Free agency 2023

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

You missed me saying HOF LT money. There's a huge difference between LT and LG. No LG is worth elite LT money. Especially one with back problems.

One of Ballard's big problems is he's spent way too much capital (both cap dollars and draft picks) on less critical positions while going cheap on much more critical positions.

I didn’t miss it. It’s 3 million more than Jenkins, the previously highest paid guard, and 3 million less than Williams the LT. Everyone knew this would be an increase in guard benchmark. The cap will go up. LT prices will go up as the next franchise LT deal sets a new benchmark.

This is another talking point I hear on 1070 all the time. Less critical positions. You can get rid of them, (lb, rb, G, DT, etc) but are you going to replace them with equivalent talent at a ‘critical’ position? If no, then you are simply becoming a worse team bc you don’t think that position group should be paid well. Then all you have is money and a less talented team. Are those signings keeping them from an obtaining a player at a critical position?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

They might have believed if they had more than one year with someone, but they never got one. I don’t know how you can argue for going all out on a SB run when you don’t know who your starting QB next year is going to be.

If you weren’t trying to win with Rivers or Ryan I see no point in acquiring them. Most people assumed 2 years for each of them. So if the first year is a prove it year as you suggest, then the second year would put you in the situation you just described- pushing for a SB without knowing who your QB would be the next year. Basically by your reasoning they should never have wasted their time with Rivers or Ryan. Then we’re never going to do anything other than make it harder to acquire their future QB. And sell tickets, like the Pacers.

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Good poker players win more than they lose. Any individual hand or even night may be a loser, but if you are good you will win more than you lose. A good GMs teams should win. That that is even debatable is ridiculous.

The point is that you can make the right moves and your colleagues would recognize that you did and understand results are malleable, especially with six consecutive years of a new starting QB.

Fans and radio host, however, will do what you're doing.

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

You missed me saying HOF LT money. There's a huge difference between LT and LG. No LG is worth elite LT money. Especially one with back problems.

One of Ballard's big problems is he's spent way too much capital (both cap dollars and draft picks) on less critical positions while going cheap on much more critical positions.

I don't agree with this. There are exceptions. Nelson wouldn't have been a guard taken at #6 overall unless he was the most hyped OL to come out since I don't even know who.

And then the kid exceeds expectations starting his career with what would've been 4-straight 1st-team All-Pros if he didn't miss games in '21. Of course we're going to pay him and reset the market. I've said before, it doesn't make a difference to a QB if he's getting hit off the edge by Von Miller or up the middle by Aaron Donald. Not to mention the culture shift we had on the OL once he a Smith showed up.

Same goes for Leonard who started his career by racking up better numbers in his first four years than a whole fucking bunch of elite and HOF players amassed in their entire careers. Of course we're going to pay him.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

The point is that you can make the right moves and your colleagues would recognize that you did and understand results are malleable, especially with six consecutive years of a new starting QB.

Fans and radio host, however, will do what you're doing.

Ahh yes - stating in year 2 that you disagree with a philosophy and continuing to disagree in year 6. If he had proven me wrong it would be easy to show. The funny part is I said he was planning a 4-5 yr rebuild and was told I was crazy. Same kinds of shit you are saying now. Little did I know I was being optimistic.

Fanboys tend to do what you are doing - complaining about any critique. Must be nice to have a job that doesn’t require performance.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

If you weren’t trying to win with Rivers or Ryan I see no point in acquiring them. Most people assumed 2 years for each of them. So if the first year is a prove it year as you suggest, then the second year would put you in the situation you just described- pushing for a SB without knowing who your QB would be the next year. Basically by your reasoning they should never have wasted their time with Rivers or Ryan. Then we’re never going to do anything other than make it harder to acquire their future QB. And sell tickets, like the Pacers.

Sigh, you keep trying to poke holes in it. It’s not that complicated. At least two years. They didn’t want a new QB every couple years. You’re saying they never should have bc of hindsight. At the time no one knew what the results would be. They were hoping for an Alex Smith n KC at the least, at most a Brady in Tampa or Manning in Denver type situation.

