.jpg.03c76055d967f51b813e290416ac9bfa.thumb.jpg.b1d64d49e1863163f4eefe42ad172348.jpg)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
By 2006Coltsbestever · Posted
The Pacers by winning last night gives them their 11th appearance in the Final 8 as an NBA franchise since the league went to 16 teams in 1984 making the playoffs. 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2024. -Eastern Conference Finals appearances = 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2013, 2014. (8) -NBA Finals appearances = 2000. (1) -No NBA Championships but still a very good franchise looking at those numbers. The year the Pacers won the East (2000), they had to face Shaq, Kobe, and Phil otherwise we win it all that season and Reggie has his ring. -I will go by since 1984 but here is my all-time Pacers team since 1984: PG - TY Haliburton SG - Reggie Miller SF - Paul George PF - Myles Turner (I have Turner here/Rik is my Center. C - Rik Smits 6th Man - David West My HeadCoach is Larry Bird. From 1998-2000 he made the Conference Finals in all 3 seasons he coached and the Finals in 2000. -
I could see Slovis challenging Ehlinger for QB3. He's more athletic than Ehlinger and showed flashes of a potential 1st round QB prospect as a freshman at USC. Some stability and a chance to reset might be exactly what he needs. His upside is WAY higher than Ehlinger's and we've already seen him do it. It's just a matter of if he can get back to that level of play. -
I don't understand this, so please explain. This is how I see it based upon what we know. By accounts, Purdy has played better than Jimmy G. If you believe the training camp stories where the players were telling media and the coaches that Purdy was the real deal when he got a chance to play in TC, Purdy was good right away and need little actual development by NFL coaches. If Lynch knew this would happen, why did he wait until the very last pick of the drat to select Purdy? To say it wasn't luck, but rather skill and knowledge, you'd have to believe that...going into the draft... Lynch knew Purdy would be good (or else why pick him), and also knew that not one other team thought he would be good, so he knew he could just wait until pick 250.. He knew the other GMs thought Purdy would not even be even good right away, but not even a good enough prospect to take a flyer on him and snipe him at pick 249? Sure, he benefits from Shanahan's system, but my goodness, his success is not THAT system dependent that some team would not have selected him in round 4, 5, 6, 7. with all of the comp picks added on as merely a prospect. They all ignored Purdy. How do folks hold the GM player evaluation process in such high regard when we all know that GMs miss. Both with picking busts and missing good players. Why is pointing that out a negative? We all know it. And why does Ballard deserve to be shielded from it? -
Maybe he needs lessons in how to manage his image and draft stock as the more he does this type of stuff, he could drop out of the Top 5 that his Dad feels he would go at. With 6 teams taking QBs this year, and 3 last year, in Round 1, the demand won't be as high and the supply will still be good enough. If his OL doesn't protect him well like during their losing streak, is he going to throw his OL under the bus next? I rarely see Deion or Shedeur taking ownership of their on the field issues or have the humility to say "it was my fault". They talk like they are in denial that a team could shellack them or they always lost to a team that they could have beat, that is the impression that I get, and it gets old. -
No, why would I notice something like that? No. He may have said that, but that isn't the video I'm talking about. There is a video of him in the draft room exactly at pick 53, looking at his draft board (we see his face so the board is unseen behind the camera) looks around the room talking to the staff, and finally says, "lets go with the wide out". Nothing about that suggests that he had that specific debate between those two players AP and JW, ahead of time to where it was a clear decision to take AP over JW the day before the draft. Maybe you never saw that video. Yes, everybody has the same info on the players. All players are ranked as the top 250 prospects on all 32 teams' prospect board within a variance of about 5% throughout the ranking. The difference is in how teams use the info that forms their actual draft boards. So when Ballard says...and he just did in this presser...".Nobody has any idea how this stuff will play out"....he's talking about how no one GM (meaning himself) knows how all 31 GM are going to use the information. He has absolutely no working knowledge that tells him a player isn't going to be sniped ahead of him, (See ATL trying to trade up for Latu) That's why he. and other GMs, have a GROUP of players they are comfortable taking at a certain slot. It may work out to where the highest ranked player within that group is still available, but that's not the same thing as "targeting that player" Trading UP is the proof that a GMs targets a specific player, like CAR just did with Brooks at 46, Ballard previously did with JT