|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
He probably isn't very good anymore. I don't get Ballard's strategy.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That's easy Fat, he is going to build the Colts thru the draft, in doing so he is tanking the next few years, that's why all these 1 and 2 year contracts.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Implementing this strategy (particularly the first part) may necessarily cause some temporary weaknesses at certain positions - such as releasing Hankins - but I think he believes the Colts will be stronger and leaner (from a cap perspective) when this is complete. It also may cause the Colts to lose out on some of the big name free agents, since they aren't necessarily interested in the type of contract the Colts will want to use and will have better options elsewhere, but I'm guessing that in most instances Ballard believes the second or third best option is a better value for his strategy anyways. Presumably, he's keeping the Colt's ammo dry for when a truly great free agent option presents itself, and in those circumstances maybe he'd be willing to stray from the his normal approach. But paying Moncrief $9-11M or Melvin $10M+ a year (I know he only got $6.5M, but reports are that he wanted this from the Colts) probably isn't smart and certainly not consistent with this approach. It takes some guts to do this, because he's being roundly criticized in the media and by fans, but I think he's shown he's a strong leader and believes in what he's trying to accomplish. And I really think its premature to criticize this offseason until it's over. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post: | ||
1965southpaw (03-21-2018), Oldcolt (03-21-2018), Puck (03-21-2018), Racehorse (03-21-2018), rcubed (03-21-2018), sherck (03-21-2018), YDFL Commish (03-21-2018) |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You should post more often! Walk Worthy,
__________________
============== Thad The future is so bright; I gotta triple up! |
The Following User Says Thank You to sherck For This Useful Post: | ||
Puck (03-21-2018) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed. That was a good post. Probably makes too much sense for most in this forum, but good nonetheless.
Keep posting! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I've actually advocated for building through the draft, but they should sell off Luck to expedite the process, this is just backwards. Ballard is writing off the next three years at least, why keep Luck? The Hankins move and Melvin moves were stupid, you ADD players to existing core. Last edited by testcase448; 03-21-2018 at 12:24 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts. Third, what do Hankins/Melvin have to do with Luck anyways? By your line of thinking, a weakened defense will actually protect Luck because he won’t be able to be on the field as much. So you should celebrate their absence! Regardless, the Hankins/Melvin decisions were undoubtedly driven by Ballard’s cost/benefit analysis. By not spending on them now, he can use their salaries later on players who better fit the schemes – and before you start talking about how much cap space they already have, remember that the cap minimums are judged on a four year basis. Even if he doesn’t spend the savings this year, he can still bank it for a later year to spend on our own free agents or on an outside free agent. The game is to maximize your cap currency, not simply to spend like a drunken sailor on leave – and that’s what I personally believe paying Melvin $10M+ would be a fair comparison to. Nice player, no question, but if you pay enough Melvins you won’t be able to pay the truly special players too - there’s always going to be Melvin/Moncrief/Grant types available, but it can be devastating to overpay them. To just complain that we lost Melvin or Hankins is meaningless unless you can also make the case that their salaries are justified as well. The two go hand in hand. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post: | ||
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is? |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to rcubed For This Useful Post: | ||
Puck (03-21-2018) |
|
|