Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Who's backing up Gore?


AmberDerrow

Recommended Posts

Seems like Ballard is good to go but holding off until TC to showcase the work he's put in on his rehab. I'm interested to see how he handles the ball after 2 years of no football but with his"this could be it for me" mentality, I'm anticipating a pretty solid season from him. Robinson has been a surprising favorite this offseason among fans, especially via social media, and after hearing "Ballard taught me everything I know"... I'm excited to see the two on the field in 2015.

 

 

Here's what Colts.com writer, Kevin Bowen, had to say in this week's Mailbag:

Bowen: Ballard still hasn’t return to the field. The fourth-year running back has said he thinks he could participate in the Colts current offseason program, however, Training Camp looks to be more of a target for a player coming off back-to-back season-ending injuries. Once Ballard is healthy, I do expect him to be in the thick of the competition with Boom Herron and Josh Robinsonicon-article-link.gif for reps behind Frank Gore.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boom is backup until someone or himself proves otherwise.

I would expect Robinson to be 3rd.

I love Ballard and was a huge fan of his his rookie year. Injuries have taken him out of the equation obviously. He hasn't played football in two years basically. His health is a major concern.

If we don't keep 4 backs on the roster I think Ballard will be cut becuase we can't afford to lose any of the other backs like Robinson or Boom. Other teams would be all over them. If we kept Ballard and he was injured and we lost one of the other RB that would not be very good for the running back situation.

I also hope the Colts give Robinson his fair shot! They have given plenty of running backs a chance and they drafted him so I expect they will but I hope the give him a really good and fair chance to be the #2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boom deserves the backup role after what he did for us in the playoffs besides fumbling. He's a pass catching beast and explodes from the hole.

Seeing the burst Boom has and comparing it to the pathetic showing Richardson displayed, it was night and day.  One guy explodes like he's shot out of a cannon and runs with anger while Richardson looks like he's scared to attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boom is backup until someone or himself proves otherwise.

I would expect Robinson to be 3rd.

 

this.  ballard will be lucky to make the team.  if he really kills it in preseason he might find a suitor elsewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The positions and pecking order are dictated by the amount of money attached to any player, ability has very little to do with it. Once money is commited the duds stay no matter what or the GM gets fired. Just look at the number of reps that any player gets in OTA and camp and you will get the picture. The UDFAs just stand around and watch. Gore is #1 because he has $12 M , 6.5M guaranteed attached to him. That will not change even if hell freezes over. Only way he loses  the #1 is due to injury. Personally I would never pay that kind of money for a 32 year old on the back side of his career and my prediction is that he will be a bust. #2 to #4 are a toss up, Ballard has $144,000 guaranteed, Robinson $108,000 and Herron has zippo guaranteed but has the highest base of the three. Indication of who is the front runner is based on the number of reps they get in practice. The likely odd man out is Ballard as I can't see Grigson keeping a player coming off two career ending injuries. Tipton, Varga and Toure are on their way to flipping burgers as they will never get reps to show or opportunity to crack this line-up. No draft picks were wasted on them and they have no money or obligation attached to them. Pagano's talk about UDFAs making the team is just nonsense to keep some bodies in camp. Only way UDFAs ever end up on a 53 is if the whole depth chart is decimated with injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robinson, Herron. I think Ballard gets every chance in preseason to show he can stay healthy and Grigson works the phones depending on how well Ballard performs(If he stays healthy) trying to get a late 5th-7th round pick for Ballard. Teams know he can play, Just a matter if they feel they can trust his body to stay healthy and there own rb situation. A shame because I think Ballard is a better rb then Herron at this point with what we have seen from the both of them but health and production trumps all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tumblr_inline_ngbz4sGN7B1r47db2.gif

The business of football has very little to do with winning or losing.  By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%, if they could free up the "dead wood" on their roster. Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood". The "dead wood" financial commitment is the main reason why there is very little non trade roster turnover... other than free agent. Every team could be vastly improved through the UDFA market if the issue of 'dead wood" could be eliminated. Unfortunately, you are limited to 53, money has to be paid and you basically go with who you have to pay and if that roster happens to be inferior than so be it. Every team is in the same boat so let the chips fall where they may. Fans get cought up in the media frenzy and have very little understanding of the business dynamic involved. If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. Why roll the 50/50 dice on a rookie and get stuck with "dead wood" for years to come? Free agents and UDFAs seems like the sensible model to me? Can anyone say "Pats"?   

