The build

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not focused on the 2-5 record. I’ve not shit talked the team or been a troll in game threads. I have never called for Ballard’s firing. And I have never said he isn’t going to get the team back to contending status. I’ve simply said his approach is slower than it needs to be and this season is a casualty of it. I’ve been told I was wrong since before the season started by people who now admit they expected a better record, but still want to tell me how wrong I am. Even though this is largely what I expected.

But you've used the team's 2-5 record as both justification and validation for your argument. The 2-5 record so far in 2018 is immaterial to the broader objective of getting this organization another Lombardi ASAP.

As I said before, I don't completely disagree with your take that the rebuild could be done faster; just don't throw out meaningless stats, act like they're significant, and not expect me to call you out on it. It detracts from other valid points in your argument.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

But you've used the team's 2-5 record as both justification and validation for your argument. The 2-5 record so far in 2018 is immaterial to the broader objective of getting this organization another Lombardi ASAP.

As I said before, I don't completely disagree with your take that the rebuild could be done faster; just don't throw out meaningless stats, act like they're significant, and not expect me to call you out on it. It detracts from other valid points in your argument.

How is the record not valid? If the team was 5-2 I’d clearly be wrong, right? The whole point is young teams have a hard time consistently winning. They do things like hold on 3rd and 26 giving up an automatic first down. They make mental errors to extend drives or drop easy catches on 3rd and 4 in OT. That kind of thing is true for any sport I follow. I don’t bring up 2-5 to say the team sucks or say no progress has been made. It’s relevant because it’s the exact result of my point - the team is better is most ways, but it hasn’t translated to wins. How else do you explain what you, Race, and Chaka are telling me? That almost all stats say this is a significantly better team, yet the record still says they are one of the worst teams in the league. I don’t believe they are one of the worst teams in the league. That’s why I disagree with the chosen path.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Do I think the team is better? Absolutely. I’d much prefer this team and roster. Just the addition of Luck makes this year significantly better. Same for the subtraction of Pagano. That’s not at all the point though. Chaka says the facts don’t support my position. My position has been that Ballard knowingly punted on this season by releasing producing vets, not making more additions in free agency, and relying on so many young players. If everything is so much better, why hasn’t the team won as much as you or Chaka expected?

Maybe because we have lost close games in a sport that has the well-named phrase "any given Sunday" as its selling point. Also, two of those five losses were against the participants in the last SB.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

How is the record not valid? If the team was 5-2 I’d clearly be wrong, right? The whole point is young teams have a hard time consistently winning. They do things like hold on 3rd and 26 giving up an automatic first down. They make mental errors to extend drives or drop easy catches on 3rd and 4 in OT. That kind of thing is true for any sport I follow. I don’t bring up 2-5 to say the team sucks or say no progress has been made. It’s relevant because it’s the exact result of my point - the team is better is most ways, but it hasn’t translated to wins. How else do you explain what you, Race, and Chaka are telling me? That almost all stats say this is a significantly better team, yet the record still says they are one of the worst teams in the league. I don’t believe they are one of the worst teams in the league. That’s why I disagree with the chosen path.

That is one way to look at it. The other is that bringing in vets is a short term approach. It usually does not translate to long term success.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

That is one way to look at it. The other is that bringing in vets is a short term approach. It usually does not translate to long term success.

Good teams use guys like Mike Adams all the time as filler for a few years. I like it

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

Good teams use guys like Mike Adams all the time as filler for a few years. I like it

I like fillers, when they work out. They don't stay long, though, which was my point.

[Colt Classic]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

That is one way to look at it. The other is that bringing in vets is a short term approach. It usually does not translate to long term success.

Of all the WR's on the roster, how many beyond T.Y. figure to be long-term fixtures here? It's the one position that even Ballard has pointed to as saying that it will be addressed. Those who are currently there will have to make room for future upgrades. So all of this supposed developing the younger talent likely excludes those who are seeing time this season.

As far as who else could've been brought in to stabilize the position, how about John Brown? He may be a bit too similar to T.Y. but another speed burner who has been in the league and seems to be able to catch the ball AND signed with the Ravens for just one year @ 6 mil doesn't seem like he would've disturbed the delicate science being used to create the desired culture around these parts. Maybe Grant doesn't want to sign here if Brown also signs here, but such an "if" doesn't matter now and it was just a "for instance" anyway. Point is, it's silly to talk about gaining experience and culture and reps and...when a position relevant to all of that rosy future talk is going to have at least one, likely two new players this time next year. So instead of hoping to get another veteran who may not be as likely to run through a defender on a rub route, you develop a player who could very well be cut without a second thought next season. It just seems a bit too weighted toward "maybe these guys will turn into something, but more likely we'll be sitting pretty again on draft day" for a team in such a crappy division.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

That is one way to look at it. The other is that bringing in vets is a short term approach. It usually does not translate to long term success.

I would disagree with you. I believe teams use short term vets all the time, although I guess it depends on your definition of short term.

I think many are scarred by Grigson’s reign. I’ve said before, and I know most will disagree, there was no problem with Grigson’s strategy, but there were major issues with his execution. Even with mostly mediocre acquisitions in free agency the team made a quick turnaround and was in an AFC title game. The main issue was Grigson sucked at drafting and no young talent was taking over starting spots.

If Ballard drafts as poorly as Grigson he will fail. There is not a team building strategy in existence that doesn’t require good drafting to sustain success.

[Oldcolt]

I agree that teams use short term veterans all the time. And I think the Colts should and will use them. We just disagree about using them when you are in full rebuild. I like what Ballard is doing and I like the results so far. It is pretty obvious we are building a foundation thru both lines So far so good. Portends good for us Freaks

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I would disagree with you. I believe teams use short term vets all the time, although I guess it depends on your definition of short term.

I think many are scarred by Grigson’s reign. I’ve said before, and I know most will disagree, there was no problem with Grigson’s strategy, but there were major issues with his execution. Even with mostly mediocre acquisitions in free agency the team made a quick turnaround and was in an AFC title game. The main issue was Grigson sucked at drafting and no young talent was taking over starting spots.

If Ballard drafts as poorly as Grigson he will fail. There is not a team building strategy in existence that doesn’t require good drafting to sustain success.

I agree with much of what you wrote. I was referring to rebuilding teams and not established ones. Teams like GB and NE can put in fillers to play, but Washington and Oakland get burnt using that approach.