Jump to content
Jared Cisneros

Luck or Ballard, who is more important to the Colts?

Who is more important to our team  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is more important to the Colts



Recommended Posts

i think its luck, we are not winning a super bowl with a back up qb.  i think ballard would be easier to replace too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far through 60 votes it is Luck 31 Ballard 29. I am surprised that it is that close. Ballard has done a great job so far but I believe a team needs a franchise QB to compete every year for a SB. You have your flukes like Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson winning a SB but it is rare, then they never sniff another SB. I think Grigson was so bad that anyone would be great compared to him. Franchise QB and a GM that just knows what he is doing can win SB's. Grigson had no idea what he was doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 10:49 PM, coltsfanej said:

The best way I can think of to see the value any employee has to their employer is by their pay....

 

Bill Bellichick would disagree... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i think its luck, we are not winning a super bowl with a back up qb.  i think ballard would be easier to replace too

 

You assume we will win one with Luck. 

 

I personally think Ballard is good enough (with a topnotch scouting team) that he could find a quarterback that Frank reich could develop into a superbowl caliber franchise qb. Hell we may have him in Brissett... 

 

Nfl.com just had an article that says this team is the 4th most complete roster in the league. Ballard did that in two years... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

You assume we will win one with Luck. 

 

I personally think Ballard is good enough (with a topnotch scouting team) that he could find a quarterback that Frank reich could develop into a superbowl caliber franchise qb. Hell we may have him in Brissett... 

 

Nfl.com just had an article that says this team is the 4th most complete roster in the league. Ballard did that in two years... 

 

i dont assume that i just think our chances are better with luck, than with ballard and whoever the next QB is.  its a pretty big projection either way since we dont know who that would be

 

i think luck and co would be fine with any competent GM and that they are easier to find than a QB of lucks caliber 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points made on both sides.... and a good off-season topic @Jared Cisneros:thmup:

 

Both guys are excellent tactically and strategically in what they do.... Ballard in cap management/roster-building/Draft Day and Luck in preparation and on game day.

 

It's a real hairsplitter for me.....but if I absolutely had to let one go it would be Ballard. The game just weighs too heavily upon the QB anymore... so I voted for Andrew.

 

There's no real way to prove the theory with Ballard now having overhauled the roster so well.... other than for Luck to go down for a season and then see if Brissett could engineer a playoff run.... an experiment hardly worth winning an argument and one that I hope is never tested.

 

Think about it folks....we have an excellent GM building a great top-to-bottom organization including a roster of talented youngsters, plenty of cap space.... and a healthy Andrew Luck who has proven, even with the sub-standard supporting cast prior to Ballard, that we can never be counted out of a game.

 

Man...are we spoiled or what? :coltshelmet:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love and believe in Andrew Luck, my vote goes to Ballard in the long run. It takes great combinations of GM, Coaches and players to be great and remain great. The Patriots have Brady and make it work adapting to the other personnel. The 80's Redskins had Head Coach Joe Gibbs, GM Bobby Beathard and multiple QB's and RB's through their great years. Takes a balanced team to be great, remain great. Takes a great GM to make that happen.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

As much as I love and believe in Andrew Luck, my vote goes to Ballard in the long run. It takes great combinations of GM, Coaches and players to be great and remain great. The Patriots have Brady and make it work adapting to the other personnel. The 80's Redskins had Head Coach Joe Gibbs, GM Bobby Beathard and multiple QB's and RB's through their great years. Takes a balanced team to be great, remain great. Takes a great GM to make that happen.   

Tom Brady isn't your average QB, he is one of the best ever if not the best of all-time. People see how great Belichick is and think he can plug in any QB and win SB's. No he can't, he can win a lot of games and proved that with Cassell in 2008 but winning 10 or 11 games in the regular season and winning SB's is a big difference. Take Brady away and Belichick IMO would probably only have 1 or 2 SB wins. Belichick is that great but Brady is super clutch in the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a great Pres of Ops/GM is huge don't get me wrong. The Cubs stunk it up before Theo came in and what Belichick does year in and year out is impressive. Having said that players win championships. Without a couple of starting ace pitchers or a franchise QB, the chances of winning a championship are slim. Any competent GM (meaning good, not great) can get good players to build a team. Grigson sucked so now Ballard is a God compared to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question for everyone that voted Ballard, who was more important to the Colts franchise, Bill Polian or Peyton Manning? Polian is in the Hall of Fame. 

