#141
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As I said before, I don't completely disagree with your take that the rebuild could be done faster; just don't throw out meaningless stats, act like they're significant, and not expect me to call you out on it. It detracts from other valid points in your argument. |
The Following User Says Thank You to VeveJones007 For This Useful Post: | ||
Racehorse (10-24-2018) |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#143
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#144
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#145
|
||||
|
||||
Good teams use guys like Mike Adams all the time as filler for a few years. I like it
|
#146
|
||||
|
||||
I like fillers, when they work out. They don't stay long, though, which was my point.
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As far as who else could've been brought in to stabilize the position, how about John Brown? He may be a bit too similar to T.Y. but another speed burner who has been in the league and seems to be able to catch the ball AND signed with the Ravens for just one year @ 6 mil doesn't seem like he would've disturbed the delicate science being used to create the desired culture around these parts. Maybe Grant doesn't want to sign here if Brown also signs here, but such an "if" doesn't matter now and it was just a "for instance" anyway. Point is, it's silly to talk about gaining experience and culture and reps and...when a position relevant to all of that rosy future talk is going to have at least one, likely two new players this time next year. So instead of hoping to get another veteran who may not be as likely to run through a defender on a rub route, you develop a player who could very well be cut without a second thought next season. It just seems a bit too weighted toward "maybe these guys will turn into something, but more likely we'll be sitting pretty again on draft day" for a team in such a crappy division. Last edited by Colt Classic; 10-24-2018 at 06:45 PM. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think many are scarred by Grigson’s reign. I’ve said before, and I know most will disagree, there was no problem with Grigson’s strategy, but there were major issues with his execution. Even with mostly mediocre acquisitions in free agency the team made a quick turnaround and was in an AFC title game. The main issue was Grigson sucked at drafting and no young talent was taking over starting spots. If Ballard drafts as poorly as Grigson he will fail. There is not a team building strategy in existence that doesn’t require good drafting to sustain success. |
The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post: | ||
omahacolt (10-24-2018) |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
I agree that teams use short term veterans all the time. And I think the Colts should and will use them. We just disagree about using them when you are in full rebuild. I like what Ballard is doing and I like the results so far. It is pretty obvious we are building a foundation thru both lines So far so good. Portends good for us Freaks
|
#150
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
|
|