Ballard claimed by Pats

Get well, Jake.

.

Well, best of luck to Ballard.

And to the Pats, hope to see you again in February!

There could still be a minuscule chance he doesn't sign with them after the season.

.

that sucks.

Bill is cagey and Jake tore up his Pats last season.

...

Was there any way to avoid exposing him?

Good luck, Jake!

Pretty soon he'll unveil the Pats 4 TE offense.

sucks

why would they do that with the TE's that they have? Just to screw with the Giants?

Makes no sense.

Nice knowing ya Jake...

.

like the Pats need another TE (especially off ACL surgery)...this was a move to stick it to the Giants IMO.

Good luck.

Obviously, the Giants knew this was at least a possibility, or they wouldn't have placed him on waivers in the first place.

.

He's obviously nowhere near playing, though.

not sure how owning his rights helps the Pats. He's not likely to sign a big FA deal after the season, so no comp picks are likely, and he isn't likely to play this year.

Most this does is allow the Pats to pay his salary.

How does this help them and why would Giants fans be upset about this?

Not the end of the world though.

is one tricky motherf'er

Ballard made a name for himself last year.

was all over it.

In some sports, if a player is claimed on waivers, he has to be kept on the opening-day roster. What is the rule in the NFL? Can he go on the Pat's PUP list?

this will really stick it to the Giants.

When he's getting paid by the Pats next year and then they cut him next off-season the giants can re-sign him.

Not a big deal. But don't worry, I'm sure many will hammer Reese for this

REESE!!!

Even with the Patriots, I wish you the best. You gave us all you had and more.

a weapon that ripped up NE last season, moreso than how he might help NE eventually, imo.

he was a good TE and he was the reason we won a lot of games last year, especially the Pats game.

no reason to hammer Reese and it's still possible Ballard will end up a Giant. There's no denying that the Pats don't need a TE...this move was made for a non football reason in my humble opinion.

There has to be some football-related reason other than just "sticking it to the Giants". Maybe they think they'll be able to extend him before he hits the open market again.

.

like a move just to stick it to the Giants. The Pats already have two TEs, and Ballard isn't playing this year. The Pats now have to pay his salary, which is dead money on their cap since he can't play.

He could still be back with the Giants in 2013.

maybe it was, but it won't actually work if they're trying to stick it to the giants

?

They just resigned Gronk, and still have Hernandez.

loved ya, Jake, thanks for everything you did for the Giants.

Put me in the "yeah, they need Jake Ballard...riiiiiiiiiiiight" camp. If they really want to know Giants option offense, IR Devin Thomas too while you are at it BB....man, I'm glad we beat them twice on the biggest stage....

Have a nice year collecting Kraft's money....if they let you stick around long enough after pumping you for Giants info....

He wasn't going to play this year. They're going out of their way just to take him away from the team for the season? There has to be more to it than that.

I could see Bill lining up TEs all over the field and daring the opposition to defend the run and the pass.

Jake will be out for awhile but I'm sure there's a good reason BB would do this

That's the only way it makes any sense.

who isn't going to play a down this year, and will be a FA the year after. Good on ya, mouthbreather nation.

have been the last few years.

Next year at this time or after the season ends, we'll be talking about re-signing Bennett and the terrific strides made by Hopkins..It happens just about every year

now they control the rights to a guy who turned heads last year. Which means that they can negotiate a longer term contract with him. That's why you do it.

Pats purchased the NYG playbook and other info

Who do the Pat's have behind Gronkowski? Depth but not until 2013 and that's assuming he's able to make it back.

Good luck and thanks for the memories Jake!

I didn't think he would get claimed in the shape he is .

for a 2nd rd pick and then use ballard and gronk at TE

Which means they could give him a high tender (which is still a reasonable price) and keep him around for a season, unless someone is willing to part with a pick.

Not that I think it does anything to help NE (they have two solid receiving TEs) or to hurt us (he couldn't play this season anyway), but there may be some long term strategy at play here.

Or, it could just be a petty loser move. If that's the case, I'd rather have the Lombardi (sorry Jake!).

really a restricted free agent next season (as Ralph said in an earlier tweet) then there is little doubt that the Pats are doing it for his rights and yes, to stick it to the Giants. I just don't see any other logical reason they would make this move.

take their players

about why not just put Ballard on IR yesterday instead of waiving/injured him.

If Reese and the Giants were that concerned he would have probably gone straight to IR.

I believe he was an RFA this year (or maybe ERFA), so is he a UFA next year? If so, this is even more perplexing.

they have two TEs ahead of him on the depth chart....

you have to waive a player to IR him.

that if a player spends the entire season on PUP/reserve that they don't accrue a year of service towards restricted or unrestricted free agency. It happened with the Eagles and Victor Abiamiri. So, Ballard may not be a RFA after this season. I'll look up the details.

are close and always will be. They'd be the last team BB would want to stick it to..That's plain silly, imo

Is a paltry sum to pay for the keys to the Giants offense that has stymied the Hoodie to the tune of two super bowl losses. Belichick is an information junkie, there is not one subatomic particle of me that doesn't think he's doing this for one reason only....to figure out why he can't devise a defense to stop Eli Manning.

Jake is being paid a half a mill to spill his guts now. If he sits around a few months, all of that knowledge slowly drains away...Bill can tap it out now while it's still fresh and we will be left with one big coconut of a TE.

Which means NE could potentially keep him away from us during this window where NYG could play NE in the SB yet again.

Strategic personnel move, it doesn't have to be "a shot" at NYG.

Reese wasn't all that concerned with losing Ballard.

being grilled by guys with cigarettes getting him to spill his guys about the Giants offense by 7 tonight.

Hernandez with Ballard, especially with Ballard coming off the injuries he will be?

Unless they're going to change their offense again, trading Hernandez will make no sense for them.

Is an Art of War guy, he's not out to weaken the enemy, only to strengthen his own position and he can do that by learning the ins and outs of this offense from one its key players who learned it very very quickly.

Quote:

for the keys to the Giants offense that has stymied the Hoodie to the tune of two super bowl losses.

In which we scored 17 points and 21 points respectively. Not like out offense lit them up in either game.

Under the previous CBA if a player was in the last year of their contract and spent the entire season on PUP without being activated then the last year of his contract would toll over to the next season. I don't know if that has changed under the new CBA.

Ballard as he was in losing Smith

just weird.

Pope finds or makes a Ballard or two every damn year. Next.

and the Giants have beaten his team twice in the Super Bowl. Next best option for Bill.

but the Giants have been fucking them sideways for almost 5 years now.

about how this affects our cap this year. Being that he was claimed, does that mean Ballard doesn't count against the Giants 2012 salary cap?

considering the Giants never got a shot to match that contract.

of that turnover at the position. For fuck sake, draft someone and develop them. If that means paying then do it. It's like a revolving door there.

I don't know the Pats' cap status, but 540k to throw into the hole doesn't seem like it's worth much just for a chance at a brain drain. It's not as if Billy Boy was as much stymied by the offense as his defense was physically incapable of stopping it.

Just look at all those segments where he's wired for sound - the play was to force Manningham to beat them. They had guys in position to make the play. It took an outstanding play by Eli and Manningham to get it done.

This seems more like BB wanting Ballard around longer term to me the more I think about it. Maybe one of those TEs isn't long for NE (not Gronk obviously).

that was the definition to me of "All In". The reality is, Jake wasn't particularly fast before tearing up his knee, he may never be what he was for us. I'm sad to see him go, but this opens the door for someone to step up

then just insurance and depth move in addition to Giants info bonus.

Did we win those games with game winning long drives engineered by our QB or did the Defensive Genius stop us?

Your eagerness in posting is only outdone by your football stupidity.

- Dave in Hoboken

the salary goes with the player

As to the theory that they did this to stick it to the Giants. You aren't going to take on salary cap dollars to mess with a team that isn't even in your conference. They did it because they want to control the rights to a player that opened eyes with his play last year.

in NFL history. There wasn't anything he was unprepared for with us. We just simply executed better at key moments. Ballard isn't gonna tell him anything he doesn't already know

.

on two occasions

And even if you understand the philosophy and plays (which good film study should help you with already), it doesn't account for Coughlin/Gilbride's game-planning the week before a game, Gilbride's play-calling based on in-game dynamics, and Eli's execution.

They could have told Bill that the sideline pass to Manningham was coming, and Eli and his swingin' set o' brass balls still would have completed it.

it isn't so they can spy on us, or know all of our super secrets, or mess with our heads. They wanted the rights to the player.

if that's really what Belichick wanted he could have just signed Plaxico and got someone who can help their team on the field.

NE has lengthy history of rehabbing malcontents - this assumes Plaxico knew the playbook.

he was supposedly very studious when it came to the playbook.

I think BB did it to fuck with BBI. 'Those numbnuts are never going to understand why I did this. Especially BB'56, this is going to confuse the chai out of him'

Bill ain't facing Coughlin and Manning again for four years.

I just can't imagine this is a playbook steal.

j/k.. Didn't you get into it with Mets fans?

as poor a post as I've ever seen on this site...

Quote:

Josh Joey in VA : 5:12 pm Did we win those games with game winning long drives engineered by our QB or did the Defensive Genius stop us? Your eagerness in posting is only outdone by your football stupidity.

Not only do you childishly attack me for no apparent reason whatsoever (aside from the fact that you're either an angry person or plain ridiculous), but you're saying that game winning drives proves an inability to stop another offense. I completely disagree. I don't think Belichick has an issue stopping our offense...in fact I think Belichick's defense was fantastic on both game winning drives.

In 42, we caught a few breaks (Samuels dropping an easy Int), Tyree helmet catch etc. In both, our players were just ridiculously clutch. Eli was out of this world and no defense would have stopped us on those drives. The Pats had the PERFECT cover 2 defense on the long pass to Manningham in 46 but Eli just put it on a dime and Mario made a hell of a catch in traffic and on the sideline.

If you think that it had anything to do with Belichick not being able to figure out our offense, then YOU'RE the one who has shown his "football stupidity."

To figure out the Giants' offense, BB is in bigger trouble than I thought.

Mike Williams(Ala),Joe Fauria(UCLA), Stoneburner(Ohio St.) or Pantale(BC) in 3-4th round

i would buy the competitive intell rationale if ballard was a jet, bill or dolphin but not someone from the nfc east who you would play every three years and less than a 10% chance of meeting in the super bowl.

did not sign him to stick it to the Giants, that's ridiculous.

He slowed down but the 1st half of the season he was a stud. Made a ton of big plays especially against the Pats the first time.

Boss was faster but Ballard really didnt look like too much of a downgrade. Hopefilly he can make a full recovery and be a starter somewhere.

I'll give it to him for free:

Rush the QB, cover somebody.

See? That was easy.

Ballard had a severe enough injury that he'd go unclaimed; is probably surprised he was.
Question: Could Jake refuse to be CLAIMED?

A) They don't care about him counting toward the 90 man limit
B) They're not paying him much
C) They can tender him at a high level next year and no one will match, so they'll retain his rights
D) He's an ideal No. 2 TE
E) They'll likely trade Hernandez eventually because of their commitment to Gronk and what they can get back for him

It's not all that crazy of a move.

This--claiming an injured player--almost NEVER happens

perhaps you can explain the requirement or benefit of waiving a player prior to IRing him. I'm missing something.

cared about A - D they would have just IR'd him, not waived him, right?

never thought it was from them though.

We didn't want him counting against our 90 man limit, and even if we IR'd him, he would have. Because injured role players are essentially never claimed off waivers, we thought (and I don't blame the thought process one bit) that we could let him go and bring him back at a later date. Ballard's camp thought the same thing.

