Kiper says Colts and Dolphins are working on 1st round trade

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by sherck

I think a lot of guys are getting hung up on the "3 year rebuild" thing.

In 2017, as bad as the team played, we lost 6 games by 7 points or less.

1 point loss
3 point loss
3 point loss
4 point loss
6 point loss
7 point loss

If we would have had one player different in 2017 (Andew Luck instead of Jacoby Brissett), how many of those games do you think we would have won?

Just swap out QBs and play the exact same team. How many?

Just by adding Luck back into the mix (along with Hooker, Wilson, Anderson, a healthy Kelly and hopefully a healthy Mewhort) move the needle a TON even without a single draftee.

Sure, we may be 3 years away from being competitive with winning the SB, but I could easily see a 10 win season in 2018 if Luck comes back strong, we draft well and Ballard can fill in with some cap cut veterans prior to the regular season.

I really don't think we are only going to be a 4 or 6 win team next year.

Walk Worthy,

Not to mention how many games Pagano and his staff cost us.

[sherck]

Quote from MMQB by Rams GM Les Snead:

Snead on his willingness to trade more than his predecessors, and on the willingness of a cadre of young GMs to do the same: “You know, that’s an interesting question, and to start with, I don't think you can ever be reckless because—let's go way back to 2012. You know we traded the No. 2 pick overall to the Redskins that ended up being known as the RG3 [Robert Griffin III] deal, but the whole purpose of that was to acquire as many draft picks as possible. We got to build a young core because at that point it’s nearly, let’s call it 26 players of the 53 who finished on that 2011 Rams team never played in the NFL again, so you knew we had we had to replenish this with a good core, and over the years you draft it, but last year we tipped into let's call it being a “legit contender.” So at that point, you’re well aware, wait a minute, we want to sustain this, we want to keep contending. And, I’ll always say this, I got a simple rule: You can't be scared in this league. Look at Doug Pederson this year and, it wasn't reckless but it took courage and guess what? They won a Super Bowl on some of those fourth-down plays. So you try to do that as a general manager, but I also think, and this is long-winded answer, some of the analytics that you have now to really look at what historically draft picks bring you in reality over time …”

That is the road we are looking at, Freaks.

Walk Worthy,

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by sherck

Quote from MMQB by Rams GM Les Snead:

That is the road we are looking at, Freaks.

Walk Worthy,

I’m not sure I get the same thing as you do from that exchange. The parts you leave out are:

Me: “You’ve basically looked at draft choices as tools in the toolbox. That's how I kind of look at your thing: You’re not wedded to your draft picks.”

Snead: “Right. You should be my interpreter.”

That sounds like the opposite of what Ballard has been preaching. Yes Snead says they made th RG3 trade and built a core, but other than that he’s devaluing draft picks. “.......you have to really look at what historically draft picks bring you in reality over time...” I assume you are referencing the building the core. The trade down from 3, etc. I agree with that, but I’ve heard nothing from Ballard to indicate he thinks draft picks are over valued. Quite the opposite.

[sherck]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not sure I get the same thing as you do from that exchange. The parts you leave out are:

Me: “You’ve basically looked at draft choices as tools in the toolbox. That's how I kind of look at your thing: You’re not wedded to your draft picks.”

Snead: “Right. You should be my interpreter.”

That sounds like the opposite of what Ballard has been preaching. Yes Snead says they made th RG3 trade and built a core, but other than that he’s devaluing draft picks. “.......you have to really look at what historically draft picks bring you in reality over time...” I assume you are referencing the building the core. The trade down from 3, etc. I agree with that, but I’ve heard nothing from Ballard to indicate he thinks draft picks are over valued. Quite the opposite.

You make a good point.

I was focused on the "build through the draft, add free agent pieces to contend" part of the interview rather than the latter.

However, honestly, trading a draft pick for the "right" veteran in terms of what they will bring to the team and their cap hits does not really devalue the draft pick; it just changes how it is used.

I dont' see Ballard being big into trading picks but I do see him as someone who, when the time is right, will spend big on free agents whom he things are the "right" guy.

We will see. I think we will be a winning team inside of 3 years (in 2018, personally), and I think we will use the first part of free agency in the future when we are closer to contending.

But now? Yeah, I want holes filled and Ballard has a different plan than how I wanted it to be. I need to get over it.

Walk Worthy,

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by sherck

I think a lot of guys are getting hung up on the "3 year rebuild" thing.

In 2017, as bad as the team played, we lost 6 games by 7 points or less.

1 point loss
3 point loss
3 point loss
4 point loss
6 point loss
7 point loss

If we would have had one player different in 2017 (Andew Luck instead of Jacoby Brissett), how many of those games do you think we would have won?

Just swap out QBs and play the exact same team. How many?

Just by adding Luck back into the mix (along with Hooker, Wilson, Anderson, a healthy Kelly and hopefully a healthy Mewhort) move the needle a TON even without a single draftee.

