Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
DaveA1102

[Erickson] Clayton Geathers is finalizing a deal to return to the Colts (Merge)

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, as I haven't taken the time to read through very many comments on this thread, but in my eyes (which is often wrong) Ballard bringing in Funchess and Geathers back on one year deals is to build depth for whoever he is bringing in the draft. I could see a safety picked high and a 2nd or 3rd round receiver. These are low risk, high reward moves. Both of these guys could perform at a high level and make a compelling case for a multi year contract next offseason. 

 

I'm just happy to see Clayton back for another year. He's had poor luck with injuries. He's a good dude that players obviously relate to and love (based on several twitter posts.) I hope for his best and healthiest year this fall... 

The glass half-full view.  Thank you.

i concur.  It seems Ballard may be telegraphing some of his potential draft moves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, as I haven't taken the time to read through very many comments on this thread, but in my eyes (which is often wrong) Ballard bringing in Funchess and Geathers back on one year deals is to build depth for whoever he is bringing in the draft. I could see a safety picked high and a 2nd or 3rd round receiver. These are low risk, high reward moves. Both of these guys could perform at a high level and make a compelling case for a multi year contract next offseason. 

 

I'm just happy to see Clayton back for another year. He's had poor luck with injuries. He's a good dude that players obviously relate to and love (based on several twitter posts.) I hope for his best and healthiest year this fall... 

one year deals can be a lot of very different things. could be stop gap to bridge a young developing player or planned draft pick, could be an experiment, could be short because of age or injury history, could be a prove you got your sheite together, could be a short term replacement for a recovering injured player, some are insurance in the case you don't what you want in the draft, some a trial for an assumed/expected need in a year or two, and some are just short term depth and insurance policies... etc..

 

Funchess and Clayton could be one or a combo of a few of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Because you make arguments that would suggest to many here that you're NOT glad he's here.

 

And you do that more than anyone else.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

We cool bud.

It just seems you arent happy about the overall development of the roster, or the "Ballard plan".  And thats fine.

I personally love his approach and feel it is working well....so far.

We tend to over-analyze statements around here.  Hey, we have no control over the moves  Ballard  makes, nor should we.  We know nothing John Snow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

Doug....

 

It's not any one post that says you don't like Chris Ballard....   it's a whole series of posts you've made over the 25 months that he's been our GM.    

 

And let's not pretend that I'm the only poster who has pointed this out.    Over the last two years,  there have been plenty of threads where other posters have said the same thing,  and I never even join the thread.    Or I might make one post,  but that's it.    So, let's stop with the idea that I'm somehow bullying you.     You're perfectly welcome to say what you want and when you want.    You're not shy about it.     You notice my comments because I'm more willing to have this comversation with you, man to man, poster to poster.    But I'm far from the only one.

 

As to there being a problem with somebody who actually didn't want him here....   well....  what EXACTLY would that argument be?    Exactly.     When we interviewed Ballard,  he was viewed as perhaps the TOP GM candidate interviewing for a job that off-season.    He had glowing reviews and references.   The only surprise was that it somehow took a long time for him to get his first job.  A blessing in disguise for the Colts.  

 

But, other than that,  what was the argument against Chris Ballard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

We cool bud.

It just seems you arent happy about the overall development of the roster, or the "Ballard plan".  And thats fine.

I personally love his approach and feel it is working well....so far.

We tend to over-analyze statements around here.  Hey, we have no control over the moves  Ballard  makes, nor should we.  We know nothing John Snow.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug....

 

It's not any one post that says you don't like Chris Ballard....   it's a whole series of posts you've made over the 25 months that he's been our GM.    

 

And let's not pretend that I'm the only poster who has pointed this out.    Over the last two years,  there have been plenty of threads where other posters have said the same thing,  and I never even join the thread.    Or I might make one post,  but that's it.    So, let's stop with the idea that I'm somehow bullying you.     You're perfectly welcome to say what you want and when you want.    You're not shy about it.     You notice my comments because I'm more willing to have this comversation with you, man to man, poster to poster.    But I'm far from the only one.

 

As to there being a problem with somebody who actually didn't want him here....   well....  what EXACTLY would that argument be?    Exactly.     When we interviewed Ballard,  he was viewed as perhaps the TOP GM candidate interviewing for a job that off-season.    He had glowing reviews and references.   The only surprise was that it somehow took a long time for him to get his first job.  A blessing in disguise for the Colts.  