 

It was Manning and not even close IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Here is a question for everyone that voted Ballard, who was more important to the Colts franchise, Bill Polian or Peyton Manning? Polian is in the Hall of Fame. 

 

It was Manning and not even close IMO. 

Honestly, looking back, I think Polian was an average GM, and nowhere near Ballard's level. He drafted a lot of offense around Peyton and neglected the defense (which is why Peyton couldn't win more than 1 SB). He had no real plan except winning (like Grigson), and the only real difference between Polian and Grigson was that Polian hit on more draft picks. They both had a franchise QB handed to them. As far as Ballard goes, he's done more as a GM in 3 years building this team than Polian did his entire career with the Colts as our GM. If anything, Polian cost the Colts many SB's with Manning with his offense-first philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polian was a bit above average general manager IMO. Manning and company

could have had multiple titles if not for Polian ignoring the lines and defense

instead of backing into a title against a Rex Grossman led team in SB XLI.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Polian was a bit above average general manager IMO. Manning and company

could have had multiple titles if not for Polian ignoring the lines and defense

instead of backing into a title against a Rex Grossman led team in SB XLI.

 

 

"backing into a title", no such thing happened. The SB isn't the only game played. We had to go through Ray Lewis and Ed Reed at Baltimore, Brady and BB in the AFC Title Game to win that SB. That Bears team demolished Drew Brees and the Saints in the NFC Title Game 39-14. People can bag on Rex Grossman all they want but we beat some very good teams/borderline great teams to win that SB. All I know is Bill Polian is in the Hall of Fame so to say he wasn't great is absurd IMO, but that is my opinion. Yet Manning was more important to the Colts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

 

i dont assume that i just think our chances are better with luck, than with ballard and whoever the next QB is.  its a pretty big projection either way since we dont know who that would be

 

i think luck and co would be fine with any competent GM and that they are easier to find than a QB of lucks caliber 

Except we wouldn't have Luck and company without Ballard, we'd have Luck and whatever team the new GM built from after Grigson got fired. So the 2017-2019 fa and draft classes would essentially be random based on the GM's preferences and the team and even the coach would be completely different around Luck. Think about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Except we wouldn't have Luck and company without Ballard, we'd have Luck and whatever team the new GM built from after Grigson got fired. So the 2017-2019 fa and draft classes would essentially be random based on the GM's preferences and the team and even the coach would be completely different around Luck. Think about that.

i was going by if we had to get rid of one and keep one now.  i would keep luck over ballard and it would not be a hard choice for me

 

its not that hard to find a decent GM

Share this post


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

Except we wouldn't have Luck and company without Ballard, we'd have Luck and whatever team the new GM built from after Grigson got fired. So the 2017-2019 fa and draft classes would essentially be random based on the GM's preferences and the team and even the coach would be completely different around Luck. Think about that.

I guess it depends on whether or not you believe Luck is a once in a lifetime generational player, as in capable of being a top 5 QB of all-time like Manning is. I do but those that don't would vote Ballard. Having a great GM is huge I agree with you there, I know that being a Cubs fan but once in a lifetime players are really rare. Great GM's can build teams and keep teams good for years but you need special players to be great and I think Luck is special. Take the Cubs for example, they lose Arrieta and Chapman and weren't near as dominant as in 2016. Bryant was injured last year and their offense wasn't the same either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i was going by if we had to get rid of one and keep one now.  i would keep luck over ballard and it would not be a hard choice for me

 

its not that hard to find a decent GM

You can't get rid of Ballard and keep all his roster construction though. Decent GM's are probably harder to find than you think. Even we managed to miss on one poorly before Ballard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I guess it depends on whether or not you believe Luck is a once in a lifetime generational player, as in capable of being a top 5 QB of all-time like Manning is. I do but those that don't would vote Ballard. Having a great GM is huge I agree with you there, I know that being a Cubs fan but once in a lifetime players are really rare. Great GM's can build teams and keep teams good for years but you need special players to be great and I think Luck is special. Take the Cubs for example, they lose Arrieta and Chapman and weren't near as dominant as in 2016. Bryant was injured last year and their offense wasn't the same either. 

