#161
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to omahacolt For This Useful Post: | ||
Luck4Reich (06-07-2019) |
#162
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Cap space as an excuse for FA signings – My reference was broader than just the thread about McCoy, just like your comment that I was responding to. I’m sure there are other reasons to sign/not-sign him, many of which are legitimately debatable, but I was taking issue with just one stated reason: the repeated justification that we should sign players (McCoy, Houston, Collins, etc.) because of our cap space. That one just doesn't hold water, and compels me to try and explain why. 2. Funchess – So you’re saying I should have more criticisms of this signing? Why? Explain yourself please, because sometimes it seems like you’re shooting from the hip. And you’re a moving target – you first say that I’m against signing free agents, so when I point out that I didn’t criticize a number of the Colts free agent signings, including the decision to spend $10M on Funchess, your argument morphs into the argument that I don’t know much about football. Talk about exhausting. 3. Funchess #2 - I don’t hold myself out as an expert in player evaluation. I've been clear on that. But signing an experienced 25-year old large bodied wide receiver with upside doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me, and this is where I put my trust in Ballard. My only criticism is the one-year deal aspect –if Ballard thinks he's an answer, we didn’t position ourselves to take advantage of the signing if he works out well next year. Ideally, that would be done with option years, just like we did with Glowinski. 4. Your MBA – I don’t care. Your arguments should stand on their own without needing to use your background as a crutch, so how about you back up your position with facts or logic instead? If my approach doesn’t comport with your business training, how about you explain why, instead of just telling me that your opinion is better because you have an MBA? You have no idea what my background is. And since you seem to believe that running a football team isn’t anything like running a business, what relevance does your MBA have anyway? Tell me, please. 5. Proactive vs. Reactive – I was making the point that you’re being ridiculous. That’s all. Proactive is the opposite of reactive. Yet you first criticized Ballard for being “reactive”, and only a few posts later said he’s “proactive." I really don’t like to call people out on their grammar or spelling because I have typos too, and more importantly it’s usually a cheap shot when you can basically tell what they mean – but you just openly contradict yourself without shame. The irony is that, in explaining why Ballard is “proactive," you demonstrate that you don’t even know what that word means (he becomes proactive “once a glaring hole is exposed on the field”? Really?). So I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist given the tone of your prior post. To be honest, I wish I hadn’t said it now because those type of comments inevitably distract from the main conversation. But suffice it to say that there’s just no consistency in what you say. And don’t get me started on “preemptive.” |
#163
|
||||
|
||||
Can we please just close this thread? Oh, who am I kidding? It's the offseason. Flame on.
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Discflinger For This Useful Post: | ||
apballin (06-08-2019), Chromeburn (06-07-2019), Coltsfever (06-13-2019), Ironshaft (06-08-2019), JAFF (06-08-2019), Luck4Reich (06-07-2019), Racehorse (06-08-2019) |
#164
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. I know, the cap is the only thing you talk about, because you can’t talk about anything else. Wait... here it comes... another explanation of Ballard’s vision. 2. Funchess has some red flags. I would go over them, but they have been hashed out in the Funchess thread and they involve talk about football not the cap so... 3. Yeah ok, see above. 4. It was a joke, I was saying you can spare me your lectures on sound management. Wow pushed a button there. This kind of comes back to the ‘understanding what people are posting thing’. Keeping it simple. Building a winning team and running a business don’t really align because they have two different objectives ultimately. You build a roster to win games, but that takes investment in players. A business wants to make as much profit as possible while spending as little as possible. If the team adopted those goals we would be like one of those perennial losing baseball teams who spend no money on the roster and are just there to make as much money as possible while keeping costs low. 5. I’m usually on my phone and my big fingers make mistakes. I should probably proof, but its a sports board. I will simplify it. Ballard waits longer than I like to fix obvious issues. Once he does decide to fix it he gets after it yo. I just wish he would get after it sooner, like before the season started. Otherwise I think he’s doing a bang up job. You really like Ballard, are you guys related? Now I’m going out, no more responses for you. Last edited by Chromeburn; 06-07-2019 at 10:40 PM. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
#166
|
||||
|
||||
I like Ballard a lot. Nothing wrong with pointing out where we think he has made mistakes. Yes we are further along than anyone expected. He needs to realize that and fix the holes or upgrade where he can. Leaving 40-50 million on the table causes concern for some of us.
Again understand that he has a vision and trying to build.. but what if we go the next 8-10 years with Luck and no SB? Are you ok then that he didnt do more with the money left on the table? Just a question. Luck will not get younger and there is always a chance that ANY QB can be on a career ending play. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Luck4Reich For This Useful Post: | ||
Chromeburn (06-08-2019), Coltsfever (06-13-2019) |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks meathead
|
#169
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You also never take into account (maybe you're unaware) that per the CBA NFL teams have to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap within a given period of time. Did some googling on the details of this and the short version is that teams have to spend at least 89% of their base salary cap between '17-'20 in total cash on players. To be compliant with this the Colts have to spend an additional ~$64M between now and the end of the '20 season, so we can't just simply horde cap space until '21 or '22 as you suggest. Another thing to bear in mind is that the current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so the rules on rolling cap space YoY could change. If I was in the NFLPA I would certainly push for that in an attempt to increase current player salaries. Last edited by IndyNorm; 06-08-2019 at 01:37 PM. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-age...napolis-colts/ |
|
|