Sure, we may be 3 years away from being competitive with winning the SB, but I could easily see a 10 win season in 2018 if Luck comes back strong, we draft well and Ballard can fill in with some cap cut veterans prior to the regular season.

I really don't think we are only going to be a 4 or 6 win team next year.

Walk Worthy,

To some extent I agree. My argument has always been that Luck changes everything. But many seem to want to have it both ways: they aren’t rebuilding because with Luck the team will be competitive, but Ballard’s playing it smart with free agency cause the roster sucks and you aren’t winning anything anyway. To me both those things can’t be true. Either Luck (and the others you mentioned) give you a chance to compete or he doesn’t. If you are in a 3 yr rebuild then maybe you can justify the mediocre free agency period and unused cap space. But if Luck makes you competitive then I don’t see how you can justify it.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by sherck

You make a good point.

I was focused on the "build through the draft, add free agent pieces to contend" part of the interview rather than the latter.

However, honestly, trading a draft pick for the "right" veteran in terms of what they will bring to the team and their cap hits does not really devalue the draft pick; it just changes how it is used.

I dont' see Ballard being big into trading picks but I do see him as someone who, when the time is right, will spend big on free agents whom he things are the "right" guy.

We will see. I think we will be a winning team inside of 3 years (in 2018, personally), and I think we will use the first part of free agency in the future when we are closer to contending.

But now? Yeah, I want holes filled and Ballard has a different plan than how I wanted it to be. I need to get over it.

Walk Worthy,

I don’t have the same faith you do that Ballard will change tactics after he’s built his core, but I certainly hope that’s the case. Otherwise I agree. I don’t like the way he’s going about it, but it’s time to get over it and hope for the best. It should be better than what we’ve gotten for the last few years and for that I’m thankful.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

To some extent I agree. My argument has always been that Luck changes everything. But many seem to want to have it both ways: they aren’t rebuilding because with Luck the team will be competitive, but Ballard’s playing it smart with free agency cause the roster sucks and you aren’t winning anything anyway. To me both those things can’t be true. Either Luck (and the others you mentioned) give you a chance to compete or he doesn’t. If you are in a 3 yr rebuild then maybe you can justify the mediocre free agency period and unused cap space. But if Luck makes you competitive then I don’t see how you can justify it.

Nobody here is arguing that at all. You are taking what one person is saying and what another is saying and putting the thoughts of two completely different posters together as one idea. Maybe that is because you are new here and cannot wade through who said what, but some of us here think we are closer to winning than others and some of us like Ballard's approach better than others do.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not sure I get the same thing as you do from that exchange. The parts you leave out are:

Me: “You’ve basically looked at draft choices as tools in the toolbox. That's how I kind of look at your thing: You’re not wedded to your draft picks.”

Snead: “Right. You should be my interpreter.”

That sounds like the opposite of what Ballard has been preaching. Yes Snead says they made th RG3 trade and built a core, but other than that he’s devaluing draft picks. “.......you have to really look at what historically draft picks bring you in reality over time...” I assume you are referencing the building the core. The trade down from 3, etc. I agree with that, but I’ve heard nothing from Ballard to indicate he thinks draft picks are over valued. Quite the opposite.

I agree that the Rams approach is something of the polar opposite of Ballard's. They are definitely in "win now" mode - bringing in expensive, over-30 players like Suh and Talib, and troubled-but-talented guys like Peters. They've traded away their early picks this year and next. Makes for big headlines, but history has not been kind to team-building in this way. I like the Peters pickup better, but all three of these guys have reputations for being difficult.

I will say that both Suh and Talib have received large contracts before and continued to play at a high level, so that bodes well for these pickups, but my gut tells me that (1) the Rams won't be as good as everyone expects next year, and (2) if they do perform well, it won't be because of these free agency pickups. We'll see.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Nobody here is arguing that at all. You are taking what one person is saying and what another is saying and putting the thoughts of two completely different posters together as one idea. Maybe that is because you are new here and cannot wade through who said what, but some of us here think we are closer to winning than others and some of us like Ballard's approach better than others do.

Yep - I think the people saying "we will be competitive with a healthy Luck" people and "we suck now" are two different camps. Personally, if Luck is healthy, I think we will be competitive despite not adding any major free agents. If Reich can deliver his "get rid of the ball quickly" offense, that will help the O-line immensely. Don't forget also that the younger OL will have another year under their belt and should show improvement.

Defense is a work in progress but I think we'll add some important pieces in the draft and perhaps sign another low-priced vet free agent or two to help bolster the D while Ballard continues to work on building the "core" that he envisions.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Nobody here is arguing that at all. You are taking what one person is saying and what another is saying and putting the thoughts of two completely different posters together as one idea. Maybe that is because you are new here and cannot wade through who said what, but some of us here think we are closer to winning than others and some of us like Ballard's approach better than others do.

I was certainly generalizing (for both here and other places) and realize many have differing opinions on either end of the scale. But, your point is understood.