But then the Pats swooped. BB is the type of guy who wouldn't care as much about fling out the extent of his roster this early in the off season--i.e. he was more willing than we were to stash Ballard even if he counted toward the 90 man.

isn't as little money as some think.

Best I can tell if the Pats tender Ballard, based on 2012 tender #'s the lowest he'd make is around 1.3M.

So he can't practice this year, has a torn ACL and MCL and they feel like it makes sense to possibly tender him next year for 1.3M and Ballard is going to replace Aaron Hernandez (who isn't even really a TE).

I agree this is one of Belichick's shaky personnel moves where Belichick the GM if f-ing with Belichick the coach.

.

But they can also choose not to tender him at any significant level if they feel he's not going to get back to where he was or where he was progressing to. At that point, all they did was eat $540K this year to take a chance.

well if you cant beat em... Steal em...

I can see other than first right of refusal, and then any team can still sign him because he was a UDFA for no compensation.

Maybe then they'd get some compensatory pick investment, but that seems silly.

very strategic. Well Reese and Ross just got to get another talent. It's tough when every team knows your scouting department is top notch.

Steve Smith...

my ass.

.

...

going to be coming off major injuries.

The only way I can see them considerng replacing AH with him is if they add another WR or playmaking RB, that they evaluated as higher quality, rotating the pieces around like the Patriots can.

.

but he's not Aaron Hernandez. It's silly to even suggest Ballard could replace him. In that system Hernandez needs to be game-planned for, Ballard would likely not. I agree it's low risk but it's also low reward.

And how do the Pats get him to IR? Do they need to waive him, LOL.

I believe he's an ERFA this year.

What Garafolo said makes sense.

Hernandez is great, but he's essentially a large WR. He does nothing a traditional TE does and he really isn't a blocker.

But he moves like a receiver.

Quote:

I am tired AnishPatel : 5:11 pm of that turnover at the position. For fuck sake, draft someone and develop them. If that means paying then do it. It's like a revolving door there.

I am not sure of what the bitching is about. If Ballad and Beckum didn't get hurt they would be the starting TEs in 2012.

and may turn into a very good TE down the line if he can come back healthy.

Tough loss.

is going to get a minimum offer at the end of the season - they [the Pats] are going to be willing to cut him - and will have Jake as insurance for what has been a very successful formula for them - Gronk eats up a lot of cap space - you can't tie all that money up at the TE position

Not only do they have Gronk and Hernandez they had enough depth in Bo Scaife and Daniel Fells neither of whom is injured. Any TEs not named Gronk or Hernandz have combined for 52 yards and 2 TDs in the last two years for the Pats. Not to mention they probably plan on using their WRs more with the signings of Gaffney, Lloyd, and Stallworth.

Classless move on their part. Bill is probably still butthurt about losing 2 superbowls to us.

starting on PUP and then going to IR?

most sites list Ballard as an ERFA this year and RFA next year.

They lost Boss only because he got an outrageously inflated Raiders contract.

They lost Ballard because he got an injury that will cost him this season.

Where's the revolving door?

They lost Boss only because he got an outrageously inflated Raiders contract.

They lost Ballard because he got an injury that will cost him this season.

Where's the revolving door?

lines up at TE mostly in the redzone where he is a better redzone threat than Ballard.

Ballard isn't a great blocker so I don't get the slight against Hernandez.

hernandez caught 80 passes for 900 yards with 7 TD's in really 12 games this year.

He's going to get cut or a minimum offer? Welker is playing on the FT this year and the Pats seem like they don't want to offer him a LT Deal.

I'd say Welker is not re-signed before Hernandez. And even if Welker is re-signed it has nothing to do with Hernandez.

and a luxury at a veteran contract - and I disagree if you don't think Jake is a red zone threat - he is a very good target in the red zone, has good hands, runs a good route and holds onto the ball in traffic. Jake is money!

You can't just pay players for the hell of it.

I have to believe they plan on retaining him otherwise the move would make zero sense.

before the season starts.

Remember when we traded Michael Matthews, a TE, to the Pats for a conditional draft pick? BB looked at him, released him and we never received a draft pick.

for 2013. Seems hard to believe that going into camp with 89 instead of 90 was worth the risk.

in 2013. He spent all of his first year (2010) on the practice squad, so that wouldn't count as an accrued season towards his free agent rights. Assuming he initially signed a 3-year deal, it would expire after 2012, but FAs with only 2 accrued seasons become ERFAs, rather than RFAs.

What if he's just saw a potentially great player in Ballard, has plenty of $$$ and is willing to "put him on the shelf" for a year and bring him back ?

Gronkowski and Hernandez have proven that you don't need spectacular speed to make it all the way to the Superbowl. Maybe he's going to go to a "super-heavy" receiving corps - Gronk, Hernandez and Ballard all on the same field, at the same time.

have no idea why anyone thinks this means the Patriots might now trade Hernandez. Would you trade Hernandez to keep Ballard, a lesser player coming back from a terrible knee injury who might never be the same?

As far as his rights are concerned, I doubt they will have to tender him that high to keep him next off season. He will have missed the entire year and there is no guarantee that he can come back from a torn ACL and microfracture surgery. Who is going to bid for him under those circumstances, especially since he was a UDFA? Would anybody even give up a fifth? I doubt it.

if you are not looking at Jake as a cheaper alternative - why sign him - there is no logic to that what-so-ever - this signing is the death blow to Hernandez remaining on the Pats.

Hernandez did not perform well in the Superbowl at all - for all his good numbers

Hernandez was outstanding last year.

game in 2010 - week 11 against the Eagles, he was an ERFA this year I believe.

maybe we'll sign Hernandez and return the favor next year

good TE with a blown out knee.Belichick knows talent.

Hernandez (in 14 games)
rec yards
79 910

How is Ballard in the same stratosphere?

Patriots run a 2 TE offense, they need both gronk and Hernandez

in terms of what the Patriots currently need and get out of their TEs, especially with him coming off the major knee injuries.

They're not comparable players in the slightest and they're not going to be. AH leaves, it'll have little to do with this claiming/signing.

You need 6 games on either the 53-man, IR, or PUP for a season to count as "accrued" towards your FA rights.

so why claim Ballard?

BB is held in low esteem here? Seriously?

more games than just the Eagles game. Not sure how many.

Rotoworld and other sites list him as an RFA in 2013. Not sure what's right.

The way I see it, is that they still left didn't they? I don't care how they left, but the end result is no we have to start over and develop another damn TE. Injury, getting outbid, and now this move by the Pats. The end result is the TE leaves. So in my mind, now it's a new TE that needs to come in, get taught everything and start over to get the guy on the right page, and involved in the offense.

I still don't understand why we had to waive him. Why couldn't we just place him right on IR and not risk this?

Reese is on top of it

Bear Pascoe

4 years of service time, and you want to free up the roster spot then you need to waive them before you can IR them.

If the Giants waited until the first roster cuts, from 90 to 80 they could have just directly IR'd him.

Shows either a) how little they were concerned with losing him or b) how surprised they were someone claimed him

By whom? BB was a great Giant and always will be. Take a look at the NFL Network two parter where they follow BB around. You'll see where his heart is. He bleeds blue.

No one is comparing Hernandez to Ballard. Not even close.

Hernandez isn't going to be with the Pats for long. Gronk is their future at TE, and someone will want to make Hernandez a featured receiver and the No. 1 TE in a Graham/Finley role. The Pats will try to trade him. That's hypothetical, of course, but it's really not far fetched at all. I'd say it's more likely than it is unlikely.

Ballard is an option as Hernandez's replacement--if he returns to health. His long term trajectory is likely as a No. 2 and he's a similar TE to Gronk; the Pats can run similar packages with Ballard in the game.

This isn't hard to understand.

This is a kick to the crotch. Good luck to Jake

Hernandez is probably going to want big time $ too, something NE won't do after giving Gronk a new deal.

If Ballard gets back to 100%, he's proven he can play/make big time plays in this league.

Sucks, but best of luck to Jake.

between Ballard and Hernandez.

If the Pats trade Hernandez they'll replace him with a WR or finesse TE, not Jake Ballard - who like you say is more similar to Gronk, only not nearly the blocker or receiving threat.

obtuse. The Pats didn't have some TE/WR tweener role that they had to fill by drafting Hernandez, and they won't have one when he's gone. They've historically run with traditional TEs rather than the hybrids.

that SB42 pass barely touched Samuels finger tips - that play is always over-stated. That was not an easy int. Watch the play.

his feet would have come down out of bounds anyway...

of having almost no deep threat to stretch the field. Hence the adapted role for Hernandez.

That may not be a problem soon, and hence, Dubs' point. That Ballard could replace Hernandez, in a more traditional 2 TE offense.

Spy gate lives: little Bill wants an edge and will do most anything to get it. I don't put anything past him.

BB most likely wants the keys to audible calls to help the defense stop us. You can bet it's not because he thinks jake is a great player.

...are signing, claiming or otherwise acquiring guys from our roster to add to their own. It's a double whammy, we lose a contributor and he ends up on a rival. True Ballard won't play this season but he was developing quickly and had a good upside. BJ, MM and now Jake all playing for the enemy. Yeah it's part of football but I don't like it, not one little bit. Let these guys sign with Jacksonville for fucksake.

gidiefor :


On field Ballard cannot help the Patriots , but he sure will help with in depth information about the Giants.

practice habits,
who does Eli key on specif situations
receivers tendencies
What coverages give Eli a hard time,
who`s the weak link of the oline
oline splits -oline stance
run or pass
information about protections
audible patterns
body languages
hand signals

etc...

Unless we see them in the Superbowl 'again' we won't play the Pats for four years. It's not impossible but I'd call that a very very very longshot. BB might be a stickler for preparation but the idea he signed Ballard to scout the Giants is farfetched.

I agree, there is only so much information you can get, assuming it says the same year to year. I personally think it's not as bad as fans make it out to be.

two superbowls.

There's nothing Jake Ballard can tell him that he hasn't already seen. There's no state secret on Eli Manning. His team defenses didn't execute.

The man has been dissecting offensive game tape for like 25 years.

I agree, there is only so much stuff you can get from the guy if any that you can't see from watching tape. I am not really worried about players moving from team to team like that.

Signing a TE with TWO bum knees (PCL & ACL), respectively because you want to gain information about an NFC team, which are very long odds that you'll ever see in a championship game ....

Conspiracy Theory are for the ultra-paranoid, at this point.

Maybe the majority opinion around here is that Ballard is very ordinary, but MAYBE, just maybe "little Bill" sees him in a whole different light - not as a replacement for Hernandez, as some have suggested, but as the next the next piece in his innovative & evolving TE intensive offense.

the Pats didn't draft Hernandez with the expectation he'd become a great blocker/two way TE.

They knew what they were getting, just maybe didn't know how good he'd be since he was so young.

Hernandez played the 7th most snaps on the whole offense last year. I can see the Pats feeling like Ballard if he can regain his health may be insurance for a Gronkowski injury as a 3rd TE. Maybe. But in that offense I do not see them planning for Ballard to be the #2 TE, effectively replacing Hernandez unless they add offense from another source - in which case Ballard isn't really replacing Hernandez.

was my fav TE but I never saw him getting back for 2 years..
2 knee's bad and may never be the same..surprised Ballard
went...Belli is trying to break our balls...see him in SB this year with Bennett and Freak.....

That was a classy statement right there. Thanks for being part of a Superbowl winning NY Giants ballclub.

really sucks ass.

He was one of my favorite players.

him for info about the giants offense seems a bit far fetched. Not to mention, it's a ungracious backhanded stab at Ballard and the player he turned out to be this past year - an above average pass catching TE with a ton of upside on the blocking side, given his size.

