I come to praise Chris Ballard, not to bury him.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

The roster is decent. Ballard has found talent in the late rounds. I think a lot of the talent on defense was wasted under Bradley, and injuries got a few.

As to the QB, and the idea that Ballard does not want a complete team, preferring a slow build, I will give my thoughts. First, I think Irsay (may he rest in peace) had a lot to do with the QB situation, both with the Ryan, Wentz, and Rivers experiments, and how the AR situation played out He was impatient to get a guy in there, and said get the vets, and then said start the rookie. He was also the catalyst for Grigson trading for Trent Richardson. Second, Ballard said he wanted a complete team that was not 100% dependent on a Manning or Mahomes type to bail them out. I think the fact Irsay's fortune was not as liquid as most played a part in free agency, as has been mentioned in previous years. Third, I think he made it clear that he was planning to build from the lines first, and then work out from there. He has invested a lot of capital on both lines. Yes, edge rushers don't seem to have been a hit, but Bradley's scheme was a big factor in that. Glad that guy is gone. I think it was a year too late. Last year's team could have won the division despite poor QB play if the defense was not so soft in coverage, leading to death by 1000 paper cuts. There was no Maniac to create the turnovers any longer.

This is not to say Ballard is blameless, but it puts a lot into perspective. This roster is talented enough that average QB play would win the division title, and possibly get us to 11-12 wins.

o


Posts like this are so reactionary, biased, and irrational ...... I prefer the more objective and articulate takes, such as this one.

o

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

He fucking sucks, one of the most incompetent ass-clowns in the history of the NFL. He has snuck by on the grace of a very distracted and overly loyal owner.

That time is rapidly coming to an end, and soon he will be gone ...... and that will be a great day for this franchise.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Give me a break. He signs two FA this offseason and everyone loses their minds like he's had some awakening... But in 2020 him bringing in Rivers, Xavier Rhodes, and trading a 1st for Buckner is "jack shit."
…….

2.) This is outcome bias. There's no other way to put it. Ballard has kept his job for a decade precisely and ONLY because of what he puts around the QB. I mean, 9 years... He doesn't have Epstein files on the Irsays despite what Chopped will tell you. It's his rosters.

I started to type out an individual response to your points, like who the leading WRs were the Rivers year and how everyone except apparently Ballard knew it was an issue. How long everyone knew the secondary was an issue but we always liked our guys. How low balling Autry is a prime example of Ballard’s conservatism that keeps the books looking good but loses games, and an example of his stated disregard for the value of veteran leadership. Etc. But then I read Oldcolts post and thought better of it. None of it matters. Ballard’s fans consistently see a genius and find excuses for his consistent failures. I’ll just ask this - why has such a well run team filled with so much talent never won the worst division in football under his brilliant leadership? They aren’t in a division with a power house. In fact all three other teams in the division have finished first. Houston and Jacksonville have finished last in the division and turned around and won the division all within Ballard’s tenure with the Colts. Tennessee finished last in the division a year before Ballard and won the division during his tenure. So every other team in the division has faced adversity and won. But not a Ballard led team. Seems strange for such a good GM….

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

My top issues do not include not finding a QB. It’s with a philosophy that was all but guaranteed to result in mediocrity. Something I’ve been saying since he had Luck and said he was going to waste years with an elite QB building slowly. I blame Ballard for signing Rivers and doing jack shit with the rest of the roster. I blame him for acquiring Ryan and then trusting a 3rd round rookie who had only played LT for 2 yrs in college, and a journeyman guard to play LT. I blame him for acquiring Wentz and then trotting out a DE group with no player with double digit sacks COMBINED for their CAREERS. And I blame him for drafting the rawest rookie QB ever, starting him game 1 and then benching him, starting him again, and benching him again - in basically two calendar years.

He is a decent talent evaluator but he has no plan besides "next year" and no idea how to construct a team to win. None. He seems to believe a journeyman QB is sufficient to win, but he has never assembled a complete team to make that possible. Every team has had a major obvious hole that he has been continent to wait to fill 1-3 yrs down the line.

It’s hard as fuck to find a QB. IMO if you don’t have a franchise guy you have two options 1) be aggressive in finding that guy or 2) build a complete team that can support a journeyman. To this point Ballard has done neither. The only reason they were in the position to draft a QB high was because of Irsay. And this is the best team he has ever put together and it is only because he is finally scared for his job. Otherwise CB and safety would have continued to wait like we’ve seen every other year under Ballard.

