Chris Ballard

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Sure I am,  we've had great talent where it matters.  QB, LT, WR1 and a nice C and TE.  But we do need a RT.

 

How much talent is needed at G, RB, and off WRs?  Teams churn them every few years.

So how effective is a QB when they are being beat into the turf?

How effective is a WR1 when his QB can't get him the ball?

How effective is the TE position when neither is a good blocker and the QB can't get them the ball either?

So that leaves the C and the RG. Now tell me how stacked a team is when 2 positions out of 11 play their positions?

Like I said, you can't be serious.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So how effective is a QB when they are being beat into the turf?

How effective is a WR1 when his QB can't get him the ball?

How effective is the TE position when neither is a good blocker and the QB can't get them the ball either?

So that leaves the C and the RG. Now tell me how stacked a team is when 2 positions out of 11 play their positions?

Like I said, you can't be serious.

I'm tired of doing the math.  You can do it.

 

To get the talent we have at QB, that would take a high first round pick.  To get Luck, it would take even more than that.  Probably at least 2 first's, if not 3.

 

To replace AC, it would take a 1st.

 

TY, a 1st.

 

Kelly, a 1st, maybe high 2nd.

 

Doyle, a 2nd.

 

Sure other positions need upgrading.  You can get RBs in the 4th and 5th, see Mack, Wilkins and Vic Ballard.  Gs can be had in the 2nd or 3rd.  Smith, Mewhort.  Off WRs in the 2nd or 3rd (we have failed miserably to draft WRs, can't even mention 1).  What kind of draft pick does it take to get a one dimensional TE, like Jacob Tamme or Ebron, once we have the Jason Witten/Ken Dilger on the roster?   

 

Ballard just has to trade down a bit and get enough picks to fill in the O while building the D.

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I'm tired of doing the math.  You can do it.

 

To get the talent we have at QB, that would take a high first round pick.  To get Luck, it would take even more than that.  Probably at least 2 first's, if not 3.

 

To replace AC, it would take a 1st.

 

TY, a 1st.

 

Kelly, a 1st, maybe high 2nd.

 

Doyle, a 2nd.

 

Sure other positions need upgrading.  You can get RBs in the 4th and 5th, see Mack, Wilkins and Vic Ballard.  Gs can be had in the 2nd or 3rd.  Smith, Mewhort.  Off WRs in the 2nd or 3rd (we have failed miserably to draft WRs, can't even mention 1).  What kind of draft pick does it take to get a one dimensional TE, like Jacob Tamme or Ebron, once we have the Jason Witten/Ken Dilger on the roster?   

 

Ballard just has to trade down a bit and get enough picks to fill in the O while building the D.

 

Doing the math? You seem to think putting a winning team together is as easy as snapping your fingers.  GMs and coaches all over the league have trouble finding the right pieces. Every GM in the league has problems finding offensive linemen.

What you also fail to understand it is not where players are drafted, it is the right players who are picked. 

You also fail to see that GMs need those trading partners you think are ready available.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Doing the math? You seem to think putting a winning team together is as easy as snapping your fingers.  GMs and coaches all over the league have trouble finding the right pieces. Every GM in the league has problems finding offensive linemen.

What you also fail to understand it is not where players are drafted, it is the right players who are picked. 

You also fail to see that GMs need those trading partners you think are ready available.

Did you misread my post? 

 

I didn't say where they were drafted, I said what it would take to replace them, based upon the level of talent they are contributing to the roster.  Luck 2 firsts, AC 1st, TY 1st, Kelly 2nd, Doyle 2nd.

 

That's 4 firsts and 2 (mid) seconds RG saved Ballard from spending.  Unfortunately, Mewhort retired so Ballard had to spend a 2nd to replace that roster talent instead of adding to it.   And he will have to tread water once again when he replaces AC and TY within 3 years.

 

It just goes to show how much the talent on the O had labored under ineffective Pagano and OCs the past few seasons.

  

[crazycolt1]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Did you misread my post? 

 

I didn't say where they were drafted, I said what it would take to replace them, based upon the level of talent they are contributing to the roster.  Luck 2 firsts, AC 1st, TY 1st, Kelly 2nd, Doyle 2nd.

 

That's 4 firsts and 2 (mid) seconds RG saved Ballard from spending.  Unfortunately, Mewhort retired so Ballard had to spend a 2nd to replace that roster talent instead of adding to it.   And he will have to tread water once again when he replaces AC and TY within 3 years.

 

It just goes to show how much the talent on the O had labored under ineffective Pagano and OCs the past few seasons.

  

Blaming Grigson for the teams lack of talent is spot on.

But blaming Pagano for not having the talented players to coach is another issue.

It don't take a mathematician to figure out this team was lacking the talented players at key positions. It also don't cover the total lack of depth at just about every position.

Calling this team 'stacked' is far from the truth.

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Blaming Grigson for the teams lack of talent is spot on.

But blaming Pagano for not having the talented players to coach is another issue.

It don't take a mathematician to figure out this team was lacking the talented players at key positions. It also don't cover the total lack of depth at just about every position.

Calling this team 'stacked' is as far from the truth.