Best of luck to you, Mr. Ballard.

Looks like the move was to make room to get Rocky back with the surgeries this off season. Kuhn's work visa being an issue, what is the long term plans with all these DTs and how did that impact the decision on Ballard's cut? It looks like Rocky had an offer in place. Also, not knowing how MB works out, are the Giants still committed to Beckum even with Robinson?

When NYG`s were prepping for the patriots defense what was the perceived weakness's?

The Giants identified certain areas they would attack.

Use certain setup plays

they couldn't live without the likes of David Douglas or Stephen Goodin or Jojo Nicolas for training camp and had to expose Ballard? Just doesn't make sense to take the risk

He's mine now!

Those guys you named don't make any. Rocky Bernard does. That's who was signed and they made the decision the best way to balance the cap was to waive Jake. there was a good chance noone would pick him up then we could stash him on IR for the year til he was healthy. Salary cap is a stern mistress that forces tough decisions in some cases.

aimed at next year and the year after. It's a similar strategy as drafting (I follow the notion that you draft for next year). In this case, though, you have a very promising prospect who you can legitimately IR. It costs them half a mil this year, but they have a no risk shot at a good player. on IR, he won't take up a roster spot.

And, count me amongst those who say that the professionals can figure out everything Ballard can tell them from watching tape of last year. Add in the fact that we don't play them all that often, and that whole angle gets far fetched.

for the clarification. If Ballard cleared waivers and they re-signed him and placed him on IR, would his salary count against the cap? I assumed that it would, thus no cap savings. Am I wrong on that?

are playing the Pats for the SB again this year, I think another TE would have stepped in to Big Jakes shoes. He had some crucial catches this year as did Manningham. He'll be missed but wasn't going to play this year anyway.

Things happen so fast in the NFL and this move may end up meaning nothing like the Boss and Smith moves did. By the time Ballard comes back, Robinson and Bennett may be one of the best tandems in the league. Ya never know!

Reese tried to be too cute here and it caught up to him. Hopefully Robinson and/or Bennett prove to the the long term answer.

being planted in the Pats' organization to provide disinformation.

( Don't you miss the Cold War *Grin*)

the outcome could have been much differant, there is a chance Ballard will be available in December and with the new rule one player can be activated from IR. Playbook is a possible bonus but most likely Giants don't see Patriots this year unless they both return to Super Bowl. Its really a two year commitment by the Patriots if they want a return on this investment but playoffs is possible however unlikely. As to resigning Ballard next year, well Reese does not resign to many players once they leave, his focus is on keeping the guys he has and filling holes. Good luck Jake some of us will certainly miss you.

I believe for a player to come back from IR, he needs to be on the 53-man roster after the final camp cuts prior to the start of the season, even if the Pats feel Ballard could play in December, I'd be surprised if he was on the 53-man roster. PUP is more likely IMO.

Where's Jim Garrison?

Let's say Ballard was 100% healthy today, he;s a 3rd stringer TE.

was on this team healthy, he'd be the starter.

I like Reese, but he gambled and lost on this one.

on the Patriots he's a 3rd stringer

clarification...because Ballard will not have another accrued season, he will be an Exclusive Rights Free Agent. There is no way he can come back unless the Patriots cut him.

don't tender him.

They waived a player they didn't have any intention of/ expectation of playing this year based on their decision to IR him. TE is covered for this season. As Reese said himself, he doesn't get emotional over anyone,

You know he is obsessed with tight ends. He can never have enough of them. I've always been surprised by how many he has drafted over the years even given the ones already on his roster at the time. It's as if he feels about tight ends the way the Giants feel about pass rushers.

This move has nothing to do with fucking with the Giants or picking Ballard's brain.

...mores the pity. The Pats were the last team able to claim Jake. It was a calculated risk. NFL GM's make many calls like this during a season. Fair to say JR and his two rings get more right than wrong.

Milton

So he's obsessed to the point of picking up an injured TE of waivers?

they didn't want to lose him.

Which means they accepted the possibility of losing him, probably because in their minds he wasn't going to play this year.

-

they didn't want to lose him. But the guy isn't going to play this year and he may never be the same. He really messed up that knee. Ballard has said as much.

He's an injured player who should be healthy in 2013. Belichick is thinking ahead.

I think if Reese had anticipated the possibility Ballard would be claimed, he wouldn't've waived him. It's a bold move by Belichick in a league where most coaches are only focused on the season at hand. But it's a smart move when you think about it. Very little risk.

is the owner's money. For the team (player/mgt), there's nothing at risk.

if you put a players on waivers you have have some expectations that there is a possibility that he could be taken. God forbid JPP gets injured. This same tactic would have never been used. But I don't get all this for Rocky. I like his production in the playoffs and late season but at some point why do organizations hate moving on? And if you preference was Rocky why waste time on Rogers?

that Ballard sustained a very serious injury. He may never be the same

At minimum? He will get a 30m contract. Pats can't have 80-85m invested in TE's. A trade is very likely and we should be interested.

It's your career and livelihood at stake. If you're a player that struggles they cut you. If you're a coach or GM they fire you. There is always intense competitive stress in professioanl sports to do one thing. Perform and produce. On and off the field. If you don't you're done.

because Canty, Joseph, and Rogers are all hurt and can't practice.

They have to have numbers to practice.

I kind of agree with Karen. The 90th guy on this roster is not the same as an injured Ballard to me. I don't think I would have risked it.

question in all this is...

why did they have to cut Jake NOW? couldn't they have waited? or was there some pressing deadline?

I obviously don't understand everything, and can only assume that the Giants were going to IR him (if he passed waivers) but did we have to actually "cut" him at this point in time?

or could we have waited down the road.

PS, I can't believe they snaked him away from us like that. so dirty

In 13 years, Belichick has drafted 11 tight ends including 1st round picks Daniel Graham (2002) and Ben Watson (2004) and 2nd round pick Gronkowski (2010). And even though he had just drafted Gronkowksi and Hernandez in 2010, he drafted Lee Smith in the 5th round of the 2011 draft.

And that hasn't stopped him from signing some decent TE's as free agents.

Who is more likely to be in the NFL and playing in 2013? Clint Sintim or Jake Ballard? Or Joel Reinders or Ballard?

I get there are injuries at the DT position but it looks like at certain positions they are heavy even with the 90 man roster. It's hard for me to believe Kuhn's work visa was a surprise for this front office. One of these guys that they all know is not making the 53 man roster this year or even in the future should have been cut.

It wasn't as simple as an ACL. He tore everything. It was a shred job. They could feel his medical risk plus the length of rehab made waiving him at this time the best course of action.

Did I miss something but when did Ballard become Dave Casper?

He's a good player & it sucks that he's gone, but let's not overrate the guy.

Ballard would be the 4th string TE. If he was healthy which he isn't.

want to keep Simtim. I thinking some of these other defensive players they signed. Even Hill or that LBer from GSU.

I doubt Sintim makes this team. He may be the first linebacker waived.

they really like Muasau. They've been talking him up since the rookie mini-camp. Hill has also really impressed at safety. You should keep track of this in the offseason reports.

Yes, he was a good player. That's why it sucks he is gone. He made some game-saving plays last year in a season where one more loss would have meant no Super Bowl.

can rush at SAM who besides Kiwi can shed blockers at that position. That's the only reason why I'm thinking that if healthy Sintim makes this roster.

Sintim was a 2nd rounder

The more it stings. Some of us forget how good he was early in the season because late season injuries that he played through made him less effective.

yeah I guess they could impress enough to beat out vets in training camp. I just don't see it as likely scenario. Oh well, I wish Jake the best when he isn't playing the Giants.

Assuming he's healthy soon, a big if, Sintim could be moved to become the 4th or 5th DE. Not so sure that either Tracy or Trateau make the team. Also, not so sure they give up on Sintim at his point but without knowing his health situation, everything is a guess.

he wasn't going to play this year and they have a plan in place to upgrade the TE position. After the injury, he couldn't be in their long term plans. His knee was in very bad shape.

It was a risk someone might pick him up but the Giants needed the roster and payroll flexibility. I am not even sold the Patriots will hold onto him considering how many TE's are on their roster. It just sucks that a guy who played way above expectations and literally gave it all for this team was cut due to injury. But that is the way the NFL is. I wouldn't be shocked to see NE cut him towards the end of camp and the Giants pick him back up.

Eric, but he wasn't going to play this year & nobody knows about his long term health. Yes, he made some huge plays for us last season but as this management team has shown with Smith, Boss, etc. most guys are replaceable.

Reese took a chance that an injured player wouldn't be claimed or the Giant doctors didn't tell Ballard the same story they told Reese or the Giants needed that 90th spot for Sintim(very doubtful) or BB took a big chance on an injured TE, who if he recovers can be used as leverage against Hernandez in contract talks.....

Fact is, I had doubts that Ballard would ever return from the injury, and I guess, so did the Giants......it doesn't make sense if they felt he would recover.....they would PUP him to pay him for what he did last year.....if he was able to come back, then it would be a plus.....but it wasn't one they were counting on....

horrible

Crap!!!

LOL

and

Good luck man!!!

probably figured there was no way anyone would claim him, given the severity of his injury. Tore his ACL and MCL, and also had microfracture surgery IIRC. 99/100 they would be correct, so it's hard to say they blew it.

But I understand the argument that they could just cut someone else to make room for Bernard. Somebody at the bottom of the roster. A few other people said they could then put Ballard on IR I think when they cut from 90 to 80.

The Patriots now control his rights. I'm still not sure if he is an ERFA, or RFA, or what they will have to do to retain him. But how much are they realistically going to offer him next year given his injury? I could see him coming back, but he probably won't.

is a nice player, but he's the kind of player that get easily replaced on rosters around the league every season. Especially, when they suffer major injuries like he did. Love the guy for what he did to try to get on the field and always will. But football-wise, this doesn't sting at all. Just on the personal level.

the Pats jumped on it. The Pats take a roster spot and little money. We'll see in another year. Thanks for the time here, Jake.

is 100% spot on here. This is a move for 2013 by Belichick. The Pats sunk alot of money into Gronk and simply cannot afford to pay for Hernandez as well and slot that much cap space for the TE position. So they'll play out the season with Gronk and Hernandez, let Ballard rehab with their doctors, and figure on getting him back in 2013 and look to deal Hernandez for picks. Ballard will not replace Hernandez' production, but Belichick saw him perform very well throughout the season and knows he was coached up by Mike Pope. If Ballard doesn't work out, they cut him. It's a good gamble.

However, as much as it sucks to lose Ballard, and I liked him a great deal for how well he played. Let's face it, no one on this site thought much of Jake Ballard to start the year. It is out of the realm for the same front office, same scouts, and one of the best TE coaches in the NFL to think that they will be able to find another player to replace him? Ballard was not going to play in 2012. Reese often says that while he does try to think ahead in the draft, he re-evaluates year to year on the roster and makes moves as needed. If TE is a problem in 2012, Reese will address it in 2013.

He's more than just a nice player who can be easily replaced. I am concerned about his injuries, but when he was healthy earlier in the season he was playing at a very high level. It's easy to forget because it was a short period of time, but clearly Belichick didn't forget.

Anyone who thinks Ballard is just another player should then ask themselves why the hell did Belichick claim him off waivers. Oh, I forgot, what does Belichick know about football.

Showed he has skill and HEART against the Pats in particular.

Not sure if he suited up at all for the pre-season finale (he doesn't have a catch according to the boxscore) but that's three games where he probably caught the Patriots attention and they are taking a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCRO4p4kRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn6IJ9r6tvs

He had some great plays last year. Huge impact plays. Against Seattle, even though we lost, I remember being impressed with his play at MetLife that game.

