Ballard claimed by Pats

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.