Quick thoughts on Colts-Raiders

[FatDT]

Originally Posted by sherck

Hankins was abusing our O-Line on a couple of running plays yesterday. Just crushing gaps or getting off blocks to make the play.

You cannot tell me that he would not have fit in our 4 - 3. If Woods and Hunt fit, Hankins would have too.

Spilled milk but I agree that our D-line roation would be better with all three those guys.

Walk Worthy,

What does Autry offer that Anderson didn't do better?

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88

4. Dontrelle Inman will be overshadowed by the TEs today, but he had a monster hands day. The TD "drop" was asking a bit much of him. Dude caught some LASERS today.

By the way, it occurs to me that Ballard has been very effective obtaining street free agents that can be significant contributors to this team – Glowinski, Mitchell and now (potentially) Inman come immediately to mind.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by sherck

Hankins was abusing our O-Line on a couple of running plays yesterday. Just crushing gaps or getting off blocks to make the play.

You cannot tell me that he would not have fit in our 4 - 3. If Woods and Hunt fit, Hankins would have too.

Spilled milk but I agree that our D-line roation would be better with all three those guys.

Walk Worthy,

HE DIDNT WANT TO PLAY IN A 4-3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I hope all the other teams "abuse" us for 200 + rushing yards the rest of the way!

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by FatDT

This line would be better if Hankins, Anderson, and Simon were still on it.

Why do you say this? Hankins’ name was mentioned a few times during yesterday’s game, but it doesn't seem to me that he’s a standout by any stretch of the imagination. His stat line looks unimpressive, and the Raiders defense as a team is giving up over 31 points a game (2nd worst), nearly 5 yards a carry (4.9 YPC, 4th worst in the league) and 6.7 yards a play (the worst). I’ll admit that these stats don’t reflect upon him uniquely, but what do you see that makes you think Hankins is anything better that what we currently have? And remember that he would have cost us nearly $9 million to keep, and he only got $2 million on the open market.

Simon is a backup for New England.

Anderson is playing fairly well I suppose for the Jets, but historically he had been injury prone with the Colts and hadn’t really been a standout since his rookie year.

[FatDT]

It doesn't matter what they're doing for their new teams. How did they fit here? How did they play here? How is THIS team doing on the DL without them?

Hankins played well here. He is better than any NT on the roster. Better than Woods. Better than Stewart. You are right he was due some money. But we are drowning in cap space.

Anderson is better than anything Autry has shown so far. Autry is not young and was a FA acquisition, and is making more money than Anderson. I guess not everything is about saving money is it.

Simon proved he was better AND was a harder worker than Tarrell "Healthy Scratch" Basham.

Right now the DL needs Hunt and Sheard to play at their highest level to be any good. Autry is not a difference-maker, Turay is young and still learning, Ward is on IR, the rest of them are JAGs.

Chaka, for fucks sake. Every comment about a potential roster mistake is not a personal attack against you. Ballard is not your dad.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Chaka, for fucks sake. Every comment about a potential roster mistake is not a personal attack against you. Ballard is not your dad.

Are you sure. Look at both their pictures. It COULD be his dad. Just saying....... not impossible.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Why do you say this? Hankins’ name was mentioned a few times during yesterday’s game, but it doesn't seem to me that he’s a standout by any stretch of the imagination. His stat line looks unimpressive, and the Raiders defense as a team is giving up over 31 points a game (2nd worst), nearly 5 yards a carry (4.9 YPC, 4th worst in the league) and 6.7 yards a play (the worst). I’ll admit that these stats don’t reflect upon him uniquely, but what do you see that makes you think Hankins is anything better that what we currently have? And remember that he would have cost us nearly $9 million to keep, and he only got $2 million on the open market.

Simon is a backup for New England.

Anderson is playing fairly well I suppose for the Jets, but historically he had been injury prone with the Colts and hadn’t really been a standout since his rookie year.

Because he is right! I understand that Hankins did not want to play in a 4-3 defense. But Anderson for a 7th round pick really pissed me off. What the hell are we going to get with a 7th rounder who is better than Anderson? Simon did play well for us.

[VeveJones007]

I see people are still debating moves strictly in the context of "would it have made the 2018 team better?"

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by FatDT

It doesn't matter what they're doing for their new teams. How did they fit here? How did they play here? How is THIS team doing on the DL without them?

Hankins played well here. He is better than any NT on the roster. Better than Woods. Better than Stewart. You are right he was due some money. But we are drowning in cap space.

Anderson is better than anything Autry has shown so far. Autry is not young and was a FA acquisition, and is making more money than Anderson. I guess not everything is about saving money is it.

Simon proved he was better AND was a harder worker than Tarrell "Healthy Scratch" Basham.

Right now the DL needs Hunt and Sheard to play at their highest level to be any good. Autry is not a difference-maker, Turay is young and still learning, Ward is on IR, the rest of them are JAGs.

Chaka, for fucks sake. Every comment about a potential roster mistake is not a personal attack against you. Ballard is not your dad.

To clarify for everyone, Ballard is not my dad. Seriously, though, if my comments come off as though I have been offended by yours or anyone else’s comments, then I’m not expressing myself well at all. I am genuinely interested in your responses to my questions because I genuinely want to understand your position. I agree that I’ve ended up defending Ballard quite a bit, but that’s because you’ll have to admit that until recently the prevailing opinion seemed to be that he was throwing away multiple seasons, and was making poor draft and personnel decisions. I happen to strongly disagree with that line of thinking, and the strict businesslike approach he’s taking to running the team really appeals to me. I think it literally gives us a competitive advantage, and that advantage will become more and more apparent as time goes on.

As a result, I’ll usually challenge opinions to the contrary if they’re not explained in a way that makes sense to me. There’s a lot of smart people on this board, and lots who know WAY more than me about the X’s and O’s, so I’m interested in what all of you have to say – particularly when it sounds way out of line to me. But I’m certainly open to the idea that the guy makes mistakes, and the concept (however remote) that I might not be correct either.

In your comment, you simply said that we’d be better with Hankins, Simon and Anderson. Since there was no explanation for this statement, I asked for more detail, and in the process laid out my thinking on the issue so you could respond. You provided more info for me to consider in your response. Based upon that response, I can now decide whether I think your original comments have any merit or not (FYI the verdict is in - they do not as to Hankins and Simon, but maybe some as to Anderson/Autry).

Look, it wouldn’t be very fun if everyone just posted their gripes and complaints here, and then everyone else just agreed. If that’s all everyone hears then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone needs the perspective that comes from genuine, respectful disagreement (or even disrespectful agreement that has actual substance). As I think you mentioned in a prior post, responses consisting only of insults are not useful. I’ve tried to provide meaningful detail when I post - much to your dismay given the length of some of my admittedly long posts – but that’s only so that people will provide equally detailed responses and the discussion will have some useful substance.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

I see people are still debating moves strictly in the context of "would it have made the 2018 team better?"

I’ll happily sit this one out. I’ll save it for the debates that will occur if the team falls 1-2 games shy of a division title and playoff birth.