Nails It!

to lock up Hernandez as a Giant.

he was a nice player receiving tight end who struggled a lot as a blocker. He's not an elite talent. Guys like him are replaceable and he has a major injury. You are overreacting.

30 other team didn't claim him off waivers.

Ballards knee is all spagetti, it's fried eggs. His knee is toast.

Why hang onto him and hope he can come back?

The "JPP of TEs" is on our roster, healthy, young and motivated.

Quote:

30 other team didn't claim him off waivers.

That's right, it was just the two coaches with 8 Super Bowl rings between them who believed him.

I'm just thankful it wasn't the Cowboys, Eagles, or Redskins who had that kind of foresight.

it isn't like we just lost Eli Manning. We lost a decent TE who will miss the entire season and who's injury is so severe he may never be the same.

thread before he got cut, though I might have been alittle too harsh. He's an alright player and I appreciate what he did last season, but it's not like we're losing an All Pro and are screwed now.

they thought if they waited 'til the end of training camp some team with a tight end injury might keep him on their 53 until he's ready to play. I'll bet they never dreamed the Pats would do this just to keep him away from the Giants in 2013. There is no way the Pats can. or will. ever use him. For a big guy his blocking was average at best. Is he gong to replace Hernandes as a receiving tight end ?? Pats knew we wanted to keep him and sent us a f___k you very much note.

Thats incorrect, read the thread

Reese gambled and lost
The Eagles will know our playbook
Steve Smith will return to his old form
We don't have anybody on the roster to replace Steve Smith
Steve Smith would be starting if he were on the roster..

How'd all that work out?

Smith was a much better player.

He would most likely waive camp fodder and keep him. Regardless, I have a feeling this will end up being inconsequential. The Giants will have a quality TE in 2013

I'm with Eric on this one 1000%.

Even with Ballard not playing this season he is a winning football player. It appears Reese and co. got overconfident thinking no one would take the chance on claiming him. Jeez, it's not like he's a Brian Witherspoon or something - he made big plays in huge games - and is a great asset.

I absolutely hate this.

than we do. He's likely not the same guy as before this injury.

I don't think one season of Ballard and his 35 catches makes him an irreplaceable franchise cornerstone.

Boss was a winning football player. Steve Smith was a winning football player too.

Seriously?

Why not just release a camp fodder guy instead of risking losing Ballard on waivers? We have 3 TEs in Purvis, Donnell and Hopkins who have slim chances of making this team. Or a guy like Reinders. These guys most likely won't make the final roster so why couldn't we just cut loose one of these guys and just carry Ballard until we IR'd him? Just doesn't make sense to me. We kept a guy in Beckum who tore his ACL(yes, I know it wasn't as severe as Ballard's) who in 3 years has shown next to nothing, yet we cut a guy who worked like a dog for us and actually looked like a good starting TE when he was healthy in only 1 year of action. I know it's In Reese We Trust, but this was an unwise move in my opinion. Cutting a guy who wasn't going to make the team anyway and carrying an injured Ballard made much more sense.

I think it sucks that Ballard is gone. I was upset when Steve Smith left as well.

However, I trust that Reese and company know what they are doing. If they were comfortable risking it, then I trust that decision.

because you never know when the next Victor Cruz falls into your lap.

Did for this team, but I honestly doubt this will have much of an impact ont the Giants. If any. Lot of over reacting. This pails in comparison to smith and boss and we didn't miss a beat after losing those two.

Cruz was not camp fodder

Curious or wrong?

isn't going play this year most likely, and I don't think that we lost a lot going to Bennet. (phatty phat ass) The Patriots have two outstanding tight ends ahead of him, so I don't see him being of great use there.

by an butt sore BB

Hey Bill! Pope will build another one

or just incredibly poorly worded.

Jake Ballard please...all kidding aside... makes sense

Seriously guys, change your panties already.

Good luck to Jake. I hope his physical rehab goes well and he can play again.

Hardly an irreplacable loss.

On the oft chance they meet the giants in the SB again to gain some inside info. Come on. Whats the chances of that happening again? You r gonna pay a guy half a mil for that small chance of meeting up w the giants again in the SB. No way. What does BB love? Draft picks. Maybe he is thinking he can get one from the giants or someone else for ballard in 2013?

with the Jets. All sorts of D-bag moves which essentially were purely obnoxious - never helped or significantly hurt either team.

This move is that side of Bill. He can do it so he will.

Pats will tender him, maybe lose Hermandez. Pretty sure based on this senario that BB's interest is sincere and the Pats move sound.

I like Ballard and will miss him in blue.

for the Giants and good luck in NE.

the Pats want to put him on PUP, doesn't he go back on waivers? This is just a dick move by a bitter Belichick. I hope I see Jake again in the Big Blue, but if not, he will be fondly remembered.

owns the hooded one, 4-1 all time.

6 foot undrafted rookie FA WR out of UMASS having never started until he was a junior.

Yea, that's expected camp fodder

only made the team following a tryout consisting of local UDFA's. The Giants didn't even seek him out to sign him. LTS is right, he was considered camp fodder.

you'd think Ballard was the second coming of Mark Bavaro.

His loss is not inconsequential, but he's not irreplaceable, either. And we don't even know if he'll still be on the Pats - or even in football at all - come 2013.

picking up Ballard for Giant plays? Then he must be shaking in his boots because Miami got Ocho....errr, if he can only remember them?

BBI reacted the same way last year with Smith and Boss and both were more accomplished.

Look it sucks loosing the guy, we all came to really like him. However, some of you are really over reacting.

..around Novermber or there abouts...If not, then I guess not the worst of news him leaving...

he seems like a great guy and contributed quite a bit but he might be done--or a shadow of himself for all we know. I defer to the Giants on this one.

It's unlikely we'll play them again until 2016 in the regular season. If we do, it's going to be the Superbowl again (unlikely). I'll take my chances.

He's probably not very happy right now.

Going from an organization that he just won a Superbowl with, who was going to take care of him, and bring him back as their guy to one where he's the 5th or so TE on the roster, one with two superstar TE's already, only to be discarded eventually (likely).

If I'm Ballard, I'm pretty pissed, and I don't know how freely I'd offer up any information if I didn't have to.

He's not playing in 2012 anyway, and in today's NFL every Giant except for a handful is a year to year guy. He's just as likely today to end up with the Giants in 2013 as he was yesterday.

there were probably 10 guys the Pats could have just signed that might play this year who could have provided the same playbook information (if a player were even inclined to do that).

Someone like Kareem Mckenzie, Jimmy Kennedy, Deon Grant, etc.

Giants lost a good player who they didn't need to lose is the way I look at it.

He will be an Exclusive Rights Free Agent in 2013. He can't leave the Patriots.

I thought there was a good chance that Bennett was merely holding Ballard's spot for one year. We had better pray Bennett turns out to be good player because Pascoe is a journeyman, Beckum is still an unknown, and Robinson is green as grass.

we lost a good player who wasn't gonna play in 2012 anyway. I don't understand the hand wringing.

Someone needs to make a picture of Reese like the one with Eli

'Everyone chill the fuck out. I got this.'

I agree, the key was they lost a guy they didn't need to lose - unless of course Reese just didn't care if they lost them - but to be fair, many of us had this same exact conversation about the TE position last summer.

Fact is Ballard was unlikely to contribute AT ALL this season, and he had microfracture surgery - and while that's not the death sentence it once was, as we saw with KP it take a while to get yourself right.

Who even knows if Ballard can contribute in 2013. I believe it was a gamble Reese took and lost, but I don't know what he really lost. None of us do.

And Pope helped Ballard step up. Some people are acting as if Ballard was a sure thing for us all along. He wasn't. We have the #1 TE in the league. Let's have some faith he can continue to develop these TEs.

I, for one, will miss Ballard, but I have all the faith in the world we will be fine at the position.

Like Reese, I don't just look at the next year but beyond. I wanted Ballard back in 2013.

and subsequent surgery that Ballard's injury was much worse than originally feared and he might be done.

Look at Steve Smith. He was terrible last year, and he doesn't have nearly the weight Ballard does.

this place really is hard to believe sometimes.

Pope didn't manufacture Ballard. He coached him up. But he had the talent.

?

It was bad knee injury. It required microfracture surgery. But the Giants wanted him back.

I was talking him up as Witten 2.0 all season.

Reese wanted him for 2013 too.

But belichick swooped in, had he not made a very surprising move (as dubs said, it almost never happens), he'd be ours

We'll find another TE, just like we found another WR and TE last year. The giants don't need to 'pray' for anyone to step up, they just need to coach up the guys on the roster and if that fails this season, we'll go out and get a FA and a draftee again.

They wanted Steve Smith and Boss back, too. They have a year to figure it out and address it.

I'm confident they will.

On a side note, you have to wonder how much of Ballard's performance was on Ballard, and how much was attributed to the playcall and the read by the QB.

He looked slow as molasses out there but was always open. I'm thinking scheme and read had a lot to do with that.

Just like Smith and Boss, too. Plug and play when you have an offense like ours where you have an oustanding QB and Coordinator.

If he doesn't do well, they can let him walk. If he does well, he may price himself out of their range.

It's entirely possible our 2013 TE isn't even on the roster.

look back. Always looking forward. They do what they have to do with no regrets. They personify the "next man up" mentality better than any other team I've ever seen, kind of like the early part of the 2000's Patriots.

We're always drafting talent for various positions, even when we don't seemingly need it, for situations like this. We're always prepared.

From Plaxico to Smith, from Smith to Cruz, from Shockey to Boss, from Boss to Ballard, from Ballard to whomever....

There is a pattern here.

of Bavaro or he was a one-hit wonder courtesy of the genius of Mike Pope.

Ballard was a solid yet unspectacular TE. He gave it his all while he was here, which is why I'm a big fan of the guy, but I can't imagine the Giants will have a very hard time replacing him since they're going to have to work on replacing him this season anyway. Don't forget - it's not as if we're limited to the guys on the roster and the draft, we could always sign a FA TE.

Sucks to see Ballard go, but I can't imagine that we'd have 300 posts on this if the pilferer was anyone but Belichick.

He may have looked slow, but he got deep down the seam pretty effortlessly...see the first game against the Redskins, the first game against the Patriots.

He made huge plays in the clutch...Arizona TD, seam pass against Pats, three late catches in Dallas, etc.

They will find more bodies, but Ballard was better than many are giving him credit for.

If Cruz didn't steal the show last year, we'd be talking about what a find he was.

after he returned in 2013, and what it might cost to keep him after that season.

In reality, we've lost one year of Ballard, and not even for this season. He was a good player and the loss will hurt, but he was lost for the year long before he was waived.

As a matter of fact, I was telling people on the board early in the season last year that I couldn't tell the difference between Ballard and Boss. That they looked like the same dude to me on the field, like Boss never left. Nobody wanted to hear it, as it was still popular to crucify Reese for letting Boss go.

I wish I could find those threads.

doesn't need to catch a pass and he can upgrade the TE position.

If the Giants can run the ball next year, TE blocking should be a big part of that.

As much as people on here like Ballard he was not a great blocking TE, in fact contrary to many I think it was a deficiency.

Bennett is supposed to be able to improve that.

the 38 catches, clutch or not, Ballard had last year will need to come from someone else, maybe Wilson out of the backfield or maybe the JPP of TE's gets it quicker than anticipated, maybe Bennett caches a few passes, they go to Hynoski more, who knows, but they will come from somewhere.

Boss was a big loss because it appeared we had no other viable option. Then Ballard had a great first year. So you are making the assumption that finding his replacement will be just as easy. It doesn't work that way.

