Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
My comment that you guys didn’t seem to like is that I see Funchess as a place holder for Cain or a draft pick. Your draft pick argument doesn’t change that. I 100% understand the possible benefits of the one year contract, but I don’t believe Ballard solved the long term WR2 issue with the signing. And I doubt he intended to. That’s what I disagree with. If he had attempted to solve any of the other roster holes with a different signing then I wouldn’t care as much. But it appears he is doing largely what I expected and what he’s said he is going to do - kick the can down the road until he solves it with a draft pick.
I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO.
There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him.
Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.
|
But a one year deal doesn't negate either direction. I'm arguing for a middle ground--Funchess could be a one year placeholder before a better long-term option is ready in 2020 (e.g. Cain or 2019 draft pick or UFA signing), or he could really thrive and the Colts could re-sign him with their truckload of cap space, or he could be bad and the Colts aren't on the hook past 2019, or he could thrive and the Colts could let him walk for compensation.
You keep arguing for the negative without acknowledging the positives. There's nothing about this deal that prevents a long-term solution at WR2. It just isn't written in stone yet.