All joking and arguing aside: Getting the QB decision right is 1A, but fixing the OL has to be 1B. You're not going to be able to develop a young QB if he's getting the shit beat out of him week in and week out.

At a bare minimum we need a starting RG, an OC who can compete with and probably replace Kelly, and some quality OT depth. Ballard likely won't be able to find all of that in the draft, especially if we trade up, so he's going to need to find some of that in FA.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit. No one can complain about Ballard failing Frank because he didn’t provide him with a competent Quarterback. Frank Reich hand picked Matt Ryan, and Ballard went out and got him. Similarly, a year earlier, Reich convinced Ballard that Carson Wentz, the same Carson Wentz who was cut loose today, could play the game at a high level. Did the shortcomings on the Offensive Line contribute to Ryan’s utter incompetence? No doubt; but, when a Ferrari runs out of gas on the side of the road, giving it a better set of tires is of little help.

A bad line can explain a lot of things, but the 15 fumbles and 13 interceptions in a dozen games…

It’s possible. Usually when you have these marriages end lots of little tidbits come out in the media. Grigson and Pagano was releasing stuff through different guys. Grigson through Dakich, and Pagano through Holder and the newspaper.

But Reich started Pryor forever. That’s not Ballard. It sucks Kelly was hurt early on, but Pryor didn’t really get benched till Saturday came on. But as Kray said, LTs are hard to find. You pretty much have to draft them. They don’t hit FA in their prime usually. Every guy was a stopgap. And Fisher wasn’t signed till December and I believe has been cut again after doing nothing. So maybe. Reich is an analytics guy and the analytics is why they asked Pryor to play tackle in the first place.

Yup the oline failed and that’s his baby. They put Pryor out there and it sabotaged the line. Guy fell on his sword at the end of the season. I’m good with it. He turned it into a top unit in the first place, more than I can say Grigson ever did.

I completely 100% disagree that Philly has a build theory similar to the Colts. If you mean the idea of building up the lines (in theory) then yes, but that’s where the similarities end. Philly went out and actively improved their roster for this year. They made a conscious push to win this year. Never once has Ballard done that. Not once. And that is my single biggest complaint. You claim they are finally in a position to draft a QB, they could have been earlier if not for going the vet QB route. But the maddening thing is they half assed it. If you sign Rivers you should be in win now mode, Ballard wasn’t. If you trade for Wentz you should be in win now mode. Ballard wasn’t. If you trade for Ryan you should be in win now mode, Ballard wasn’t.

Yes there are teams that have been worse. Does that somehow make Ballard’s team building a success? I’ve never claimed he’s the worst GM in the league. I’m not positive I even want him fired. I’d like to see him wise up and change his antiquated philosophy. It’s just infuriating listen to guys pretend he’s a fucking genius. He’s a good talent evaluator and a mediocre GM. The record proves it no matter how many excuses you guys give. Rebuilds shouldn’t take 8 seasons in the NFL.

Dude will you get off Grigson? I think everyone except Dan Dakich knows Grigson sucked. That doesn’t make Ballard good. He needs to be better than “not Grigson”.

Agree, you can't blame Ballard for the QB situation. The only QB who we could have realistically drafted since Luck fucked us was Hurts, and there were a lot of questions on him coming out of college.

You can, however, blame Ballard for the disaster of an OL, absolutely no pass rush for years, a bottom of the league WR group for several years, etc.

Because they know they have the pieces in place. Good rookie QB on a rookie contract. We don’t have that. Why sell the farm when we don’t have the QB position settled?

Irsay wanted them to compete. Reich didn’t want to go a young QB, otherwise they might have gone after Fields. He built the oline up, then Luck retired. He’s built the defense into a good unit. But until we get QB settled, he’s not going to go all out for a SB and not should he. Cart before the horse notion.

Grigson is what most GMs are. People tend to forget shitty GMing. And I’ll fucking bring up whatever the fuck I want.

Well said. Everyone on this board would probably be a better GM than Grigson, but it doesn't mean any of us would actually be any good at it.

Then don’t go the vet QB route. If you didn’t think you could compete with Rivers, Wentz, or Ryan then they had no business acquiring them. If they thought they could win with them then they had no business treating the rest of the roster like it was a developmental year.