Coughlin doesn't seem to agree with you guys, but what the hell?

understand the management intricacies with regards to waiving injured players, so I can't evaluate the decision to waive Ballard.

I don't buy for a second that Belichick picked him up out of either spite or as a way of learning about the Giants. The odds that it would pay off for those reasons are way too low for NE/BB to make that move.

I do think it's a wise move for the Patriots if they feel confident that they won't be losing out on a hidden talent at the end of their roster.

For right now, the Patriots are set at tight-end with Gronkowski and Hernandez. So they do not have any need for Ballard to try and rush back for this season. He can just take his time to rehab and study tape and the playbook.

Hernandez is under team control through 2013. But with what Gronkowski was just paid, I could see pre-2013 being a tough negotiation period for the Patriots and Hernandez.

If Hernandez decides to hold out, the Patriots will still havce Ballard that they can put into a tight end role. And if they do pay Hernandez, they can trade Ballard for draft picks.

I think Ballard is a solid receiving threat across the middle of the field / down the seam. He isn't a playmaker like Gronk/Hernandez/Graham/Vernon, but I think he is a big, reliable target that was perhaps underused in the GIants scheme.

But with the Patriots MO on offense, and Brady's razor-sharp precision in the short-game, I could see them loving Ballard whenever he gets healthy.

wasn't a fan of waving Ballard.

There is a pattern.

front page thing about Ballard being an exclusive rights FA, this move really started to puzzle me. I don't understand the move at all. Why would you just give away a pretty good player? This never would have happened to many of the other starters on the O or D if they were hurt during the SB.

My hunch is that either: A) they are really excited about the other TEs on the roster, or B) they don't think Ballard will ever fully bounce back from this injury.

On the surface, the move seems weird to me.

You and I disagree.

If you needed the roster spot, waive Clint Sintim.

So I do think Coughlin does agree with us. But what can you do? Move forward, which is what they always do.

My point is this sucks. I don't agree with those who say "it's no big deal." Do I think it's a major blow? No. But it hurts.

And the Giants obviously gambled and lost on this one. Coughlin isn't happy.

about this is Ballard.

I'm not happy to see Ballard go either, but 2013 may as well be ten years from now with all that could happen between now and then.

Ballard was a serviceable TE but nothing special. I don't think we are going to have major problems replacing his 38 receptions and average blocking. That's not to say I didn't like him as a player. He made some big plays and seemed to be a great teammate. But it's a little ridiculous to say we're going to have any type of major issue replacing his production, imo.

Do teams have a "gentlemen's agreement" not to claim them?

a scrub like Sintim. Can't wait until he is no longer on this team.

Yeah, it sucks. See, we do agree.

But it's not the end of the world and we will move on, like they always do.

there is no guarantee he would even be that same player once he did return from that major knee injury. This was a calculated risk by the Giants and I don't fault Reese one bit.

.

The Giants got caught trying to save a roster spot and they lost a player I liked last year. Yeah, he would not have played last year, but he could have been but on PUP at some point.

You don't really see it. I was thinking the same thing.

looking at the players' salary page. Thank God.

that's why it's clear that this was a infantile move by Bill Belichick to stick it to the Giants.

Nothing more, IMO.

practice squad as revenge for Ballard.

.

made one play since he was drafted? He had a sack when he was left unblocked, but I can't remember anything else.

Now he has two ACLs in back-to-back years.

Before he got hurt last year, I thought he was going to get waived.

that is exactly what I thought. This is something the Eagles would do. Maybe Banner leaving would change that, but I doubt it. Reid seems like he likes to be an ass when it comes to the Giants too.

He started Training Camp as a starter last year.

.

.

see this happen due to an unwritten rule that you don't do it, or is it because most of the players that are injured-waived are marginal players that don't generate interest from other teams?

that can be revisited.

That's why I try to avoid doing it.

That's fine ,you have your opinion, and we have ours. When he does something notable for once, maybe we can revisit it.

Great attitude, big heart, simply the type of player that you like to have in the club house and he will be missed. Having said that, the team was going try to upgrade the position anyways and he probably wouldn’t have been the 2012 starter given the physical talent the Giants picked up in the offseason. IMHO, Ballard won the job for being the best of a poor group of TEs the team had when they broke camp in 2011, and fortunately he made the most of it. But, he doesn't have a large upside (IMO), the Giants now have more options at TE with guys that are physically more gifted (I think Shawn Rogers would beat him in a foot race), he is recovering from serious injuries and may not see the field at all during 2012. Waiving him was a gamble the team could aford to lose on, and it was the right buisness decision.

But if it's a requisite of talent, then Bennett, Robinson, Hopkins all have talent. I have complete faith that Pope will "coach them up".

I also don't see how Ballard is such a devastating loss, especially since he will be completely out of commission of the whole year.

We have a full year to replace Ballard. I fully expect either Pope to develop/coach up somebody in that time or for Reese to go out and get somebody else.

because I haven't seen him get much of an opportunity. Which is why I find it funny that so many people have the opinion that he's absolutely terrible.

However, using logic, I see a player that was talented enough to get first and second round mention pre draft, drafted by Reese in the second round, and one of the guys Reese singled out by name as somebody who needed to "grow up". Add in the fact that he's been kept through 2 ACL tears and logic tells you that our coaches and talent evaluators see something talented in the guy, so I will defer to them.

but everyone makes mistakes every now and then. Happens to the best of us. The guy has been on team for a few years now, and hasn't produced a thing, even when healthy. This is the last year of his contract, so we will find out sooner rather than later if the Giants even attempt to re-sign him. I'll to the past 3 years.

.

I guess we'll see.

In the meantime, though, I'm not going to pretend I have a handle on what type of player he is when I don't have the neccessary talent evaluation skills (even from a novice standpoint) to back that up, nor am I seeing him day in, day out like the coaches are.

How many people here wanted Cruz dumped in similar fashion last year or the year prior as taking up a roster spot.

Always better to let things play out than look like a fool later, IMO.

than just a serviceable TE last year. He was tough, big, strong target who made plays and several big ones at that. Having said that, I would be more upset with this if we lost him as a UFA like Boss last year. But he was/is going to be on IR this season and needed to be replaced anyway.

But lets not down play what he contributed last year just to feel better about losing him.

according to you, not firing Coughlin was settling for mediocrity. Good call.

You were right on the fire Reese Bandwagon last summer for the Boss and Smith "debacle" as well.

Also, wasn't it you who told me last summer to just "face it, the Eagles are going to be very good" when I was starting threads pointing out their flaws and weaknesses as I saw them?

Batting .1000 in absolutes, you are.

I'll defer to those.

thought the Eagles would at least be pretty good last year. Last time I checked, they still have this year to prove themselves. I'm thankful they weren't as good as advertised, but lets see how they do if they stay healthy. That is a mantra we hear here quite a bit, you know.

And there were quite a bit of people who felt the same exact way I felt. I have *zero* problem admitting when I am wrong. No problem with that here. I feel 3 out of 4 years is a pretty darn good sample size on a player. Silly me. If Sintim goes out this year and impresses, I'll be the first to say I was shocked. But the odds of that happening? Not very good.

In my opinion Ballard was better than Boss.

And to say Ballard didn't have much upside, well he didn't need much upside, he was already playing at the level of a quality starting TE.

Anyone who wants to dismiss the loss of Ballard as meaningless, should talk to Belichick and Coughlin. Unless of course you're convinced you know better than Belichick and Coughlin.

Nobody is claiming it's the end of the world, we're just saying it was a mistake. And an unnecessary one.

who figured we'd be fine and didn't buy into the eagles hype.

And we were ridiculed left and right.

Like the year before when the same small group knew Eli would be fine and he was.

And the year before when we were fucked at the WR position then smith went out and set a franchise record for catches.


I expect people to learn at some point that this regime knows exactly what they're doing rather than look like jackasses time and time again. Save for the safeties fiasco in '09 and the dodge blunder in '10, why exactly do people still think they know better than the pros?


And before anyone says it, I'm not saying don't discuss these things on a football message board. I'm saying try a little harder to learn how this regime does things and trust that.

good lord

very low standards of what to expect out of tight ends. Other than maybe 2 solid seasons of Jeremy Shockey the Giants haven't had a truly talented tight end in recent memory. Boss and Ballard were not nearly as good as most of us think they were (and in hindsight, perhaps Shockey wasn't either).

I think the Giants are overdue to actually go out on the limb and try to acquire a legitimate TE who can be a consistent difference maker on offense. I think they attempted to do that a couple seasons back with trying to bring in Tony Gonzalez and I think that's what they're attempting to do now with Bennett, who seems to have a lot of potential.

Maybe Tom Coughlin isn't ready to move on from Jake Ballard, but Jerry Reese is (or at least he was willing to risk losing him), and I'll primarily trust Reese over Coughlin when it comes to these kind of personnel decisions. I agree on principal that we have to move forward - I'm exhausted with this team settling for "serviceable" players at the TE position. Let's roll the dice and try to get a real playmaker in here.

being manned by Pascoe and Ballard..

I think the "waived injured" gentleman's agreement was "violated" and really pissed off Reese and TC.

That said, we have(at this point) Bennett, Pascoe and Hopkins. Is ANYONE really worried about the TE position, esp. with Pope?

Lets's see who he has coached up: Stephen Alexander, Ben Coates, Shiancoe, Shockey(blocking), Boss, Ballard, etc...Not worried in the least and I'm rather certain neither is Eli

"mistake" may be too strong of a word, it was a "calculated risk" as TC said. I take that to mean, it was worth the risk and potential loss of player to do it rather than eliminate somebody else from the roster.

Now you could argue it may have been a mistake if there were more "worthy" cuts than Ballard, IMO, but perhaps the Giants/Reese/Coughlin did not feel it was worth risking a HEALTHY player that can provide for the team THIS YEAR for a player that there are a lot of what if's around, but knew that he definately would not play this year.

That being said, I feel like we have this discussion about something similar every year, and the same people speak in absolutes every year as if they know exactly what the future holds. And every year, those same people tend to look kind of foolish for doing so. And then they do it again the next time.

look on the Mini-camp updates thread it seems that Coughlin may not have been happy or completely on-board with the risk and is certainly upset at the outcome.

same 'ol song and dance

Mistake is way too strong given that we're discussing a guy who can't even play until NEXT season and we haven't even started the 2012 season yet.

Like, really? Serious?

good as he is, isn't magic.

It's absolutely not some lock he can get Bennett straight and there's not much reason to think he's going to make Pascoe and Beckum any better than what they've shown themselves to be (not very good to tolerable quality).

For all we know, Hopkins isn't anything but another Darcy Johnson.

has another guy he can coach up in Adrien Robinson.

Might not translate into much this coming year, but beyond who knows.

than they are at each other.

TC and Reese, by all indications, make all these decisions together.

actually, if you look at my posts earlier on this thread, I have no problem with losing Ballard. I appreciate what he did here last season, but it's not like we're losing an All Pro. Our only disagreement is over Sintim. We'll see what does this year, but I'm not very confident in regards to him.

There is solid evidence year in, year out that the system in working.

Shockey goes down, Boss steps in.

Boss leaves, Ballard steps in.

Plaxico gone, Smith breaks Giants records.

Smith hurts himself, Cruz tops Smith.

It happens every year. Now I'm not saying I'm counting on an unknown to come in and do it again, but I trust that the front office does have what they feel to be a solid contingency plan. That's why we're always drafting talent. Additionally, that's why we brought in Bennett, which makes the handwringing a little more perplexing.

But damn, people, we've won two Superbowls while making all of these "mistakes".

