| Chaka |
06-10-2019 01:09 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
(Post 121912)
No, by “business decision” I’m referring to prioritizing getting the best return for dollar spent over the end product on the field. You don’t get extra points in playoff games because you have a really efficient roster and a ton of unused cap space. What actually happens is your weakness at WR and your lack of a pass rush get exposed. The NFL is highly competitive and the margins for error are so thin that always prioritizing the future is going to almost always have you coming up short.
This is an asinine argument. The casino industry is built on proven mathematical statistics. I can point you to the house’s statistical advantage for any table game in the casino. In the long term the math will always win out. Please show me where any such thing exists for NFL roster building. I know 32 teams who would love to have that knowledge. And don’t even bring up “Moneyball” BS or I’ll point out the differences between its applicability to baseball and football and the fact it’s storied inventor never won a title with it.
To me the biggest thing you (and Ballard) are wrong about is the idea that Ballard is going to draft so well that he is going to create a long term dynasty that wins multiple championships over the long term. To me it’s simply a fools errand. The NFL rules are setup to specifically stop that. From free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling, the NFL is setup to bring teams back to the pack. The only modern day “dynasty” has been NE and they don’t operate at all how you advocate. Ballard will have to prove himself to be head and shoulders better at the draft than any GM in NFL history for it to work. Otherwise I see the limit as being the Polian Colts and Ted Thompson Packers. That isn’t all bad certainly. But I think most would agree that those teams should have more than one title each.
|
So I guess it’s just business as usual then? Don’t try to innovate or try any different approaches? We’ll just draft and play our games, and if we get lucky win a few games and maybe a Super Bowl because it’s pointless to try and do anything differently. Everything’s already been tried, the margins are too thin, and you can’t out think anyone?
That’s ridiculous. There’s plenty of room for innovating everywhere, the NFL included. You’ve already been proven wrong after you argued last year that Ballard’s approach would lead us into 2-3 years of obscurity. So we had a few holes or weaknesses – what team doesn’t, particularly coming from where we did the year before? I notice you didn’t bring up the OL or the DBs – areas that I’m guessing (but can't recall specifically as I sit here) you were critical of last offseason.
Regarding my casino analogy and the “Moneyball BS”, it’s obvious you don’t fully grasp those examples. Because “mathematical statistics” were involved in those examples, you think the underlying principles don’t have any application here. The more important lesson is that a seemingly slight advantage can make a big difference, and can be all that is needed to turn a loser into a winner. And if you maintain that slight advantage over a long period of time, you will continue to win for a long time as well.
As for the purported hopelessness of trying to become a long term winner in the NFL, despite your suggestion otherwise teams have been doing that since the outset of the league. But you don’t do that by acting like every other team – you need to find inefficiencies and exploit them. That’s what the Colts are trying to do. I don't recall if you were one of the many who were critical of Ballard's 2018 draft, but so far he's proving your current theory wrong there as well. |
