Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007
How about my last question, Mr. Ebron’s Signing is “Meh?”
|
Ok, ok you got me. I said Ebron was a meh signing. Of course the context is shown where I clarified that the Ebron signing itself was fine but I had issues with Ballard’s overall approach. But regardless you “got” me - I wasn’t sufficiently giddy about the Ebron signing. I’m sure if I look at all of your posts I won’t find an instance of you being more wrong than not being sufficiently happy, correct?
It’s funny you didn’t highlight my comments on the Grant signing. The one that is most applicable to this signing considering it’s the same position. And the exact same hole left by Ballard’s lack of a acquiring a long term solution last year. And one that severely hurt the team in the playoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
Understood about Ballard, that’s why I referenced the Hankins contract. That makes sense for a rebuilding team. A one year prove it deal to me does not. I see few scenarios where Grant is on the roster after this year. If he doesn’t excel he’s obviously not resigned. If he does excel he is going to want to cash in and I don’t see the Colts being the highest bidder. Most likely what happens is he is a serviceable player that doesn’t break out but fits a role. And that mirrors this year where he obviously wants a bigger longer term deal than the Colts are willing to commit to him. I don’t see that changing.
I just see this as likely a lose lose scenario for the Colts. I will be extremely surprised if Grant plays at an exact level where both he and the Colts agree on his value next year. The vast majority of one year signings I can think of are always just that - one year signings. And that’s regardless of player performance. I’d have rather they over paid him to buy a couple team option years. And if they tried and he wasn’t open to it then that tells me doesn’t see a future with the team anyway. He’s a one year roster body. He knows it and so do the Colts. No real risk for the Colts, but I don’t really see much reward either. I’ll happily admit I’m wrong if he breaks out and the Colts resign him.
I’m not upset about the signing, I just see it as an extension of the long slow roster building Ballard is planning. Grant is a body to hold a spot for an eventual draft pick. That’s all.
|
Swap Funches name for Grant’s and I stand by my comments.
As to your question I apparently didn’t address - I’m not complaining about there physical make up. I’d agree that physically Funches fits what I’d prefer opposite TY much more than Grant did. But he was still an underwhelming receiver his previous seasons. And yes I get that your comparison to Ebron is likely related to that. But that’s not my issue. I’ll use the Ebron signing to highlight my issue. Let’s pretend that Ebron signed the one year contract you are perfectly happy with and had the same year he had. Seeing the money being thrown around in free agency are you 100% confident that Ballard would have paid what was necessary to keep Ebron? Would you and Ballard be confident in making Ebron one of the highest, if not the highest, paid TE in the league? After one great season in a contract year following being labeled a bust? I don’t see it for you or for Chaka. I’d bet you both would pass. Hell I probably would too. That’s the issue and that’s why I have an issue with this contract. I’m not getting into Funches abilities as much as I’m saying there is very very little room for him to be the long term solution in Indy. If he’s Grant, he’s gone. If he’s Ebron, he’s gone. That’s the issue. Whether he’s 6’10” and Grant was 5’2” it’s irrelevant to my issue.
03-11-2019, 09:32 PM
Linear Mode
