Trace Pyott Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Would you rather go all in during free agency and basically guarantee yourself a super bowl let’s say 95% chance but the catch is .....your team will be terrible afterward for the next 4 years or would you basically do what we have been doing for the last 15 years and go the consistently good route and look for consistency. Basically is that one ring worth being miserable for the next four years or is the glory better than being just above mediocre on a consistent bAsis and having a winning team for the next 5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheezyColt Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Always the super bowl. But that's not a realistic premise. Going all in and super agressive in Free Agency in no way guarantees anything. Nowhere close. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Pyott Posted March 14, 2019 Author Share Posted March 14, 2019 For arguments sake let’s say choosing the consistent route guarantees you will make the playoffs as the last seed every year for the next 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Pyott Posted March 14, 2019 Author Share Posted March 14, 2019 I know it’s not realistic lol. I’m just asking hypothetically. I remember when the marlins won the World Series and gutted the team after. I was a Braves fan and we would win our division every year for 14 years but only the World Series once and the marlins would be terrible it Seemed every year but they ended up winning more World Series in that 15 year period than the Braves. I always would think which fan base had it better?? So I’m wondering what you guys think about it when referring to the colts. I genuinely have no idea how I feel about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoolMagnet Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Do you think right now on the Pats forum there is a thread: "Would you rather cheat AGAIN and be guaranteed another super bowl AGAIN" or "stick to the rules and have the same chances as the other 31 teams?" Hey, Ballard has his approach, NE has theirs. How far over the line are you willing to step? And in NE, you hear the whole state say "what line?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Pyott Posted March 14, 2019 Author Share Posted March 14, 2019 Unless they get bored of winning I don’t think New England will be changing anything especially not because it’s the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazycolt1 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Going all in in free agency does not guarantee a thing. The only thing guaranteed is you will have a team full of over paid players. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superrep1967 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said: Going all in in free agency does not guarantee a thing. The only thing guaranteed is you will have a team full of over paid players. Yes, I agree and then when it doesn't work out you got all that dead money. I for one am happy with what Ballard is doing and it's going to make us a good team for a long time. We will get free agents and it just won't be those insane extremely expensive long term team buster deals that sink a team in the future. There are very few teams that make the playoffs after breaking the bank I don't know the exact number but it's not good. So everyone who's upset just relax and be glad we got the best and smartest GM in the NFL on our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superrep1967 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 2 hours ago, Trace Pyott said: Would you rather go all in during free agency and basically guarantee yourself a super bowl let’s say 95% chance but the catch is .....your team will be terrible afterward for the next 4 years or would you basically do what we have been doing for the last 15 years and go the consistently good route and look for consistency. Basically is that one ring worth being miserable for the next four years or is the glory better than being just above mediocre on a consistent bAsis and having a winning team for the next 5 years? There are no guarantees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveA1102 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 "Go all in and be super aggressive and be basically guaranteed a sb win." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Pyott Posted March 14, 2019 Author Share Posted March 14, 2019 Jeeez does anyone on here know the meaning of a hypothetical debate? I’m not staying there are guarantees in real life lol. Let me say it again! In real life no guarantees. Ok to make things easier for folks to understand let’s say an imaginary fairy says the colts can win the super bowl this year but be horrible for the next 4 years. Or......we can be GUARANTEED to win 10 games and make the playoffs the next 5 years which would you do? Does this make it easier to understand?? Again I know there are no guarantees in real life. I wrote it the way I did to make it a somewhat plausible scenario and relative to what we are going through now. It was my mistake. I was just wanting to know what is the better outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ojsglove Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I would choose winning the SB, I could brag about that for 4 years. Wait a minute, I hate losing,,,, this is tooooo hard of a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Tell that tonall those redskin, Eagles and many other teams who tried the dream team buy a championship crap.....they imploded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valpo2004 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Best chance of winning the SB is getting yourself to the playoffs regularly and hoping the stars align for you. The going all in on one year rarely ends up working. There simply are no guarantees or anything close to it. Anyone who says differently is fooling themselves. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I'll take the 1 SuperBowl win and 4 years of losing thereafter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluke_33 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I think i'd have to take the superbowl but man i hate losing more than i enjoy winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four2itus Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Ya, that poll gives a pretty good comparison to the whine rate around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingus McGirt Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Hmmm. "All In" was the Colts slogan for the playoffs when they lost to the Jets in PM's last game as a Colt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveA1102 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Trace Pyott said: Jeeez does anyone on here know the meaning of a hypothetical debate? I’m not staying there are guarantees in real life lol. Let me say it again! In real life no guarantees. Ok to make things easier for folks to understand let’s say an imaginary fairy says the colts can win the super bowl this year but be horrible for the next 4 years. Or......we can be GUARANTEED to win 10 games and make the playoffs the next 5 years which would you do? Does this make it easier to understand?? Again I know there are no guarantees in real life. I wrote it the way I did to make it a somewhat plausible scenario and relative to what we are going through now. It was my mistake. I was just wanting to know what is the better outcome. In that purely hypothetical scenario.....you always take the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasta519 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Seems like a bit of a false choice. But if you could be guaranteed a SB win from certain moves...of course you do that. I can't believe the majority of people would vote against a SB win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Waylon Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 “Go all in and be super aggressive and be basically guaranteed a sb win.” Is that how that works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasta519 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said: Best chance of winning the SB is getting yourself