DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    Whether or not they beat the Pats along the way is not the issue, IMO.  I'm quite serious about the 'going for it' approach being truly tested here.  If the Broncos win it all then we have prima facie evidence that the approach works.  If they don't, what then?

    I'm reminded of the '68-'69 NBA finals wherein the aging Bill Russell and some 'second tier' stars beat the Wilt Champerlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West Lakers in 7 games.  The Lakers were supposed to be the team of the century except Russ had other ideas.  Different game, different era, you say?  Yep, but the principle's the same IMO.



    But, if it's a contrast of value vs going for it and nether gets there but going for it beat value, what does that say about the value approach? Because there will always be a team that goes for it every year.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Whether or not they beat the Pats along the way is not the issue, IMO.  I'm quite serious about the 'going for it' approach being truly tested here.  If the Broncos win it all then we have prima facie evidence that the approach works.  If they don't, what then?

    I'm reminded of the '68-'69 NBA finals wherein the aging Bill Russell and some 'second tier' stars beat the Wilt Champerlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West Lakers in 7 games.  The Lakers were supposed to be the team of the century except Russ had other ideas.  Different game, different era, you say?  Yep, but the principle's the same IMO.



    But, if it's a contrast of value vs going for it and nether gets there but going for it beat value, what does that say about the value approach? Because there will always be a team that goes for it every year.



    My question was not to compare one approach against the other.  My question was solely focused on the 'going for it' approach.  We all know that so long as Brady is under center there will always be a debate as to whether it's the value approach or the GOAT QB who made it happen. 

    There are some very strong advocates on this board for 'going for it'.  I respect their views and believe that since we have a textbook example of what 'going for it' looks like, let's see how it turns out.

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

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Whether or not they beat the Pats along the way is not the issue, IMO.  I'm quite serious about the 'going for it' approach being truly tested here.  If the Broncos win it all then we have prima facie evidence that the approach works.  If they don't, what then?

    I'm reminded of the '68-'69 NBA finals wherein the aging Bill Russell and some 'second tier' stars beat the Wilt Champerlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West Lakers in 7 games.  The Lakers were supposed to be the team of the century except Russ had other ideas.  Different game, different era, you say?  Yep, but the principle's the same IMO.

     



    But, if it's a contrast of value vs going for it and nether gets there but going for it beat value, what does that say about the value approach? Because there will always be a team that goes for it every year.

     



    My question was not to compare one approach against the other.  My question was solely focused on the 'going for it' approach.  We all know that so long as Brady is under center there will always be a debate as to whether it's the value approach or the GOAT QB who made it happen. 

    There are some very strong advocates on this board for 'going for it'.  I respect their views and believe that since we have a textbook example of what 'going for it' looks like, let's see how it turns out.



    It just seemed like the natural comparison to be made because that's what the discussions have been about around here, so when I read what does that say to me you have to compare it to a system we think is better to see what it actually says.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Whether or not they beat the Pats along the way is not the issue, IMO.  I'm quite serious about the 'going for it' approach being truly tested here.  If the Broncos win it all then we have prima facie evidence that the approach works.  If they don't, what then?

    I'm reminded of the '68-'69 NBA finals wherein the aging Bill Russell and some 'second tier' stars beat the Wilt Champerlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West Lakers in 7 games.  The Lakers were supposed to be the team of the century except Russ had other ideas.  Different game, different era, you say?  Yep, but the principle's the same IMO.

     



    But, if it's a contrast of value vs going for it and nether gets there but going for it beat value, what does that say about the value approach? Because there will always be a team that goes for it every year.

     



    My question was not to compare one approach against the other.  My question was solely focused on the 'going for it' approach.  We all know that so long as Brady is under center there will always be a debate as to whether it's the value approach or the GOAT QB who made it happen. 

    There are some very strong advocates on this board for 'going for it'.  I respect their views and believe that since we have a textbook example of what 'going for it' looks like, let's see how it turns out.



    It just seemed like the natural comparison to be made because that's what the discussions have been about around here, so when I read what does that say to me you have to compare it to a system we think is better to see what it actually says.




    Noted, sir, but I did not go there.  Let's see about 'going for it'.  Because there are other approaches besides 'going , , ' and 'value'.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    Wow... If my numbers are correct they just spent 50 plus million in guaranteed money on 3 players in 2 days.




    One thing is certain. If any starter gets injured they will only have scrubs to step in. An interesting gamble given the amount of injuries in the NFL these days.




    Oh, you mean like the Pats do when their INFERIOR starters like Gregory and Scamandola and Arrington get injured and are replaced with rookie FA's?



    No, more like when Talib, Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk and Kelly get knocked out...but a bigger step down.




    SO who replaced them?  Scrubs.  What's the difference?

    I don't know why people think the Pats have all this depth because they have no more than anyone else unless you think 15 rookies and UDFAs (the most in the league) is depth.

    So where are all the 2nd and 3rd  and 4th year players?  Oh, yeah, replaced with UDFAs and rookies..

    But you're  right, the difference is the step down.  A second rate starter has a lower step down.  Ryan is still the fill-in if it's Talib or Dennard or Arrington that goes down and Ryan would still be the fill in if we had Talib and Reevis and Dennard, instead of Arrington. .

    Talib wasn't enough.  When the one A player went down there were no more A's and we saw what happened.  suckville!

    It's still 2 rookies and 2 vets being replaced by a rookie, just better vets.  2 A's.

    Either way, 1st rate or second rate, they're all being replaced by the same scrubs, regardless.

    And if they're not injured and replaced or if only one is, you have a better team.  Don't you?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zeitgeist49. Show zeitgeist49's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    pretty frustrating at this point. Well at least we re signed Hooman!



    And don't forget Danny Aiken.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from zeitgeist49. Show zeitgeist49's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    Two aging quarterbacks, two different philosophies it appears. 

    I happen to like Denver's "all in" philosophy better. 

    Maybe ours will turn out to be better. 

    But either way maybe we can put an end to the "cap hell" crud for a while. There are ways to sign players to make your push. Then you have to release some of them later. Big deal. We're not in cap hell and we lose good players all the time


    Denver is clearly "all in." But so is Belichick. All in the dumpster.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHUBBIE99. Show CHUBBIE99's posts

    Re: DeMarcus Ware reached agreement with Broncos

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [                                                 Act's of god do happen.

     

     


    You may very well think me silly but, if I may, my rationale is quite straightforward.  I don't believe anyone can deny that Denver is 'going for it'.  Seriously, can you devise a better test of whether or not 'going for it' actually works than what we have right here?  If they win it all, then obviously 'going for it' is one successful approach.  But if they don't, what does that say?

     



    Depends, if they beat us along the way?



    Whether or not they beat the Pats along the way is not the issue, IMO.  I'm quite serious about the 'going for it' approach being truly tested here.  If the Broncos win it all then we have prima facie evidence that the approach works.  If they don't, what then?

    I'm reminded of the '68-'69 NBA finals wherein the aging Bill Russell and some 'second tier' stars beat the Wilt Champerlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West Lakers in 7 games.  The Lakers were supposed to be the team of the century except Russ had other ideas.  Different game, different era, you say?  Yep, but the principle's the same IMO.




 
Sections
Shortcuts

Share