[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Reward those who excel in your system. That kind of an engine takes a few years to build, but should produce reliable performance once constructed.

Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?

Originally Posted by Chaka

He also signed two risky free agents - Funchess and Houston – to large (though short) contracts last off-season.

A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.

Originally Posted by Chaka

To suggest that we are further from a title now than when Ballard was hired seems ludicrous, particularly since you exclude Luck from this analysis. Go look at our 2017 roster, excluding Luck......

Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.

Originally Posted by Chaka

I think that’s pretty unfair to say - 2 of the 3 positions you mentioned (QB and LT) were locked down prior to the season (albeit by people drafted pre-Ballard), and Ballard had no reason to think otherwise until the Luck retirement and the threat of a Castonzo retirement reared its head.

My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.

But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.

Also, needing an eventual replacement for AC was talked about by plenty of people. Here is part of one of my posts regarding the drafting of Nelson. I love the guy. How could you not? But a lot of people at the time were concerned about the tackle position more than guard. An immediate upgrade at RT that could replace AC down the road was a viable option to improve the line. And would have added an additional piece with the trade back. I don’t want to turn this in to a Nelson debate - if ever a guard was worth the 6th pick it’s Nelson. I’m simply pointing out that it is not a huge surprise that tackle is a need. And for as great as Nelson is, the line hasn’t played great without a good LT (with AC out).

Originally Posted by rm1369

My point has simply been that Nelson was not the only option available to Ballard. Possibly not even the best. Even when taking into account his failure to address it previously. I’d say a good argument could be made that trading back and walking away with McGlinchey or Miller and then adding Smith would have improved the line tremendously as well. Many said predraft that tackle was the biggest issue for the line, so that’s not hindsight. And I could argue the long term outlook of the line would be brighter with a solid tackle in place to slide to the left side in a year or two. Or whenever Castonzo is hurt.