 

But, other than that,  what was the argument against Chris Ballard.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

What the............????

 

"The plan isn't different".....?      

 

"He picks players with talent,  emos other GM's do not."....?

 

"That plan and vision has been here for a while,  it just wasn't executed very successfully"....?

 

What the..........???

 

Ballard's plan is to take 3-4 years to build a team that has a longer window of opportunity for winning.    Tell me,  which of the other 31 teams is implenting that now?     None.

 

Ballard's plan,  with HUGE money available in Free Agency two consecutive years now,  has been to spend is wisely and NOT buy the big expensive players,  but shop in the mid-priced and bargain isles.    Which of the other 31 teams is doing that now?    Not many.

 

Ballard picks players with talent, the other GM's do no.    You make it sound like it's deliberate.   You make it sound like picking talent is easy and any old GM can do what Ballard does.    It's NOT easy and not every GM can do what he does.

 

As to Ballard's plan?   When was it here before?    Under Grigson?   No.   Under Grigson the plan was to win NOW!    Right now!   While Luck was still under his rookie contract.   That's why we spent a boat load of money in free agency in 13, 14 and 15....    and that didn't work.    You're not going to claim that Polian's plan didn't work too well, are you?

 

This is a strange post.    Maybe you didn't quite mean what you wrote.    Maybe you want to clarify your comments.    But I don't pretend to understand them at all...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

 

Doug.....

 

Like I said....   it's not any one post.    It's 25 months of posts like this that make people wonder....

 

You're entitled to your viewpoint.    But you're viewpoints are often in the extreme minority.   Which I'm personally fine with,  when posts like that are more the exception than the rule....

 

But your peculiar viewpoints are more the rule than the exception....   At some point, your unique perspective has been noticed by plenty of other posters,  and they're making comments on them whether I do or not...

 

Just saying....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

  That plan and vision has been here for a while, it just wasn't executed very successfully.

Success is kind of the point.

as far as the plan, the difference i see is that "the plan" is clear (unlike past) and progressing (unlike previous regime).

Also when he seems to address a problem, he does.  Ol, DL as examples.  He says what he means and he does what he says (unlike previous).

  Like all business, the "plan" isnt the secret sauce, the implementation of it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug.....

 

Like I said....   it's not any one post.    It's 25 months of posts like this that make people wonder....

 

You're entitled to your viewpoint.    But you're viewpoints are often in the extreme minority.   Which I'm personally fine with,  when posts like that are more the exception than the rule....

 

But your peculiar viewpoints are more the rule than the exception....   At some point, your unique perspective has been noticed by plenty of other posters,  and they're making comments on them whether I do or not...

 

Just saying....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug.....

 

Like I said....   it's not any one post.    It's 25 months of posts like this that make people wonder....

 

You're entitled to your viewpoint.    But you're viewpoints are often in the extreme minority.   Which I'm personally fine with,  when posts like that are more the exception than the rule....

 

But your peculiar viewpoints are more the rule than the exception....   At some point, your unique perspective has been noticed by plenty of other posters,  and they're making comments on them whether I do or not...

 

JUST saying....

I dont post very much but i come here almost every day to read threads and i would have to say unique is an understatement it comes across as down right rolling at times i just scoll past his comments now because i cant take them seriously 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

This is true Geathers pass cover skill are not his strong suit!!

Neither is creating turnovers. Geathers is barely a safety. He can’t cover, doesn’t turn the ball over, and isn’t necessarily an “enforcer” in the middle of the field. He’s pretty good at his dime LB role I suppose, but that’s not going to earn him a lengthy contract extension.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is this thing falling through or what, how come no details yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

Again....   it's not any one thread.    But when it's in a number of threads where you're bringing up issues that no one else is,  people notice....    and that's why you were engaged with someone else when I showed up to join the conversation.

 

You have very unique viewpoints that have been noticed....   and I never even once mentioned comments you made in the Grigson years,  other than the one about you thinking Grigson was somehow a victim to the ChuckStrong popularity parade...

 

My comments to you have been about your viewpoints in the last 25 moths or so of the Ballard-era.    That's all.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

is this thing falling through or what, how come not details yet?

 

It's up as an official announcement on the FRONT PAGE of this website.

