Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
The fact that we have available cap space was only one factor in signing McCoy, not the only factor. If you read through the thread you would know that, but I think you ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to establish. We actually don't disagree on very much, however you misinterpret things quite a bit and it is exhausting.
Maybe some appreaciate the lectures, I already have an MBA and I don't think your 'run it like a business' model is applicable to building a winning football team. The problem is I just don't think you know a whole lot about football. The fact that the only problem you have with the Funchess signing is that it is one year contract reinforces that notion. If you don't know much about football it is hard to tell what is a good decision and a bad decision concerning personnel. So you fall back on a trope of arguing against over-paying for free agents and big names. "Oh no stupid fans, they don't know what they are talking about. They just want to sign big name players past their prime. I better tell them how you are suppossed to run a football team." Well that isn't really the case here. Considering we have a ton of cap space, makes it more a football fit argument than a cap argument concerning McCoy. If you want to argue that spending money on McCoy will keep us from resigning our own guys, fine do that. Look at the free agents for next year. Some of these guys we will resign, more I think we will replaced through the draft. But just saying "oh no spending ten million now will keep us from resigning guys" is a blanket statement that doesn't hold any weight because it is conjecture.
As for the proactive thing. I know you think you are making a joke, but you do know premptive and proactive have two different meanings? You remind me of Biff Tannen who thinks he is being witty when he tells someone to make like a tree and get outa here. Ballard is only proactive once a glaring hole is exposed on the field. The past couple years we have entered the season with obvious holes. OL year one, year two pass rush and WR, year three looks like interior d-line to me as it stands. I would like to see him address these issues more before it is exposed on the field, hence he is reactive to roster issues after the fact, then he becomes proactive. That is not the same as preemptive. This comes into the reading comprehension, I really think you have a hard time figuring out what people are trying to say on here. I have to explain things to an obsurd detail. I noticed it the last time we got into it and you doing it with other posters as well. |
Let me make this simple, and cut through all of the meaningless fluff you’ve included in your response:
1. Cap space as an excuse for FA signings – My reference was broader than just the thread about McCoy, just like your comment that I was responding to. I’m sure there are other reasons to sign/not-sign him, many of which are legitimately debatable, but I was taking issue with just one stated reason: the repeated justification that we should sign players (McCoy, Houston, Collins, etc.) because of our cap space. That one just doesn't hold water, and compels me to try and explain why.
2. Funchess – So you’re saying I should have more criticisms of this signing? Why? Explain yourself please, because sometimes it seems like you’re shooting from the hip. And you’re a moving target – you first say that I’m against signing free agents, so when I point out that I didn’t criticize a number of the Colts free agent signings, including the decision to spend $10M on Funchess, your argument morphs into the argument that I don’t know much about football. Talk about exhausting.
3. Funchess #2 - I don’t hold myself out as an expert in player evaluation. I've been clear on that. But signing an experienced 25-year old large bodied wide receiver with upside doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me, and this is where I put my trust in Ballard. My only criticism is the one-year deal aspect –if Ballard thinks he's an answer, we didn’t position ourselves to take advantage of the signing if he works out well next year. Ideally, that would be done with option years, just like we did with Glowinski.
4. Your MBA – I don’t care. Your arguments should stand on their own without needing to use your background as a crutch, so how about you back up your position with facts or logic instead? If my approach doesn’t comport with your business training, how about you explain why, instead of just telling me that your opinion is better because you have an MBA? You have no idea what my background is. And since you seem to believe that running a football team isn’t anything like running a business, what relevance does your MBA have anyway? Tell me, please.
5. Proactive vs. Reactive – I was making the point that you’re being ridiculous. That’s all. Proactive is the opposite of reactive. Yet you first criticized Ballard for being “reactive”, and only a few posts later said he’s “proactive." I really don’t like to call people out on their grammar or spelling because I have typos too, and more importantly it’s usually a cheap shot when you can basically tell what they mean – but you just openly contradict yourself without shame. The irony is that, in explaining why Ballard is “proactive," you demonstrate that you don’t even know what that word means (he becomes proactive “once a glaring hole is exposed on the field”? Really?). So I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist given the tone of your prior post. To be honest, I wish I hadn’t said it now because those type of comments inevitably distract from the main conversation. But suffice it to say that there’s just no consistency in what you say. And don’t get me started on “preemptive.”