"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 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.
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
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.
Its surprising that some people are having problems
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.
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.
And, if playing the percentages is your argument, if you come out
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.
Yeah. The point is that calling it a mistake today
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.
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.
Yet again, you don't get the fact that a "mistake" hinges
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.
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.
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.
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
Personally I think Reese would have played it this way
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!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And because of that, I'm done slamming my dick in the doorway.
Are you drunk?
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.
Which means NOTHING anyone has said has gotten through to you, thus personally, I'm out
And fortunately with my opinion here, I actually DO KNOW that he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight.
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!!"
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.
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.
Probably better to sit it out...
He doesn't...
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.
No football benefit here. Ballard is still more likely to play for the Giants in the future than the Pats.
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.
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.