Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka
By “compete”, I mean they could conceivably win any game, and they have a decent shot at the playoffs. We have the best QB in the division, so I think this will always be possible. Unlike you and your buddy Testcase, I don’t see Ballard’s strategy as any sort of plan to tank the next season or two. Could we increase our immediate chances marginally by signing several of the top free agents as you suggest? Yes, probably – but at what long term cost? Irsay/Ballard have spoken at length about building a sustainable, competitive team, and heavy reliance on free agency is just not suited to that sort of long term strategy.
I also disagree that they’re in the second year of a rebuild – Ballard inherited Pagano and his staff when he arrived here. Wholesale changes were not really possible, as it’s pretty clear there was some sort of agreement to let Pagano have a year unmolested by Grigson. So to be fair, this the first year Ballard’s had a clean slate to implement his plans. He’s doing so now.
Yes, the roster will have lots of young players and one-year contracts, but I think that’s exactly the goal. Pick players that fit your planned scheme, and incentivize them to perform at a maximum level. If they do so, everyone comes out ahead. If not, the Colts can move on without meaningful consequence. Lots of flexibility. Ballard loves those one year contracts, or at least contracts that give the team an out after a year – it’s obvious. And, sorry, but I personally like the approach. The downside is we probably won’t be able to sign many of the top free agents, as they’ll likely have other suitors who are willing to provide them with a much more secure future. However, based upon his comments, my guess is that Ballard will be a more generous with home-grown talent, and I have no doubt he’ll do whatever is necessary to keep the absolutely critical players (i.e. Luck) – and he’ll have the cap room to do it.
Lastly, again as to Hankins, I just don’t think Ballard is going to immediately compromise his vision to keep a guy whose getting paid a bundle and who he doesn’t believe is a good fit for his plan. As you pointed out, he’s a new GM, and if he screws this up I’m sure he wants to do it on his own terms, rather than because he compromised and caved to popular opinion.
|
I guess we just have different ideas of what being competitive means. By your definition I absolutely agree - a healthy Luck gives them a chance to win any game.
So did Ballard waste his draft picks last year? He’s building strictly thru the draft and he drafted last year. How is this not year two? And if he didn’t know Pagano was doomed then he’s a shitty GM to begin with.
Team options after a year are great. For how much I dislike Hankins release, his contract was great. A roster full of one year contracts isn’t. It’s not a huge deal either way though. The number of them just shows this is a rebuilding and he isn’t looking for long term solutions in free agency. These guys are stop gaps.
We’ll revisit this in a year or two. I’d like be to be wrong and them be a real Super Bowl contender in another year. But I don’t see it. Not when they limit themselves to only one real avenue for improvement.
03-22-2018, 04:41 PM
Hybrid Mode
