Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
It’s a valid question. My thinking is that guys should get on the field when they earn it. If you are trying to build a winning culture isn’t that a huge part of it? And it’s a huge part of coaching to be able to identify the guys that deserve to be on the field or show them why they aren’t good enough yet.
Either way, rarely can you both give young guys tons of time and win. And that’s where I feel like Chaka and a few others are simply being intellectually dishonest. The goal posts keep getting moved. Ballard sacrificed this season to get all of these young guys time, several clearly before they are ready. And he unnecessarily held other positions open to do it again next year. If you are fine with that, that’s ok. I just disagree. But it would be nice if guys quit denying that’s what happened.
Either way, rarely can you both give young guys tons of time and win. And that’s where I feel like Chaka and a few others are simply being intellectually dishonest. The goal posts keep getting moved. Ballard sacrificed this season to get all of these young guys time, several clearly before they are ready. And he unnecessarily held other positions open to do it again next year. If you are fine with that, that’s ok. I just disagree. But it would be nice if guys quit denying that’s what happened.
|
Because I don't agree with you I'm intellectually dishonest? That's silly - I always try to explain my position in terms of actual information. Please point out my prior posts where you think I'm not being forthright or "moving the goalposts" on you. My position has always been that a healthy Luck gives us a chance to win almost any game - perhaps our chances could be slightly improved by signing a bunch of free agents, but I'll trade a few extra mistakes in exchange for the long term benefits that I think following Ballard's plan will bring.
And by the way, what players is Ballard playing "clearly before they are ready"? It appears to me that the areas of greatest concern are those that are manned largely by players that have been in the league for several years: CB and WR. Most of the rookies have performed admirably, and a review of the stats reveals that our defense is actually far better statistically than it was with all of the old guard you argued so strongly that we should have kept (Hankins, etc.). Despite our 2-5 record, we've actually scored more points (189) than we've given up (185).
Simply put, while your comments often reflect commonly held sentiments about the Colts, they aren't supported by the facts. Now THAT is intellectually dishonest, and that's why I've been pressing you to provide me with real-world information that we can all analyze in support of your position.