So combine my complete disagreement with his team building philosophy, with his gifting players spots and his belief that veterans don’t matter, and I can’t wait for Ballard to be gone. I’m not scared of finding a worse GM, because honestly what Ballard has done is worse than swinging big and losing. He’s made me and the fanbase apathetic. I’m turning in my season tickets at the end of this year regardless of the results. I’m tired of spending my money on a team that clearly has had no plan.

I agree with you about the handling of Richardson, but as Racehorse said, I think that's the result of ownership meddling in part. I strongly felt AR should sit for a year. It sounds like the coaches and scouts may have also felt that way. But pressure from ownership can change those opinions.

In regard to the issues you bring up with the team building philosophy, he inherited Grigson's mess when he came in, he knew those teams overachieved because Andrew Luck drug them to success. He wanted to build slowly because he wanted to put a talented roster around his franchise QB. Then his franchise QB did the unthinkable and retired at 30. So there was a roster of talented players with no QB. The QB position had to get settled first, and after 1 successful experiment, 1 failed experiment, and 1 colossal failure of an experiment, the Colts finally had a top 5 pick and Irsay insisted on drafting a QB with it. That was Richardson. As far as the secondary issue in 2023, why invest in a position when you expect to be bad? In 2024, he found Womack off the street who played like a starter.

The OL issue I can't really say anything about other than I hope he learned from it, because trusting Matt Pryor as your LT was far from ideal.

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

For all the good Ballard has done, and he’s done a lot, he’s also had some pretty egregious brain farts.

For instance, Ballard was convinced that Danny Pinter and Matt Freaking Pryor were competent starters on the offensive line.

That decision alone basically cost us an entire season and would have been enough to get him fired in most places.

Ballard came from KC, and his team building philosophy is nearly identical to Brett Veach's, the latter of whom just came 1 game short of winning 3 consecutive Super Bowls. The only tangible differences I can find between their team building styles is that Veach drafted Mahomes, and Veach had an opportunity to get a haul of draft picks for a player he didn't want to sign long term.

Originally Posted by Racehorse

The roster is decent. Ballard has found talent in the late rounds. I think a lot of the talent on defense was wasted under Bradley, and injuries got a few.

As to the QB, and the idea that Ballard does not want a complete team, preferring a slow build, I will give my thoughts. First, I think Irsay (may he rest in peace) had a lot to do with the QB situation, both with the Ryan, Wentz, and Rivers experiments, and how the AR situation played out He was impatient to get a guy in there, and said get the vets, and then said start the rookie. He was also the catalyst for Grigson trading for Trent Richardson. Second, Ballard said he wanted a complete team that was not 100% dependent on a Manning or Mahomes type to bail them out. I think the fact Irsay's fortune was not as liquid as most played a part in free agency, ashas been mentioned in previous years.

Third, I think he made it clear that he was planning to build from the lines first, and then work out from there. He has invested a lot of capital on both lines. Yes, edge rushers don't seem to have been a hit, but Bradley's scheme was a big factor in that. Glad that guy is gone. I think it was a year too late. Last year's team could have won the division despite poor QB play if the defense was not so soft in coverage, leading to death by 1000 paper cuts. There was no Maniac to create the turnovers any longer.

This is not to say Ballard is blameless, but it puts a lot into perspective. This roster is talented enough that average QB play would win the division, and possibly get us to 11-12 wins.

I think this is pretty much accurate. Owners typically have more say in QB decisions than we realize, because ultimately they're the ones dishing out the ridiculous contracts attached. Are there things I feel could've been done differently, both with regard to the QB position and general roster building? Yes, the primary one being that I think the "moving heaven and earth" talk from Ballard should've been followed through by trading whatever it took to get to 1 and take Stroud. That said, everyone has their pet QB move that should've been made, whether it's Stafford, Mayfield, Hurts, Love, Herbert, etc. They ultimately went with Richardson, and the book isn't fully closed on him yet. It's not a good look for him to lose a QB battle with Janiel Dones, but he's 23. He could come back next year, or maybe even later this year, and have everything click.

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

The bottom line is winning. Ballard has what, two playoff appearances and one playoff win in 9 years. We win 9 games or so a year yes, but we wouldn't if we didn't play in the worst division in football, which we cannot seem to win. How many years do you give a guy to show you who he is? None of his teams have ever won an opening game (we aren't close to the record, it's 29 straight games without a win by the Cardinals). He chose the coach and the players for these teams. He is a mediocre talent evaluator if you go by results.

