we are in a division that likes to run too.
the titans and texans ranked 7th and 8th in rushing yards, while the colts and jaguars were 19th and 20th. that was down year for the jaguars, the previous year they were top 5
People love to prognosticate. My crystal ball broke so I don't have any insight into the future, but Ballard is using particular criteria (data) that has shown to be better predictors than merely guessing. Let's watch to see whether his approach to dealing with the unknown is better than other teams. I think we will be surprised.
Remember, we are not debating whether Spring is doable. I've stated from the beginning that I agree. It's not as bad as some here think it is. It's doable, No question.
We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable. So, when you write, that you don't think you have to say more about an issue, any issue, I'm sorry, but NO! You DO have to say more. A heckuva lot more. Because YOU have the burden of proof. My position is the Industry Standard. Your's has, by comparison, a handful of examples. Some are recent. That's great. But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable. You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm. I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.
As to your primary argument..... that all the prep work has been done, and if you make the changes in winter, that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done. Except there is this......
Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad. To quote you.... it's just one draft. One free agency period. And there will soon be another, and then another.... and another. One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things. That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid. Which I strongly disagree with their positin.
Your argument makes my argument for me. I want the new GM in the building ASAP. So he can sooner evaluate his players. His front office. His scouts. The entire program. Waiting until May or June just delays that. I want it to begin ASAP. I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft. Plus, I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January. He's the GM. He's already got a ton of information in his head, and in his notebooks, his binders. He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray. So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run. Like Chuck running a 3-4, when Ballard wants to run a 4-3. Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game. While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense. In your preferred scenario, you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has, not me. I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams.... "Gee, I hope this works out."
By the way, I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points. Your paragraph that starts with this: My Point: There are always good candidates... same is true for head coaches and coordinators. I'm sorry, but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument. And I think you'll retract that. Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out? Or head coach hires? I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck, that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck. That Chuck was the best of his class. And that happens with GM's too. A class gets hired, and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out. I believe my position has far more facts to back that up. There isn't always a Sean McVey. There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan. There isn't always a Josh McDaniels. There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches, or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators. That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right. So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates. Sorry.
I know you believe what you're writing. But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe, but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway. And yet I know that's NOT the case. That you really, honestly do believe this. That's what I find so astonishing. There's lots of opinion, and not a lot of evidence to back this up. As I've said from the get-go.... I think this is doable. I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.
To your last paragraph.... yes, I agree that if a GM, any GM, inherits a bad roster, then no matter how OK his draft picks may be, they will likely stick on the roster.
But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team, and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had, then the improvement in the team will only be so good. Again, from 4 wis, to perhaps 6-7. That wouldn't be bad. That would be reasonable.
But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins, including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season, and you win on the road in the playoffs, then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys. Those guys have got to be good. You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys. They're much better. Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better, but so are the players. They have to execute. And we did.
Better than we thought possible. Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick. The players are good. They may not be great yet, but they're really good and much better than what we had. The results are all the proof you need.
Again, thanks for the exchange....