#211
|
||||
|
||||
Except maybe some games. Or a championship
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to omahacolt For This Useful Post: | ||
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to YDFL Commish For This Useful Post: | ||
Luck4Reich (06-10-2019), Oldcolt (06-10-2019) |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#215
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
As far as the OL and DBs, I didn’t complain about the OL going into last year. I didn’t like the value of Nelson at 6 but I never said the line wouldn’t be improved/ good. I was not impressed with the roster at LB, DB, WR, or DL last year. Considering the moves this offseason it seems Ballard wasn’t that impressed either. And yes I still believe the DL would be in better shape with Haskins. Quote:
Quote:
A long term winner? Yes I believe Ballard will build it. I’ve said that multiple times over the last 2 years. And in the answer you replied to I referenced the Polian Colts as being what I believe the best case scenario is. I’d say that’s a long term winner and achievable. It’s the dynasty part of your rants that I believe is not achievable. At least not in the way you suggest it. I’m not really sure how hoarding $50m+ in cap space is exploiting other teams weaknesses. I’ll take your word for it though. I do know what it looks like to see an opponent exploit the Colts weaknesses on the field. I just hope the Colts cap-space exploitation generates more points in the playoffs than their opponents on the field exploitation. Last edited by rm1369; 06-10-2019 at 04:32 PM. |
#216
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
He could be an asset in goal line, with two TE's and Hilton. That would give us a lot of height in the redzone for Luck to find. His TD numbers could be pretty good. People want to compare him to the Ebron signing but I see Ebron as having better numbers and a former QB who throws a notoriously hard ball that is not the easierst to catch. I see him more like Philly's Alshon Jeffrey. Alshon has had up and down hands with numbers in the range you mention. You can see why Reich pushed for him. Jeffrey got roasted for his drop at New Orleans which ended their season. It is not easy to suddenly build chemistry with your QB in one off-season, that takes time and reps. Still I think he is a stop gap with the suddenly in vogue one year contract. I think they are hoping one of the draft picks will step up by next season. They may talk resigning if he does really well, especially if the draft picks underperform. I don't see ten million in value though. Is he that much better than Inman? Last edited by Chromeburn; 06-10-2019 at 04:39 PM. |
#217
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#218
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://overthecap.com/player/justin-houston/517/ If he is indeed guaranteed $4.5M next year it's not as reasonable as I thought, but still not bad since it won't hurt us long term if we release him prior to '20. |
#219
|
||||
|
||||
Really? You honestly have no idea what I was referring to? My so-called “rant” is in response to your statement that the NFL rules are set up specifically stop teams from long term dominance, ranging “from free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling”, and that it's a “fool’s errand’ to try to resist these forces. And please don’t try to tell me you were only talking about the draft, because that just wouldn’t make any sense from the language you used.
While I’d agree that the purpose behind some parts of the rules you’ve referred is just as you say it is (to encourage competitiveness), it’s absurd to suggest that you can’t (or shouldn’t try to) beat those rules by innovating around them. Quote:
Quote:
As to this latter issue, you are looking at the “Moneyball” example far too narrowly. While it’s true the A’s didn’t win the World Series, you ignore the more important and far more telling fact that now virtually every team has adjusted its practices in response and adopted some form of increased statistical analysis to try and take away/reduce the edge the A’s had identified and exploited. That’s all the proof you need. Quote:
The Manning-led Colts could (and perhaps should) have have won multiple Super Bowls – it wasn’t the salary cap that prevented them from doing so. Quote:
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Jesus fucking Christ man it’s like arguing with my 6 yr old. You make whatever fucking argument you want to make regardless of what anyone has said.
Here is my statement on analytics, “Moneyball”, and your comment about the foundation of the Casino industry: Quote:
Quote:
Here is your analogy: Quote:
So, as I stated, I had an issue with the analogy because I see no comparison between the guaranteed long term return the casino sees and the “better guess” return that analytics provides in football. Especially in the context you provide them. Not to mention the casinos advantage is driven and realized by time. They don’t need to win at any specific point. They will get their return eventually. Winning a Super Bowl is not in anyway similar. The Polian led Colts won more games in whatever long period than any other team and they won one Super Bowl. I loved those teams, but to me they were ultimately a disappointment from what they should have been. Being really good for the long term does not itself lead to Super Bowl wins. Being cumulatively 3% or 6% better than any other team for the next decade should not be the goal (as it is for the casino). Being the best team team in a given year should be the goal. Yes you want to have as many of those opportunities to be the best team as you can, but there is always going to be a trade off between this year and the future. You have a finite amount or resources. Dedicating those resources to the future comes at a cost to the present. It is a balancing act all teams deal with. And that is the point of the whole fucking argument. I take exception to the constant pushing of resources to the future at the expense of the present. In my view the league is so damn competitive that you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best. You have to sacrifice some tomorrow for today or it will be extremely difficult to be the best in any given year where other teams are doing just that. You don’t counter that argument in anyway, you tell me I’m to fucking stupid to see the dynasty that Ballard is so obviously building. You don’t at all care to understand or counter someone’s argument. You simply make up what you think or want their argument to be and argue against that. If someone points out that’s not their point you accuse them of moving the goal posts. Or you simply tell them they are to stupid to understand yours. Oh, and no me saying I deleted part of my post because it was to long wasn’t a dig at you. Surprisingly it meant exactly what it said - I typed more out about that topic (the 3-4 yr rebuild) and deleted it because I thought it was to long. I’m not surprised you read into it something that wasn’t there. You do with every post that isn’t sucking Ballard’s dick or acknowledging the obvious coming dynasty. I’m done with this conversation. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. You’ve essentially been doing that for several posts now anyway. |
|
|