Rick Venturi on JMV

[Steamboat_Shaun]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

The Colts had a razor thin margin for error this season. They started poorly, and had to scratch and claw their way back into the mix; one bad attitude in that locker room might have torpedoed the entire season. 

 

The other, bigger issue, is that the Colts are rebuilding their roster (yes, still). It's not really the time for risks, they need players that they can rely on and don't have to worry about them getting in trouble, being suspended, etc. I say the same thing about players with significant injury history.

 

Nail on the head. People are justifying adding guys like Brown & Bell no matter the cost, under the assumption that we'd immediately be Super Bowl contenders. Funny thing is, neither one of those 2 guys have a ring, & the Steelers have been good pretty much the whole time they've been with the team. They'd come in & completely ruin everything that's been built to this point at the first sign of even the slightest adversity.

[aaron11]

15 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

What drove me crazy with Venturi yesterday is he was basically saying that almost every position especially the oline needs looked at. That maybe it’s not as good as we thought. He never once mentioned maybe we were out of gas and things just crashed. With the way things went with every single phase crashing my guess for this loss was more that we just crashed and burned after being in playoff mode for 11 weeks.  He kept saying forget about the weak teams we played we need to evaluate on the NE and KC game. I think that is totally unfair.

 

I don’t care what anyone says we are not that much worse then KC.  If this had been a game coming off a bye and the field was better we would not of looked that bad. 

 

the goal is to win a super bowl, not just make the playoffs.  we have a long ways to go still to be the best team in the league.  

[Superman]

17 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

People are justifying adding guys like Brown & Bell no matter the cost, under the assumption that we'd immediately be Super Bowl contenders.

 

That's always the rationalization: "Player X would make us an automatic contender! He's more valuable to us than any pick!!" 

 

Sometimes people can't see more than an inch in front of their own face. 

 

Meanwhile, Chris Ballard: 'You're never one player away.' 'We're going to add players that fit the culture.' 'We want to pay our own.' 'There are no shortcuts.' 

 

It couldn't be more obvious, IMO. Ballard is absolutely not going to swing for the fences to add discontented veteran players on big contracts, and he's definitely not going to give up premium picks for them.

[Four2itus]

Just now, Superman said:

 

That's always the rationalization: "Player X would make us an automatic contender! He's more valuable to us than any pick!!" 

 

Sometimes people can't see more than an inch in front of their own face. 

 

Meanwhile, Chris Ballard: 'You're never one player away.' 'We're going to add players that fit the culture.' 'We want to pay our own.' 'There are no shortcuts.' 

 

It couldn't be more obvious, IMO. Ballard is absolutely not going to swing for the fences to add discontented veteran players on big contracts, and he's definitely not going to give up premium picks for them.

Preach it!

[stitches]

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's always the rationalization: "Player X would make us an automatic contender! He's more valuable to us than any pick!!" 

 

Sometimes people can't see more than an inch in front of their own face. 

 

Meanwhile, Chris Ballard: 'You're never one player away.' 'We're going to add players that fit the culture.' 'We want to pay our own.' 'There are no shortcuts.' 

 

It couldn't be more obvious, IMO. Ballard is absolutely not going to swing for the fences to add discontented veteran players on big contracts, and he's definitely not going to give up premium picks for them.

I think that's overselling it a bit. I think Ballard trusts his scouting and evaluations and as he's said multiple times he has numbers/value for every player on the market that he won't go over and IMO if it makes sense for the team and if the evaluation meets the demand(be it from the player or from the team holding his rights) he is/should be willing to make a trade for any type of player(be it big time receiver or back up QB)...

 

Now I think the realities of AB's contract make it almost impossible for the price from the Steelers and our evaluation to match simply because the Steelers would need hell of an offer to trade their best receiver while at the same time eating up his contract(at least on their salary cap) and not being able to replace him because of it. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think that's overselling it a bit. I think Ballard trusts his scouting and evaluations and as he's said multiple times he has numbers/value for every player on the market that he won't go over and IMO if it makes sense for the team and if the evaluation meets the demand(be it from the player or from the team holding his rights) he is/should be willing to make a trade for any type of player(be it big time receiver or back up QB)...

 

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

 

But a key word in my post was "discontented." I don't think Ballard is going to make a move for a discontented veteran player with a big contract, especially not if it involves giving up a premium pick.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

 

But a key word in my post was "discontented." I don't think Ballard is going to make a move for a discontented veteran player with a big contract, especially not if it involves giving up a premium pick.

Why not though? IMO the discontented part actually might play in a positive role in a trade(by dropping the value the Steelers might be able to get). To me the discontented part should not be a factor(unless his discontentment says something egregious about his character I guess). But overall that's pretty much the only way to get a generational type of player in a trade - he needs to be discontented and he needs to want out, otherwise teams just don't trade away their superstars. 

 

I agree that giving up a premier pick + giving up huge salary is kind of a double tax on the team and this might make it hard for Ballard's evaluation and the other team's asking price to match. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Why not though? IMO the discontented part actually might play in a positive role in a trade(by dropping the value the Steelers might be able to get). To me the discontented part should not be a factor(unless his discontentment says something egregious about his character I guess). But overall that's pretty much the only way to get a generational type of player in a trade - he needs to be discontented and he needs to want out, otherwise teams just don't trade away their superstars. 

