#131
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://theathletic.com/865237/2019/...lack-of-moves/ |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Not gonna lie, this was a pretty bad take.
|
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If the 2-year deal is with an equal or superior quarterback that would be the better deal. Lets say the Saints made the offer. That seems great. However, if it is with a bad team with QB issues, it may end up being the last contract he signs. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Just say, "I was wrong on this one" and move on. Lacking the humility to admit when you're wrong is a significant character flaw. |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
It was pretty clearly sarcasm.
|
#136
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, he was being sarcastic, but the underlying premise of what he was saying - that Funchess had no other suitors and that a one year deal means that he had no leverage - is just wrong and naïve.
|
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But the question was whether Funchess had leverage. If the 2-year contract was superior in money from an equal or superior team, why not take it? You gain leverage from interest and offers. Tyrell Williams has three team interested in him, all pretty good from what I read yesterday and it should result in a decent contract. This doesn't look like Funchess had many options to me and we were the best one. I don't think he had much if any leverage. The 10 million isn't great from our end, but we have so much cap space it really doesn't matter because we aren't going to try and use it this year. The one thing I did think about was perhaps he gave the 13 with incentives as a gesture of good will. Saying if he does well the Colts will be willing to talk a multi-year deal. But that is pure conjecture. Last edited by Chromeburn; 03-13-2019 at 12:53 PM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post: | ||
VeveJones007 (03-13-2019) |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO. There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him. Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with. |
The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post: | ||
Chromeburn (03-13-2019) |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think there are places where Ballard could've been more aggressive. And I don't think this Funchess contract is very good. But when I look at the individuals that are getting paid this year so far I don't really see any players that look like huge misses. There are still some names at DL and DB that could be positive signings. Basically I think freaking out on either side is dumb, with the hero worship side being a little dumber. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FatDT For This Useful Post: | ||
Chromeburn (03-13-2019), Racehorse (03-13-2019) |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
|
|