Free agency 2023

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I didn’t blame all of Ballard’s mistake on Reich. That’s you taking what I said and reading into it. I asked you to point out what Ballard did that Reich didn’t want and you couldn’t, probably bc no one actually knows. Didn’t stop you from assuming Ballard was doing stuff Reich didn’t like and just running with it.

I think they went about roster decisions together personally. But the depth chart, I think that’s coaching staff territory.

Let’s see:

Originally Posted by Dewey 5

Ballard might have to change is thinking a little bit. Steichen just left an organization with a GM that takes big swings & isn’t afraid to do so.

Here is your reply to that comment:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Ballard usually tries to do what the coach wants roster wise. Otherwise why hire him?

So are you or are you not suggesting the Ballard’s conservative philosophy is driven by what Reich wanted? Certainly the way I read it.

And you have stated that Reich wanted Rivers (I believe it) but defend Ballard not pushing more on the rest of the roster by saying Ballard wasn’t convinced at QB. So are you suggesting Reich was convinced enough to want Rivers, but he wasn’t convinced he could win with him? That seems a strange argument. Same with Wentz and same with Ryan. Seems strange for a coach to believe in a QB enough to put his reputation on the line to push for him and yet not believe in him enough to try to win with him.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

I'm not so sure it was analytics that kept Pryor in the lineup. I think Reich is too nice for his own good and wants to give guys every possible chance to succeed even if they're failing miserably and costing his team wins and (in the case of Pryor) getting other players injured.

And if Ballard understood the importance of LT we never would have been in the position to where we were starting someone like Pryor anyway. As I believe you've agree with, Ballard should have actively went about replacing AC when AC first stated he was considering retirement rather than waiting until he actually retired.

I think it was analytics that put Pryor in that position.

I think it was Reich or the oline coach that kept him there.

I don’t know the reasoning, don’t think they ever explained it. Maybe it was bc they didn’t think Raimann was ready. But it’s all speculation.

I think that’s a little too much to ask. Yeah when AC was hinting at retirement it should be on the radar. But you can’t spend a 1 on a guy that is going to sit as a backup for a couple years. Just on the chance a guy will retire when he says he thinks he will. No one has that kind of leeway with picks. Teams have too many holes and need high picks to contribute early on. They drafted some guys late, but you can’t just draft a tackle high to have him sit there for awhile.

That’s another Kevin Bowen hindsight point he brings up a lot. But I don’t think it’s realistic. LTs are hard to replace.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Let’s see:



Here is your reply to that comment:



So are you or are you not suggesting the Ballard’s conservative philosophy is driven by what Reich wanted? Certainly the way I read it.

And you have stated that Reich wanted Rivers (I believe it) but defend Ballard not pushing more on the rest of the roster by saying Ballard wasn’t convinced at QB. So are you suggesting Reich was convinced enough to want Rivers, but he wasn’t convinced he could win with him? That seems a strange argument. Same with Wentz and same with Ryan. Seems strange for a coach to believe in a QB enough to put his reputation on the line to push for him and yet not believe in him enough to try to win with him.

I’m suggesting the coach says what types of players he wants. Ballard and the scouts then identify what players they think will fit into that style of play. For example, coach says he wants big tall receivers and TEs that can go up and get jump balls and deep balls. Scouting staff says “hey we look at college guys all day so we will tell you who we think is best.” I think when they bring a selection the coaching staff looks at them and weighs in as well. Then they organize their board and draft.

I don’t understand what you’re saying about the QB or whatever you’re trying to catch me in. I think Reich had the final say in what QB’s he wanted to play with. I think Ballard did like Fields and was leaning towards drafting a rookie. But Reich wanted Wentz and there was a logical argument for Wentz, just as there was an argument for Ryan as well. The Ryan move was seen in a positive light around the league. No one was panning the move.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Are you really implying that it’s a negative in Ballard’s book that he didn’t personally engineer their losing season and resulting top five pick?

No I’m pointing out that it’s strange this is the make or break for Ballard considering 1) no draft pick is a guarantee, but QB is especially prone to failure, and 2) by even your admission this wasn’t Ballard’s plan. It’s great if he hits, but if it wasn’t for Irsay he’d never get the shot. And if he fails, if it wasn’t for Irsay he’d have never been in the position.

But yes, if he never was going to go all in on one of the vet QBs then yes he should have taken his lumps and had a bad year to draft the QB or been aggressive and traded up for one. The cycle of vet QB and not trying to win ended about where anyone could expect - mediocrity. It’s where I make the comparison to the Pacers. They tried to ride that middle ground for years. Not bad enough to draft a difference maker, not good enough to ever compete. Ballard was well on his way. Rescued from himself by Irsay.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

No I’m pointing out that it’s strange this is the make or break for Ballard considering 1) no draft pick is a guarantee, but QB is especially prone to failure, and 2) by even your admission this wasn’t Ballard’s plan. It’s great if he hits, but if it wasn’t for Irsay he’d never get the shot. And if he fails, if it wasn’t for Irsay he’d have never been in the position.

