Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
It is entirely possible to criticize both Grigson and a Ballard’s philosophy without being inconsistent. There is a pretty decent middle ground between the two. Grigson largely used free agency how I think you should - to fill some holes you can’t immediately fill in the draft. He wasn’t trying to “buy” a team, he filled weaknesses with mid level guys. He over paid them (as you are largely required to), but didn’t mortgage the future. He just couldn’t draft for shit and no system will work long term if you can’t draft. And he was a complete ass.
Ballard doesn’t make decisions based on what the team needs, he makes decisions based on “winning” the transaction with the idea he’ll eventually draft whatever the team needs anyway. The issue is you can never draft enough to adequately fill all the holes. Not to mention the team has yet to adequately fill the three most important positions for winning - QB, DE, and LT. So yes he’s been great drafting but he’s been in charge for awhile and the team still has many major holes and hasn’t won shit.
As far as locker room culture, I’m not sure Ballard has built all that great of one. You don’t have a winning culture if you don’t win, right? And I have serious doubts about this team’s commitment to winning considering how many “leaders” in the locker room were willing to throw the season away
I honestly like Ballard, but there is plenty of room to criticize his methods without being inconsistent with the criticisms of Grigson.
|
Great points. Ballard is ok to good, but he's not as great as people make him out to be. I think a lot of this is relative perception since Griggs sucked so much at his job.
Also, agree on the team culture. Team's with winning cultures don't go shit the bed at the Jagoffs with a playoff spot on the line.