Would you like me to pull up the draft busts of the Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, 49ers...pretty much any successful team in the NFL recently except the Los Angeles George Allens, who have decided "Eff them picks"? It's going to be a long list for any team. Anyone who follows the draft at all knows 50% is a fantastic success rate on draft picks. The rate at which Ballard pulls quality starters from the draft is incredibly high.

Well, we certainly disagree but I doubt I ever said you were crazy. Look, the Colts have been competitive since Ballard got here, with the exception of the Luck retirement year (and the 2017 season when Ballard was just hired, and Luck was unavailable).

Ballard's strategy is predicated on the homegrown players maintaining their level of performance. That's been a problem this year, for some weird reason that nobody has figured out. Except where injuries played a role, the weak spots on the roster are Ballard's responsibility in large part (though I'm certain he also receives input from coaches, scouts etc. on players like Pryor before deciding to give him the starting spot), and in most cases he's got a young, high draft pick in place for the future.

And the simple reality is that the elite teams tend to have elite QBs, and the Colts haven't had that despite their best efforts to the contrary. I'm glad you're willing to give Ballard a pass on the QB issue, because I think it's warranted. No matter how much people hate him now, Wentz was a worthwhile gamble. The other, more veteran QBs were also probably the right move for a team that, by all accounts, otherwise seemed ready to compete.

I've never said Ballard is perfect, but I'm convinced that Ballard's strategy is solid. If he's run out of Indy with pitchforks, he'll just succeed elsewhere.

An excuse? Do you think he just doesn't want to spend money because he's cheap? And letting Glow, Reed and Fisher walk? Fisher's now out of football, Reed is a Vikings backup who's been designated as inactive for nearly every game this year, and Glowinski was the weakest link on the Colts line asking for a big payday.

Correct. I don't judge a person's decisionmaking simply by the simple bottomline result. This kind of "dumbass thinking" might be beyond you, but think of it like how a poker player makes decisions - a good poker player plays the odds, and makes decisions accordingly. The outcome of those decisions is not always consistent with what the odds would suggest, but the player can rest assured that if you keep making smart decisions, they will prevail in the end. The entire casino industry is based upon this principle.

You missed my point. Do you know what Castonzo told the Colts his intentions were when he resigned for two years? I mean I think the guy was 32 at the time, so it's not unreasonable to think he might follow though on the contract and play for a couple years.

I have to disagree here Oldcolt. How many Super Bowls has Belichick won without Brady? The answer is exactly "Zero." Belichick doesn't even have a winning record (in New England or elsewhere) in games without Brady. Here's a recent article discussing it:

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nf...hout-tom-brady

In short, Belichick's record is an astounding 217-64 (77.4% win rate) with Brady, but without Brady it's a very pedestrian 72-82 (46.7% win rate). Even removing his five unsuccessful early years with the Browns, he's still under .500 (36-38) in New England without Brady.

Brady, by contrast, had a record of 24-9 (72.7% win rate) away from Belichick coming into the season, not to mention a Super Bowl win. The win rate has dropped a little after he unretired and returned this season, but it's still 27-14 (65.8%) by my calculations. So it's not like there was some sort of Brady-Belichick magic and they are both struggling away from each other.

So maybe Belichick isn't the genius everyone assumes he is? Just like the everyone else, and even with the added benefit of his cheating ways, he struggles mightily without a top end QB. Moreover, in this season, after following the seemingly preferred strategy of drafting a future QB in the first round last year (and one who lots of "experts" claimed prior to the season was the best of his class, while again trumpeting Belichick's genius), the Patriots are 4-4 and mired in a QB controversy.

By comparison, in the post-Luck era (2019 and afterwards, including this year), Reich has a record of 30-26-1 (53.6% win rate).

That's the perfect analogy.

Our definition of competitive is different. I’m talking competitive for Super Bowls or at least conference titles games, not wild card spots. And even then his record is spotty. I expect more - especially after so many years in charge and all the preaching to be patient because he was building a dynasty.