Something is working.

that Ballard would have actually cleared waivers if he got pass the Pats (if I understand correctly). The plan almost worked. Even if he was healthy the Patriots would have absolutely no place for Ballard on their roster - they picked him up just because they could. It was definitely a dick move by the Pats imo . . . they gain nothing from this.

He may get cut during training camp, I don't know.

But I don't feel like I've personally seen enough of him (partly because he's been injured for two years) to make a decision on him for myself as a fan.

I do know that Reese said he brought him in specifically to be in 3rd down pass rushing situations, and I do remember seeing him come in on 3rd down against Dallas his rookie year in '09 and make a huge sack on Tony Romo. Eric discounted that as an "unblocked" sack, but that lessens the fact that perhaps they had so many passrushers in there that it created a mismatch that Sintim was able to use his speed to get to Romo before he knew what hit him. I saw that play in person, as I was sitting in the endzone that it happened in. Perhaps they like him as a mismatch in those situations.

That's really the only play that stands out in memory of Sintim, to me. It was a pretty good one to have. Perhaps they want him back to create more speed mismatches like that. I guess Eric doesn't like "unblocked sacks" or devalues them for some reason.

You can't admit that Reese could make a mistake? Just because the Giants have won two Super Bowls in the last five years means management never makes mistakes? I suppose the three season in between in which the Giants only made the playoffs once and lost was all part of the plan to win a Super Bowl in 2011, so no mistakes were made then either.

Reese is not infallible. He makes mistakes. Every GM does. You don't judge them on their mistakes, you judge them on their successes, but that doesn't mean they are above criticism for their mistakes.

And, of course, the Giants will replace him. Everyone gets replaced. It doesn't mean they are replaced with someone better.

That is the only play Sintim has made that I have any memory of. I hope he does get better, but I just can't say I see that happening as of right now. This is the last year of his contract, though. So, this is the last chance he has to do i here.

.

Don't think this was a catastrophic loss.

when they have Gronk and Hernandez.

and not speak in absolute fact that I know it was a mistake.

What if Ballard never suits up again, then what?

Was letting Steve Smith and Kevin Boss go a mistake last year? I'm sure you were calling it one. How's that working out, now?

it's an open question whether that mistake will cost them.

I'm sure many would have been fine with that last summer. I probably would have been one of them.

I suspect we miscalculated the probability of Ballard getting picked up.

That sucks - more for emotional reasons than football ones. We were already without him this year, and his knee was severely messed up. There's no guarantee he'll be the Ballard we had earlier in the year. Ballard's attempts to run on the sideline in the Super Bowl will always be remembered, but he's replaceable on the field.

When I was bummed about Smith, just like this year that I'm bummed about Ballard, I'm going to let it play out and trust that this organization is going to be able to adjust and move on.

to underestimate how much of a prick Belichick and the Patriots are.

Quote:

Even if he was healthy the Patriots would have absolutely no place for Ballard on their roster - they picked him up just because they could. It was definitely a dick move by the Pats imo . . . they gain nothing from this.

You make no sense. None of what you said is true. How is it a dick move according to your logic if they gain nothing from it?

Think! According to you, the Patriots gain nothing, and yet they are willing to pay a guy $540K to sit in a hot tub all year and count against their salary cap. Why? So that in 2013 he can be a free agent and then return to the Giants? How is that dicking the Giants? You just saved them $540K in cap room and they still get the player back they want in 2013.

is not making sure a guy who can't play this year is locked into a spot on the team, I think we'll be alright.

How is that a mistake by any stretch of the imagination? If anything, we didn't remain loyal to a guy who gave his all to perform in the SB, but from a roster makeup standpoint, it is the right thing to do.

The Giants wanted to keep Ballard.
They knew he couldn't play in 2012 and so did every other team so they figured that nobody would have the foresight to claim a guy destined for IR and pay him $540K just so that they would own his rights for 2013.
But Belichick had that kind of foresight. Props to him.

but overall - while Ballard was a nice surprise - i mean who would've thought - I do think Pope can coach up a replacement

every story about this the Patriots did the exact same thing to Denver in 2010 when Denver waived/injured safety Josh Barrett.

There was no ax to grind really with Denver - even though they had not the greatest history there.

The Pats just thought it was a good move and they did it. The Giants took a risk and lost and when you take a risk and lose then yes it's a mistake.

If Reese had this to do over again, maybe he cuts selvish capers - he's used to it, or one of the other players in the 75 - 90 spots on the roster who don't have NFL game experience and probably never will get it. But that's just my speculation. I'd love to hear Reese's comments on this in a transparent moment

?

It's like people pissing and moaning about draft picks that we've made, without accurately giving them enough time to determine if they will pan out.

Are the Giants bummed? Yes. I have a feeling Ballard was in there long-term plans.

Is this a mistake? Who the hell knows. Saying one way or the other is simply wrong.

The Giants adjusted and moved on. They even won a Super Bowl. It doesn't mean it didn't hurt the team to lose him.

wanted to keep Boss, but not at such a high salary. The same with Smith.

Reese has defined his career here by making many decisions not based on loyalty to past accomplishments, but to the current economic situation and roster makeup.

The results have shown him to be correct most of the time.

Those calling this a mistake are probably the same ones who screamed about losing Smith and Boss. We couldn't possibly win without those two key components, right?

was awful and then got hurt, but it's kind of irrelevant to my point.

Like Eric says, if we're to assume, and it is an assumption, the Giants wanted Ballard back in 2013 then this was a mistake. There is no debate really. The Giants cannot get Ballard back in 2013 unless the Pats cut him, which is possible, but probably not likely.

and I realize I'm wasting mine as well.

Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

If you hit on 17 when the dealer has a 6 showing, it's a mistake. Just because you draw a 4 and win the hand, doesn't mean it wasn't the wrong play at the time, it just means you got lucky.

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than smart, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to be smart. You can't count on luck.

Quote:

Like Eric says, if we're to assume, and it is an assumption, the Giants wanted Ballard back in 2013 then this was a mistake. There is no debate really

If the Giants wanted Ballard back and he isn't available, it is a calculated risk, otherwise they wouldn't have made him available to begin with. They would have Cruz'ed him for this year.

Calling it a mistake or calling it a prudent move not knowing what future impact Ballard will have either here or elsewhere is not just a blind guess, it is laughable.

It was a similar situation. Belichick thought he'd show off his remarkable "foresight" (according to Milton) by snatching Barrett from the Broncos, letting him sit on IR for a year, and then having him when he was back and "healthy" the next year.

I'm sure the Bronco's fans were pissed that they took the risk, but now, two years removed, I'm not so sure they are too worried about it, know what I mean?

And that's why I'm saying we have to let all of this play out and we won't know if it was a "mistake" or not until at the very least, 2013.

Jake Ballard prognosis even if everything goes well for him

2012 Injured cannot play
2013 will play at a reduced physical capacity
2014 back to 100 % ( again this is if he heals well)

Like any move, it's a calculation based upon the likelihood of things transpiring.

That's not a mistake. That's randomness.

Mistake calls into question knowing the end result. If Ballard never plays again, it's not a mistake. If Ballard would have been beaten out by Bennet and Robinson, then it's not a mistake.

Mistakes require ex post knowledge.

Just because people wish it didn't happen does not mean it's a mistake.

are different. Reese fully expected other teams to make them offers, he set a value, and wasn't going off that number (and in Smith's case apparently didn't get a chance to).

But in the case of Ballard - and to be clear I was one saying it isn't a huge loss - I believe Reese fully expected he wouldn't get claimed and would be on IR.

It is my opinion Reese was wrong. I was not critical of the Smith or Boss decisions at the time. Those were business decisions.

I don't see why that's a big deal to say someone was wrong or made a mistake - it has nothing to do with forests or trees.

By some of your logic then 2nd round pick Clint Sintim wasn't a mistake - people critical of it just can't see the forest through the trees and don't understand the big picture. Reese is right more than wrong and that contributes to the Giants status, but to not criticize him when he's wrong is too far extreme the other way.

The Giants overcame that mistake and won a Super Bowl, but it was still probably a mistake.

but I disagree. Did Diehl know what was going to happen after drinking and driving? No, but I bet he calls it a mistake and wishes he didn't do it.

And you know what, it was a mistake.

they played the percentages - they had to expose him to do what they wanted - 9 times out of 10 it probably works - Little Bill was watching and waiting though - and he grabbed

Not sure what he grabbed - but his percentages told him to take the risk he took

We have much more information on Sintim to evaluate on whether or not his pick was a "mistake".

We have no idea what's going to happen with Ballard.

His knee was shredded.

Given further information, you can start to claim it was a mistake. At this point, you're claiming it's a mistake based upon one possibility (of many) occurring.

Again, Diehl knows it's a mistake because he sees the end result.

If Ballard never plays again, was it a mistake?

Again, the mistake could happen. It's far too early to determine if it is one. It could end up helping the Giants, allowing them to keep one more player, and not paying his salary.

It may not be, but it's based on info. that we don't have at the moment (i.e., his medical reports).

and Kicker:
Hypothetical none of us know the answer to, but:

If Reese knew the Pats were going to claim Ballard would he still waive him? If the answer is no, then waiving him was a mistake.

it wasn't a mistake.

If he is claimed, but can never play again, is that a mistake?

Again, it may be a mistake. Far too early to tell.

thing people are ignoring here is that there is no hindsight until Ballard is able to make a meaningful contribution.

It isn't hindsight that he was claimed, it was a calculated risk, both on the part of the Giants for leaving him exposed and by the Pats for claiming him.

The hindsight part won't come into play for at least a year.

player like this. It didn't work out, but to me a calculated risk, based on huge sample sizes, well worth taking. I don't call that a mistake when your experience says the odds of losing are overwhelmingly in your favor, imo

A mistake today can be less of one in the future. I agree with you there.

Let's revisit this either later this season or 2013.

right now, based only on the facts of today it was a mistake IMO.

Not a huge one and absolutely the Giants can win the SB this year or next year or the following year - despite this mistake.

who aren't and haven't been particularly enamored with Reese, to draw from.

"Reese great? You mean like in losing Ballard?" Book it

mistake over and over again does not make it true.

Again, it is too early to call it a mistake or a good move. It doesn't become less of a mistake if it can't be categorized as one today.

I think it is a bit premature and misguided to call this a mistake. I think it was a calculated risk on their part. Did it work out? No. But, who's to say it is a mistake?

While I really loved what he did last, year I think we witnessed the ceiling of his game. Bennett, if he plays to his talent and potential should be the starting TE anyway.

.

again doesn't make it not one.

the debate has been caught up in wording whether this was a mistake or not. I don't know. I do know, it was not the ideal situation but that it happened and the team has to move on and implement their plan B which they surely had prior to putting him on waivers. I have complete faith in this front office, but I did really enjoy rooting for jake.

Since Coughlin and Reese sound pissed, I think it's safe to say they aren't happy about this?

either.

Of course they shouldn't be happy. A very good player who seemed to be a good locker room presence, who could provide future consistency at an important position to help Eli continue to grow in his prime.

If something rare happens, very rarely will anyone be happy.

The Giants have a damned good history of personnel decision and I find it hilarious that some are certain that THEY know better when the Giants have all available information and we have a fraction of it.

LOLOlrolro

of addition by subtraction.

It was a calculated risk that they were willing to take, and it didn't work out.

It sucks that he's gone, but life, and the Giants, go on.

probably as nearly infinitesmal in terms of losing him. Obviously they knew it was possible and went ahead with it knowing the odds were vastly in their favor. Undoubtedly they are bummed, but I doubt they are second-guessing themselves. I also doubt they will ever view it as a mistake.

reactions...
NY Post - ( New Window )

I know Ballard is hurt but he's not the most fleet of foot.As long he can still run after this you know he's a solid player.What's left...Bennett,Pascoe,Beckum,and the JPP of TE's.If you want to throw in a few names like Hopkins than that's fine.We'll see if someone steps up,until than,I'll view it as a miscalculation.

