Quote:
|
I can determine that he did not live up to his word when he said that if a franchise QB was available, he would move heaven and earth to get him. The formerly available franchise QB is now a Texan because Ballard did not move heaven and earth (trade to 1) to get him.
|
No, you can't at this point b/c that statement assumes that Stroud will stay healthy and continue to at least be as good as he was his rookie year and that AR will continue to be injury plagued or he won't improve on what we did see on the field this year (which was pretty damn promising).
Totally get your sentiment that a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush, but Ballard drafted AR w/ the long game in mind rather than just his rookie year. If 2-3 years down the road Stroud is an all pro and AR can't stay on the field or doesn't develop then I will completely agree w/ you that Ballard fucked up by not trading up to draft Stroud. But the fact is that it's WAY too early to say that Ballard definitely fucked up. Especially when you consider that despite the injury concerns AR still has the higher ceiling.
Quote:
|
So you don't care for nuance at all? I already said everyone was wrong about the 2021 QB class. In some cases, those QBs came in with fatal flaws, in some cases the team destroyed the development of the QB, all 5 of them appear to be busts now. I do wish I had made more noise about Brock Purdy at the time, he impressed me when I was watching Breece Hall and Charlie Kolar film.
|
I absolutely care for and think nuance is important, but what you do isn't adding nuance. You make definitive statements based on hypotheticals to try to prove that you're not wrong.
Adding nuance is stating something like: Yeah, I was wrong about Wilson. Dudes a total bust. But I don't think the Jets did him any favors by throwing him to the wolves, and if they had let him sit for part or all of his rookie year it might have worked out better. Certainly couldn't have hurt anything.
What you say (paraphrasing): I wasn't wrong on Wilson. The Jets fucked up. If they had listened to me and sat him his rookie year he'd be a really good QB.
Also, BTW: I disagree w/ that sentiment on Wilson. The dude's basically the Gen Z version of Ryan Leaf, only with pill popping swapped out for milf hunting.
Quote:
|
Because the rest of the world, no less than half of this board included, was ready to anoint him the next Peyton Manning when he came into the league. I correctly predicted that he would never be that, or even close, and seemingly was on an island by myself with that opinion (I think maybe Chris Simms was the only draft media person that didn't have Lawrence as QB1 and Player 1 that year). The only space Trevor Lawrence occupies in my head is as the prime example of "QBs who can't read a defense".
|
I'm not disagreeing with you that Lawrence hasn't and in all likelihood won't live up to expectations. I do think the book isn't near as closed on him as you think it is, but I digress. The point I've been making is that you bring him up ALL THE TIME. Even when the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him whatsoever (like how you did on this thread).
Quote:
|
Bullshit. Most people said things like "I don't really have a preference between the 4 QBs, I'll just trust whatever the Colts FO does." That's fine, but you don't get to come back 8 months later claiming a strong opinion on any of them then. Most people who actually ranked the QBs had Young ahead of Stroud. All that poll, entitled "Who do you want at 4?" shows is that most people didn't think any of the QBs were worth trading up for, which was the prevailing sentiment at the time, and most people didn't think Stroud would get to 4, which makes sense because unless Jack Easterby was still running the Texans there's no way he should've gotten past 2 (and the Panthers are kind of stupid for not taking him at 1). It shows that most people thought Richardson was better than Levis, which you didn't have to squint too hard to see. Clearly one of those QBs was worth trading up for.
|
Calling BS again. As Chaos backed me up on, there were quite a few of us here who specifically said that we did not want the Colts to draft Young. I don't see how anyone who made that statement would have Young ranked higher than Stroud. It has been almost a year and a ton of beers since then, so maybe there were more people on here who liked Young than I remember. But I definitely remember that there was a good portion of us on here who did not want Young at all.
Quote:
|
I really don't feel it's fair to be held accountable for a dysfunctional organization fucking up a QB, because it wasn't my decisions that fucked up the QB. I couldn't control what the Cheats did to Jones (though if I could I'd've probably traded him because fuck the Cheats), I couldn't control what the Jets did to Wilson, and I can't control what the Panthers do to Young. Sometimes shitty franchises ruin good players.
|
I don't disagree w/ this, but in your effort to be always right you state these circumstances as the definite root cause as to why a given player you liked hasn't or didn't work out. It could very well be that the said player just isn't a good, NFL quality player.