I think the difference and a top ten QB eventually from the draft isn't the difference between a SB with Ballard as GM. I saw a post from you talking about poor QB's winning a SB, I have a different question. Could we win with a Big Ben, Eli, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles type if Ballard was the GM and we didn't have Luck? That's the tier that would be obtainable with a draft pick IMO. With the team we have now around him, I think so. The alternative is a 30 year old Luck with a completely random team (nothing from Ballard), and a random GM and coach, where we hope Luck can carry the team again and his career clock is half over. I'd go with Ballard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think anyone will be better or accomplish more than Brady, Montana, or Peyton but outside of that Luck could end up top 5 of all-time with huge numbers, a ring or 2 and a couple of MVP's. 

Share this post


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

You can't get rid of Ballard and keep all his roster construction though

i dont think his first draft was that great, it was ok but not special.  i liked what they did this year, but they are not exactly the safest prospects.  you are calling ballard a great GM now, when hes had one good year...  grigson had a good year too

 

we will need a very QB and GM to win a super bowl, i happen to think the gm is easier to find 

Share this post


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

I think the difference and a top ten QB eventually from the draft isn't the difference between a SB with Ballard as GM. I saw a post from you talking about poor QB's winning a SB, I have a different question. Could we win with a Big Ben, Eli, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles type if Ballard was the GM and we didn't have Luck? That's the tier that would be obtainable with a draft pick IMO. With the team we have now around him, I think so. The alternative is a 30 year old Luck with a completely random team (nothing from Ballard), and a random GM and coach, where we hope Luck can carry the team again and his career clock is half over. I'd go with Ballard.

If we had Big Ben in his prime I think we could win the SB with the team we have now, those others not sure. Wilson had one of the best defenses of all-time when he won it all, Foles had a great all-around team period. Eli even in his prime wouldn't win a SB with what we have now, defense isn't good enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aaron11 said:

 

i dont assume that i just think our chances are better with luck, than with ballard and whoever the next QB is.  its a pretty big projection either way since we dont know who that would be

 

i think luck and co would be fine with any competent GM and that they are easier to find than a QB of lucks caliber 

 

"Luck and co."

 

What company are you referring to? The company that Ballard turned over and built in three offseasons? Yeah they'd do just fine if another gm came in and rode their coattails.

Are you referring to the coaching staff as well? Yeah... Ballard hired them too. 

The scouting department? Yeah, Ed Dodds, Rex Hogan, Brian Decked... all Ballard guys. 

 

Sorry, but Luck failed to win big games with the last GM. If he can win with this one, it's because Ballard put together an actual team, front office and coaching staff to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we had Big Ben in his prime I think we could win the SB with the team we have now, those others not sure. Wilson had one of the best defenses of all-time when he won it all, Foles had a great all-around team period. Eli even in his prime wouldn't win a SB with what we have now, defense isn't good enough.

I'm saying a draft pick like the players given in my examples when they won their SB. Not currently today. I think Ballard could build an elite team around a drafted QB of their caliber, and that's why I lean towards Ballard in this debate. I believe we can win a SB with an average to above-average QB more likely than Luck carrying a mediocre team to a SB win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we had Big Ben in his prime I think we could win the SB with the team we have now, those others not sure. Wilson had one of the best defenses of all-time when he won it all, Foles had a great all-around team period. Eli even in his prime wouldn't win a SB with what we have now, defense isn't good enough.

i agree, Ben was elite in his prime and could have gone far with this roster built to pass to lots of different receivers 

 

i dont think we have enough running game or defense to win one with RW.  Foles had one of the most well rounded teams in recent memory when he won.  i think he would be a good fit here though, especially with Reich 

 

its probably a borderline playoff team with eli, the division would close 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

"Luck and co."

 

What company are you referring to? The company that Ballard turned over and built in three offseasons? Yeah they'd do just fine if another gm came in and rode their coattails.

Are you referring to the coaching staff as well? Yeah... Ballard hired them too. 

The scouting department? Yeah, Ed Dodds, Rex Hogan, Brian Decked... all Ballard guys. 

 

Sorry, but Luck failed to win big games with the last GM. If he can win with this one, it's because Ballard put together an actual team, front office and coaching staff to win. 

we would obviously have another gm.  you guys are asking a hypothetical on what  we would do if ballard was gone along with everyone he brought in, and i cant assume we have decent players in their place?

 

i think ballard would have a hard time replacing luck if he were the one to leave, and ballards one year without luck didnt go well

 

luck was able to carry bad teams, coaching and front offices to the playoffs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, aaron11 said:

we would obviously have another gm.  you guys are asking a hypothetical on what  we would do if ballard was gone along with everyone he brought in, and i cant assume we have decent players in their place?