 

I agree that giving up a premier pick + giving up huge salary is kind of a double tax on the team and this might make it hard for Ballard's evaluation and the other team's asking price to match. 

 

Locker room, culture, buy-in, etc. They're not going to bring in guys who throw a fit every time they don't get their way. (Brown is a great player, but he's been in an annual dispute with the Steelers for the last four years.)

 

And I guess if we want to talk about different hypotheticals, there's a difference between being upset because your team sucks every year and you can't win anything, vs being upset because you're not getting the ball enough or always being involved in a contract dispute. And there's a difference between Khalil Mack holding out, and Le'Veon Bell stringing the Steelers along.

 

And teams trade away star-level players that aren't publicly discontented at times. Chandler Jones, Clinton-Dix, Amari Cooper, Damarious Randall, Marcus Peters, etc.

 

But I don't think Ballard is going to throw his hat in the ring every time a guy says he wants a trade, including star level players. 

[RollerColt]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Locker room, culture, buy-in, etc. They're not going to bring in guys who throw a fit every time they don't get their way. (Brown is a great player, but he's been in an annual dispute with the Steelers for the last four years.)

 

And I guess if we want to talk about different hypotheticals, there's a difference between being upset because your team sucks every year and you can't win anything, vs being upset because you're not getting the ball enough or always being involved in a contract dispute. And there's a difference between Khalil Mack holding out, and Le'Veon Bell stringing the Steelers along.

 

And teams trade away star-level players that aren't publicly discontented at times. Chandler Jones, Clinton-Dix, Amari Cooper, Damarious Randall, Marcus Peters, etc.

 

But I don't think Ballard is going to throw his hat in the ring every time a guy says he wants a trade, including star level players. 

I mean, it's written right into the mission statement:

 

Colts Mission Statement: “To entertain, inspire, and unite by winning the right way.”

 

No shortcuts will be taken.

[GusFring]

Rick would be called a troll if he posted here. LOL. Even criticized Darius. 

 

He didn't criticize Luck enough imo. 

 

 

 

 

[GusFring]

I freaking love his analysis right now. Running away from Ford was stupid. 

[Four2itus]

9 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I mean, it's written right into the mission statement:

 

Colts Mission Statement: “To entertain, inspire, and unite by winning the right way.”

 

No shortcuts will be taken.

So many fans just refuse to believe that. Fantasy football, FA, and Madden have made fans into buy/sell and trade fans. All good, but lost in the NFL movement to the aforementioned aspects of the sport, has been the value of team. Ballard has thankfully brought it back to the proud Colt franchise. 

[coltsva]

Ballard is trying to build a culture on a team with a lot of young players. While that culture is being built, you don't want to bring in someone who may jeopardize that process.

 

Once you build that culture and have your strong team leaders, you can bring in guys that will help you win, even though they may not fit your culture. Your culture and team leaders will trump whatever baggage the new player brings (see Patriots, Moss, Blount, Gordon, etc). 

 

I believe once Ballard (and Reich) feel their culture is strong enough, they will not hesitate to bring in a very talented player they believe can help the team, even if it's questionable that said player will fit the "culture."

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Why not though? IMO the discontented part actually might play in a positive role in a trade(by dropping the value the Steelers might be able to get). To me the discontented part should not be a factor(unless his discontentment says something egregious about his character I guess). But overall that's pretty much the only way to get a generational type of player in a trade - he needs to be discontented and he needs to want out, otherwise teams just don't trade away their superstars. 

 

I agree that giving up a premier pick + giving up huge salary is kind of a double tax on the team and this might make it hard for Ballard's evaluation and the other team's asking price to match. 

Discontent really equals malcontent when there is a pattern.  Malcontent has no known cure.

[ChineseColtsFan]

I agree with you. And this is why I love Colts (and Pacers). Of course everyone wants to win games. But ultimately, we--players, coaches, managers, and fans--are people. We are not football machines. A key difference between people and machines is that people have emotions and characters while machines are just designed for a single purpose. 

 

I am sure there is a way to build up a winning team purely based on talents and numbers. But that is not a team I want. I want a team of players with characters and hearts, not a machine running to produce wins. 

[hoosierhawk]

1 hour ago, ztboiler said:

Discontent really equals malcontent when there is a pattern.  Malcontent has no known cure.

Agree 100%. I used to run a company before I retired and you cannot have discontent from one person as it spreads malcontent in the entire company fast. I will pass on the malcontents.

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

 

Now I think the realities of AB's contract make it almost impossible for the price from the Steelers and our evaluation to match simply because the Steelers would need hell of an offer to trade their best receiver while at the same time eating up his contract(at least on their salary cap) and not being able to replace him because of it. 

The thing with the Steelers is the replacement for Brown is already on the roster with Julu Smith Schuster.

[throwing BBZ]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Why not though? IMO the discontented part actually might play in a positive role in a trade(by dropping the value the Steelers might be able to get). To me the discontented part should not be a factor(unless his discontentment says something egregious about his character I guess). But overall that's pretty much the only way to get a generational type of player in a trade - he needs to be discontented and he needs to want out, otherwise teams just don't trade away their superstars. 

 

I agree that giving up a premier pick + giving up huge salary is kind of a double tax on the team and this might make it hard for Ballard's evaluation and the other team's asking price to match. 

 

It makes more sense based on Ballard's beliefs that AB will not be on his FA board.
He will find another way to win. This isn't complicated.