Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610
How can I show you something if I hit you over the head with it and you still deny its existence? Trading a 1 for Wentz was a "win now" move. It was not a "completely sacrifice the future for this one season" move, which it feels like is what some of Ballard's critics are looking for, but it certainly wasn't about planning for the future.
|
So Ballard went into a “win now” season with no DE with double digit sacks for their career? To me that’s a hell of an indictment of him.
I give Ballard much more credit than that. Wentz was an attempt to solve the long term QB issue. He applied his standard philosophy to the rest of the roster which is how you end up letting Autry walk and having what they had at DE for that season. It was a developmental year at DE. Ironically it is the one time I think it can be argued it made sense. Wentz was young enough to be the long term solution and he wasn’t on a rookie contract so not much was wasted letting him prove his worth. Rivers and Ryan are much closer to win now moves. The issue is he didn’t support them with the rest of the roster. He allowed key known weaknesses to wait until next year or expected rookies to learn on the job. And yes, by definition to me “win now” means sacrificing / risking some of the future for now. I think you are confusing win now with aggressive. If you expect a guy can be your solution for 4-6 years then how is that considered a “win now” move? For example, trading up to get the QB you want may be aggressive, but it’s rarely “win now”. Ballard’s aggressiveness IS another criticism of him, but the two things are not necessarily the same. I dislike his overall roster management because I seem little to no change in philosophy based on the roster construction and specifically the QB situation. Which is what defines every Ballard conversation.