In hindsight maybe they should have bitten the bullet after Luck retired. But hindsight is 20/20 and Irsay didn’t want to go through a bunch of losing seasons.

They have more talent than the pacers did during their stretch of mediocrity.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Judging a GM by how his team performs is wanting a perfect GM? You are fucking retarded.

You are an angry elf.

[IndyNorm]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I didn’t miss it. It’s 3 million more than Jenkins, the previously highest paid guard, and 3 million less than Williams the LT. Everyone knew this would be an increase in guard benchmark. The cap will go up. LT prices will go up as the next franchise LT deal sets a new benchmark.

This is another talking point I hear on 1070 all the time. Less critical positions. You can get rid of them, (lb, rb, G, DT, etc) but are you going to replace them with equivalent talent at a ‘critical’ position? If no, then you are simply becoming a worse team bc you don’t think that position group should be paid well. Then all you have is money and a less talented team. Are those signings keeping them from an obtaining a player at a critical position?

Overpaying at less critical positions and going cheap at the critical ones is how you end up w/ shit like the highest paid but arguable worst performing OL in the league.

[IndyNorm]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

I don't agree with this. There are exceptions. Nelson wouldn't have been a guard taken at #6 overall unless he was the most hyped OL to come out since I don't even know who.

And then the kid exceeds expectations starting his career with what would've been 4-straight 1st-team All-Pros if he didn't miss games in '21. Of course we're going to pay him and reset the market. I've said before, it doesn't make a difference to a QB if he's getting hit off the edge by Von Miller or up the middle by Aaron Donald. Not to mention the culture shift we had on the OL once he a Smith showed up.

Same goes for Leonard who started his career by racking up better numbers in his first four years than a whole fucking bunch of elite and HOF players amassed in their entire careers. Of course we're going to pay him.

The point I was making is that LT is WAY more critical than LG, and a great LT can cover for a bad LG. Not the vice versa. Back when we had Tarik Glenn at LT we could put whoever at LG and the OL was fine. Looked what happened when we put a shit LT next to the supposed greatest LG in the history of football this season.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Sigh, you keep trying to poke holes in it. It’s not that complicated. At least two years. They didn’t want a new QB every couple years. You’re saying they never should have bc of hindsight. At the time no one knew what the results would be. They were hoping for an Alex Smith n KC at the least, at most a Brady in Tampa or Manning in Denver type situation.

In hindsight maybe they should have bitten the bullet after Luck retired. But hindsight is 20/20 and Irsay didn’t want to go through a bunch of losing seasons.

They have more talent than the pacers did during their stretch of mediocrity.

It has nothing to do with hindsight. I have never criticized the decision to acquire any of the QBs. I’ve criticized the decision to acquire veteran QBs with only 1-2 years left in their career and then leaving major holes in the roster. I get real fucking tired of hearing everything is hindsight when I’ve pointed this shit out in real time. It’s your guys go to defense for everything.

Originally Posted by rm1369

I like the move for Matt Ryan, but to me that means you shoot your shot (within reason) over the next two seasons to win a SB. That means taking a hit and possibly having a down year 3 years from now. I’m ok with that. Restructuring a couple contracts to clear space to fill some holes with vets now is what should be occurring. LT and WR in particular, and I love the potential addition of Mathieu. What I don’t want to see is a rookie second or third round LT protecting Ryan. Draft a guy if it makes sense but have a viable alternative on the roster. Same with WR. The only current guy you can count on is Pittman. Don’t go into the season expecting a rookie to contribute on Strachan or Pattmon to play major roles. Or Campbell to stay healthy. If they step up great, but you have two years - don’t fucking waste them.

That is not fucking hindsight. I said from the day they traded for Ryan that they needed to go in on the roster to win and that they shouldn’t depend on a rookie LT.

Alex Smith was with KC for 5 years and they actively tried to win with him. He wasn’t brought in as a place holder. Wentz could have been a Smith like move, but Rivers or Ryan was not. They were more like Brady and Manning situations and neither of those teams wasted one of their few years seeing what they had before they attempted to win. So I’m not understanding the comparison.