| Chaka |
06-07-2019 10:58 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
(Post 121749)
I advocate running the team like a football team trying to win games, not a business, not as a fan. That means fielding the most complete team you can to increase your chances of getting to a Super Bowl.
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.
|
I’ll stop “lecturing” people about sound management of team resources when people stop trying to justify the signing of an over-the-hill player based upon the amount of cap space that we have. It’s a lame justification. And the only “hand wringing” I see is the anxiety that so many here have expressed over the large amount of cap space the Colts are sitting on.
Looking through all of the garbage in your last post, it doesn’t appear we even disagree very much in principle. Of course you need to draft well, and of course you need to make good free agent signings. That’s really all I’ve been saying all along. Where we disagree is how that strategy is implemented. It is indeed a cost benefit analysis, just as you’ve said, and I just don’t think the costs of signing the type of older players you’ve been advocating (like McCoy) are likely to provide a equivalent or greater benefit. Time will tell, I guess, and it certainly isn't impossible, but as we sit here today I just don’t think history suggests that’s a good move.
But I never said we shouldn’t sign free agents – that’s a ridiculous distortion – and with perhaps the exception of the Houston signing, I’ve only spoken up when people here start criticizing the team’s failure to sign a ultra high end free agent or an expensive castoff from another team. I praised the 2018 free agent class we signed, which led to a fair amount of criticism and similar comments last off season (perhaps even from you – but I’m not going to hunt down those comments right now), and had no problem with the Funchess signing except for the length of contract/lack of options stuff I mentioned. I’m not a big fan of the Houston signing – primarily for the costs and guarantees involved. That’s it.
P.S. So now Ballard is both reactive AND proactive - do I have that right? (sorry, couldn't resist) |
