Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Classic
The Rams are an extreme example since they had to make a splash for their debut in LA. Do you think they could sell Ballard's plan as they arrive in LA?
A closer parallel is the Bears. They went for it with the Mack trade, their QB situation is similarly screwed up, Mack and the defense led them to a nice season last year, but a sub-par season this year, mainly due to the lack of play-makers on offense. If I was a fan of the Bears, I wouldn't regret the team going for it with the Mack trade. Sure, he's making a lot of money, but he's exactly the kind of rare game-changer who the Colts are forever chasing through the draft, as opposed to parting with a few draft picks and having that issue solved for the next 4-5 years AND using the remaining picks to find complementary players who would be that much better since they step in day one next to a difference-maker.
It's easy to say, "well the Bears didn't win a Super Bowl, so such a risky move wasn't wise and now they're up against the cap". You gotta spend the money on someone, might as well be an impactful someone.
|
The Bears aren't really comparable in my view. To begin with, we didn't have a screwed up QB situation in the time frame we've been discussing. We're talking about the window that opened in 2018 when Luck returned. The Bears don't have a Luck.
Second, we aren't talking about the Colts failing to trade for a specific player at the cost of future draft picks - that's an entirely different analysis than the decision to sign free agents. Usually, guys like Mack aren't available through free agency.
Third, your timeline is off with the Rams. They moved to L.A. in 2016, and ended up 4-12 after picking Goff with the first pick in the draft. they didn't really start their free agent splurge until around 2018 (Suh), when they made a Super Bowl run. So I think they are a much better comparable to the Colts and the philosophy that some here have advocated.
For the record, I don't think trading future draft picks for a star player in his prime is necessarily a bad idea. Mack has been a good addition, no question. My problem with those type of trades is that often people look only at the quality of the star player and ignore the business implications - usually you have to sign the player to a market-value contract as part of such a trade, so there are implications for the team beyond the on the field performance. That said, unique players are often worth more than market rates, so I'm not against that idea. I haven't seen any indication that Ballard thinks this way yet though.