 

My prediction is this, Gore #1, Herron #2, Robinson #3 and not because I belive that this is the ability order of things. If you throw out the money issue and are trying to field the best team possible there is no way that this trio is even close to the best scenario available. Ballard goes to the wood shed along with the Mr. Irrelevant UDFA souls and life moves on and we play with another inferior roster.  

Edited by 21isSuperman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you want to have Robinson develop into Gore's back up and eventual replacement.  With the 49ers, they drafted Kendall Hunter who is physically similar to Gore. They had totally different running styles when  Hunter first came to the 49ers, but within a year or so,  you could Hunter becoming a more effective runner between the tackles, learning to have Gore's patience and understanding of how to use his blocking in tight spaces.  Some times you couldn't tell if it was Gore or Hunter running the ball.  If not for blowing out his knee, I think Hunter would be the 49ers's starter.  

 

I think Robinson has the potential for developing the same way, though he seems to have tighter hips than Gore and may not have the same shiftiness required between the tackles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business of football has very little to do with winning or losing.  By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%, if they could free up the "dead wood" on their roster. Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood". The "dead wood" financial commitment is the main reason why there is very little non trade roster turnover... other than free agent. Every team could be vastly improved through the UDFA market if the issue of 'dead wood" could be eliminated. Unfortunately, you are limited to 53, money has to be paid and you basically go with who you have to pay and if that roster happens to be inferior than so be it. Every team is in the same boat so let the chips fall where they may. Fans get cought up in the media frenzy and have very little understanding of the business dynamic involved. If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. Why roll the 50/50 dice on a rookie and get stuck with "dead wood" for years to come? Free agents and UDFAs seems like the sensible model to me? Can anyone say "Pats"?   

 

My prediction is this, Gore #1, Herron #2, Robinson #3 and not because I belive that this is the ability order of things. If you throw out the money issue and are trying to field the best team possible there is no way that this trio is even close to the best scenario available. Ballard goes to the wood shed along with the Mr. Irrelevant UDFA souls and life moves on and we play with another inferior roster.  

I nominate this post as "dead wood".

 

Does anyone second the nomination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I nominate this post as "dead wood".

 

Does anyone second the nomination?

Hey, no one likes to hear the truth but it is what it is. If you came from the inside you would know exactly what I am talking about. What the public gets to see is completely different from the way things are. All they see is the front lobby, never get to the laundry room. I am not going to start listing the "dead wood" on our team but I am sure you have an idea of who at least ten of them are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business of football has very little to do with winning or losing.  By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%, if they could free up the "dead wood" on their roster. Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood". The "dead wood" financial commitment is the main reason why there is very little non trade roster turnover... other than free agent. Every team could be vastly improved through the UDFA market if the issue of 'dead wood" could be eliminated. Unfortunately, you are limited to 53, money has to be paid and you basically go with who you have to pay and if that roster happens to be inferior than so be it. Every team is in the same boat so let the chips fall where they may. Fans get cought up in the media frenzy and have very little understanding of the business dynamic involved. If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. Why roll the 50/50 dice on a rookie and get stuck with "dead wood" for years to come? Free agents and UDFAs seems like the sensible model to me? Can anyone say "Pats"?   

 

My prediction is this, Gore #1, Herron #2, Robinson #3 and not because I belive that this is the ability order of things. If you throw out the money issue and are trying to field the best team possible there is no way that this trio is even close to the best scenario available. Ballard goes to the wood shed along with the Mr. Irrelevant UDFA souls and life moves on and we play with another inferior roster.  