Having someone in place for the future means shit for that season. And that is the point. Signing Rivers and trading for Ryan should have been win now moves, except Ballard never acted like it with the rest of the roster. He left holes to be addressed later. He has done that every year, but it’s especially egregious those two years.

I can make an argument to justify most of his QB moves. I don’t necessarily agree with his handling though. Continuing to focus on the rest of the roster while hoping to luck into a QB hasn’t made sense to me as an overall strategy. The good things he has built will likely be being dismantled by the time they have the position solved. Especially considering Ballard is unlikely to “overpay” to move up in the draft to acquire one. Unless Irsay dictates it now.

And again - Rivers and Ryan are justifiably to me only if you believe you were trying to win. Yet Ballard left major holes unaddressed with the idea they’ll be fixed in the future. He made “win now” moves at QB but treated the rest of the roster as a rebuilding year. He did this in the name of the financial responsibility and flexibility you promote. I’m still waiting to see the benefits of this system on the field.

Until he changes his philosophy he will have to hang his hat on his talent evaluation and not on his team building. There is a difference

It took BP, what 8/9 years to bring the Colts a championship. Getting rid of Mora was a key, just like I believe getting rid of Reich will be a key.

There is no comparison between those teams. From the franchise QB to the record, completely different situations. However I have said that Ballard’s conservative approach reminds me of Polian’s approach that held arguably the best QB in history to one SB victory. Imagine what that method will lead to with no QB.

Chaka. Interesting take, one that literally nobody on this board had when Brady and NE were battling it out for supremacy with the Colts. Every Colt fan thought that the Colts had the better QB with Manning/Luck, at least on this board with the arguments we had with those NE idiots. Now it is all about Brady being the GOAT? In either event we both had a top QB for years, we finished that with one Super Bowl, Belecheat has what 7? To even argue that somehow Belecheat didn’t make a difference is ridiculous, coaching counts in this league and always had. We need a new leader on this team, a new direction where there is some accountability. I would like to see someone who has a little SOB in them. You make 20 million a year and play like shit you deserve to be publicly called out. It it it to much for their macho feelings they have plenty of money to get therapy.

Year in and year out Ballard sacrifices team needs in the name of future cap flexibility. You know damn if left unchecked he'll continue to do so, and since he's already invested so much of the cap space in the OL he'll continue to find cheap band aid like replacements for the open positions rather than do the right thing and actually fix the problem.

After watching the god awful OL play this year it's obvious that Glow wasn't the weak link of the OL. If re-signed he'd be our best OG currently on the roster, and since Nelson's play has gone to complete shit the same can probably be said for Reed as well. Even though he's out of football if we had re-signed Fisher he would have currently been our best LT, and certainly a hell of a lot better than Pryor is. Hell, even if Fisher had sat on the couch since January he'd still be better than Pryor.


No, what you're saying isn't beyond me, and nothing you've ever posted on here is beyond me or anyone else on the board. And yes, it's a dumbass line of thinking. For starters Ballard's role is nothing like being a professional gambler and running a football team is nothing like running a casino where the odds are always in your favor.

Ballard is essentially a VP of talent acquisition at a midsized company. Imagine if he was in the business world and decided due to potential future budget constraints to let ~half of the company's experienced talent in their top division leave rather than pay them a manageable salary increase. Then he backfills them w/ substandard talent who's completely incapable of performing at the required level, and as soon as this turnover happens the division begins to grossly underperform so much so that it drags the entire company down from being in the black to the heavy red. Do you think wise investors would say "That's ok. You gambled and lost, but I'm sure you'll get it right next time." No, they would (rightfully so) be calling for his head.

On top of that even if Ballard's job was exactly like a professional gambler, Pryor and Pinter were two of the worst horses in the history of the league to wager the season on, and Ballard should have known that.

Do you honestly think Castonzo told the entire world that he was seriously considering retiring and then told Ballard that he'd stick around for the foreseeable future? If so then I have a great bridge investment opportunity I'd like to tell you about. And even if AC did say he'd stick around the fact that he was considering retiring at the end of the '19 season shouldn't have surprised Ballard when he did retire after '20. But the fact that Matt Fucking Pryor was our starting LT this season seems to speak otherwise.