Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.
|
I’m sorry to hear that. My opinion can and has changed in response to opinions expressed on this board, but I agree not in this instance. I understand your position, and it’s perfectly fair and reasonable, but I just happen to disagree. Your argument would be more convincing to me if the Colts were mired in a series of losing seasons, with little evidence of progress and we were being asked to simply trust Ballard on his word and vision. Then I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.
But that’s not what has happened here. There are plenty of signs that Ballard’s plan was working. Yes, the plan has been seriously damaged by major unexpected – and in some ways unheard of – events such as the Luck retirement. And yes, I agree things are always changing and unpredictable in the NFL. But the Luck retirement goes a little beyond that and its kind of uncharted territory – a marquee player in the prime of his career at the sport’s most important position who is abruptly eliminated from the equation permanently. That’s not within the realm of normal NFL “not for long” events. Sorry, it just isn’t. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I really can’t think of a comparable event off the top of my head – maybe the Theismann injury, but he was pretty late into his career at the time if I’m not mistaken.
Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.