engine of the early Patriots' success, especially in 2001. Yeah, Brady did a nice job in some big moments, but those tend to overshadow just how important the coaching and defense were in those early years.

 

Fast-forward to 2020, when Brady is exponentially better as a player, the rules have been adjusted in a way that makes it harder to dominate a game defensively, the game is generally more wide open making it harder for LBs and RBs to impact the game -- compared to the early 2000s when guys like Bruschi and McGinest were so vital to the Pats defense, etc. At that point, yeah, Brady was the backbone of the Patriots, and when he left, there was a gaping hole that could not be filled by Cam Newton and Mac Jones. But that doesn't mean that Brady was more important to the Patriots success than Belichick, especially not as it relates to their early success. 

[ColtStrong2013]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't think it's arguable that the defense was the main engine of the early Patriots' success, especially in 2001. Yeah, Brady did a nice job in some big moments, but those tend to overshadow just how important the coaching and defense were in those early years.

 

I think Brady's opinion on it matters most, and he literally just said those defenses were instrumental the early years when he was learning in the league.

 

"I would watch every single Colts game, to understand what they were doing on offense. Because in many ways, the early part of my career, we were being led by Willie McGinness, Teddy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Ty Law...We weren't  this dynamic offense... We became that, but it took a lot of time, a lot of studying, and someone to aspire to be and that was Peyton Manning." 

[husker61]

On 6/18/2024 at 8:51 AM, NFLfan said:

 

 

all those are hopefull except the receivers part. None of those were true last year except the receivers.  It would be great if all that turns out to be true.

[RollerColt]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Not knocking Brady, what you say is true. But that first SB vs the Rams, he was a non-factor all game long, and then they get the FG drive at the end. Meanwhile, the defense holds the greatest show on turf to 17 points, using a brilliant gameplan to keep Marshall Faulk bottled up. And of course, Brady didn't even finish the AFCCG that year; he got knocked out in the second quarter, Drew Bledsoe came back in, and the defense and special teams did what they had been doing all year, including putting the game away in the 4th quarter with a timely FG and multiple turnovers. But Brady gets credited because he led a nice FG drive in the SB... 

 

I don't think it's arguable that the defense was the main engine of the early Patriots' success, especially in 2001. Yeah, Brady did a nice job in some big moments, but those tend to overshadow just how important the coaching and defense were in those early years.

 

Fast-forward to 2020, when Brady is exponentially better as a player, the rules have been adjusted in a way that makes it harder to dominate a game defensively, the game is generally more wide open making it harder for LBs and RBs to impact the game -- compared to the early 2000s when guys like Bruschi and McGinest were so vital to the Pats defense, etc. At that point, yeah, Brady was the backbone of the Patriots, and when he left, there was a gaping hole that could not be filled by Cam Newton and Mac Jones. But that doesn't mean that Brady was more important to the Patriots success than Belichick, especially not as it relates to their early success. 

I agree with all of this. I guess my biggest takeaway after seeing some really bad QB play over the years is that Brady had just enough skill to at least contribute or perhaps not completely screw up the field position battle. 
 

The defense definitely carried the early

teams for sure. But I think we can at least say that Brady at the early stages was at least average or good enough. 
 

Put Zach Wilson with that defense and Belichick and the results may not be the same. They’d probably have still won games, but perhaps not championship level. 

[#12.]

I've seen nothing to suggest Ed Dodds is a hot commodity in this league.

 

We're going to fire Ballard and hire his yes man, his rubber stamp man?  What would be the point of that?  After 8 years, we're looking for continuity for what reason?

 

The post-Luck era is so stale.  If Richardson doesn’t pan out, from a personnel perspective, it needs to be blown up.  

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, #12. said:

I've seen nothing to suggest Ed Dodds is a hot commodity in this league.

 

We're going to fire Ballard and hire his yes man, his rubber stamp man?  What would be the point of that?  After 8 years, we're looking for continuity for what reason?

 

The post-Luck era is so stale.  If Richardson doesn’t pan out, from a personnel perspective, it needs to be blown up.  

Wow!   Thats some serious Ballard hate!   Very impressive.   

[Solid84]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wow!   Thats some serious Ballard hate!   Very impressive.   

It's not hate NCF, it's just fact.

 

The Colts have achieved nothing in the Ballard era. Yes, Luck retired. Yes, QB carousel. Yes, injuries. This happens to every team (besides Luck retiring), but we're 5 years removed from that. Ballard has since led a thorough search for a new coach who is undeniably HIS choice and he's landed the QB HE wanted. There are no more excuses. He's had 8 years to build the rest of the team around that and if that's not good enough then Ballard isn't good enough.

 

IF AR flops then Ballard needs to get gone. Dodds has been here every step of the way and he has almost as much of a hand in this as Ballard does. Switching from Ballard to Dodds is essentially a non-move.

[jvan1973]

8 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

It's not hate NCF, it's just fact.

 

The Colts have achieved nothing in the Ballard era. Yes, Luck retired. Yes, QB carousel. Yes, injuries. This happens to every team (besides Luck retiring), but we're 5 years removed from that. Ballard has since led a thorough search for a new coach who is undeniably HIS choice and he's landed the QB HE wanted. There are no more excuses. He's had 8 years to build the rest of the team around that and if that's not good enough then Ballard isn't good enough.