Not a single fucking person here has forgot Grigson.

I notice you’ve replied to a lot of my comments but not the one asking for some kind of bench mark for Ballard. When would Ballard ever be a failure for you? Year 10 with no playoff win? Year 12? Or as long as he’s “not Grigson” will you defend him and his philosophy?

Then wtf are they supposed to do then. Tank the season? Tell the players “hey I know you want to win, but nah.” They made logical decisions, it mostly didn’t work out. They made the playoffs with Rivers. They almost did with a limping Wentz. It’s not like they sold their future for Russel Wilson. They said what they were trying to do. Find an Alex Smith to compete with till they could draft a QB they liked.

Isn’t tanking the season what they did to get in position to get a QB? Why is it acceptable in year 6 but not year 4 or 5? I’m constantly told they’ve had no shot at a QB because they weren’t bad enough. Yet they weren’t good enough for their GM to make a push. Seems like a terrible place to be for 3 seasons.

Yes they made the playoffs with Rivers and almost did with Wentz. Imagine if Ballard had done more with the rest of the roster. Ballard may have more than one playoff win in 6 years.

I really don’t care if you forgot him or not. I’ll bring him up if I think it’s relevant.

My benchmark, when he starts failing in the draft. When he starts getting bad talent. It’s one of the hardest things to do. Some guys have just by-passed it altogether like Les Snead and now the team is hurting bc of it. Or you suck at it and need FA to compensate like Grigson did. Everyone sings the praises of Lynch in San Fran, but since the 2016 off-season the 49’ers have picked in the top ten of the draft 5 out of 7 times. Duke Tobin did little before Burrow. Keim in Arizona still has a job since 2013. Barely hear about some of these average GMs around the league some with longer tenures but suddenly our fanbase can’t shut up about it.

The other is multiple losing seasons in a row unless they are breaking in a young QB and building for a better future.

Basically on his results concerning the roster.

Kind of like the Pacers that you told me to quit bringing up? Gotcha.

Makes sense, it sounds about right. Ballard is not held accountable to actual results, he just has to be not Grigson. As long as he drafts ok the actual results of the TEAM he assembles doesn’t really matter. It explains a lot.

Because tanking gets people fired. Players don’t want to do it, coaches don’t want to do it. They didn’t want to do it this year. It took the owner having to take control and sabotage the situation to make it happen. And I’m only half convinced he didn’t do it on purpose. Yeah that’s what happens when you are middle of the pack. Not good enough to win it all, not bad enough to get a top QB.

How pissed would you have been if they sold out to win it all with Carson? You would have been on here complaining that they put the team in cap hell and didn’t even know if the QB was good.

I don’t care if you bring up the pacers.

Yeah sounds like you just want the perfect GM, let me know when you find him.

Find a GM in the NFL better at using draft capital to acquire talent. I'll wait.

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

I’ve said repeatedly that Ballard is a pretty damn good talent evaluator. Now show me proof he’s good at assembling a team. I’ll wait.

He owned up to it, but time will tell if he actually learned from it or he was just blowing smoke. Hopefully he learned from it b/c I really don't want to see him do any more ricockulously stupid shit like pay your LG like he's a HOF LT (who BTW probably has back problems, but that's another story) and put someone like Pryor next to him.

You'll have to wait until after the draft because this is the first time he's had the ability to get his QB. This is his test. Either he gets it right and we'll enjoy another 2000s type of run or he gets it wrong and will likely find himself out of a job in the not too distant future.

Bull shit. You want to argue that because I criticize something I’ll criticize anything. That is complete and utter BS. It’s a fucking straw man. I shouldn’t be surprised by someone blaming all Ballard’s mistakes on Reich though.

I find it strange that Ballard’s ardent defenders would be fine condemning him based off of one bad choice. Hell even I admit this is at best a 50 / 50 shot. I don’t believe Ballard’s tenure should be determined by one draft choice. Especially considering that by Chrome’s reasoning they only even have this shot thanks to Irsay. Ballard wouldn’t have gotten them here to have this choice.

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 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.

Judging him by his tasks, acquiring talent. Acquiring coaches. He’s not running practices or calling plays on game day. Fans like you want to scream about division titles bc you know he is doing well in other areas. So that’s what you talk about.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.