And saying it is one doesn't make it so. I certainly agree they expected him to have been left unclaimed. I think they were counting on it. But, they knew this was at least a possibility and risked it.

No matter what, he wasn't playing this year. Whether or not it's a mistake really depends on two things. One, how does Bennett play. Two, where his knee is at next year. And maybe three is how Beckum's knee is doing.

team wanted to keep him. That didn't happen. they are not happy, but all is not lost. Whether it's considered a mistake or not seems to have become the focus of this thread, but it's pretty irrelevant to the situation at hand or the situation moving forward.

there is no relevance right now. Nothing today is different fom that of yesterday as it pertains to 2013.

That is why it is laughable to judge what has happened right now.

People want immediacy to everything that takes place when the reality of most situations is that they cannot be judged immediately. Well not at least if people don't want to come off sounding like morons.

Overall, I agree with you. but, I don't think it's completely accurate to say nothing has changed for 2013. All indications are that the Giants intended to have Ballard in their plans for 2013. Of course, that is all dependent on a great unknown...how he heals.

But, they did go out and get Bennett for just this reason. No matter what, they think they are covered for the future. If he plays up to his abilities, nobody will remember this move a year from now. If he doesn't it still might be a moot point. We'll see.

sorry - I meant 2012.

but there was never a guarantee, hence, nothing has changed.

The 2013 offseason story has yet to be written.

.

The chances that anyone claims a waived/injured player are beyond miniscule. It was a risk, as all moves are, but it was as safe and as calculated as it could be. Look at Ballard's quotes. Look at TC's quotes. They're floored that this happened.

It was a procedural move. An accounting tactic. Belichick disrupted it. It's extremely rare that someone does that.

So no, I'm not calling it a "mistake", even with the benefit of hindsight. Shit happens.

In that case, I agree.

about what Ballard will do in the future. None of us know. And frankly the magnitude is only being enhanced by some, not overstated by me. I have said before I believe the Giants will move on, in 2012 because they had to anyway with Ballard headed to IR and in 2013 now because they likely have to. It's not a huge deal IMO.

But simply asking yourself if Reese had the knowledge yesterday he has today would he do the same thing. I don't believe he would. if you don't think that's a mistake then fine.

Webster defines mistake as

Quote:

1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness

Yes, I believe Reese made an assumption, call it a calculated risk if you want, based on deficient knowledge, he assumed no one would claim Ballard.

So if you want to call it a calculated risk have at it, I call it a mistake.

Call me a moron if you want, but at least I understand the English language.

Certainly, the Giants would have liked the opportunity to find out, but consider this: Ballard is a large, slow TE with good hands. He barely had enough speed to make any impact.


In the SB, he tore cartilage as well as the ACL, and had microfracture surgery as well as the ligament rebuilding. We have already seen many disappointing results of microfracture surgery. We have seen many players whose top speed never came all the way back after ACL repair, and many bigger players (especially)) who took two years to get back to pre-surgery speed and quickness.

So, the question isn't about the 2012 season, or even 2013. It's about whether his time in the 40 after rehab goes from slow to glacial, thereby making him simply too slow to be an effective TE for the next two years, or possibly ever.

It was a good one from the perspective of overwhelming sample sizes of the unclaimed injured. There are innumerable transactions in the NFL that are far more risky than this was.

As with losing a 31-10 lead to Philly with just over 7 minutes remaining, this is virtually a once or twice in a lifetime occurence..

defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness

did Reese display that would lead you to believe it was a mistake over a calculated risk?

Those three things would seem to indicate that he lacked the knowledge or forsight to know it was possible that another team could take him. Are you saying that Reese was unaware of that possibility? If you believe that, then yes, it was a mistake because he made a judgement without having all of the information.

Or, did he place a player on Waivers knowing that it was a possibility that there was a chance (albeit slight) that somebody would take him? If you believe this, then it was a calculated risk, because he knew there was a chance of losing him.

I'm not trying to get into an argument over semantics, but it seems that the definition cements that was Reese did was not, in fact, a mistake by definition.

If the Giants had to do it all over again, they wouldn't. What the fuck does that tell you? You want to call it a rose, call it a rose, but by any other name it didn't turn out as they expected or desired and they wish they could go back in time and make a different decision.

As I said on the other thread, the silver lining is the $540K in 2012 salary cap room that was saved.

Reese didn't use deficient knowledge. Is he guessing? Yes, but almost every decision in sports is still just a guess from the draft to FA to play calling and on. But, to suggest it was faulty or deficient knowledge is just wrong. What the Patriots did almost NEVER happens. There was no logical reason to believe it would happen here with a guy that very well may not ever play again.

If he knew then what he knew now would he make the same decision? You can apply that to any decision ever made. As the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

of the English language would allow one to realize that defective, deficient or careless cannot be ascertained at this time.

THAT is the real point trying to be driven home.

Nobody, including you, me or Reese knows what will happen, so to categorize as either positive or negative is frankly, a moronic thing to do.

Defective judgment.

How do you know the Giants wouldn't do it again?

That's simply not true and, yet again, the logic isn't correct.

They only wish that they could do it again based upon the supposition that Ballard returns to his pre-injury form, or something similar to that.

Of course, at this moment, they wish that things had not transpired.

But again, you're looking into the future to make a generalization about what will happen.

They wished that Smith hadn't left. Is that still a mistake?

No.

less than 2 years ago. saying it rarely happens sounds like something to latch onto, and I honestly don't know the answer to this, but how often do starters get waived over other guys on the 90 man roster (or formerly even the 80 man roster). Maybe what never happens is teams rarely expose players they are counting on to contribute in the future.

Do you believe if Reese knew yesterday what he knows today he would do the same thing?

thanks to boylhardt

Ballard isn't going to play for a year or two (if ever), so why keep him around. He was an average TE when healthy, and hopefully Bennet will be much better. I like Ballard as much as the next guy, but to call this a mistake is ridiculous. However I do think it is a dumb move by the Pats. They have two top-notch TE's already, and they pick up a guy who when healthy would be their 3rd TE (assuming he does come back at all).

What a waste.

He's gone. It's over.

F-cking deal with it, damn.

over again:

1. Robinson/Beckum/Bennett/Hopkins/some other player make lasting contributions that make waiting on Ballard void.

2. Ballard never recovers (yes, possible).

3. Ballard recovers, but is no longer the player he once was.

Simply because the actions you would take in 2012 MAY correspond to outcomes in 2013 does not mean that, in 2013, the outcome is a mistake.

I think you can count the number of times it's happened in the past five years on one hand. Think of how many players have been waived/injured during that time.

the past two years, only 2 have been claimed another team, same team no less, and this is not rare?

That question is irrelevant, PJ, Reese doesn't operate with a crystal ball.


this discussion is mystifying

that the player will contribute in the future.

Not guaranteed. Especially with the injury.

It's only a mistake if he would not do it again, and Ballard contributes.

If he would not do it again, and Ballard never recovers, I can't for the life of me see how that is a mistake.

Because each outcome is possible, saying it is a mistake is forecasting which will occur. Which, of course, is unknowable.

I'm saying if they had to do it all over again right now, not next year, they would not have waived him.

LTS-- I don't need a direct line to Reese, I just have to read the reaction from Coughlin. Do you think he would be as upset right now if Reese had released Selvish Capers in order to hold on to Ballard?

Ballard never recovers. Which is a possibility.

So. Your logic is based on only one outcome, not the myriad of outcomes that could occur.

Could he just have IRed him and freed up the roster space?

I'm with you and almost wrote the same thing. Who's to say they wouldn't do it all over again? Maybe they were doing this simply as a courtesy to Ballard thinking nobody would pick him up and they would bring him back, like they have done in the past. Maybe their doctors think his knee is actually shot but they were making this move solely as a shot in the dark. Maybe they aren't even as terribly broken up about this as we think.

Now, I happen to think they wish this hadn't happened. But, I also think they are terribly concerned about the future impact of this move.

if they had cut Cruz and opened up a roster spot and some money to re-sign Smith?

But, of course, your only stuck on the option that it has to be a mistake.

Which implies that you KNOW that he will contribute in 2013.

What's next weeks lotto numbers?

as was reese.

I'm really only left with one thing to contribute..

I'm not saying this means no Super Bowls in the foreseeable future. I'm not saying the Giants will now have to play with ten men on offense in 2013 because they will have no one to play TE.

I'm just saying don't pretend the Giants didn't blow it, make a mistake, miscalculate, do a bad thing, have an owey--or whatever the fuck you want to call it when you do something that two days later you wish you hadn't.

is right.

I meant to link an image in my last reply to make it seem better.

That I admit I don't really know the answers to is what all the potential impacts are against the cap, roster space, etc. from making this move or not.

"Webster defines mistake as Quote:
1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness "

Apparently, claiming an injured/waived player is quite rare so this wasn't a mistaken move as much as it was a dick/almost unprecedented move by BB.

Having said that, Ballard wasn't going to play in 2012 and he is an unknown commodity at this point because we just don't know how well this huge TE will recover from a rough injury.

And we have the additions of Bennett, Robinson and then Beckum coming back from an injury (which happened just as he was starting to contribute), and several other TEs as well...I am just not panicky over this at all, but maybe it is just me?

and on top of that I feel Ballard is replaceable.

And it is known had Ballard made it to IR - he COULD NOT, no matter what played in 2012 and with microfracture surgery it wasn't a given he'd ever play again.

But....the fact the Giants still wanted to pay him a salary and keep him on IR meant they still wanted him on the team.

He's not on the team anymore. They would have liked it if he was.

If people are hung up on the word mistake, because Reese can make no mistakes because the ends justify the means then fine with me. I feel it was a mistake. Is it one that will hurt the team, probably not, but whatever the word has caused uproar so I don't need to use it so I don't offend anyone.

as much as I love Coughlin the coach -

when he was a GM he was not as cold blooded and calculating as Reese can be - sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Ballard would have been a gamble either way - and at a cost - Reese rolled the dice and wanted to keep the maximum healthy player opportunities around - I'm not going to try to second guess it

DId I like Ballard? - sure I did - but I liked Smith - and Coffield too - and I supported the FO's calculation there - as I did with Brandon - who I also liked - but it isn't like you can complain about the FO's efforts to bring in TE talent - there is nothing that was going to be done about having Ballard on the team this year - and one does't know what snippy Bill will do after Ballard is on IR for a year -

but overall this is not a major deal - Ballard was expendable and it was a risk the FO was willing to take

that causes a problem.

It is the assumption that people can adequately assess the situation today and act confidently as if they know the mindset of what Reese and Company are thinking.

There is no way to assess what has happened today, tomorrow, or at anytime throughout the 2012 season, but that hasn't stopped people from labeling it as an error.

with distinguishing between "making a mistake" and "taking a risk". It's a risk when you take action while being aware of a potential negative outcome. It's a mistake when the negative outcome is something you didn't account for. The two things can be mutually exclusive and cause angst just the same.

To suggest that Reese made a "mistake" is to suggest that he didn't account for the potential of Ballard being picked up off waivers - which is absolutely ridiculous.

can be a mistake. If (and only if) Reese had concluded that the circumstances with the injury were such that the odds of Ballard being claimed were practically zero, and it turns out that they weren't practically zero, that can be deemed a mistake (as well as a risk).

The argument isn't about whether or not Ballard will go on to great things or whether he will never play another down of football. Nobody can predict the future, all you can do is determine risk versus reward and then play the percentages.