 

airplane-cant-be-serious.gif.pagespeed.c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The positions and pecking order are dictated by the amount of money attached to any player, ability has very little to do with it. Once money is commited the duds stay no matter what or the GM gets fired. Just look at the number of reps that any player gets in OTA and camp and you will get the picture. The UDFAs just stand around and watch. Gore is #1 because he has $12 M , 6.5M guaranteed attached to him. That will not change even if hell freezes over. Only way he loses the #1 is due to injury. Personally I would never pay that kind of money for a 32 year old on the back side of his career and my prediction is that he will be a bust. #2 to #4 are a toss up, Ballard has $144,000 guaranteed, Robinson $108,000 and Herron has zippo guaranteed but has the highest base of the three. Indication of who is the front runner is based on the number of reps they get in practice. The likely odd man out is Ballard as I can't see Grigson keeping a player coming off two career ending injuries. Tipton, Varga and Toure are on their way to flipping burgers as they will never get reps to show or opportunity to crack this line-up. No draft picks were wasted on them and they have no money or obligation attached to them. Pagano's talk about UDFAs making the team is just nonsense to keep some bodies in camp. Only way UDFAs ever end up on a 53 is if the whole depth chart is decimated with injury.

144,000 is chump change. I seriously see Ballad as the odd man out here. 3 seasons, 2 non contact season ending injuries...sorry to say but any GM would.be dumb not to cut him unless he is simply studding it out, which I doubt is gonna happen. Ballad cut in july.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business of football has very little to do with winning or losing.  By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%, if they could free up the "dead wood" on their roster. Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood". The "dead wood" financial commitment is the main reason why there is very little non trade roster turnover... other than free agent. Every team could be vastly improved through the UDFA market if the issue of 'dead wood" could be eliminated. Unfortunately, you are limited to 53, money has to be paid and you basically go with who you have to pay and if that roster happens to be inferior than so be it. Every team is in the same boat so let the chips fall where they may. Fans get cought up in the media frenzy and have very little understanding of the business dynamic involved. If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. Why roll the 50/50 dice on a rookie and get stuck with "dead wood" for years to come? Free agents and UDFAs seems like the sensible model to me? Can anyone say "Pats"?   

 

My prediction is this, Gore #1, Herron #2, Robinson #3 and not because I belive that this is the ability order of things. If you throw out the money issue and are trying to field the best team possible there is no way that this trio is even close to the best scenario available. Ballard goes to the wood shed along with the Mr. Irrelevant UDFA souls and life moves on and we play with another inferior roster.  

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, no one likes to hear the truth but it is what it is. If you came from the inside you would know exactly what I am talking about. What the public gets to see is completely different from the way things are. All they see is the front lobby, never get to the laundry room. I am not going to start listing the "dead wood" on our team but I am sure you have an idea of who at least ten of them are.

What you stated is not the truth.  I can break down part of it.

 

Your second sentence, "By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%,"  is completely bogus because the opposing forces on "onfield performance.  On field performance is measured in stats, so if an offense improves by 25% and the opposing defense improves by 25% then the end result would be the same as the year before and would be very similar stat wise and thus... no improvement.  If for example the offense improves by 30% and the opposing defense improves by 25%, then the results will be more skewed than the year before thus showing the offense improved and the defense declined.  So there is one of your "truths" busted.

 

Your third sentence, "Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood".   Again this is something that is just not true.  Teams cut players all the time that have received, sometimes large, amounts of guaranteed money.  It's like any other business, there are risks involved some times those risks payoff and sometimes they don't.  This "truth" is busted.

 

This sentence, " If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. "  Is so comical it's more sad than funny.  One, it is completely counter to your sentence I quoted above... the "proven" free agents want guaranteed money when they sign with another team, two, since we are talking about human beings and not computer generated models, the fact that they have "proven" something in the past is no guarantee they will perform to the same or higher level in the future.  If they don't perform and are cut by the team then you have the "dead wood" that you are so fond of typing.  Three, let's assume a team wants to employ your strategy of using only late round draft picks and UDFA, why does that mean a team has to be so stupid as to forfeit those draft picks, why not trade them for more lower round draft picks and or the non guaranteed proven veterans?  Additionally, league rules state that 90+% of the salary cap must be spent on players each year, so matter how you obtain your players the better, more valuable players are going to get paid more than the less valuable players and then when those more valuable players become less effective and have to be cut the team is left with dead money.  Another of your "truth" is busted.

 

You want to act like you have some inside knowledge of how football organizations work but you don't even have a basic understanding of the NFL system or how things work in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you stated is not the truth.  I can break down part of it.

