#131
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved. The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post: | ||
#132
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post: | ||
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Do I think this means we have to “save it all and have tons of money under the cap”? Of course not. I just mentioned in a few posts above that I agreed that we should sign free agents, but that I think our focus is best placed on mid-tier or lower tier guy because they give us the best chance to get a good return on the investment. I simply don’t think signing older, outside free agents to large contracts is a good investment. For that reason I was uneasy with the Houston signing. He was an expensive player who is on the downside of his career, but I’m hopeful that it has a better-than-normal chance to succeed because the guy isn’t a total outsider – Ballard worked with him while in KC so presumably he has some insight. I also didn’t complain about the Funchess signing – the guy is 25 with upside, so the $10 million didn’t bother me - in fact, the only thing that troubled me was that it was a one-year deal without options. As far as the OL is concerned, I didn’t argue that the OL was fine following Ballard’s first year or that it couldn’t be improved, but only that your conclusion that he was reactive rather than proactive was unfair because it was founded solely upon the OL alone, without consideration of the giant strides he made elsewhere. You cherry-picked one issue to support your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring all of the evidence that contradicted your theory. And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post. |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Butter For This Useful Post: | ||
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Colt Classic For This Useful Post: | ||
Luck4Reich (06-06-2019) |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
I guess it just concerns me that if Autry or Hunt go down or both? Ouch.
Neither have been a constant in their career. Either or both could regress. McCoy was an upgrade and created nice depth at the same time. It was a kiss by Ballard. I love what he is done so far and hopefully this time next tear we are talking about how he made the right choice. Hopefully. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Luck4Reich For This Useful Post: | ||
Coltsfever (06-13-2019), IndyNorm (06-08-2019) |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The D you want is what Pagano ran. |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Running it as a business would mean you maximize profit while minimizing expenses. The point is to win Super Bowls, not increase your profit margin no matter what. I’m in favor of maximizing their chances year in and year out. You want to make a money ball argument about signing free agents? Go ahead. But you get all squirrely every time we sign someone and then we get the same posts. A long lecture on what Ballard’s vision is, as if everyone on here doesn’t already know it, then some hand wringing about him spending too much money and potentially wasting all the cap space. Ballard isn’t going to waste it, and he is also going to sign free agents. He inquirers about the top free agents every year, and we are in on some till a team blows the offer out of the water. Then we back off because the costs outweigh the benefits. Ballard is trying to identify guys that are potentially going to break out in their second contract. Some guys are late bloomers, especially linemen. Guys that might be buried on depth charts and need reps to improve. Also vets can provide a boost, but you need to go by a case by case basis. Free agency is not a fix all, and it isn’t fools gold either. We got good production out of Hunt, Autry, and other signings. You can build teams in multiple ways. You want to build through the draft? Great, you need to hit on picks. You want to build through FA? Great you need to hit on your signings. It comes down to evaluating personnel and making the right decisions whatever your methodology. Preemptive, not proactive. Ballard is proactive. But the last couple years everyone on here has complained about obvious holes on the roster. Everyone can see them. They are not addressed till after they are exposed. It’s happened twice so far. Ever teams has holes, you try to cover them the best you can. I would like to see more effort in that area. I think you are the one who needs to work on the reading comprehension. I understand what Colt classic is saying in that statement, I don’t think you do though. That’s the problem. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post: | ||
#140
|
||||
|
||||
The Ol will not stop the other team and relying on the offense to always have the lead is something we witnessed in the Manning years, it doesn;t always work especially in the playoffs. You really have a simple view of things if you think there is nothing in between what we had with Pagano and Dungy.
|
|
|