Originally Posted by ChaosTheory (Post 221061)

I don't know. Maybe I'm the weird one, but...

Let's look at 1999-2015 (from Manning to Luck falling apart). I much prefer that I was a Colts fan as opposed to a Giants fan. We went to two Super Bowls and won one. They went to three Super Bowls and won two.

But... the Giants also missed the playoffs 10 seasons in that span. Seven losing seasons, two more 8-8 seasons. Reached double-digit wins 6 times. That's a lot of time wallowing in irrelevancy. We've had 4 of those seasons since 2015 (arguably 5) and they're awful seasons to sit through.

In contrast, I had a blast watching the Colts basically every season during that span aside from 2001 when both Edge's knee and Mora's brain blew out and then in 2011 when Manning's head got too heavy. Aside from those seasons, the Colts we're among the elite teams year in and year out.

Again, maybe I'm the weird one.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 221067)

Let me be clear - my point isn’t to criticize what Ballard has done at QB. Lucks retirement screwed him. My point is only that in my view, his method has shown that, even with a dominant QB, not risking the long term for a better short term peak hasn’t been extremely successful. So how is it going to work on a team that likely won’t have that level of QB? It won’t, IMO.

To answer the question though, my position has been that they identify who their guy is and go get him. No BS half measures of mediocre guys while they look. Pay the price for who you want. Two off-seasons ago I suggested trading one or both of their seconds for future firsts to help build ammo for a trade up last draft. That means either no Pittman, no Taylor, or both. Steep price, no doubt. This off-season I said I’d have traded for Darnold - cheaper and less injury prone. Almost certainly a bust here as well though.

I won’t pretend I have a sure fire answer, although in hindsight I like either of my two solutions better than theirs. But again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for Wentz being QB. They did what I suggested - went and got their guy. I’m criticizing him for the rest of the roster building. The one that had a pass rush with no one with double digit sacks for their career. The one that is leaving a huge hole at LT even though we’ve seen the issue coming for several years. The one where it feels like year 10 of being under manned at WR. Those are moves that are indicative of his building style. Place holders until he can draft a permanent guy two years from now. Where free agency is only used to pick through left overs or sign a “no risk” one year vet.

Originally Posted by apballin (Post 221156)

He also said that you need 8 on the D line ...... “You gotta have 8.”

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles (Post 221158)

o


If the rules permitted the Colts to do so, I would have them playing 8 defensive lineman, 4 linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

o

Originally Posted by apballin (Post 221156)

He also said that you need 8 on the D line ...... “You gotta have 8.”

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles (Post 221158)

o


If the rules permitted the Colts to do so, I would have them playing 8 defensive lineman, 4 linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

o

Originally Posted by apballin (Post 221164)

Fuck the way DB's go down, and teams pass so much ...... you'd better have a rotation of 8 D-Linemen and 8 DB's, because at least 4 are going to go down at some point in the season.

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles (Post 221173)

o


I meant having them all on the field at the same time ...... 17 Colts defenders against 11 opposing offensive players on every play from scrimmage.

o