 

Your second sentence, "By conservative estimates every team in the league could be improved ,from an onfield  performance perspective, by at least 25%,"  is completely bogus because the opposing forces on "onfield performance.  On field performance is measured in stats, so if an offense improves by 25% and the opposing defense improves by 25% then the end result would be the same as the year before and would be very similar stat wise and thus... no improvement.  If for example the offense improves by 30% and the opposing defense improves by 25%, then the results will be more skewed than the year before thus showing the offense improved and the defense declined.  So there is one of your "truths" busted.

 

Your third sentence, "Unfortunately, once the guaranteed money is commited there is no way to get rid of players other than through trade and who would possibly want your "dead wood".   Again this is something that is just not true.  Teams cut players all the time that have received, sometimes large, amounts of guaranteed money.  It's like any other business, there are risks involved some times those risks payoff and sometimes they don't.  This "truth" is busted.

 

This sentence, " If teams were truly comitted to fielding the best team possible they would forefeit all their round 1-4 draft picks, free up a bunch of guaranteed money and just go after proven free agents. "  Is so comical it's more sad than funny.  One, it is completely counter to your sentence I quoted above... the "proven" free agents want guaranteed money when they sign with another team, two, since we are talking about human beings and not computer generated models, the fact that they have "proven" something in the past is no guarantee they will perform to the same or higher level in the future.  If they don't perform and are cut by the team then you have the "dead wood" that you are so fond of typing.  Three, let's assume a team wants to employ your strategy of using only late round draft picks and UDFA, why does that mean a team has to be so stupid as to forfeit those draft picks, why not trade them for more lower round draft picks and or the non guaranteed proven veterans?  Additionally, league rules state that 90+% of the salary cap must be spent on players each year, so matter how you obtain your players the better, more valuable players are going to get paid more than the less valuable players and then when those more valuable players become less effective and have to be cut the team is left with dead money.  Another of your "truth" is busted.

 

You want to act like you have some inside knowledge of how football organizations work but you don't even have a basic understanding of the NFL system or how things work in the real world.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers with the truth. You and every other fan out there are entitled to their opinion. I just chose to take off the rose colored glasses.

 

Stats are nonsense and rarely paint a picture of what actually happened on the field. Example; If a RB rushes for 100 yards you would say he had a good day? What if those 100 yards were made up of one run of 80 yards and 20 runs of one yard. Would you say he had a good day now? How about if he ran for 300 yards but it was against the worst defense in the league. Is he actually good or are his stats good? If a safety makes 10 tackles you would say he had a great game and is a run stopping machine. What if all of those tackles occured 20 yards down field, still the same opinion? Who do you think will do better this year, Frank Gore or Darren McFadden assuming both are healthy and play the same number of games and why? Most guys that pile up the stats are a product of their environment. Take a star RB or QB and put him on a crap team and see how good the stats are!  

 

Yes, teams do release players with guaranteed money but the GM that keeps doing this generally gets fired pretty quickly! So I would tend to go with the idea that he sticks with his mistake more often than not just to save his own skin.

 

I pointed out the Patriots. Do they not often trade their early picks for more picks in the later rounds? Do they not sign more one year free agent deals than any other team? Do they not have more UDFA on their roster than any other team? Why do you think this is? My logic says they would rather pay a proven free agent than tie up large sums of money on an unproven rookie. Makes sense .... same cost, less risk? How manu UDFA stars have come out of that system? Quite a few I would say. Funny thing is, other than for a core few, most move on when the second contract comes around. You think money has anything to do with that? Say what you may but drafting rookies who are statistically a bi-product of their environment, in large part have character issues and in most cases at best have a 50/50 positive outcome, paying them large signing bonuses and guaranteed money and then getting stuck with them is a terrible business formula compared to the one the Pats are using!  

 

Thanks for the retort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers with the truth. You and every other fan out there are entitled to their opinion. I just chose to take off the rose colored glasses.

 

Stats are nonsense and rarely paint a picture of what actually happened on the field. Example; If a RB rushes for 100 yards you would say he had a good day? What if those 100 yards were made up of one run of 80 yards and 20 runs of one yard. Would you say he had a good day now? How about if he ran for 300 yards but it was against the worst defense in the league. Is he actually good or are his stats good? If a safety makes 10 tackles you would say he had a great game and is a run stopping machine. What if all of those tackles occured 20 yards down field, still the same opinion? Who do you think will do better this year, Frank Gore or Darren McFadden assuming both are healthy and play the same number of games and why? Most guys that pile up the stats are a product of their environment. Take a star RB or QB and put him on a crap team and see how good the stats are!  

