Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
Just because you type it doesn't make it true. Your idea of "performance" is totally narrow. It's how a guy like Dan Dakich arrives at his take. Grigson had results and Ballard doesn't. None of his other "performance" matters when you're trying to make a point. Just flash his record without context.
The QB situation is simply the easiest to point out. Nobody stays afloat for 6 years with our circumstances. We did until last year. I won't even ask you if Luck had stayed around if we'd be a year-in-year-out elite team with Ballard's exact same team-building approach. It'd be a dumb question.
Even if we time-traveled, Luck stayed, we had multiple good records and a SB... you just say Luck won it despite Ballard.
|
It’s strange - when we argued about Polian the only thing that mattered to you was wins and losses. And the fact it was done with Manning was largely irrelevant. Polian was an obvious genius because of his wins and losses. Now on Ballard, wins and losses means nothing and his QB situation is critical in analyzing his performance.
Luck retiring was unprecedented. However needing to fix the QB situation situation is hardly unusual. It’s a situation most GMs face. I don’t knock Ballard for not having a franchise QB in place, I knock him for his half assed approach to the position and the roster. Acquiring vet QBs and prioritizing development for the rest of the roster has been stupid. It’s kept the team mediocre - good enough for you guys to say he can’t draft his QB, yet bad enough that the team isn’t winning anything meaningful- 1 playoff win in 6 years, no division titles in one of the leagues worst divisions. I would have been fine with a worse record developing a young QB. I would have been fine shooting their shot with any of those QBs and coming up short. What I’m not fine with is the “safe” middle that you guys seem to love and that has gone exactly as I expected. But it makes sense. Ballard has said it, Dam is saying it, Chrome is saying it - once he drafts a QB then his excuse goes away and he will likely be fired if he misses. Again I disagree with the logic. But it makes sense that he has continuously punted on the decision and made no “big” mistakes. Job security. And hell, if it wasn’t for Irsay getting involved (which I didn’t like) he still wouldn’t be in a position to fix the QB position. As long as he had that crutch and wasn’t Grigson he was untouchable.
I asked Chrome for some kind of measuring stick for Ballard going forward. His answer is simply draft well. I’m curious whose job in the organization is it to put together winning teams? According to him that shouldn’t be the measure for Ballard. He’s largely drafted well for 6 fucking years and yet the Colts were one of the worst teams in the league. If he’s drafted well for 6 years yet the team still sucks don’t you think it is fair to question some of his methods, his team building philosophy? That’s why I say he’s not required to perform.