Official Ravens suck Game day thread

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

So how often did a player you were competing with for a position take you under his wing and teach you things? It's rare; people don't want to help their replacements. Some vets are very frank about it, like Joe Flacco. What often happens is the opposite: plenty of stories of young players being sabotaged by vets. It happens more than you think.

Your corporate environment is not really comparable unless you worked in a boiler room. Sure, some concepts are universal, but the environments and employee makeup are very different, and making an employee teach a replacement is a crappy thing to expect in any field. You are talking about a bunch of type A, perhaps doped up, athletes around the same age competing for the same jobs. And before you start up yeah, I have an MBA, and I've studied team building. Read the prerequisite sports books etc.

As for the Hankins stuff, you are reading way too much into it. Me not remembering Ballard signing him is a memory thing, not a football thing. Hankins being let go is because he didn't fit Eberflus' defense, not because Ballard dislikes veterans. It's simple things like this that make me think you don't know what you are talking about. Ballard values vet leadership; he just doesn't think it's fair to expect them to coach their replacements, and he is right. The coach should be the teacher and the guy the player trusts to have his best interests. When I refer to his philosophy, I'm talking about the draft strategy, positional emphasis and design of the team, where to spend money and why.

When you are talking team building and accountability, that is more in the coaches' department. That is why I get sick of the posts, because people don't know how football teams work, division of responsibilities. People just blame one guy because people don't like complicated. However, that isn't how NFL teams work. What does maga say, "orange man bad", or the other side would say, "thanks Obama," no matter what happens. That's what I think I see out of the fanbase and it's exhausting. As I said, there is plenty to hold him accountable for. No GM is perfect, you just hope he is right more than he is wrong. But you pay them to make decisions.

No, I think you are dismissive of other people's opinions bc it doesn't fit your confirmation bias. I think it's an ego thing. I know enough about football to know I don't know a shit ton and I played in college and coach my kid's teams.

No matter what I have done I have been made better by those around me who know what they are doing. Yes, even those around me I’m in competition with. I’ve seen where they are better than me and learned from it. I’ve learned how to prepare and how to conduct myself in different environments. That’s both athletically (on field, court, mat) and in an office setting. You (and Ballard) are pretending that people believe the only way a veteran can improve a team is if he’s acting exactly as a coach. Creating competition, learning how to prepare mentally and physically, and creating a culture of accountability are all benefits vets can bring to young players without directly acting like a coach. Not to mention seeing techniques and picking vets brains. And of course playing. Ballard has several times given the coaches very few veteran options, going young and cheap at positions. Typically those we know he’s going to address later.

QB I do believe is different with vets. It is the one you can pay someone with little expectation of playing. Within the same draft class as AR, Stroud had a 35 yr old Case Keenum in his QB room his rookie year, documented as being a huge mentor for him. He’s now moved on to serve the same role with Williams in Chicago. Young had a 36 yr old Andy Dalton. AR had a 27 yr old Minshew expecting to compete and 24 yr old Ehlingher. You don’t see the difference apparently and that’s fine. But other teams have done things differently. In the exact method my egotistical and ignorant ass sees as more beneficial to developing a young QB. I’m not advocating for something no teams has ever done and calling everyone stupid. I believe in a method other teams have used.

The thing here is you claim I have an ego because I believe in a different philosophy than Ballard. The funny part is, I acknowledge there are different beliefs in things. It’s YOU that are saying that you and Ballard know the only way, to the point of pretending there are no other viable theories for team building. And calling me ignorant for believing anything else. Anyone that has followed the NFL has seen different ways to assemble teams. The Rams certainly constructed their team differently than Ballard has.

On Hankins I will say now for the third time - I don’t give a fuck about Hankins. I know the stated reason for why he was cut. I referenced him being cut as a time marker for when Ballard expressed his belief on bringing in outside vets. He certainly echos your view that outside vets add no value beyond their playing ability. I’m well aware of his belief on having home grown vets and a culture set by his coaches. The comments were in the same press conference. Ballard has mostly backed his words with his actions. At least until more recently where he himself expressed regret in the lack of outside competition. So even Ballard admitted he erred in not doing something I have criticized, yet I’m still wrong and ignorant?

Most people understand that coaches are largely the drivers of team culture, although it isn’t limited to them. Many of us believe that vet players also play a major role. Where we place blame on Ballard is that he has led the search and played a major role in the hiring of the coaches. Neither of which were considered disciplinarians. You couple that with him not creating competition (don’t tell me it’s not true, he expressed regret about it). minimizing the value of external vets, basically gifting roles to young players and we wonder where the accountability is actually going to come from. Then we see and hear evidence of bad team culture (former players even calling it out) and we see a lot of things that point back to Ballard. Yet it pisses you off that people question Ballard and believe he is ultimately responsible? Believing the lack of knowledge in the fan base is the reason? Come the fuck on. In a knowledgeable city Ballard would have been gone a few seasons ago. You can easily look up the history of GMs with his track record.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how you react when there is a new GM. When they do things differently than Ballard will you criticize them? Or is your whole belief that fans shouldn’t have an opinion on the jobs professionals are doing? I’d think that’s the case except you clearly have opinions on the philosophy and job done by Grigson. So it would appear you think others, including NFL execs, are ignorant simply because they don’t agree with you.(yes Grigson was awful and deserved to be fired)