Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 150795)

Chaka, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

Originally Posted by Luck4Reich (Post 150759)

The constant talk that this team is years away from good is just plain stupid by some.

Fact is they were Super Bowl contenders if Luck had not retired.... and Luck wasn’t an elite QB.....yet.

The fact this team won 7 games (beat 3 playoff teams that are still in it) with Brisset (a QB that is a backup on ALL 32 teams and 3rd string on a few) is why this team is not years away. Just stupid talk!

Tannehill for example, not even on Lucks level but a hell of a lot better than Brisset takes this Colts team deep into the playoffs.

Fact is, a capable starting QB on this team makes them a playoff team. Anything close to Luck a contender for sure.

Stop the doom and gloom we are closer than you think.

Originally Posted by Racehorse (Post 150796)

Chaka?

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 150800)

It’s a constant, irritating, narrative that we are constantly rebuilding. Really we had a shot to win it all in Luck’s last year and if he stayed this year as well.

I don’t see any evidence that Ballard’s method is superior to any other team’s method. Grigson has more winning seasons than Ballard at this point in their careers and it was really due to having a franchise QB. Ultimately you have to win no matter how much everyone likes the guy and his strategy.

Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 150821)

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 150821)

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 150802)

Seems the thinking is that if Grigson failed then doing the opposite must me the way to go. However, his plan was right. He just sucked as a talent evaluator and was an asshole. Ballard owes Grigson a huge thank you for the patience the fan base is willing to have after Grigson’s failures.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 150795)

Racehorse, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

I disagree that Ballard did it right though even when I agree Lucks retirement screwed him. They lost to KC in the playoffs largely because of holes that were evident before the season started. Ballard did little to address them because of his long term plan. And if Luck had played this year IMO Ballard still was rolling with the long term over what was lacking for this season. If they went to the AFC title game with Luck but lost because of a lack of a pass rush and poor interior DLine play, you’d be saying the plan was all working. I’d see it as a missed opportunity. Just the difference in our views.

Again, I’ll point out that the exact reason I believe in being more aggressive is because of how quickly it all changes. Did I expect Luck to retire because of an off season leg injury? Of course not. But I absolutely did realize he was always one play away from not being the Colts QB going forward. That’s why wasting seasons banking on guys like Tyquan Lewis, Terrell Basham, and Quincy Wilson pissed me off. It’s why I thought it was stupid to cut guys like Simons and Hankins. You don’t gift guys spots, you make them earn it. But Ballards plan wasn’t to put the best team he could out there last year or this year. It was to do exactly what Chaka said - build that supposed base for long term success. Sounds great, but don’t use the unpredictable nature of the NFL as an excuse when it’s the very reason I argued against that method.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 150830)

Absolutely. He seems a perfect fit with Reich. To me the question is how much are you willing to give up to go get him? I think you’d have to move up to the Giants spot at 4 to get him. 5, 6, 7 are all possibilities for a QB. That will take a lot of draft capital