So would you say Ryan Grigson was a better GM?

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

He is a mediocre talent evaluator if you go by results.

Originally Posted by Dam8610

So would you say Ryan Grigson was a better GM?

Beat me to it. But, yeah, it's a dead horse. It's not about comparing Ballard to Grigson. It's the flaw in the reasoning.

It's the same approach I see people take in the Manning-Brady debate where they point to 2008 when the Patriots went 11-5 without Brady... "they missed the playoffs without him."

Or the Seahawks winning the division and a playoff game at 7-9 in 2010.

Two HC/GM's in these examples. I guess the former is Belichick failing without Brady and the latter is Carroll getting "results." Outcome bias, same as poker.

[Oldcolt]

Dam, not sure how I felt about Grigson has anything to do with how I feel about Ballard. I am not upset because of any one QB I think he should have gotten. He just has not gotten anyone. Nine years is enough to find at least one competent QB. As far as excuses for why you lose, every loser has a ton of them. What ifs abound with teams like ours.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

I agree with you about the handling of Richardson, but as Racehorse said, I think that's the result of ownership meddling in part. I strongly felt AR should sit for a year. It sounds like the coaches and scouts may have also felt that way. But pressure from ownership can change those opinions.

In regard to the issues you bring up with the team building philosophy, he inherited Grigson's mess when he came in, he knew those teams overachieved because Andrew Luck drug them to success. He wanted to build slowly because he wanted to put a talented roster around his franchise QB. Then his franchise QB did the unthinkable and retired at 30. So there was a roster of talented players with no QB. The QB position had to get settled first, and after 1 successful experiment, 1 failed experiment, and 1 colossal failure of an experiment, the Colts finally had a top 5 pick and Irsay insisted on drafting a QB with it. That was Richardson. As far as the secondary issue in 2023, why invest in a position when you expect to be bad? In 2024, he found Womack off the street who played like a starter.

The OL issue I can't really say anything about other than I hope he learned from it, because trusting Matt Pryor as your LT was far from ideal.



Ballard came from KC, and his team building philosophy is nearly identical to Brett Veach's, the latter of whom just came 1 game short of winning 3 consecutive Super Bowls. The only tangible differences I can find between their team building styles is that Veach drafted Mahomes, and Veach had an opportunity to get a haul of draft picks for a player he didn't want to sign long term.



I think this is pretty much accurate. Owners typically have more say in QB decisions than we realize, because ultimately they're the ones dishing out the ridiculous contracts attached. Are there things I feel could've been done differently, both with regard to the QB position and general roster building? Yes, the primary one being that I think the "moving heaven and earth" talk from Ballard should've been followed through by trading whatever it took to get to 1 and take Stroud. That said, everyone has their pet QB move that should've been made, whether it's Stafford, Mayfield, Hurts, Love, Herbert, etc. They ultimately went with Richardson, and the book isn't fully closed on him yet. It's not a good look for him to lose a QB battle with Janiel Dones, but he's 23. He could come back next year, or maybe even later this year, and have everything click.



So would you say Ryan Grigson was a better GM?

As I pointed out, the three other teams bottomed out and then won the division in less time the Ballard as been GM. The team Ballard inherited was not significantly worse than those teams. Believing they were is the result of the same outcome bias Chaos is accusing people of using.

Is Ballard a better GM than Grigson. Yes, maybe? IMO Grigson has the correct philosophy for the modern NFL, Ballard’s philosophy is antiquated. Grigson’s primary issue was that he sucked at a talent evaluator. In that regard, Ballard is certainly superior, no argument. But I don’t believe Ballard will ever win a SB, and I believe that even if he had Luck at QB. Why? Because he’s too risk adverse to ever make the moves to help his team peak. Ballard supporters always talk out of both sides of their mouths on this point. They claim that he’s not been aggressive only because he hasn’t had the QB. They say he didn’t move up to get the QB because it was too risky without drafting high. Then they defend his decisions that kept the team from bottoming out and drafting high. Irsay’s decision is the only reason the team was in a position to draft AR.

Rivers wasn’t a successful experiment, he was an example of Ballard’s failed philosophy. I don’t know how anyone can defend signing rivers and not going all in. He was a 1-2 yr QB max. Either swing for a deep run or don’t sign him.