at 41, and Grigsy did with TY at the end of round 2, etc. There are examples all over the NFL where teams trade up to get players they targeted, but standing pat or trading down is not how they "target" a specific player. That's where they settle for one of a group of players that they think will be there when they pick. In round 1, they can better predict if a player will come to them, but not so much in round 2, 3, 4, etc. The margin of error in their assessment of what other teams with do is just too big. No, there is no proof that Ballard targets a mid round player by waiting for him...or trading down for him. Its more likely that he picks the best player out of the group of players he will settle for. You probably should adjust your understanding of the concept of GMs "targeting players" to what it actually is. Its not easy, because their are a lot of paid talking heads in the media using the term wrongly, IMO. Do you think teams wanting a top 10 LT (and which team would not even shuffle their oline or cap to accommodate) would pass on him through pick 77 because he was 3 years older than the typical college graduate, when LTs have careers that typically span 10 years or more? It makes no sense that they would be hung up on that three years. Before your time, a truly great GM, Bill Polian, took LB Rob Morris at pick 26 because he was a player who was thought to be able to start immediately and because it was a position of need. At the first round presser, BP call RM, "overaged", because he was 24 or 5 coming off his mission from BYU. Overaged by three years, and still took him in the first round because he "strongly thought" he was a player who could step in and fill a position of need right away. He didn't wait until the third round because of concern about how old he would be years down the road when he had to think about a second contract. So, yes, when teams think a player won't be able to step in and play well right away, they slide to the mid rounds. Those are called "developmental players". That was the Luck/Griffin year...and yes, pundits all over the place had him ranked as a third rounder. Seems SEA had him ranked no differently than others on their draft board. Again, the prospects are ranked similarly. Who teams want to draft out of a grouping is obviously different. The point being made by me...and Ballard...is that no GM knows what the other 31 GMs will do at any given moment....they don't know the other teams' draft boards. But they all know the traits of the players and have similar ideas about what kind of prospect they will be, and whether or not they can play right away or take a season or two to earn a starting job. That part of the evaluation is all the same amongst 32 teams, IMO. Because they don't know what other teams will do, and don't know other teams draft boards is why why Frank was high fiving. There was excitement in getting the players they wanted, in that no other team took them or sniped them. If they knew what other GMs were going to do, they would have known they would have gotten those players and it would be non suspenseful. But. its possible that Ballard was way off in how he ranked his prospects compared to other teams back then, and everybody was excited when they didn't have to be. And I'm not going to believe for a moment, that Ballard lets himself be some dullard blank canvas between the ears that won't make a pick until his HC draws him a picture of who to pick. Especially on the defense and in every round. Especially when he deliberates with only himself and then he's the one telling the others in the room "lets go with the wide out". Sorry, not buying it. Yes, that difference is what dictates their draft boards. But, they all have the same knowledge of what the different player traits are. They know which ones are fast, slow, twitchy, good balance, arm length, etc. As the Raimann example, they all evaluate him as being a successful NFL LT. His experience at a small school, weight (like Freeland), years as an olineman when he was a former TE, all weigh into their conclusion about how long they think it would take him to be a starter. They all saw his traits and experience as not being worthy of a pick higher than 77, and they misjudged how quickly he learned the NFL game. Same with Mathis, Saturday, Brady, Purdy, etc... all the teams know what these players traits are, and they all feed them through the same evaluation process, and that process misses players from time to time. Contrast that thought with what I've been reading, that Ballard knew Raimann was good and dropped him only because of age, which means that better GMs like Polian, NE, and Lynch must have known those players would be what they would be....and knew that no other team figured it out so they waited. To me, that makes no sense. IMO, they all got lucky relative to how well they thought each player would play when they drafted them. That's great. And I sincerely hope that you've enjoyed your career. But, I'm the kind of person that doesn't care about credentials. I judge the content for what it says. Thanks for staying calm.
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.