Chaka |
01-06-2020 09:44 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
(Post 150778)
Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?
|
Kind of, I guess? While it will undoubtedly take time to get the kind of system that Ballard envisions in place, if you look back at our discussions I think what I took issue with was the suggestion or implication that we were doomed to also-ran status during that 3-4 year period. I don’t think that was the case at all. Upon Luck’s return the year after Ballard arrived, and after Pagano’s exit (who now admits he was in over his head), we were immediately a contender, it was just a question of how far we could get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
(Post 150778)
A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.
|
I think we're talking about different types of risk. Did those signings risk popping our salary cap? Absolutely not. Was Ballard sticking his neck out by signing a couple of guys to contracts that many thought were excessive? Yes he was, regardless of the length. He was signing two players who had issues (Funchess – unproductivity, Houston – age, injury). In that sense, they were both undeniably risky signings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
(Post 150778)
Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.
|
Well, earlier draft picks are better, I cannot deny that. But I’m just saying that in recent years, it seems like teams in the mid-to-late part of the first round are increasingly able to find a franchise-type QB. I don’t know if colleges are preparing their QBs better for the NFL, if the offenses/rule changes have created more opportunities, or if the NFL has simply been slow to accept the idea of a successful QB who does not fit the traditional pocket-passer mold. It used to feel like a franchise QB drafted outside the top 2 or 3 picks was a rarity. Now it seems much more common. Strictly a subjective off-the-cuff observation, I admittedly have no data to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
(Post 150778)
My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.
But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.
|
Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.
|