 

There's a good chance it's official.    The details are not out yet because the agent hasn't released them yet.   I have no idea why?    But the team almost never releases details.    On anyone.  

 

Off the top of my head,  the only deal I think the Colts.com website staff openly discussed was Luck's mega contract.    Other than that,  the details typically come from elsewhere.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

is this thing falling through or what, how come no details yet?

It is on Stampede Blue and his Signing Photo has been released by the team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BLUEx40 said:

I dont post very much but i come here almost every day to read threads and i would have to say unique is an understatement it comes across as down right rolling at times i just scoll past his comments now because i cant take them seriously 

 

Doug is.....      an acquired taste.      And I don't mean that as a knock.

 

Because I'm also an acquired taste for some here.     Some here have takent a while to warm up to me.    Some never do.    I'm not offended by either,  I know I'm......   different.

 

I like different.    I like unique.    In many aspects of life.    Always have.

 

And I like Doug....    even when I'm giving him a hard time...    I like him.  

 

I think he often adds real value to the conversation...     

 

And I love this community....    even if it doesn't always come arcoss that way.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It's up as an official announcement on the FRONT PAGE of this website.

 

There's a good chance it's official.    The details are not out yet because the agent has released them yet.    I have no idea why?    But the team almost never releases details.    On anyone.  

 

Off the top of my head,  the only deal I think the Colts.com website staff openly discussed was Luck's mega contract.    Other than that,  the details typically come from elsewhere.

 

 

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

It is on Stampede Blue and his Signing Photo has been released by the team

ok sweet i didn't know it was official, still hope we draft a safety.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Neither is creating turnovers. Geathers is barely a safety. He can’t cover, doesn’t turn the ball over, and isn’t necessarily an “enforcer” in the middle of the field. He’s pretty good at his dime LB role I suppose, but that’s not going to earn him a lengthy contract extension.

Preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

 

ok sweet i didn't know it was official, still hope we draft a safety.

I had to check since I had been away for about 7 Hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like bringing him back on a one year deal.  If he proves he can stay healthy I think they invest him long term next season.  If he struggles to stay healthy I think the Colts move on from him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

one year deals can be a lot of very different things. could be stop gap to bridge a young developing player or planned draft pick, could be an experiment, could be short because of age or injury history, could be a prove you got your sheite together, could be a short term replacement for a recovering injured player, some are insurance in the case you don't what you want in the draft, some a trial for an assumed/expected need in a year or two, and some are just short term depth and insurance policies... etc..

 

Funchess and Clayton could be one or a combo of a few of the above.

 

I agree. I don't believe Ballard is banking that he is going to get his safety/receiver duo that he wants this draft... but I think he knows there will be several opportunities. Too many things can happen in a draft to rely on filling certain positions, which is why I think Funchess and Geathers was somewhat of a priority. It frees up the draft completely.

 

Receiver/safery are obvious areas of need though and that is why I find the one year deals interesting. Hell, both those guys could play at an all-pro level this year and earn multi year contracts... i just know that isn't the realistic thought process in Ballard, who seems to have a plan for everything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

is this thing falling through or what, how come no details yet?

Nope. He signed it. One year. Done deal. Those are the only "details" that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BLUEx40 said:

I dont post very much but i come here almost every day to read threads and i would have to say unique is an understatement it comes across as down right rolling at times i just scoll past his comments now because i cant take them seriously 

Unique is fine.  Wrong is bad.  

 

After 60 months, 5 years, the forum has finally figured out that WR #2 is a need.  IIRC, only me and Ryan Grigson were astute enough to see that when Dorsett was drafted.  Wrong player, yes, but I'm not a scout.  Grigson should have been, and was fired because he isn't.  Nobody argued that Dorsett was a bad player.  They argued the position wasn't needed.  The mass was wrong, the unique guys were right.

 

My original comment about the Bowen comment was not trolling, rather a response to a troll. Its perspective.  Look at it this way:

 

When Kevin Bowen says to the effect "Ballard lets his players test the market then brings them back", he is taking the Geathers event to troll people that look at things sensibly.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DougDew said:

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? 

 

No, no it doesn't. 

 

It just mean that Ballard sets a price, the player/agent goes out to see what another team with the need will give. Judging market price. It might be less, it might be the same, it might be more. If it is less or the same, player will probably stay put. If it is more, the player might take that offer instead if it is substantial enough.

