General off-season news thread

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I think that’s hyperbole. I don’t think he wasted a year by implementing his plan – we won a playoff game in a season where few thought we’d make the playoffs at all. If Ballard had spent more of that salary cap space in 2018, would we have had a better chance to beat the Chiefs? Maybe, but we’ll never know.

One of the problems with your argument is that it is premised upon the absolute certainty that this team would have been better and gone further in the playoffs if Ballard had implemented your plan and signed premium free agents instead of focusing on youth. While it’s certainly possible I don’t think that’s a certainty. Free agency is a bit of a minefield and we might well have ended up with a few bombs. Ryan Jenson and Andrew Norwell – two individuals we actively pursued with most people’s blessing here – haven’t nearly lived up to their lofty billing. In fact, here’s a pre-season article I found from March 2018 outlining the Indy Star’s view on the free agents we should pursue that offseason:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...nse/402692002/

Who of these guys do you think would have made a difference in retrospect? Allen Robinson would have been nice, no doubt, but I don’t think the rest of these guys would have been an improvement over our current (younger and cheaper) roster members. And let’s not forget the “butterfly effect” of signing some additional veteran free agents – would we have Quinton Nelson or Darius Leonard? Hines? What about DION F’ING CAIN? (oh, wait…)

All thing considered, and in retrospect, I’m happy with the path Ballard chose, even through we lost in the divisional round last season. I think we did about as well as any of us could have reasonably expected at the beginning of the 2018 offseason – with our without more free agent signings.

Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.

I’m sorry to hear that. My opinion can and has changed in response to opinions expressed on this board, but I agree not in this instance. I understand your position, and it’s perfectly fair and reasonable, but I just happen to disagree. Your argument would be more convincing to me if the Colts were mired in a series of losing seasons, with little evidence of progress and we were being asked to simply trust Ballard on his word and vision. Then I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.

But that’s not what has happened here. There are plenty of signs that Ballard’s plan was working. Yes, the plan has been seriously damaged by major unexpected – and in some ways unheard of – events such as the Luck retirement. And yes, I agree things are always changing and unpredictable in the NFL. But the Luck retirement goes a little beyond that and its kind of uncharted territory – a marquee player in the prime of his career at the sport’s most important position who is abruptly eliminated from the equation permanently. That’s not within the realm of normal NFL “not for long” events. Sorry, it just isn’t. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I really can’t think of a comparable event off the top of my head – maybe the Theismann injury, but he was pretty late into his career at the time if I’m not mistaken.

Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

.... I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.

I want to make sure it’s clear that I like Ballard and I didn’t start this conversation complaining about him. It’s started because of a comment I made to dam about not seeing Ballard signing Bridgewater for big money or spending enough draft capital to move up significantly in the draft. Just doesn’t match his previous comments or actions, but either way I didn’t jump in bashing Ballard and really haven’t intended to.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.

You are correct that our debates always come down to philosophical differences, however I want to point out that I’m not a always a “win now” guy. I’m only that when there is a true franchise QB in place. To me a true franchise QB just means that much. He puts you around .500 with a shitty roster. He gives you a chance to win any game you play. And he’s one hot streak from putting you in the SB or at least the AFCCG with minimal help. That is the importance of the position. IMO Polian gave away SBs trying to maintain greatness. Ted Thompson did similar in GB. Both teams would have done better to have had higher peaks and lower valleys because the QB would always allow for a very quick bounce back. That allows you to take more risks IMO.

Without that guy in place then I’m not a “win now” guy. I’m a find a “true franchise QB” guy. And I’m down for patience. In a previous thread I said Ballard didn’t absolutely have to fix the QB situation this offseason, because it’s more important to get it right than it is to get someone quickly. However that also means that I don’t think the Colts will be true contenders for a few more years. That’s why I look at that 2018 season as a major missed opportunity - it’s going to be a few years before they have that opportunity again with a franchise QB (not just make the playoffs with an ok QB). You’ve mentioned several times that no one expected anything from that 2018 team, but that’s not accurate. They were in a great position with a returning franchise QB, very high draft pick that would net a difference make or two or three, tons of cap space, and ditching Pagano. I wasn’t pessimistic until I saw the direction Ballard was going.