Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from uncommon-sense. Show uncommon-sense's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

    Constantly trading back and selecting chit, no one ever heard of, because you think you're the smartest guy in the room has nothing to do with winning.  It's a failed approach by a failed coach/GM who has been riding the coat tails of the greatest QB to ever play the game.  

    Unfortunately BB has cost us as many Super Bowls as he's won With Parcells and Carroll's guys.



    Drafted: Seymour, light, Brady, asante, Ty warren 

    Aquired: antowain smith, rodney, Dillon, Ted Washington, Colvin, vrable, phifer, pleasant, cox, izzo

    all key key contributors during the super bowl years.  

    yeah, all because of Parcells and Carrol. Most of the posters here act like they know it all. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Consistently being good or tanking and being great?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I think I understand the Belichick approach . . . and I think it's generally a good one.  I love the team and love the fact that they play high-quality, highly competitive football year in and year out. I wouldn't trade them for any other team.

    My only point is that I think the OP is right that there are alternative approaches and the alternatives aren't necessarily bad.  They may result in less consistency from year to year, but the highs may be higher just as the lows are lower. 

    At times, I wonder if Belichick should be just a bit more willing to step out and get talent.  Maybe he learned his lesson just a tad too well with Adalius Thomas who cost a ton and didn't deliver.  But maybe he's become too risk averse since then with free agent signings and is being just a bit too cautious.  It's very hard to tell, because just a few bad decisions on expensive players can lead to major consequences.  I wouldn't criticize Belichick . . . but every once in a while I wonder if we should have signed just one or two more accomplished free agents.  Heck, maybe we should have gone ahead and given Welker a three year contract before franchising him.  We paid $9.5 million for him for one year, then lost him and had to replace him with Amendola this year at $4 million or so against the cap and seem stuck with Amendola next year for about $5 million against the cap.   Would signing Welker before we franchised him for three years at $20 million been so bad?

     



    Dude, they offered Welker a 2 year extension for 2012 and 2013 at 16 million guaranteed.

    16 million GUARANTEED. Now it needed to be 20 million instead?

    Welker is clearly aging and on the back 9, too.  Get over it.  I know you hate the use of an RB in the game of football, but that is just too bad. Real football fans know it's vital to winning games.

    Welker was over-used here which led to big losses.



    It was better having Amendola this year? 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share