 

IF AR flops then Ballard needs to get gone. Dodds has been here every step of the way and he has almost as much of a hand in this as Ballard does. Switching from Ballard to Dodds is essentially a non-move.

Veach followed Dorsey in KC.   That's worked out pretty well

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Veach followed Dorsey in KC.   That's worked out pretty well

Dorsey had a 43-21 record with the Chiefs and had 3 playoff berths from 2013 to 2017. He drafted Mahomes. Has Ballard and his staff achieved ANYWHERE near that you feel?

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

It's not hate NCF, it's just fact.

 

The Colts have achieved nothing in the Ballard era. Yes, Luck retired. Yes, QB carousel. Yes, injuries. This happens to every team (besides Luck retiring), but we're 5 years removed from that. Ballard has since led a thorough search for a new coach who is undeniably HIS choice and he's landed the QB HE wanted. There are no more excuses. He's had 8 years to build the rest of the team around that and if that's not good enough then Ballard isn't good enough.

 

IF AR flops then Ballard needs to get gone. Dodds has been here every step of the way and he has almost as much of a hand in this as Ballard does. Switching from Ballard to Dodds is essentially a non-move.

If I’m not mistaken Dodds has taken many interviews over the few last years and has not impressed enough to get a GM Job.  I think that would cause Irsay to pause.  I think Irsay could have promoted Telesco years ago as well but didn’t.  So I wouldn’t think promoting Dodds would be a sure thing.  At least I would hope he would conduct a thorough search like the Colts did for Shane.

[RollerColt]

45 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

If I’m not mistaken Dodds has taken many interviews over the few last years and has not impressed enough to get a GM Job.  I think that would cause Irsay to pause.  I think Irsay could have promoted Telesco years ago as well but didn’t.  So I wouldn’t think promoting Dodds would be a sure thing.  At least I would hope he would conduct a thorough search like the Colts did for Shane.

I’ve always wondered how the team would’ve turned out during the Luck years had Tom been promoted to GM instead of the Grigson hire. 
 

Would we have been better? Would Luck still be with us? Would Pagano still be our choice at HC? Lots of what ifs…

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, RollerColt said:

I’ve always wondered how the team would’ve turned out during the Luck years had Tom been promoted to GM instead of the Grigson hire. 
 

Would we have been better? Would Luck still be with us? Would Pagano still be our choice at HC? Lots of what ifs…

Lots of what if’s for sure.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

It's not hate NCF, it's just fact.

 

The Colts have achieved nothing in the Ballard era. Yes, Luck retired. Yes, QB carousel. Yes, injuries. This happens to every team (besides Luck retiring), but we're 5 years removed from that. Ballard has since led a thorough search for a new coach who is undeniably HIS choice and he's landed the QB HE wanted. There are no more excuses. He's had 8 years to build the rest of the team around that and if that's not good enough then Ballard isn't good enough.

 

IF AR flops then Ballard needs to get gone. Dodds has been here every step of the way and he has almost as much of a hand in this as Ballard does. Switching from Ballard to Dodds is essentially a non-move.

What FACT is calling Ed Dodds Ballard’s rubber stamp man?   Thats pure fan hate.   
 

Is Morocco Brown also a rubber stamp man?   He wasn’t mentioned as a possible replacement.   Then there was the childish hissy fit about blowing it all up.   Which would clearly and obviously put Steichen in serious jeopardy.   A new GM typically eventually wants his own HC.  How is any of that a good thing? 
 

Do you think Irsay is going to blow it all up at his age and stage and spend years building it back up with a new GM?   I’d guess a near zero percent chance.   I’m sorry, I don’t see many “facts” here.  
 

I’m a Ballard supporter and I’ve written multiple times that if AR doesn’t pan out then Ballard would be fired and SHOULD be fired.  But to not hire Dodds or Brown is IMO throwing out the baby with the bath water.   
 

Nor do I see the Irsay daughters blowing it up so they can chart their own path as some posters here have suggested.  I would think their father has prepared them well.

 

Apologies….  I see this very differently.   I’m happy to respond if you have more to share. 
 

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

If I’m not mistaken Dodds has taken many interviews over the few last years and has not impressed enough to get a GM Job.  I think that would cause Irsay to pause.  I think Irsay could have promoted Telesco years ago as well but didn’t.  So I wouldn’t think promoting Dodds would be a sure thing.  At least I would hope he would conduct a thorough search like the Colts did for Shane.

Not impressed enough?  Interesting how you remember things. 
 

I think in every interview process it was Dodds who dropped out of the interview process.  It’s not that they didn’t pick him, he didn’t pick them.   Remember those teams Dodds interviewed with were coming off a bad season.  Some are bad franchises with a long history of poor performance.  So Dodds would drop out after finding out he would not be a good fit.   Dodds has said that while he’d like to be a GM one day, he won’t take a job just  to take it.   He thinks that how you get fired quickly. 
 

Dodds has interviewed roughly four off-seasons in a row.  (I think after years 18-21)  He didn’t this year, nor did Brown.  Perhaps not after the terrible 2022 season either.  I think both men are all in with the Colts and want to see how the Richardson era plays out. 
 

My memory differs greatly from yours.