Colts Re-Sign Blackmon

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

My guess is there is nothing that can happen for you to think Ballard is capable. For the rest of us, we see the possibilities that a franchise QB opens up for a team. Without one, there is no chance. We think we have found one, and the team is solid behind him. The team that was one play from the playoff with a backup quarterback essentially has added a starting QB, a solid DLineman, and a solid backup QB, all while retaining the key free agents we had. This draft, plus whatever future additions Ballard makes before the start of the season should make us one of the top 4-7 teams in the conference.

One could argue that KC is miles ahead of the others, but Buffalo took a step back, and only HOU and BALT have any additions that look to benefit their teams. Maybe JAX has improved, but the jury is still out on them. We can be in the mix for the division (despite the moves HOU made), and be one of the contenders in the AFC.

I think Ballard is plenty capable. He’s a very good drafter overall which admittedly is an important quality for a GM. I like his overall demeanor. I want the guy to succeed. Of course anything short of saying Ballard is great is met with criticism and excuses. No matter what is done, the most logical and really only possible choice is whatever Ballard did. So I’ve started asking people to go on record of when the window for this team starts and what they expect that to mean philosophy wise. I’m curious what the excuses will be when Ballard continues his same philosophy.

People started coming to Ballard’s defense because I disagreed with your statement that Ballard saw a window with Rivers. I’ve asked for examples of where Ballard has made a “win now” move and I still don’t have one. I don’t because Ballard has never done it. But instead of just saying he hasn’t and shouldn’t have, the defenders are throwing out all kinds of other defenses. The guy doesn’t seem to change his approach no matter the roster makeup or QB situation. He’s going to resign the guys he likes, he’s going to be extremely cautious in free agency, he’s going to lean heavy on the draft, and he’s ok gifting positions to rookies and young players while letting them grow into them. Good or bad that is pretty clearly Ballard. I’d much rather argue about if that is a smart philosophy or not than keep arguing with guys trying to tell me Ballard is aggressive or has made multiple “win now” type moves.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I think Ballard is plenty capable. He’s a very good drafter overall which admittedly is an important quality for a GM. I like his overall demeanor. I want the guy to succeed. Of course anything short of saying Ballard is great is met with criticism and excuses. No matter what is done, the most logical and really only possible choice is whatever Ballard did. So I’ve started asking people to go on record of when the window for this team starts and what they expect that to mean philosophy wise. I’m curious what the excuses will be when Ballard continues his same philosophy.

People started coming to Ballard’s defense because I disagreed with your statement that Ballard saw a window with Rivers. I’ve asked for examples of where Ballard has made a “win now” move and I still don’t have one. I don’t because Ballard has never done it. But instead of just saying he hasn’t and shouldn’t have, the defenders are throwing out all kinds of other defenses. The guy doesn’t seem to change his approach no matter the roster makeup or QB situation. He’s going to resign the guys he likes, he’s going to be extremely cautious in free agency, he’s going to lean heavy on the draft, and he’s ok gifting positions to rookies and young players while letting them grow into them. Good or bad that is pretty clearly Ballard. I’d much rather argue about if that is a smart philosophy or not than keep arguing with guys trying to tell me Ballard is aggressive or has made multiple “win now” type moves.

You know there is nothing wrong with that approach, right? Build a team through the draft. Hire good coaches to improve the talent on the roster. Re-sign the best players you develop, and cut the losses on those who don't work out. Trade for proven players when possible. Manage the cap well enough to allow for player development and remain flexible enough to not have to make roster cuts that hurt, like trading Tyreek or Diggs. it CAN be done that way, with adding a few key free agents in lieu of the splash signings everyone is clamoring for, right?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

I told you, it's a flawed premise. I can never show you where Ballard made moves to indicate he believes the team's window is open... because you don't believe any of Ballard's moves indicate the team's window is open.

Try me out. Show me where Ballard has managed his roster and risked the future to win now. I’ll say this, if he has then it probably didn’t work out did it? The team hasn’t done a bunch of winning under him.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

You suppose there's this intrinsic truth that you must make FA or trade splashes with big-name players or you're not actually trying to win. So his draft-and-re-sign method is never going to look like a win-now move under that supposition.

Ahh yes the typical “you want big names” defense. I’ve stated many times that I’d be more than happy with mid level vets at known weak positions. It doesn’t have to be big names, but waiting until next years draft isn’t “win now”. Having no DE on the roster with double digit sacks in their career isn’t win now. Depending on a 3rd round rookie LT who has only played the position for two years to protect the most immobile QB in the league isnt win now. Throwing out 5 first and second year CBs to see what sticks isn’t win now. Do teams get forced into those types of situations occasionally? Of course. But it has happened so much with Ballard that it is clearly his philosophy. Hell he pretty much says as much. Why is that so hard to fucking admit? Instead you want to play word games about it. Just defend the fucking philosophy and quit trying to pretend Ballard is doing something he’s not.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

And like Dam mentioned, moves he does make, like selling a 1st and 3rd for Wentz, don't seem to count. After the shock of Luck's retirement, '20, '21, and '22 each with a new vet-QB wasn't an attempt to win now?