But yes, if he never was going to go all in on one of the vet QBs then yes he should have taken his lumps and had a bad year to draft the QB or been aggressive and traded up for one. The cycle of vet QB and not trying to win ended about where anyone could expect - mediocrity. It’s where I make the comparison to the Pacers. They tried to ride that middle ground for years. Not bad enough to draft a difference maker, not good enough to ever compete. Ballard was well on his way. Rescued from himself by Irsay.

Is it fair? Probably not. But that’s the way it works and seems to be trending.

I think Ballard envisioned a trade up scenario like they did with Mahomes when it would come time to do so. Then that QB would be on a decent team. Yeah mediocrity is the same, nba is a little easier to manipulate and tank though than the nfl. Why they instituted the lottery. Lot easier to turn that nba ship around with one player.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I’m suggesting the coach says what types of players he wants. Ballard and the scouts then identify what players they think will fit into that style of play. For example, coach says he wants big tall receivers and TEs that can go up and get jump balls and deep balls. Scouting staff says “hey we look at college guys all day so we will tell you who we think is best.” I think when they bring a selection the coaching staff looks at them and weighs in as well. Then they organize their board and draft.

I don’t understand what you’re saying about the QB or whatever you’re trying to catch me in. I think Reich had the final say in what QB’s he wanted to play with. I think Ballard did like Fields and was leaning towards drafting a rookie. But Reich wanted Wentz and there was a logical argument for Wentz, just as there was an argument for Ryan as well. The Ryan move was seen in a positive light around the league. No one was panning the move.

We completely agree on the first part. That’s essentially what my reply to your initial comment was saying. Coach and GM collaborate on the types of players a coach prefers and to some degree the importance of positions in certain schemes. However how much to use free agency and how aggressive to be in trades is not typically driven by the coach. The Colts conservative, build by the draft philosophy is Ballard’s and won’t change based on the coach.

The second part is simply pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in your defense of Ballard. It requires Reich to believe in QBs enough to push to acquire them (which I believe) but not enough to think they can win with them now (which I don’t believe). I believe not pushing to win has nothing to do with believing they can win with that QB, I believe it has to do with Ballard sticking to his philosophy. I don’t believe he will ever sacrifice the future for the now.

[IndyNorm]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

He was playing at a hof level till this season. If you dont want to pay him then don’t draft him. A rookie OT will help offset those costs along the line. Wouldn’t be surprised if the get a rookie OC as well.

You missed me saying HOF LT money. There's a huge difference between LT and LG. No LG is worth elite LT money. Especially one with back problems.

One of Ballard's big problems is he's spent way too much capital (both cap dollars and draft picks) on less critical positions while going cheap on much more critical positions.

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Judging a GM by how his team performs is wanting a perfect GM? You are fucking retarded.

It's like watching a professional poker player on tv whose vast majority of moves are the right call, but he still loses money overall. There's nine other dudes at the table and he keeps running into a different guy with better cards.

He's making folds that almost nobody else would make, so he loses a little as opposed to most guys who would bust out of the game early. Other poker players will watch that and understand that he's been the best player at the table even though he's lost $10k tonight.

...And then 1070 listener comes along and says, "This guys sucks. That other dude went all-in with a K-J off suit and won $30k tonight."

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

We completely agree on the first part. That’s essentially what my reply to your initial comment was saying. Coach and GM collaborate on the types of players a coach prefers and to some degree the importance of positions in certain schemes. However how much to use free agency and how aggressive to be in trades is not typically driven by the coach. The Colts conservative, build by the draft philosophy is Ballard’s and won’t change based on the coach.

The second part is simply pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in your defense of Ballard. It requires Reich to believe in QBs enough to push to acquire them (which I believe) but not enough to think they can win with them now (which I don’t believe). I believe not pushing to win has nothing to do with believing they can win with that QB, I believe it has to do with Ballard sticking to his philosophy. I don’t believe he will ever sacrifice the future for the now.

They might have believed if they had more than one year with someone, but they never got one. I don’t know how you can argue for going all out on a SB run when you don’t know who your starting QB next year is going to be.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

It's like watching a professional poker player on tv whose vast majority of moves are the right call, but he still loses money overall. There's nine other dudes at the table and he keeps running into a different guy with better cards.

He's making folds that almost nobody else would make, so he loses a little as opposed to most guys who would bust out of the game early. Other poker players will watch that and understand that he's been the best player at the table even though he's lost $10k tonight.

...And then 1070 listener comes along and says, "This guys sucks. That other dude went all-in with a K-J off suit and won $30k tonight."

Good poker players win more than they lose. Any individual hand or even night may be a loser, but if you are good you will win more than you lose. A good GMs teams should win. That that is even debatable is ridiculous.