Quote:
Originally Posted by RealSNR
Different circumstances, too, though.
Veach has had QB stability, Ballard had an unprecedented lost season with Luck in 2017 and a surprise retirement before the season started.
Veach was developed through the organization, culture, and coach that he took over for, while Ballard has had to forge his own path while taking over for a team with a QB and absolute dogshit at the other positions. He also had to hire a new head coach and navigate the team through that Josh McDaniels ****ery.
Veach is employed by a stable owner with a smoking hot daughter. Ballard is employed by a 60-year alcoholic and drug addict.
It's all well and good that Ballard has assembled young talent AND saved cap space in three years, and yes, circumstances are clearly different from one another, but if the roles were reversed and Veach got the Colts job and Ballard got the Chiefs job back when each guy was hired, would Ballard be aggressive like Veach? Would we have all the WR weapons we do on offense for Mahomes, or would we look more balanced? Would we be spending that cap space and going for all the marbles with aggressive moves? Would we have a Super Bowl right now? Likewise, we can assume Veach's aggression in KC would lead to misfires in Indy and when combined with the instability of the franchise would lead to some pretty bad seasons, but would Veach actually take that approach if he were in charge of the Colts?
|
So to make a long story short, your question is essentially "Would the Colts be better off and would the Chiefs be worse off had Ballard been promoted here and Veach gone to Indy?"
I don't think I'm willing to say that, no. I do think you're right in the sense that each team would be different, but I don't think the Chiefs specifically would be worse.
I think they may be a little less flashy - you'd probably see that Watkins money go to someone like Kyle Fuller. Maybe that Hardman pick is used on someone a little less boom/bust like McLaurin. Hard to say that the Clark deal doesn't happen when Ballard just made a very similar deal w/ Buckner.
I mean look - you don't pass on a bird in the hand here so I get it. It's hard to say we'd be better with anyone but Veach. But I also think Veach, as you alluded to, has been put in arguably the best organizational situation in all of pro sports. Ballard...hasn't.
If I'm doing a 'GM Draft' where every front office is detonated and their members scattered to the wind...I think I take Ballard and maybe DeCosta ahead of Veach. I don't think that's some damning indictment of Veach by any means and I don't object to anyone that would take Veach either. But I don't look at what he's done here as anything that those guys couldn't/wouldn't have done.