#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts. Third, what do Hankins/Melvin have to do with Luck anyways? By your line of thinking, a weakened defense will actually protect Luck because he won’t be able to be on the field as much. So you should celebrate their absence! Regardless, the Hankins/Melvin decisions were undoubtedly driven by Ballard’s cost/benefit analysis. By not spending on them now, he can use their salaries later on players who better fit the schemes – and before you start talking about how much cap space they already have, remember that the cap minimums are judged on a four year basis. Even if he doesn’t spend the savings this year, he can still bank it for a later year to spend on our own free agents or on an outside free agent. The game is to maximize your cap currency, not simply to spend like a drunken sailor on leave – and that’s what I personally believe paying Melvin $10M+ would be a fair comparison to. Nice player, no question, but if you pay enough Melvins you won’t be able to pay the truly special players too - there’s always going to be Melvin/Moncrief/Grant types available, but it can be devastating to overpay them. To just complain that we lost Melvin or Hankins is meaningless unless you can also make the case that their salaries are justified as well. The two go hand in hand. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post: | ||
#23
|
||||
|
||||
But is Suh a fit culture-wise? That would be my guess as to Ballard's thinking in this regard. You can agree or disagree with the approach, but Ballard has made it clear building team's culture is central to his strategy.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As far as him having the guts to do it I don’t really care. IMO he’s unnecessarily wasting seasons with a franchise QB. He’s decided on a 3-4 yr rebuild and if Luck gets killed or pissed in the process so be it. I don’t see it as guts, I see it as arrogance. He better kill the draft. He needs an even better showing than last year. We are in yr two of his rebuild and the holes on the roster have only expanded. Especially after he just cut his big free agent signing from last year. Cap flexibility is great, but it doesn’t win football games or protect franchise QBs from Jacksonville’s pass rush. When Luck and his surgically repaired shoulder is getting killed next year hopefully he will be comforted in knowing Ballard maintained flexibility. Last edited by rm1369; 03-21-2018 at 01:02 PM. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is? |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to rcubed For This Useful Post: | ||
Puck (03-21-2018) |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
The idea that it's too early to criticize the off-season, specifically free agency, makes no sense to me. Free agency moves fast. So fast the NFL created the assinine "legal tampering" period. And based on interviews I've read, teams and players still start talking earlier than they're supposed to.
Teams don't tamper with JAGs. They push for every advantage they can get to sign the best players in FA. What is it we are supposed to wait for before we develop an opinion on the moves the Colts do and don't make? There aren't more moves to be made. We whiffed on all the sure fire upgrades for the OL. All we could get was a 32 year old who apparently sucked at guard the last time he played there. At $3M for a single season, it doesn't appear he's expected to start. Maybe he'll get the chance to compete there, but is it likely? I've said it before, but it's clear Ballard knows the OL needs to be better. He wouldn't have tried to get Norwell, Jensen, or Pugh otherwise. Slauson isn't a solution to that problem. He's a "hopefully, but probably not". Also don't see any reason to wait on anything related to releasing Hankins. There's nothing else to be decided there. Either you buy the idea that he can't play in our new defense or you don't. Last edited by FatDT; 03-21-2018 at 01:32 PM. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Of course not, but it is to lose your freaking mind about what has or hasn't been done. Something you are clearly not doing.
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
That's just perception. The people with concerns think they're being rational and that those arguing against them are "Ballard ball washers" or "Pollyannas". And the people supporting Ballard's moves think they're being rational and that those with questions are "freaking out" and "bitching".
|
|
|