You keep moving the conversation off point to make one.

 

I called the Offense stacked because we have high talent where high talent needs to be.  If you disagree with the word, fine, but its better than having high round talent at G, RB, and TE and having nothing at QB and LT and WR1.   Ballard has been given a nice head start.

 

Seriously, how many GMs start their career having a franchise QB, a quality LT, and a WR the other team must game plan for?

 

We've needed a RT and WR2 for a while now.  Specifically, the last two seasons with RG, and the first two seasons of CB.   It looks the same there now as it has for the past three seasons.

 

I mean, I don't know how many times I can say the same thing.  If you don't like me pointing out these facts, fine, but stop pretending I'm saying something I'm not.

[chad72]

Can we merge all Chris Ballard threads into one, please?  

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You keep moving the conversation off point to make one.

 

I called the Offense stacked because we have high talent where high talent needs to be.  If you disagree with the word, fine, but its better than having high round talent at G, RB, and TE and having nothing at QB and LT and WR1.   Ballard has been given a nice head start.

 

Seriously, how many GMs start their career having a franchise QB, a quality LT, and a WR the other team must game plan for?

 

We've needed a RT and WR2 for a while now.  Specifically, the last two seasons with RG, and the first two seasons of CB.   It looks the same there now as it has for the past three seasons.

 

I mean, I don't know how many times I can say the same thing.  If you don't like me pointing out these facts, fine, but stop pretending I'm saying something I'm not.

Like I said, it don't take a mathematician to figure out this team was not stacked.  All teams have good players at a few positions but that does not make them stacked.

As far as game planning for our WR that was easy. Just pound the QB into the ground. Problem solved.

And how many teams game plan for a LT?

Saying this team was stacked because we had an injured QB and a couple of other good players is like saying the Browns have been super bowl ready for 10 years.

 

[southwest1]

17 hours ago, akcolt said:

I coached my son's Pop Warner team from when he was 7yrs old until he started high school. There were 3 of us who son's managed to stay the same size. We had a core of kids that played together into high school. I don't know if you are familiar with Pop Warner but weight matters as much as age. 

 

After a year away one of the coaches and myself started coaching the mighty mites. That's 7-9 year olds under 100lbs at the start of the season under 109 at the end. That's the best age I think. The boys are old enough to learn the game and young enough to let you teach. We run our version of the double wing on offense and a 5-3 on D. They have a play book for O and on D have gap responsibilities set the edge etc  

 

I love it. The older boys like to clown me for saying the same things year after year. They have  all heard the winning is easy but losing... the difference between losing and getting beat, if one guy runs the whole team better take off, clapping the last guy in.  They get it all. The other coach loves it when the team has to do up downs for jumping off side while hearing how we may not win every game but we will not beat ourselves. It's amazing the football you can get out of 8 and 9 year old kids. 

Nice write up AKC. Thanks for giving me a window into your Pop Warner world. You explain yourself quite well, poke fun at yourself to display humility & a genuine sense of team unity, & it's abundantly clear how much you enjoy what you do especially when you see the light bulb turn on about setting the edge among the boys you teach & they win a hard fought game that was at one point in doubt. 

 

"The older boys like to clown me for saying the same things year after year."

 

Yeah, it is more difficult to keep your audience focused, alert, & sharp than most people think unless you're right in the foxhole, huddle, or sideline with them showing them the ropes literally.

[southwest1]

12 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Not trying to re-invent the wheel. Just thought a wait and see approach made more sense than #3 considering the first two options. That's it, no biggie.

Also, I don't think I said anything about or alluded to Grigson.

To be totally honest with you, I've been known to do "Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan" thing myself more often than I probably should. You know when James T. Kirk can't pass a fatal simulation test so, he figures what the hades why not just change the rules, go off the grid, & get a promotion to admiral for being unorthodox in his solution & beat the test itself.

 

It really depends what kind of mood I'm in. No harm done. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

My only pet peeve & it's a minor one is this: If you are going in to take a test & you are told before hand what areas the standardized test will cover, say you suck at Math. You can make the decision to defy the rules & fill in the dots to make a visual mosaic of sorts. However, it's not really gonna help you in the end if you dismiss the rules & go off the reservation.

 

It's like taking a kid into a fast food joint with only 4 items on the menu: Pizza, burgers, hotdogs,  & chicken tenders & the kid is bound & determined he wants spaghetti today. Oh happy joy!

 

Alright, I've said my peace & will drop the matter now. Carry on...

 

 

[southwest1]

On 9/3/2018 at 11:02 AM, Fisticuffs111 said:

I'd vote for a 4th option that's in support of Ballard but also in wait and see mode.

I think some are judging too harshly (mostly just twitter fans, very few people here seem to be in "fire Ballard" mode) but I also think some fans are too quick to annoint him a successful GM. It's way too early to draw many conclusions on his GM'ing ability. I like him and want him to succeed, and I think he's had a pretty promising start, but it's also okay to disagree with some of the moves he's made.

You're right FC11. You didn't mention Grigson only Ballard. My apologies. My mistake. Whenever I see the words fire _______. My mind automatically inserts Ryan like a reflex.