Gerald McCoy

[Oldcolt]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

Except maybe some games. Or a championship

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

And, the Colts kept some guys who played well, like Desir. They spent money on the punter, on Glowinski. Sometimes it's not who you bring in, but who you keep.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.

[Oldcolt]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Good post. Not overly emotional and stated your opinion succinctly. Some could learn from your style.

Also, you made valid points. It comes down to philosophy. You (and I) like Ballard's philosophy because it has a vision. Others do not like the vision he has, but prefer to add more expensive pieces. If we were one piece away from being SB champs, then we should spend what it takes. However, most who think we need Suh, McCoy, et. al. are the same ones who say we have a severe lack of talent on the roster.

mods, can we close this thread and make those guys above get a room?

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.

[Oldcolt]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.

First let me say that this is not black and white. We are essentially arguing about degrees, ie. we both agree we need free agents we just seem to disagree on the amount. I don't think we are in a re-build per say but we are definitely building. By that I mean part of the team is ready to compete and part we are not certain about. I'm not saying that people should have known how good or bad we were going to be, just that most of us don't really know. McCoy was and is a close call. I would just rather see the guys we have at 3 technique get the snaps to see what they can do.

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

And I would like to add, put money into what you value. There's no cap on coaches, scouts and player developement execs. The Eagles lose one of their front office guys to the Jets, they have someone who they have trained to step in. You want to develop and grow from the draft, you will need a bunch of them who know what the team is looking for on both sides of the ball. You are training your front office people to be GM's. Same for the coaching staff. You want guys who want to be head coaches.

[Racehorse]

Since this thread is about McCoy...

1. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy is not a good player.
2. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy would not improve our front seven.
3. I don't think anyone would be upset if we had signed McCoy.

That said, the issues are as follows:

1. Do we think McCoy would be the piece that wins us the SB? I don't think he is.
2. Will we be contenders without McCoy? Possibly, but the NFL is hard to predict. I think we will have about the same record without McCoy that we would have had with him, but that is just me.
3. Will we need to spend the cap dollars on someone anyway? This is where the water gets murky. Maybe Sherck can tell us where we are as it relates to the cap floor, but I think we are right at it and can get close with tweaking current contracts. As to the penalty for not hitting the floor, it is merely paying the difference to the players association. Maybe we have to pay $5M, but that is just a guess and we may actually be at the average now. Ballard knows, but I cannot recall him explaining it besides being cryptic about it.
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
5. I know I am missing a key issue, so fill it in here, lol.

[rm1369]

Chaka,

Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think I’m being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I don’t see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.

With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me it’s not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I don’t believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be aware of the long term. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be planning to always be a winner. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.

As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I don’t want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. I’m not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. It’s simply about the prioritization of resources.

Maybe I’m jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. It’s the one I’d prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place I’d probably agree with your approach. But I’m willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. I’m not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I don’t believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.

And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesn’t matter what philosophy they follow - they’ll be successful. But I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not a knock on Ballard, it’s simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.