I come to praise Chris Ballard, not to bury him.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

That would be me. Actually I’ve criticized him since his 2nd offseason when he cut vets, rolled out his long term rebuild plan with a franchise QB in place, made statements minimizing the importance of the QB (IMO), and started minimizing the importance of veteran leadership on a team (coaches job). None of my criticisms have been hindsight. I said then that his methods would lead to mediocrity. I went so far as to do an analysis of the turnover starters on SB winning rosters to show how the little continuity there actually is year to year in the NFL. What in the world has he done that has proven me wrong or should make me rethink my position?

I haven’t always wanted him fired. I even stated early that he needed time to fully prove out his philosophy. I recognize that starting down a path and switching quickly usually isn’t productive. I also constantly heard he’d flip a switch and become aggressive - next offseason. Season after season it didn’t happen and I heard all the excuses. This is the first offseason where maybe it’s true, but only because he’s finally about to be fired. IMO his philosophy has been proven out. It’s lead to exactly what I thought it would- a consistent record that doesn’t bottom out but never reaches anything higher either. Give Ballard a franchise QB and certainly the bar is raised some. But the team IMO would never peak due to his philosophy. I loved the Polian Colts, but Bill had a very similar philosophy that saw the greatest QB ever IMO win only one SB. I’ve seen a similar philosophy play out in GB with the same results. I’m simply not a fan even when paired with a historically great QB. Paired with mediocre QB play and it has me turning in my season tickets.

Again, you have to consider the markets. Green Bay and Indianapolis are small markets. It takes them a generational quarterback to get them into elite territory. We had manning, GB had Favre, and then Rodgers. KC has Mahomes. Small markets do not attract free agents like the big ones do, and their owners do not have cash to overpay signing bonuses. Then we had Luck to mask deficiencies and get us to 11-5 nearly every year. Do I wish Ballard had dome some things differently? You bet I do, but I understand why a lot of things we wanted did not happen. The only real miss I see at QB was not getting Baker. I remember most here were against it, too. It seemed like an illogical choice, and it took him three teams to find success. Maybe Jones can do that for us.

I will give you props for coming and admitting your position.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Again, you have to consider the markets. Green Bay and Indianapolis are small markets. It takes them a generational quarterback to get them into elite territory. We had manning, GB had Favre, and then Rodgers. KC has Mahomes. Small markets do not attract free agents like the big ones do, and their owners do not have cash to overpay signing bonuses. Then we had Luck to mask deficiencies and get us to 11-5 nearly every year. Do I wish Ballard had dome some things differently? You bet I do, but I understand why a lot of things we wanted did not happen. The only real miss I see at QB was not getting Baker. I remember most here were against it, too. It seemed like an illogical choice, and it took him three teams to find success. Maybe Jones can do that for us.

I will give you props for coming and admitting your position.

Sorry man, I’m not buying the small market thing. First, being aggressive doesn’t just mean in free agency. You mentioned Mahomes and KC. That’s a great example. How did KC get Mahomes? They had a QB that had gotten them to the playoffs 3 of 4 years and was a pro bowl alternate several times, but it wasn’t good enough to get them over the hump. So they traded UP in the first round to get Mahomes. From 27 to 10. And then they traded Alex Smith after another playoff and Pro Bowl alternate selection to give the keys to Mahomes. All of that seems like a no brainer NOW because it’s Mahomes, but that wasn’t the case at the time. Mahomes was another unproven QB with question marks. Now be honest - do you see Ballard making those moves? I sure as hell don’t.

Second, Irsay seemed to pride himself in handing out big contracts. The signing bonus is still real money regardless if it’s resigning your own guy or paying an outside free agent. And Grigson didn’t have much issue signing free agents. He spent money. Some well, a lot poorly. Regardless it’s proof to me the small market isn’t as big an issue as many pretend.

Third, even when talking about being free agency most of us criticizing Ballard’s approach aren’t necessarily calling for the top free agents. We are asking for competent avg level players at obvious needs. Look at the secondary over a couple years. The team had an obvious glaring need that Ballard threw a collection of 1st and 2nd yr UDFA and 6th and 7th rounders at. Because he was content living with a shitty secondary until he could fix it in the draft. “We like our guys.” Of course the game that’s always played is to give a list of free agents, say why any that were known good wouldn’t sign here, disregard any that unexpectedly played well as nobody could have known, and then presenting the remaining list and saying “so what great player should he have signed”. Great isn’t the point. Often average or even a little below average would have improved the team. A mediocre vet in the secondary is often going to make less mistakes than a mediocre (at best) 1st or 2nd yr player. And we saw it often. But Ballard needs to keep spots open for his draft picks and he doesn’t believe in the value of vets.

Go back to that Mahomes question - think Ballard would have pulled the trigger? Hell no he wouldn’t. Now go look at what KC did after their SB loss to the Bucs where their OL let them down. Do you see Ballard aggressively fixing the line the way KC did? Again, Hell no. They used the draft, free agency and trades to fix an issue. You know exactly what Ballard would have done - “we like our guys”. I just laugh when I hear people say Ballard shares the KC front office philosophy. I’m sure there are some similarities and things he learned there, but aggression wasn’t one of them. His teams have consistently had glaring holes that have cost them in season. He’s always been content to deal with it later.

[Oldcolt]

I think Green Bay just threw your small market argument a curve with being able to acquire and pay Parsons almost 50 million a year

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I think Green Bay just threw your small market argument a curve with being able to acquire and pay Parsons almost 50 million a year

I considered that argument would come up. I am not sure how GB does some things they do, as they are a publicly owned team. It is a unique arrangement, so I am not sure how they do signing bonuses. Care to educate me on their structure? Google does not explain it well.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

I considered that argument would come up. I am not sure how GB does some things they do, as they are a publicly owned team. It is a unique arrangement, so I am not sure how they do signing bonuses. Care to educate me on their structure? Google does not explain it well.

o


The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly-owned professional sports franchise in North America in which the team CANNOT move to another city and/or other part of the country, because the team is owned by stockholders. I actually met a woman at my gym here in Brewster, NY who owns 1 share of the Packers (she is originally from Wisconsin.) There are 539,000 stockholders overall.

Mark Murphy, who was the President and CEO of the Packers from 2007 through 2025, called the shots as to who gets hired and fired for the team's head coach and General Manager positions ...... Murphy just retired a little over a month ago, and the Packers share-holders voted for Ed Policy to be their new President and CEO.

o

[Oldcolt]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

I considered that argument would come up. I am not sure how GB does some things they do, as they are a publicly owned team. It is a unique arrangement, so I am not sure how they do signing bonuses. Care to educate me on their structure? Google does not explain it well.

I'm not sure, but obviously it can be done. I've heard that some believe that because they pay no dividends there is no real pressure to make money for the shareholders. Most owners feel like it is their own money that is being spent so paying someone $50 million of your money sits in some craws. All the Packers care about is winning, nobody who owns shares makes any money off of the team.

[Oldcolt]

The top 100 players as voted on by NFL players are finally out. Zero Colts. Again voted on by their peers.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

The top 100 players as voted on by NFL players are finally out. Zero Colts. Again voted on by their peers.

I have not seen the list, but I am very curious which 100 players were considered better than Nelson, Taylor and Buckner.