So Wentz was a win now move? Ok. Show me the rest of the moves to show they went all in with Wentz. Was it letting Autry walk to the Titans because you didn’t want to pay him? Or was it depending on a pass rush with no DE with double digit sacks for their career? I’d say it’s obvious we disagree on what win now means. But hey if you are right and that was Ballard’s swing year then yeah maybe I don’t want him to swing. For the record I have never criticized Ballard for Wentz, it was a shot worth shooting. But no it wasn’t win now. He followed his usually philosophy for the roster - just look at DE. And it was the one time I think it was defensible because he was young enough to provide a window going forward.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

We've been down the road of me asking for specifics about what Ballard could/should do differently, but all I'll hear is "not my job." And that bypasses the complicated fact that it's a zero-sum game.

Not gift positions to rookies. Bring in more mid level vets to compete for known weak positions. When there is a window, be more aggressive with contract structure that aligns with your window. There I gave you what I want Ballard to do differently. Not what you want though is it? You want me to tell you exactly what players to sign. That makes it easier to talk away the issues and not look at the trends or philosophy.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

You know there is nothing wrong with that approach, right? Build a team through the draft. Hire good coaches to improve the talent on the roster. Re-sign the best players you develop, and cut the losses on those who don't work out. Trade for proven players when possible. Manage the cap well enough to allow for player development and remain flexible enough to not have to make roster cuts that hurt, like trading Tyreek or Diggs. it CAN be done that way, with adding a few key free agents in lieu of the splash signings everyone is clamoring for, right?

Yes it can be done that way. It is a viable method. Polian’s Colts followed largely the same philosophy. And I believe it cost them rings. They traded greatness for longevity IMO. Every method has strengths and weaknesses. The strength to this one is obvious, the weakness is not peaking and not adapting. What I see are teams that are willing to take more risks winning big more. It may mean more ups and downs, but that comes with built in advantages too - better draft picks. We have Irsay’s meddling to thank for AR, not Ballard. That’s just the most obvious example why a lost season isnt always a bad thing. Especially if you have the QB in place. To me it doesn’t make sense to not consider the window open now. If you do and AR is good, you help his development by giving him support, lessening his load, and you add a year to the window. If he sucks, well isnt it better to bottom out and have a shot at another QB? We saw where mediocre got us when the team had no QB. Why go back there? Restructure a deal or two, be aggressive looking at a 2-3 yr window, and see where AR takes you.

And I will say for the 1000th time that doesn’t necessarily have to be big names. It can be, but doesn’t have to be.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

We can debate the risk in those moves, but I just don’t see how they are relevant to my point. Show me where Ballard has managed the roster to “win now”. That’s the discussion. I contend Ballard doesn’t view things that way and I believe regardless of ARs development he will continue managing the roster as he always has. If you see evidence to the contrary please provide it. The same year he traded for Wentz he had a roster that had no DE on the team with double digit sacks. Total. For their career. So the team certainly didn’t enter win now mode because he acquired Wentz.

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.

[rm1369]

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.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Yes it can be done that way. It is a viable method. Polian’s Colts followed largely the same philosophy. And I believe it cost them rings. They traded greatness for longevity IMO. Every method has strengths and weaknesses. The strength to this one is obvious, the weakness is not peaking and not adapting. What I see are teams that are willing to take more risks winning big more. It may mean more ups and downs, but that comes with built in advantages too - better draft picks. We have Irsay’s meddling to thank for AR, not Ballard. That’s just the most obvious example why a lost season isnt always a bad thing. Especially if you have the QB in place. To me it doesn’t make sense to not consider the window open now. If you do and AR is good, you help his development by giving him support, lessening his load, and you add a year to the window. If he sucks, well isnt it better to bottom out and have a shot at another QB? We saw where mediocre got us when the team had no QB. Why go back there? Restructure a deal or two, be aggressive looking at a 2-3 yr window, and see where AR takes you.

And I will say for the 1000th time that doesn’t necessarily have to be big names. It can be, but doesn’t have to be.

For the most part, the Cheatriots used a similar method and were more successful. Yes, they cheated, but they also proved that you can sustain success if you have the QB in place, and you manage the cap well. The window does not require a QB on a rookie contract.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

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.

You keep saying this, but sacks are not the only measure of a good defense.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

For the most part, the Cheatriots used a similar method and were more successful. Yes, they cheated, but they also proved that you can sustain success if you have the QB in place, and you manage the cap well. The window does not require a QB on a rookie contract.

The Patriots were the exact opposite of the colts. No they didn’t buy big name free agents often, but they took chances on veteran players constantly and reinvented their team constantly. Just the top of my head they traded for:

Randy Moss
Corey Dillon
Danny Amendola
Wes Welker

And I believe signed Darrell Revis as a free agent. Plenty more guys they acquired other than in the draft. They loved experienced vets. They changed much more than the Colts did and you didn’t see them with the same weaknesses year after year either.

Yes having a hall of fame level QB makes sustained success easier. I don’t disagree.

No a rookie contract isnt a requirement, but it’s a significant advantage. Especially for a team that wants to straight line contracts.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

You keep saying this, but sacks are not the only measure of a good defense.

Maybe not. But scroll through the list of highest paid defensive players in the league and tell me what the majority of players are known for. Pass rushers are highly valued for a reason. Seeing how it matters so little, I’m curious why you think Ballard has invested so many resources into finding one?

It’s crazy to me that instead of conceding the obvious (that Ballard didn’t go into win now mode with Wentz) you’d rather try to minimize the importance of pass rushers in the modern NFL.