DougDew

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    7,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

DougDew last won the day on June 6 2018

DougDew had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,944 All-Pro

2 Followers

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,820 profile views
  1. DougDew

    BPA Advocates

    To many things wrong with your post to comment. But if you read my comments carefully, I'm the guy who is saying that GMs do not look at rank the same way pundits/fans do. They have attributes they value. Whether or not they put them on the the board with an assigned number is mechanics of the process that is not relevant to the point. Whether or not you want to semantically equate attributes with needs of the roster, that's not the point either. The point is, what they don't do is take the college rankings of players regardless of specific attribute, then take the 26 th ranked player over the 37 th ranked player simply because the guy is 26 and the other guy is 37. That's how people talk about BPA, and how they evaluate reach. BTW, Aaron Henrandez was drafted in the 4th round. BB got lucky he turned out as good as he did. If BB thought he was going to be that good, he wouldn't have waited until the 4th round. Taking that concept to the Hockenson example, if Bill Polian had pro-bowler Ebron under contract and playing the recieving TE role, he wouldn't have taken Dallas Clark at 25, no matter where Clark was was ranked. But maybe he takes someone in the 4th round who ends up being as good as Hernandez was.
  2. In the past 25 months, I have made no apology for the immediate reaction on draft day that I thought Hooker was overdrafted. That was about 25 months ago. There is nothing I said that should indicate anything about Ballard's overall performance, unless people are the type that think a GM sucks if they don't bat 1,000. I do not. The fact that I mention that Phillip Dorsett pick made sense at the time, for about 48 months now, because it was a POSITION OF NEED when nobody else recognized it, until now, does not mean I wish Grigson was still the GM. The fact that I mentioned that TRich was rated highly coming out of college, that CLEV had a horrible QB contributing to TRs performance in CLEV, and that we needed a RB for the push to the playoffs, justified sending a first round pick for him, does not mean that I wish Grigson was still the GM. The fact that I don't pay the bridge toll by saying that Grigson sucks at every opportunity does not mean I think he should be GM What I do not do is pay the necessary tolls. I don't put the obligatory nod to the forum narrative when point out something contrary to the narrative. I like Superman, but almost every time he says something contrarian, he throws in the "but I still like the Nelson pick" or some bone he throws to the mob to let them know his overall thinking is on "the right track". Recently he went round and round with various forum members, like I typically do, because he said something against the popular opinion and people extrapolated that into meaning something broader than what he meant. Like he was a nonbeliever or something. He finally just gave up. He pays the tolls. I do not, so I guess some extrapolate that as indicative of my broader opinions. That's on them, not me. In this thread, I mentioned the COMMENTS ABOUT the signing, yet here I am discussing whether or not I like Ballard. Why is that? Whatever reason you come up with, don't include the possibility that its MY FAULT I'm discussing it.
  3. Seriously. If you read my comments in this thread, they're not even about Ballard. I like the signing. My comments in this thread are about the comments about Ballard. And because I said something contrarian about the spun comments about the signing, that prompts you to evaluate my opinion of the GM himself? In fact, I think the only negative signing or draft pick I ever mentioned was that I thought Malik Hooker was overdrafted, and that I didn't leap ecstatically for the Nelson pick because of positional value. The only reason that is contrarian is because so many thought Hooker was a steal, and that Nelson's pancake ability and machismo justified taking him at 6. Just because the popular opinion is contrary to my own doesn't make me a contrarian by nature.
  4. The roster is fine with me. You can always nitpick a player or two, but scheme change makes things take longer too. Not his fault. What I see about "Ballard Plan" is pretty much the same thing I see about many other GMs plan. The plan isn't different. His player evaluation and selection is different. He picks players that have talent. Some other GMs do not. Ballard is no visionary, no wizard, no genius. He simply picks players better than many with the notion of building through the draft and filling holes with team friendly contracts to vets. That plan and vision has been here for a while, it just wasn't executed very successfully.
  5. And how did anything I said in this thread lead you to believe that. Because pointing out the possibility that other teams didn't want Geathers at his price led you there? That's on you, not me. What you did is what happens when people get anxious that another isn't going to tow the line, so they jump to conclusions to head-off anything they don't want to hear. You brought up something about my comments being motivated by Grigson or some weird reason, trying to cut to whatever chase there is and end the discussion. That's a reaction based totally upon your perception of there being a possible threat to a point of view, not based on anything I actually said, ever. Not withstanding the notion that your first sentence above implies that there is a problem with somebody who actually didn't want him here. With the tone akin to bullying the person into conforming to eliminate a threat. Its just football.
  6. Nice backhanded dig. Sorry, seeing "Ballard lets his players test the market then brings them back" as nothing more than positive spin about possible reasons for a signing is not the same thing as choosing to see things negatively.
  7. I'm contrarian to spin. It tends to show up in a lot of the comments about Ballard on this forum. Gotta wonder why that happens since, as I said, I'm glad he's here.
  8. Its not a backhanded dig. In a sea of unknowns, pointing out the group of circumstances that may be negative is not a backhanded negative comment about anything. It at the least is not unjustified within the broader circumstances of a positive comment that ignores all negative connotations.
  9. No reason to argue. I like the signing. It fills a need until we find something better, as did/do most of our FA signings. I just found that spinning this rather unspectacular signing as some especially positive reflection on Ballard to be interesting. And if not a stop gap true SS, Geathers may fit a more LB-ish role with us that has limited market appeal with others, so he might not have many choices other than to come back. A rather easy signing for any GM.
  10. You're repeating things that I have implied could be happening. I took issue with the statement that CB lets them (allows them) to test the market then brings them back. He "allows". Then "he brings". What Ballard does or doesn't do may have very little to do with what happened. It might be better said that Geathers is here mainly because of what other GMs DIDN'T do.
  11. That's a lot of assumptions. I simply assume that the players get an idea of what other teams will pay and then chose to sign with the Colts for whatever reason, including the monetary offer, which is likely higher. And the reason Ballard wants him back is because there is a hole to fill, and Geathers isn't really much of a long term answer. Glowinski is an example of a player who is. I don't really see how the situation can be spun to be all that positive towards Ballard. Paying higher than other suitors would for a stop gap player you need to fill a hole before draft day is fairly unspectacularly common, IMO.
  12. I think Kevin is the media guy for the Colts. And I know his job is to always look at something that says today and tomorrow is and will be better than yesterday. And if you can point out how bad yesterday was, it makes today and tomorrow look that much better. I get the use of juxtaposing. But isn't scheme change a part of those overall numbers? Even if the players were good enough for a second contract, they wouldn't have gotten one anyway, like Henry Anderson. He just got a second contract with the Jets after having 7 sacks last year.
  13. Sure, a player may chose to take less money here than go to another team, for many reasons that may have little to do with who the GM is. But that's not implied by saying Ballard let HIS players do something, then HE brings them back. There is more to it than what Ballard does or doesn't do, unless maybe he's viewed as the almighty.
  14. Yes, all of those things could be true. But none of that is implied when its said "Ballard lets his players test the market then brings them back." I mean, that's pure spin of who knows what truth. I am a Ballard fan. And I was a Grigson fan more than a Pagano fan. But none of that has anything to do with it.
  15. You mean honesty, right. So tell me. The player tests the market, then comes back. Doesn't that inherently mean that we signed him for more than the other team would have. That other teams rejected the price we bought at? We're not talking about outbidding for Suh, we're talking about a marginal player who probably is in the NFL because nobody else really wants him at this point. How is that honestly thought of as being a good thing right at first blush?