Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
Omaha, man it’s a lost cause. When the team is 1-5 it’s evidence of how far away the team is and proof a few vet free agents wouldn’t have helped. When the team is 6-5 and Ballard is surprised at where the team is it’s proof that his methods worked - even better than expected. You can’t win.
It’s amazing to me how well the mantra has stuck. I reread the off-season free agency thread a month or so ago and I couldn’t find one person saying the team should shun free agency because you had to build a core first, etc. Not one. But now it’s so ingrained that even suggesting that a few vet free agents would have amplified the good work Ballard has already done is basically blasphemy. It’s amazing that the team found 3 throw away free agents that have significantly helped when apparently no other vets could. Lucky I guess.
I’m amazed at some of the arguments. If Wilson turns in to a pro bowler would he have got there with a vet in front of him? That’s crazy to me considering Wilson fell on the depth chart because of his poor play after being basically gifted a spot. And that he attributes his recent better performance to things he’s learned from Mitchel! The exact type of vet that I believed the team needed more of. If Wilson had pro bowl corner potential and wasn’t unlocking it because a mediocre vet was in fromt of him then you have the wrong damn coaches or a player with a shitty mindset. Players learn a lot from being able to pick vets brains and see the work ethic, film study, and how they take care of their bodies. I find it amazing that that’s now seen as a negative. All because the mantra that’s been preached: build a culture thru the draft. I didn’t see one of you preaching it prior to free agency though.
|
WTF are you talking about? This isn't a "see, I told you so" discussion. This is a discussion about whether, with the benefit of knowing how things played out after 11 games, it was a good idea not to bring in a bunch of free agents last offseason. Please point me to the posts where I made the arguments you mention.
I was simply making the point that, looking back with the benefit of hindsight, pursuing the aggressive free agency course that you and others (Omaha) have advocated could have resulted in a much different roster makeup than we presently have. Then you wouldn't be complaining about the free agency approach, but would probably complain about the team's performance.
I used Norwell as an example. Signing him probably means that we don't pick Nelson. Great, I'm sure you say. Setting that issue aside, so then who do we pick instead? My personal guess is Roquan Smith, as the Colts were rumored to like him and, indeed, the Colts very next pick was a LB (Leonard). Smith's a good player, no question, but does that mean we don't take Leonard in the 2nd? So in this scenario it comes down to this:
1. Andrew Norwell+ Roquan Smith + 2nd Rounder
2. Quenton Nelson + Darius Leonard + $66.5 million in cap space (Norwell's contract)
What do you prefer? I much prefer the second group.