Everyone talks about how talented the team has been over this run, but every single year it has had some aspect that is bottom of the league that he just does nothing with. Of course pointing that out does no good because it gets in to what I mentioned before - “why solve CB (or DE or TE, or LT, etc) when the team doesn’t have a QB…” And yes the DC sucked,but how was he ever brought here? Ballard.

I see plenty of differences between KC and Ballard. How did they draft Mahomes? They made a risky move and went and got him. The exact thing Ballard has not done for a QB, always stating it was too risky. There are plenty of other things they have done that are completely unlike Ballard.

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by rm1369

As I pointed out, the three other teams bottomed out and then won the division in less time the Ballard as been GM. The team Ballard inherited was not significantly worse than those teams. Believing they were is the result of the same outcome bias Chaos is accusing people of using.

Is Ballard a better GM than Grigson. Yes, maybe? IMO Grigson has the correct philosophy for the modern NFL, Ballard’s philosophy is antiquated. Grigson’s primary issue was that he sucked at a talent evaluator. In that regard, Ballard is certainly superior, no argument. But I don’t believe Ballard will ever win a SB, and I believe that even if he had Luck at QB. Why? Because he’s too risk adverse to ever make the moves to help his team peak. Ballard supporters always talk out of both sides of their mouths on this point. They claim that he’s not been aggressive only because he hasn’t had the QB. They say he didn’t move up to get the QB because it was too risky without drafting high. Then they defend his decisions that kept the team from bottoming out and drafting high. Irsay’s decision is the only reason the team was in a position to draft AR.

Rivers wasn’t a successful experiment, he was an example of Ballard’s failed philosophy. I don’t know how anyone can defend signing rivers and not going all in. He was a 1-2 yr QB max. Either swing for a deep run or don’t sign him.

Everyone talks about how talented the team has been over this run, but every single year it has had some aspect that is bottom of the league that he just does nothing with. Of course pointing that out does no good because it gets in to what I mentioned before - “why solve CB (or DE or TE, or LT, etc) when the team doesn’t have a QB…” And yes the DC sucked,but how was he ever brought here? Ballard.

I see plenty of differences between KC and Ballard. How did they draft Mahomes? They made a risky move and went and got him. The exact thing Ballard has not done for a QB, always stating it was too risky. There are plenty of other things they have done that are completely unlike Ballard.

When I hear Ballard pontificate, there is no way any team in the NFL can be any good, just not possible. Every team should be very tightly banded together in a 7 to 10 win window and that is the very best any team could accomplish because it is SO DAMN HARD.

Yet every single year I seem to see multiple teams that win 12,13,14, and even an occasional 15 games, some of them even do this for several years in a row. I am sure they must be cheating or something because I believe in Ballard and by God, 8 wins is pretty damn good, he should get a raise!

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

Yet every single year I seem to see multiple teams that win 12,13,14, and even an occasional 15 games, some of them even do this for several years in a row.

Aside from the scarce true elites, these are short bursts. When you compare a team against the field rather than another team... There's always going to be a different slant to it.

I wonder how many people realize that since 2018, when Pagano left and the new regime started, the Colts have the best record in the division.

Colts 58-57-1
Titans 57-59
Texans 52-63-1
Jaguars 37-79

[apballin]

Ballard isn’t solely making decisions, clearly Jim would intervene when he felt necessary and clearly he gives his coaching staff creative control based on players they like for whatever reason.

Certain moves have Ballards name written on them and you can tell, certain moves were specifically for a coach and at the time it was obvious, and then hiring a guy off ESPN set, obviously the owner.

I think Ballard does a good job of balancing it all

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

When I hear Ballard pontificate, there is no way any team in the NFL can be any good, just not possible. Every team should be very tightly banded together in a 7 to 10 win window and that is the very best any team could accomplish because it is SO DAMN HARD.

Yet every single year I seem to see multiple teams that win 12,13,14, and even an occasional 15 games, some of them even do this for several years in a row. I am sure they must be cheating or something because I believe in Ballard and by God, 8 wins is pretty damn good, he should get a raise!

The 12+ win teams, without exception, have great quarterbacks. The nfl is a never ending search for a good quarterback. Without that, you have nothing and you’re better off winning 1 game than 9, because the only real way of GETTING a good quarterback is through the draft.

And even then it’s a crapshoot as Colts fans know all too well.