 

i think ballard would have a hard time replacing luck if he were the one to leave, and ballards one year without luck didnt go well

 

LOL. His first year with Pagano, and Grigson's roster. He turned it over completely in 3 offseasons. His drafting has been stellar. His free agent pickups have been safe and solid. He had a slipup with the coaching fiasco, but recovered with what will go down as the best move of his career in hiring Reich and keeping Eberflus as DC. 

 

I think 100% that this roster could win many games with Brissett under center which is far different from the first time he was put out there with a crap o-line and bad coaching staff. I also think this front office could make the necessary moves to find a franchise qb. I think Luck is what is necessary to get this team to several superbowls, but I don't think he is the end all. Bill Bellichick thinks the same about Tom Brady. He will be around well after Brady's gone and still winning a lot of football games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 10:28 PM, twfish said:

I know everyone is high on Ballard, including myself, but there is absolutely no way this team has the success it did last year without him. Their may be 2-3 other QB's in the league that could have done it. Remember luck took a worse roster with a much worse gm to the AFC championship game. Without luck we might win 8 games next year but with I expect atleast 11.

Who would you replace Luck with to win 8 games? Unless it is one of the top half starting QB's in the league, I doubt it.  I am not sure I put our back up in the top half of starting QBs, at least not yet.  

Share this post


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

 

LOL. His first year with Pagano, and Grigson's roster. He turned it over completely in 3 offseasons. His drafting has been stellar. His free agent pickups have been safe and solid. He had a slipup with the coaching fiasco, but recovered with what will go down as the best move of his career in hiring Reich and keeping Eberflus as DC. 

 

I think 100% that this roster could win many games with Brissett under center which is far different from the first time he was put out there with a crap o-line and bad coaching staff. I also think this front office could make the necessary moves to find a franchise qb. I think Luck is what is necessary to get this team to several superbowls, but I don't think he is the end all. Bill Bellichick thinks the same about Tom Brady. He will be around well after Brady's gone and still winning a lot of football games.

Luck took a 2-14 team to 11-5 as a rookie with a crap roster with the exception of Reggie Wayne, Mathis, and TY Hilton. Most people had us winning 4 or 5 games that season. We won 11 because of #12.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust that if Ballard is GM long enough he will successfully transition the Colts franchise through the Luck era and beyond if necessary.  A good GM can continue building competitive & successful  teams longer than a franchise QB can stay in his prime.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I trust that if Ballard is GM long enough he will successfully transition the Colts franchise through the Luck era and beyond if necessary.  A good GM can continue building competitive & successful  teams longer than a franchise QB can stay in his prime.  

Ok true but i expect Luck to play at least 8-10 more years, so is it a stretch to say Ballard will be here for 10 more years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ok true but i expect Luck to play at least 8-10 more years, so is it a stretch to say Ballard will be here for 10 more years?

8-10 years is probably Luck's best case scenario in most hypothetical situations. We hope so, but it's not guaranteed based on Luck's prior injury history, the type of personality he has that he may retire early and pursue other interests, or God forbid, he gets another major injury. Ballard is not playing, he could easily GM 20 more years for us as long as he doesn't lose interest or have random health problems down the road. Ballard probably has at least double the longevity of Luck if you start from today in both their best scenario.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

8-10 years is probably Luck's best case scenario in most hypothetical situations. We hope so, but it's not guaranteed based on Luck's prior injury history, the type of personality he has that he may retire early and pursue other interests, or God forbid, he gets another major injury. Ballard is not playing, he could easily GM 20 more years for us as long as he doesn't lose interest or have random health problems down the road. Ballard probably has at least double the longevity of Luck if you start from today in both their best scenario.

I love Ballard and glad to see you buy into him too. I buy into him but Luck has the capability of being a top 5 QB of all-time. The only 3 spots that cannot be replaced are Brady, Montana, and Peyton. That is my opinion, outside of that Luck could move into that Mt Rushmore material after the next 5 years. He may end up being better than Elway and Unitas. I think that much of Luck. Rodgers IMO will never win another SB and Marino never won 1. Brees has only won 1 and has no MVP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I trust that if Ballard is GM long enough he will successfully transition the Colts franchise through the Luck era and beyond if necessary.  A good GM can continue building competitive & successful  teams longer than a franchise QB can stay in his prime.  