Quote:
|
The discussion will stop if you stop replying. I enjoy discussion, especially on topics I feel strongly about.
|
I honestly forget what this was a response to. I think it was that I was again trying to get through your thick head that it's too early to definitely say that staying put and drafting AR instead of trading up for Stroud is the franchise killing disaster that you claim it is.
Quote:
|
If Richardson doesn't pan out, I won't be the only Colts fan that will count all the franchise QBs Ballard missed believing in him.
|
If AR doesn't pan out then Ballard is probably gone. With that said as much shit as I give Ballard on here, I fully admit he's good at his job. Certainly better than his predecessor and better than any of us armchair GMs on here would be. Also, he's shown that he won't hesitate to cut bait like he did w/ Wentz. I think we need to give him leeway for the next season or 2 before we start calling for him to replace AR.
Quote:
|
I did that to show that I actually do reconsider my positions and change them when the evidence shows I should. Once again, with Wilson and Jones, I firmly believe their organizations did several disservices to their development, so while they likely won't be good NFL QBs now, no one will ever know what would've happened if they went to situations better suited to their success. I'll certainly say that the Jets shouldn't have drafted Wilson and the Cheats shouldn't have drafted Jones based on what they did to them, but, as an example, if either had gone to a situation like Jordan Love's, I think either of them would've turned out better than Jordan Love.
|
Like I said earlier, admitting you were wrong was a good step forward. You should try it more often.
Quote:
|
As for Daniel Jones, I vaguely remember a discussion where I said he could be a top 15 QB this year. I don't think that was as outlandish of a claim as you make it out to be. Obviously he wasn't because he got hurt, but based on his 2022, "league average starter" was not an outlandish claim for Daniel Jones.
|
Basically you thought he could be a top 15 QB. I balked at this. Then you came back w/ saying that you watched film on him, that he showed well in said film, and that you predicted that he would improve upon his '22 season and have a good year in '23. This obviously didn't happen, and not just b/c he got hurt ~1/3 of the way through the season. He was GOD AWFUL prior to that.
Quote:
|
The poll is clearly worded in such a way that "at 4" is a consideration in the vote. That makes it objective evidence that the votes reflect who people want "at 4", which allows people to make assumptions of which 3 players will be picked by that point. Most people would've assumed Stroud and Young to be gone at that point, and wouldn't have voted for them for that reason. It seems you may be the only one on the board who believed Stroud would be available at 4, because both C & O and I have said we did not take "at 4" into consideration and voted for who we wanted.
|
As with C&O, you're trying to speak for me. I answered the poll w/ how it read: Who do you want the Colts to draft at 4? and not Who do you want the Colts to draft at 4 that you think will likely be there? Fully understand why folks would think the 2nd part is implied, but I did not.
I also find it interesting that I am actually agreeing w/ you on something, but yet you seem to still want to argue about it.
Quote:
|
This post, coming from you, is hilarious. No one on this board has a bigger ego than you, and for some reason everyone just lets you get away with it. I have strong opinions, I won't deny that, and I don't back down on them, especially not because "conventional wisdom" says I'm wrong. "Conventional wisdom" leads to a lot of stupid conclusions, and too many football media experts and quite frankly front offices are too heavily influenced by it. So I'm not going to back down from my opinions when I form them just because "conventional wisdom" says to do so. If you want to get me to say I'm wrong, show me evidence.
|
A few observations on this: omaha says a lot of things in jest (or at least that's how they come across), whereas you do not. On top of that he'll bring up something once or twice and then let it go whereas you bring it up again, and again, and.......(out to infinity) again. Also, his statements seem come from him just wanting the Colts to be better, whereas yours are more about trying to prove that you're right above anything else. Maybe that's not your intent, but it's definitely how you come across on here. And I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so.
01-11-2024, 02:56 PM
Linear Mode