 

There were talk that Desir was offered more, but he come back. There were rumors that Melvin was offered more here, but moved on anyway. 

 

Edit: there is also the complexity of one year vs multiple years and guaranteed money. Not the simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know who else is infatuated with Geathers?   Some guy named Chris Ballard.   Imagine that?!

1

Well, let's not get carried away, he did only sign him to a one year deal.

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

And some people are willing to trust Chris Ballard’s judgement over the opinion of posters here.   Imagine that?!

 

And some posters are more in love with their own opinion over the professional judgement of their own wildly successful General Manager.  How shocking!  (Sarcasm!)

 

There’s no infatuation here.  I think CG is one of the most disrespected players in this forum.

 

But, on balance,  most here trust Chris Ballard.   If Ballard wants Geathers then that’s good enough for most posters.   But apparently, not for you.

 

I trust Ballard but I'm not a huge fan of Geathers, I think many on this board want him to be good and therefore think he is better than he is.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

No, no it doesn't. 

 

It just mean that Ballard sets a price, the player/agent goes out to see what another team with the need will give. Judging market price. It might be less, it might be the same, it might be more. If it is less or the same, player will probably stay put. If it is more, the player might take that offer instead if it is substantial enough.

 

There were talk that Desir was offered more, but he come back. There were rumors that Melvin was offered more here, but moved on anyway. 

 

Edit: there is also the complexity of one year vs multiple years and guaranteed money. Not the simple. 

Yes I know, I wasn't going to list all possibilities.  I just listed one possibility to illustrate there is more to it than one person "letting" him test the market then "bringing" him back.  

 

My point was about the tone of the comment coupled with the lack of substance supporting the tone of the comment.

 

But I see throughout the thread that typical sensitivities about broader things have surfaced so y'all carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

You're putting your own "spin" on this.  It has everything to do with what Ballard chose to do.

 

Ballard could have prevented his players from hitting free agency at all by overpaying them in the first place.

 

He doesn't want to overpay, so he "allows" them to hit free agency, find out that no team will overpay, then "brings" them back at their true value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What the............????

 

"The plan isn't different".....?      

 

"He picks players with talent,  emos other GM's do not."....?

 

"That plan and vision has been here for a while,  it just wasn't executed very successfully"....?

 

What the..........???

 

Ballard's plan is to take 3-4 years to build a team that has a longer window of opportunity for winning.    Tell me,  which of the other 31 teams is implenting that now?     None.

 

Ballard's plan,  with HUGE money available in Free Agency two consecutive years now,  has been to spend is wisely and NOT buy the big expensive players,  but shop in the mid-priced and bargain isles.    Which of the other 31 teams is doing that now?    Not many.

 

Ballard picks players with talent, the other GM's do no.    You make it sound like it's deliberate.   You make it sound like picking talent is easy and any old GM can do what Ballard does.    It's NOT easy and not every GM can do what he does.

 

As to Ballard's plan?   When was it here before?    Under Grigson?   No.   Under Grigson the plan was to win NOW!    Right now!   While Luck was still under his rookie contract.   That's why we spent a boat load of money in free agency in 13, 14 and 15....    and that didn't work.    You're not going to claim that Polian's plan didn't work too well, are you?

 

This is a strange post.    Maybe you didn't quite mean what you wrote.    Maybe you want to clarify your comments.    But I don't pretend to understand them at all...

 

 

 

  Bizarre, strange..
Every GM picks players that have talent.
 Ballard is looking for character, toughness, leadership. His scouts and executives are serving them up to him with GRADES.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I agree. I don't believe Ballard is banking that he is going to get his safety/receiver duo that he wants this draft... but I think he knows there will be several opportunities. Too many things can happen in a draft to rely on filling certain positions, which is why I think Funchess and Geathers was somewhat of a priority. It frees up the draft completely.

 

Receiver/safery are obvious areas of need though and that is why I find the one year deals interesting. Hell, both those guys could play at an all-pro level this year and earn multi year contracts... i just know that isn't the realistic thought process in Ballard, who seems to have a plan for everything. 

I think Geather's 1 year is a combo of 1) he knows the system, 2) we need depth, 3) we're not sure what we're doing with the first 4 picks yet, and 4) prove it type deal.