We all know what the risk was--losing the rights to Ballard in 2013--a player the Giants value and believe in. But what was the reward? Sneaking a 91st man on a 90 man roster (in the first year of 90 man rosters, which were previously 80 man rosters).

In my opinion, no matter how small was the percentage chance of Ballard being claimed, just the fact that there was any chance at all leads me to say that the reward was not worth the risk. There had to be at least one of the 90 that had no chance of making the team and the coaches knew it. And I think, based on the reactions, the Giants now feel the same way, but it's too late to do anything about it.

Live and learn.

The fact that it happened doesn't mean the odds still weren't practically zero. The unlikliest of outcomes just happened to take place. In the past, moves like this where the player was re-claimed were deemed prudent and shrewd. The same risk existed and the same unlikely outcome existed. This time, it just happened to come true.

The issue there was that Smith didn't give the Giants a chance to match the Eagles offer. That is what upset Coughlin and others.

With Boss it was a case of the Raiders offering Boss more money than the Giants were willing to match. That's life. It begged the question, what now at TE?, but I wouldn't view that as a mistake (or whatever word you want to use to avoid getting bogged down in semantics) because if the Giants had it all to do over again two days later they still wouldn't've have matched the offer.

is an analogy that will answer the argument that nothing will be decided until after the 2012 seson, at least, then I fail to see how any of them apply.

You buy a stock. There are a finite number of them, and there is no one else willing to sell. So you can only buy 1 share.

You plan to redeem it in 3 years for your child's education expense.

6 months after purchase, it's value is $15. You need some immediate money, and sell it. In the next year, it climbs in value to $20.

All of you are claiming this is a mistake. In hindsight, you would love to have the stock back.

But, there are 2 regions of outcomes:

1. The final price of the stock is less than what you redeemed it for (say, $12). So, you actually benefited from your "mistake". However, it's no mistake now. But, based upon what people are saying, this is simply "luck".

2. What people are calling a mistake. The value of the stock, after 3 years, is higher than $15.

I don't know which will occur. Nor does any of us.

The 1st range of values is if Ballard does not come back. That's not a mistake.

on the losing end of what typically is a winning hand, that is not a mistake.

I know what you're saying, but the ends do not define a mistake. There are mistakes you can make that don't come back to hurt you (or wind up negatively impacting anything).

Have you ever heard the phrase (it's used a lot in sports) for example "Eli got away with a mistake there".

the Diehl analogy is better. Diehl drank and drove. There was a strong likelihood based on number of drunk drivers who don't get caught that he would have made it home fine. He didn't, but it was a mistake if he made it home fine and it was a mistake if he got busted.

In this case, people blow up because the consequences of this mistake (or calculated risk) even if it doesn't work out are minor and may never be realized, but that IMO doesn't change the fact.

I don't need to argue this any further, I'm comfortable with what anyone wants to call it.

Bingo! Even if Ballard returns and is better than he ever played this can't be deemed a mistake. First, the liklihood of another team claiming him was slimmer than slim. It happened, but that doesn't mean it should have been anticipated. Surely the Giants weighed the possibility; it just wasn't a great possibility. Second, the liklihood of him returning at the same level, at his size especially, in 2013 is also slim.

The Giants made a calculated decision. It backfired. That doesn't make it a mistake. It is simply a move that didn't work out.

I liken that to some "can't miss" FA signings or draft picks that never panned out. The player may be a bust, but that doesn't mean signing/drafting him is a mistake.

Some bad decisions work out and some good decisions don't. This is an example of the latter.

I don't even think I would deem it a mistake in the future if Ballard plays well. That would indicate they used unsound judgement, which I just don't believe.

Here's the distinction. In your example, you have have new information on how the stock performs. With Ballard, the question isn't whether or not this will be viewed as a mistake once we get more information on Ballard's health and ability, but is it viewed as a mistake today when we have no new information on Ballard.

When you view the risk as great and the reward as minimal, how small should the percentage be in order for you to make a play? In the case of the risk-reward with Ballard, I think the percentage needs to be zero. And clearly it wasn't.

If you're hungry, would you eat a delicious looking ice cream sundae if someone told you there was a 1% chance that it contains a deadly poison. One percent chance seems like nothing, but it's still not worth risking your life over it for an Ice Cream sundae.

A calculated risk and a mistake can't be the same thing - it's either one or the other. The Diehl analogy was a really bad example. When celebrities and professional athletes get caught in public doing something stupid, their instinct is to call it a "mistake" to evoke the innocence of not knowing what consequences of their actions would be. But clearly Diehl , and most other people, knew that getting behind the wheel after drinking could potentially result in something bad happening. It wasn't a mistake, it was him taking a calculated risk.

Reese took a calculated risk. The benefit of not having to waste a roster spot on a player who would not be playing this year outweighed the potential and subsequent odds of losing that player for the future. Simple as that.

is wrong, because we don't have the final information that allows us to make an informed decision.

Now, people can make one. But it's purely a rush to judgment, and could simply be wrong.

And it's why the "short-term" outlooks used by humans actually leads to wrong decisions being made more often than not.

complete information.

I think Reese quite comfortably has in mind better "risk-reward" percentages than any of us. Which is why he made this move.

And the ice cream analogy is faulty. There you have a definitive % on how often the ice cream will have poison. In Ballard's case, you don't.

I have to disagree. There are almost no decisions where the risk factor is 0%. otherwise, there is no decision to be made. The percentage here was low enough for the giants to make the move. They've done the same thing in the past and it worked out just fine. The only way something like this could be deemed a mistake is if they did it with a guy who factored in favorably to the 2012 plans. That isn't the case here and even 2013 is a big enough question mark for Ballard that him being claimed still might not be a big deal.

A ten page thread for a player who is the definition of a replaceable part, and who probably won't even play 6 games this season, if any.

You can play a hand perfectly and still lose and you can play a hand poorly and still win. You don't beat yourself up for either of those two.

What you beat yourself up over is when you play the hand poorly and that's why you lose. And it happens. Good poker players are capable of misplaying a hand. And that's what I think happened here. The Giants misplayed their hand.

And because there are still cards to be dealt, it's too early to tell whether or not they will win the hand, but they misplayed this round.

upon future consequences which are unseen.

And because of that, I'm done slamming my dick in the doorway.

Quote:

A ten page thread for a player who is the definition of a replaceable part, and who probably won't even play 6 games this season, if any.

He won't play any games this season. And Belichick knows it. But clearly neither Belichick nor Coughlin view him as the definition of a replaceable part. You don't give up $540K in dead cap space for the definition of a replaceable part.

Milton

Are you drunk?

Using your analogy, I don't understand how you see it that way. I would think this falls under playing a good hand and losing. The odds were heavy in favor of Ballard clearing waivers.

By the logic you've displayed on this thread, you'd consider it a mistake if you were low on chips, had pocket Aces, went all in pre-flop, then lost thanks to the draw.

It was a mistake in judgement.

Again, I don't want to get bogged down with semantics. Let's just say Reese committed an owey and wishes he could go back in time to change what he did even though he knows nothing new about Ballard's health and abilities.

Quote:

Let's just say Reese committed an owey and wishes he could go back in time to change what he did even though he knows nothing new about Ballard's health and abilities.

Which means NOTHING anyone has said has gotten through to you, thus personally, I'm out

damn every time unless he thought Ballard had a chance of being back this year.

And fortunately with my opinion here, I actually DO KNOW that he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight.

and suddenly this conversation caused me to get dyslexia

Talking about mistakes,risks,stocks and bullshit.

Bottom line is certain people don't want to hear anything negative.Everything has to be nice and quiet in Giant Land,and they will twist anything around to get it.Including the word mistake.

Can we call the drafting of Sintim a mistake? or do we have to wait until he's sitting at a bar in about 30 years talking about "I was a pass rush specialist in college!!"

You play roulette.

A. You place $20 on Red. The potential reward of winning another $20 weighs just about equal to the potential penalty of the minor financial distress caused by losing that $20. This is a calculated risk.

B. You place your life savings on Red. The potential reward of doubling your life savings does NOT weigh equal to the potential penalty of losing all of your life savings. This is ALSO a calculated risk.

C. You place any $ amount on Red. You're color blind and believe that every space on the wheel is Red. You don't believe there is a way you will lose. This is a mistake.

Regardless of the outcome of the wheel spin, the difference between scenario A. and scenario B. is that a person who commits the actions described in B. is reckless if not completely ignorant, and should be nowhere near a roulette table. In scenario C. the person can't be faulted because he was unaware that another outcome was possible.

. . . Jerry Reese best respresents scenario A. in this situation.

Just the opposite. Going all-in is the proper play there. In my analogy, you should go all-in, but you don't because you don't want to scare off bettors. And so you give your opponent the chance to get lucky and he picks up a flush to beat your three aces (or some such ending).

Basically, the Giants go greedy hoping to be able to add a 91st player to the roster. In their attempt to do that, they gave Belichick a chance to make a play that they now regret. Maybe in the end, it will work out to their advantage, but right now they are licking their wounds.

Massive swing and a miss.

Probably better to sit it out...

.

enjoy your day, milton

Because.

He doesn't...

Most draft busts, for any team, I despise calling a mistake. The entire draft is a crap shoot. There are plenty of "can't misses" that did and plenty of guys who slipped, weren't drafted at all, were overlooked for off the field stuff, etc. who were huge scores and a lot more in between. The only time I really think it's a mistake is when you really gamble on a guy for now reason.

For example, Ryan Leaf was a bust. But, it is crazy to say drafting him was a mistake. As for Sintim, he may have been a reach in the 2nd, but it wasn't completely crazy to have been interested in him.

agreed.

Enjoy your day. This has dragged on way too long for any of us!

You just didn't see it because you slipped on some pine tar and got a concussion earlier.

How did I manage to miss that.

revealing his infantile, begrudging little self for no reason.

No football benefit here. Ballard is still more likely to play for the Giants in the future than the Pats.

An interesting way to look at it.

As I've stated, I think above all, it is impossible to call exposing Ballard a mistake at this juncture. At that, I think it would be unfair to deem it a mistake even if the worst scenario now takes place and he not only returns to play next year, but is really good.

Why? He is not likely to return at the same level he was playing at. Also, because of the severity of his injury and his overall ceiling, it was highly unlikely someone else would claim him and dedicate dead cap space to him.

Just because a calculated risk doesn't work out the way you hoped, doesn't mean it was a mistake. It was unfortunate. You are even entitled to not agree with it or not make the same decision if given the opportunity. But, to call it a mistake, especially at this juncture, is just not fair.

Your last comment is absolutely false. By the league rules, he is now more likely to play for the Pats than any other team in the league in 2013.

False? We will see.

There is nothing to see. My comment doesn't mean he won't play for the Giants. But, the way the league rules are set up, the most likely scenario, by far, is that he plays for the Pats.

The way it works is the Pats now have cap space dedicated to him. they either have to cut him, which makes little sense unless he can't play, or they maintain exclusive rights to him as a FA. So, the liklihood is that if plays in 2013 it's for the Pats.

any analogy that doesn't take into account the fact that no possible conclusion can be drawn until after the 2012 season is a terrible one.

Simply put, if you think you can call the move a good one, a mistake, or anything in between at this point, you are simply clueless.

How do figure that? The Giants will move on. Do you believe the Pats will wave him?

A. If you can snatch a good player from a rival, you do it. Its like a pick six on game day. +14 points.

B. His tutelage under Coach Pope is sorely needed in the Pats TE room.

C. A reminder to Gronk that the $54M comes with a price, $540K. Or, don't do the Chris Johnson (Ten) and eat the carrot.

D. All of the above.