 

Tell me one example please. Just one. :) 

 

Except maybe Bill Walsh who could indeed build a second championship team around Steve Young, though, it was more "keeping" that team together than rebuilding it, and he was moving in between HC andGM multiple times, so he wasn't a designated GM, actually he's remembered as HC. Other than Walsh? Who? I don't remember anyone who could build a second championship team around a successor QB.

 

On the other side, a truly great QB, like Manning went to SB's with 4 different HC's, and 3 different GM's.

 

So, I think the GM is VERY important (and the HC too), but as far as long term success goes, I still put my money on Luck becoming a Manning than Ballard building a championship team without Luck. It's not impossible, but the odds are on Luck's side imo.

 

All in all, I hope we won't need to answer this question for a while. Let's say for 10 years. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I love Ballard and glad to see you buy into him too. I buy into him but Luck has the capability of being a top 5 QB of all-time. The only 3 spots that cannot be replaced are Brady, Montana, and Peyton. That is my opinion, outside of that Luck could move into that Mt Rushmore material after the next 5 years. He may end up being better than Elway and Unitas. I think that much of Luck. Rodgers IMO will never win another SB and Marino never won 1. Brees has only won 1 and has no MVP's.

That's where we differ. I have Luck on the Big Ben, Brees tier where he'll win 1 or 2 SB's in his career, but put great stats and make the playoffs every year. He's already almost 30, he has to deal with Mahomes and Mayfield his whole career. Brady and Ben are still playing, as well as Rivers. Darnold is a bit of a wildcard as well if gets better. Luck will have 3 SB opportunities IMO. I think we'll win 1 or 2. There's also the unlikely scenario (because it's Luck and his personality may dictate this), that he could win a SB around 35 years old, be satisfied, and decide to retire. 

 

If that were to happen, we'd win a SB, but be depending on Ballard to get us back into contention at some point. I guess I believe Ballard guarantees us 20 years of contention while he's here while there's a lot of question marks on Luck without Ballard to build around him.

Share this post


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

He's already almost 30, he has to deal with Mahomes and Mayfield his whole career. Brady and Ben are still playing, as well as Rivers. Darnold is a bit of a wildcard as well if gets better. Luck will have 3 SB opportunities IMO. I think we'll win 1 or 2.

 

Man, you clearly have the Oracle Sphere. You know two much about the future, I can't argue with you. ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Tell me one example please. Just one. :) 

 

Except maybe Bill Walsh who could indeed build a second championship team around Steve Young, though, it was more "keeping" that team together than rebuilding it, and he was moving in between HC andGM multiple times, so he wasn't a designated GM, actually he's remembered as HC. Other than Walsh? Who? I don't remember anyone who could build a second championship team around a successor QB.

 

On the other side, a truly great QB, like Manning went to SB's with 4 different HC's, and 3 different GM's.

 

So, I think the GM is VERY important (and the HC too), but as far as long term success goes, I still put my money on Luck becoming a Manning than Ballard building a championship team without Luck. It's not impossible, but the odds are on Luck's side imo.

 

All in all, I hope we won't need to answer this question for a while. Let's say for 10 years. ;)

Ozzie Newsome? In all honesty, most GM's have a short shelf life. Belichick has done it consistently for 20 years, which I hope Ballard can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Tell me one example please. Just one. :) 

 

Except maybe Bill Walsh who could indeed build a second championship team around Steve Young, though, it was more "keeping" that team together than rebuilding it, and he was moving in between HC andGM multiple times, so he wasn't a designated GM, actually he's remembered as HC. Other than Walsh? Who? I don't remember anyone who could build a second championship team around a successor QB.

 

On the other side, a truly great QB, like Manning went to SB's with 4 different HC's, and 3 different GM's.

 

So, I think the GM is VERY important (and the HC too), but as far as long term success goes, I still put my money on Luck becoming a Manning than Ballard building a championship team without Luck. It's not impossible, but the odds are on Luck's side imo.

 

All in all, I hope we won't need to answer this question for a while. Let's say for 10 years. ;)

Bill Polian built Bills teams that went to 4 Super Bowls...then took an expansion Panthers team to respectability before moving on to Indy and presiding over the Manning era.  Six super bowl appearances across 3 franchises and 1 Lombardi. That’s one for you. 

Share this post


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

Ozzie Newsome? In all honesty, most GM's have a short shelf life. Belichick has done it consistently for 20 years, which I hope Ballard can do.

 

You're right, he indeed built a second team. Two SB's in 22 years, great achievement. Still.... Manning went to 4 SBs, won 2 in 18 years.

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...