 

Funchess IMO is a combo of 1) experiment as he offers position flexibility (he's got TE size and can work there or as #2 or slot), 2) we're not sure of what we're doing with the first 4 picks yet, 3) he's an upgrade at this point over existing depth, 4) both Doyle and Ebron's contract expire next year, 5) prove it, 6) Doyle's injury and age, and 7) he should be at minimum a good RZ target.

 

Purely my opinion, but WR (along with Edge and DL) are tier 1 needs, while S is tier 2. If we get a early contributor at Edge or DL with pass rushing skill, that will make things better from a DB perspective in general. I definitely think we'll go S in the draft, but I just think it will be later rounds. The position is so devalued right now, and this class has zero can't miss guys. The delta between a 4th/5th round pick compared to a 1st/2nd at S, is much smaller than the delta at some of the other positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

I think Geather's 1 year is a combo of 1) he knows the system, 2) we need depth, 3) we're not sure what we're doing with the first 4 picks yet, and 4) prove it type deal.

 

Funchess IMO is a combo of 1) experiment as he offers position flexibility (he's got TE size and can work there or as #2 or slot), 2) we're not sure of what we're doing with the first 4 picks yet, 3) he's an upgrade at this point over existing depth, 4) both Doyle and Ebron's contract expire next year, 5) prove it, 6) Doyle's injury and age, and 7) he should be at minimum a good RZ target.

 

Purely my opinion, but WR (along with Edge and DL) are tier 1 needs, while S is tier 2. If we get a early contributor at Edge or DL with pass rushing skill, that will make things better from a DB perspective in general. I definitely think we'll go S in the draft, but I just think it will be later rounds. The position is so devalued right now, and this class has zero can't miss guys. The delta between a 4th/5th round pick compared to a 1st/2nd at S, is much smaller than the delta at some of the other positions. 

Ballard just said on 1070 radio that they really like the safety class in this draft... So I would venture to say he might go much earlier than you would think. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

 

tenor.gif

 

 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Ballard just said on 1070 radio that they really like the safety class in this draft... So I would venture to say he might go much earlier than you would think. 

It might also mean he likes the depth of the safety class, which could mean he takes one later. Just going by NFL.com's grades (and others), none are considered instant starters. Adderley is probably the best if you are looking for a pure FS. At SS, which is our need, there's not a lot of can't miss guys. 

 

NFL.com's rating system, has the highest rated S is at 5.91. That's a "chance to become an NFL starter". There are a ton (15) of guys in that same category range (5.5-5.99). 6.0 is the start of the range for "should be a starter". Only 6ish will go in the first 3 rounds. So do you really use one of your first couple picks on a "chance to become an NFL starter" when you can get a 5.7 or 5.8 guy in the 4th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

It might also mean he likes the depth of the safety class, which could mean he takes one later. Just going by NFL.com's grades (and others), none are considered instant starters. Adderley is probably the best if you are looking for a pure FS. At SS, which is our need, there's not a lot of can't miss guys. 

 

NFL.com's rating system, has the highest rated S is at 5.91. That's a "chance to become an NFL starter". There are a ton (15) of guys in that same category range (5.5-5.99). 6.0 is the start of the range for "should be a starter". Only 6ish will go in the first 3 rounds. So do you really use one of your first couple picks on a "chance to become an NFL starter" when you can get a 5.7 or 5.8 guy in the 4th. 

 

I mean, it could be possible that Ballard has a bit different grading scale than NFL.com... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

you can take this a few different ways.

1. 5.81 (Leonard's rating) players can be great. Which means a 5.81 S (who can be had in the late 3rd or 4th), will be just fine.

2. WLB value is typically higher than a S. 

3. Leonard had a huge ceiling, but simply was undervalued because he went to a lesser college. He was player of the year in the MEAC.

 

50 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I mean, it could be possible that Ballard has a bit different grading scale than NFL.com... lol

 

Nobody knows what grading scale Ballard uses lol. But we know, that it's directionally correct. If anything (and based on the above), we can say that the top 3 to 5 Ss might be over valued based on the big name school they went to. And if we're using Leonard as a point of reference, we might be better suited grabbing a guy from a smaller school in the 4th or later rounds that is also undervalued based on small school size. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

tenor.gif

 

 

I still remember watching that live. This guy made me laugh then and ever since whenever I see it.

 

Good stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...