Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
Yes a premier QB means you aren’t far from competing - which is exactly why throwing away several years while you “stack drafts” isn’t the right way to go. You are saying we aren’t far from contention because we have a franchise QB yet saying we have to build the longer slower way. Both aren’t true.
Who the hell is advocating the Washington approach? Is every free agent acquisition bad by definition? I’d say Jacksonville would disagree with that. And several other teams. There are more options than signing bargain basement cast offs and being Dan Snyder. What would signing 2 upper tier free agents (especially at least one on the OL) this year have stopped Ballard from doing? Nothing. He would still have all the draft picks he has and plenty of holes to fill. As you said - you aren’t far from contention with a franchise QB. So why is it stupid to add a couple quality players via free agency?
Grigson believed in himself - did you admire him for it too? Leadership is a hell of a lot more than being arrogant or inflexible. I admittedly have no idea if Ballard is a good leader or not. I’ve seen signs that I think point both ways on that. Time will tell. Hopefully Luck doesn’t get killed or frustrated while Ballard takes the slow, gusty approach.
|
Why does not signing the top free agents mean that we're throwing away several years? Why can't the Colts compete while we change the underlying philosophy? I don't accept your premise. By your line of thinking, we should stay locked in to the last regime's approach since it may be too hard to change. If Luck is healthy, we'll be competitive and, if Ballard's approach proves to be right, we'll only get better in future years.
As far as Luck getting "killed", I don't accept this assumption either. Throwing money at the top free agents has never been proven to be a reliable way of succeeding - that's the Redskins way. These issues can be addressed in the draft too, or by any number of other ways. Ballard made a play for a few of the top OL free agents, but when the price rose beyond his comfort zone he backed off. He was disciplined and true to the approach he's outlined since he got to Indy - that's what I admire, particularly when public opinion is largely against him. Why is that arrogant? Do you want someone running the team who caves in to public opinion?
Lastly, as to Hankins, Ballard comments today were exactly consistent with what I thought - the cost was too high given the usefulness of Hankins to the Colts new defensive scheme. What more can he say? You might not like it, but that's why Hankins contract was structured the way it was - it gave the Colts an out if they didn't feel he was worth it after a year. We'll see what kind of contract Hankins gets, and whether the rest of the teams value Hankins as highly as you do. Indications are that they don't, since no team was willing to trade for him and to assume his Colts contract.