 

Yes, teams do release players with guaranteed money but the GM that keeps doing this generally gets fired pretty quickly! So I would tend to go with the idea that he sticks with his mistake more often than not just to save his own skin.

 

I pointed out the Patriots. Do they not often trade their early picks for more picks in the later rounds? Do they not sign more one year free agent deals than any other team? Do they not have more UDFA on their roster than any other team? Why do you think this is? My logic says they would rather pay a proven free agent than tie up large sums of money on an unproven rookie. Makes sense .... same cost, less risk? How manu UDFA stars have come out of that system? Quite a few I would say. Funny thing is, other than for a core few, most move on when the second contract comes around. You think money has anything to do with that? Say what you may but drafting rookies who are statistically a bi-product of their environment, in large part have character issues and in most cases at best have a 50/50 positive outcome, paying them large signing bonuses and guaranteed money and then getting stuck with them is a terrible business formula compared to the one the Pats are using!  

 

Thanks for the retort.

Just because I point out your complete lack of logic does not mean you have ruffled my feathers.  

 

1.  You say stats are nonsense but they are not, they don't tell the whole story but they are not nonsense.  But I will ask then, how do you quantify a 25% improvement?  

 

2.  I won't answer all your cherry picked scenarios but I will a few.  if the RB runs for 100 yards and his runs, whether 80 yards or 2, help the team win then he had a good day.  If a guy runs 300 yards against the worst D in the league then he had a good day.  If a safety has 10 tackles and they are all 20 yards down the field and he was playing his position like he is supposed to play it in the D then yes he had a good day.  If he was making those tackles because he was out of position and thus had to turn and chase then it was not a good day.

 

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

 

4.  I know you want to bring the Patriots (funny how that works) into the conversation but no, they do not often trade their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks for 5th, 6th and 7th round picks.  In the last 3 years the Patriots have drafted 16 players in the first 4 rounds.  They drafted two players in the 1st round in 2012.  So what you are using for your example does not exist in the real world.  They had dead money on their books just like every other team.  In fact at just over $13 million in dead money for the 2015 season they are in the top half of the league in dead money.  Two teams near the bottom of the dad money list (meaning the least amount of dead money) are the Jaguars and Browns (1.7 mil and 1.5 mil respectively).  So dead money really has nothing to do with how well a franchise functions.

 

You can do what you want, but I would highly suggest that when you have an idea you support that idea with reality and not your perception of how reality should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I point out your complete lack of logic does not mean you have ruffled my feathers.  

 

1.  You say stats are nonsense but they are not, they don't tell the whole story but they are not nonsense.  But I will ask then, how do you quantify a 25% improvement?  

 

2.  I won't answer all your cherry picked scenarios but I will a few.  if the RB runs for 100 yards and his runs, whether 80 yards or 2, help the team win then he had a good day.  If a guy runs 300 yards against the worst D in the league then he had a good day.  If a safety has 10 tackles and they are all 20 yards down the field and he was playing his position like he is supposed to play it in the D then yes he had a good day.  If he was making those tackles because he was out of position and thus had to turn and chase then it was not a good day.

 

 

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

 

4.  I know you want to bring the Patriots (funny how that works) into the conversation but no, they do not often trade their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks for 5th, 6th and 7th round picks.  In the last 3 years the Patriots have drafted 16 players in the first 4 rounds.  They drafted two players in the 1st round in 2012.  So what you are using for your example does not exist in the real world.  They had dead money on their books just like every other team.  In fact at just over $13 million in dead money for the 2015 season they are in the top half of the league in dead money.  Two teams near the bottom of the dad money list (meaning the least amount of dead money) are the Jaguars and Browns (1.7 mil and 1.5 mil respectively).  So dead money really has nothing to do with how well a franchise functions.

 

You can do what you want, but I would highly suggest that when you have an idea you support that idea with reality and not your perception of how reality should work.

 

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

Then why keep trent ? SOOOOOOO long

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I point out your complete lack of logic does not mean you have ruffled my feathers.  