to the playoffs regularly and hoping the stars align for you. The going all in on one year rarely ends up working. There simply are no guarantees or anything close to it. Anyone who says differently is fooling themselves. Not as a #6 seed though...like in this unrealistic premise. Homefield advantage has been the stated goal I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valpo2004 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, shastamasta said: Not as a #6 seed though...like in this unrealistic premise. Homefield advantage has been the stated goal I believe. The 6th seed is sort of barely sneaking into the playoffs. I would argue that a team is selling itself short by just doing the bare minimum to get into the playoffs. My point generally speaking is you want to build as good of a team as you can to compete in the long run. The teams who go all in on FA in order to win the SB within a certain short window rarely succeed at that. The most realistic way of winning is to simply make your window as long as it possibly can be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtsAC Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I just don't want the Kansas City model which Ballard seems to be following. I'd rather have a Super Bowl on Luck's record when he is done, I honestly like the guy, vs the "win 10 games, placate the fans and front office, and go to the playoffs and get bounced" KC model. You have to take intelligent chances to win a Super Bowl and I just don't think Ballard will ever take chances. I think Irsay would like to win the big one but I also think he lets the people he hired do their job so to me, this is on Ballard. I know this isn't a popular outlook but the answer to whether this proved out to be true will only come over time. And remember when the Colts other "GM of the year" had a great draft...what did he follow up that draft with? Let's see what Ballard follows up his historic draft with. Even blind squirrels find a nut once in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Colt Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 11 hours ago, CheezyColt said: Always the super bowl. But that's not a realistic premise. Going all in and super agressive in Free Agency in no way guarantees anything. Nowhere close. Agreed, 100%, but neither does the route that CB is taking. How about a middle road, 1 or 2 play makers gives you and your team an opportunity to contend. Those play makers are not in the 2nd or 3rd wave, and they rarely come at the #26 draft spot too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernIndianaNDFan Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Everyone on this board is so far to the left or right, it's stupid. Why does it have to be so black and white? Can't he maintain his conservative integrity, while also hiring a guy or two that may take them over the top? Does it truly have to be one way or the other? Ultra conservative or super aggressive...it's like Trump vs Clinton in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshinator Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 The bottom line is that Ballard's approach is dependent on hitting in the draft, which is always a bit of a crapshoot. We now have three major contenders in the AFC besides us. Pats will be there until Brady and Belichick retire. The Chiefs have a great team with a 23 year old Mahomes who is as good as Luck. Finally, the Browns have a young top 10 QB in Mayfield and a stacked team around him. The Jets and Raiders are future threats possibly as well. We can't wait out teams and win the SB. The reason FA doesn't work so often is because the teams that load up on them are nowhere near a SB and don't have a QB. We do. Time to make our move before half the AFC is on our level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernIndianaNDFan Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said: The bottom line is that Ballard's approach is dependent on hitting in the draft, which is always a bit of a crapshoot. We now have three major contenders in the AFC besides us. Pats will be there until Brady and Belichick retire. The Chiefs have a great team with a 23 year old Mahomes who is as good as Luck. Finally, the Browns have a young top 10 QB in Mayfield and a stacked team around him. The Jets and Raiders are future threats possibly as well. We can't wait out teams and win the SB. The reason FA doesn't work so often is because the teams that load up on them are nowhere near a SB and don't have a QB. We do. Time to make our move before half the AFC is on our level. There's 2 groups of people on this forum, ones that echo your sentiment, and those that love Ballard's conservative approach and follow everything he does/says no questions asked. I'm with you man. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Pyott Posted March 15, 2019 Author Share Posted March 15, 2019 Thanks to those who decided to vote. My god I can’t believe how even the voting was. That’s how I feel. I can’t really decide. I would say 75% of me would want that Super Bowl but winning the majority of those other 64 games might be better than that one win and tons of loses. I think I’m one of the people who hate losing more than I love winning lol. Anyways I wasn’t trying to cause a debate on Ballard or his plan I was really just trying to figure out what would be better as a fan base. As a pacers fan I often grapple with this same idea. Blow the team up that realistically has no shot or make it to the playoffs. I still don’t know exactly how I feel either choice honestly but you guys helped a lot. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horseshoecrabs Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 I would rather have a team that is competitive every year. Most of the Manning years only got us to the Super Bowl twice. with one win, But at least those years was a great ride to watch as a fan each season. And just because we came up short during that era, it didn't take away from it. A lot of people were critical of that era but, not many other teams made it past the Patriots ether. You take out the x factor (Patriots) during that time, I think it would be a total different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÅÐØNϧ 1 Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 On 3/14/2019 at 3:11 AM, Trace Pyott said: Would you rather go all in during free agency and basically guarantee yourself a super bowl let’s say 95% chance but the catch is .....your team will be terrible afterward for the next 4 years or would you basically do what we have been doing for the last 15 years and go the consistently good route and look for consistency. Basically is that one ring worth being miserable for the next four years or is the glory better than being just above mediocre on a consistent bAsis and having a winning team for the next 5 years? Frank Reich was hired Feb 2018 by Ballard who you must by now realize he is never gonna go all in on FA . If you have'nt noticed the Colts have in 1 season turned it around building this team on a solid foundation which means the Colts are not buying what your selling . Grigson brought in the free agents IMO the over the hill gang as did Polian when 18 went down it did'nt work . Cleveland has sucked along time in Basketball & Football . Lebron came & went so what if they won a Championship they Suck now & The Browns since last season are relevant for the first time in decades . They have sand bagged & now its paying off but is it really ? Unless they when a Lombardi there still a Joke IMO . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 A Superbowl win every 5 years? Sign me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamboat_Shaun Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 On 3/14/2019 at 1:16 AM, CheezyColt said: Always the super bowl. But that's not a realistic premise. Going all in and super agressive in Free Agency in no way guarantees anything. Nowhere close. 100% correct. If being aggressive in free agency every year guaranteed a Super Bowl, the Redskins would be a dynasty by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03c76055d967f51b813e290416ac9bfa.thumb.jpg.b1d64d49e1863163f4eefe42ad172348.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now