 

1.  You say stats are nonsense but they are not, they don't tell the whole story but they are not nonsense.  But I will ask then, how do you quantify a 25% improvement?  

 

2.  I won't answer all your cherry picked scenarios but I will a few.  if the RB runs for 100 yards and his runs, whether 80 yards or 2, help the team win then he had a good day.  If a guy runs 300 yards against the worst D in the league then he had a good day.  If a safety has 10 tackles and they are all 20 yards down the field and he was playing his position like he is supposed to play it in the D then yes he had a good day.  If he was making those tackles because he was out of position and thus had to turn and chase then it was not a good day.

 

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

 

4.  I know you want to bring the Patriots (funny how that works) into the conversation but no, they do not often trade their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks for 5th, 6th and 7th round picks.  In the last 3 years the Patriots have drafted 16 players in the first 4 rounds.  They drafted two players in the 1st round in 2012.  So what you are using for your example does not exist in the real world.  They had dead money on their books just like every other team.  In fact at just over $13 million in dead money for the 2015 season they are in the top half of the league in dead money.  Two teams near the bottom of the dad money list (meaning the least amount of dead money) are the Jaguars and Browns (1.7 mil and 1.5 mil respectively).  So dead money really has nothing to do with how well a franchise functions.

 

You can do what you want, but I would highly suggest that when you have an idea you support that idea with reality and not your perception of how reality should work.

 

Look, I am not going to get in an argument with you about he said, she said, they said. Obviously you can spin things the way you see fit. No, one said that the Pats trade all their picks but they do have a history of trading down. I was talking about "dead wood" and how teams can improve not just go on existing in their mistakes. Obviously no one employs the model I suggested 100%, but from a financial perspective it makes sense. If most of the league revenues are shared does it really matter if you win or lose? Makes for good marketing fodder to make a lot of noise about making an attempt to do something but in reality if you were to fire all the 1500+ players in the league and bring in all new ones , next season we would still have amazing plays, amazing stats, sold out stadiums and a superbowl champion .... and probably another deflate gate! For me to suggest that improvements could be made to every roster by eliminating "dead wood" is purely idealistic. We all know that this will never happen.

 

Just because the RB in my example has one 80 yard run and that happens to be the game winner does not classify him as a good RB in light of his other 20 ATT for 20 yards. Yet, the 80 yard run will make the highlight reel and the fans will go crazy and he will become a star overnight. But, in my eyes, he is "dead wood" unless he can consistantly repeat that feat! This is no different than the craze about 40 yard times. Who gives a crap how fast someones forty is when according to NFL rushing stats he will on average need 40 ATT to ever record one run of 20+ yards (yes, actual stats from 2014 NFL). Yet, we go absolutely bonkers over this metric and commit countless money chasing it. How silly is that? I can't even tell you how often this point is brought up on this board. There is a reason why backs average around 4 yards per ATT and their forty time has nothing to do with it! Trent Richards took a lot of flack here and some of it deserved but when you run behind a crappy line it does not matter if you are Superman, your results will be similar. I always question the RB draft picks from the big schools that consistantly have the best OL and their NFL performances consistantly give me reason to do so! Is Nick Chubb the next Todd Gurley or what is really going on there and how much cash do I want to commit to find out?

 

The media and so called guru analysts are absolutely crazy about stats. If you bring up stats and don't give me any info on the inputs that made up those stats (good or bad) I will think you know nothing. Stats are for fans. Reality is on the field.  

 

I think you give GMs way more credit than they deserve. Since most teams are perennial losers and someone made those decisions, where do you point the finger. There is not one GM in the league that does not say a prayer before he embarks on the draft process. If it doesn't work out what do you do. Human nature is to give your mistakes the benefit of the doubt or just plain try and hide them. And I think there is an awful lot of hiding going on around the NFL! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

Then why keep trent ? SOOOOOOO long

 

We didn't keep Trent that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.  Your point about a GM doesn't make any sense either because a GM that sticks with his mistakes because of money will be fired faster than a GM that moves on from his mistakes.

Then why keep trent ? SOOOOOOO long

One, TRICH didn't cost very much and two, he was on the roster for less than 2 years.  That is admitting your mistake and moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...