Dirk Diggler Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Art We lost Martz to the Rams in 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Things are okay for now...Vinny basically is at Coach Gibbs' disposal...whatever Coach Gibbs says: Vinny does. Besides Don Banks kept saying we would need to get a GM...I'd love to prove that turkey wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Art I don't think anyone is saying that our F.O. arrangement doesn't give us a leg up on other teams in terms of "getting what we're shooting at" as you put it. Rather I think most of us are concerned that we're not shooting at the right players. Given that scenario, it matters much less whether you get the guys you target or not because at best you're going to be Rod Gardner (50/50) and will get good value (e.g. Griffin) half the time and get screwed (e.g. Boonell) the other half. The bad half of that equation hamstrings you going forward with regard to shoring up other areas of need and keeping your own home grown F.A. The fact that Snyder is so agressive also has another downside. True, we do get the guys we target. However it means we'll often overpay to do so. In this regard it doesn't matter whether the player turns out to be good or not. My point here is that this rubrick means we end up overpaying even for the guys that turn out to be quality players in order to keep them from entertaining other offers. Coles is a good example of this. Is he a good player? Absolutely. Was I glad we got him? Absolutely. Do I think we overpaid for him? Probably so. If we're one or two players from making it over the hump, this is a viable strategy. However for day-to-day routine player aquisition it means there's a good chance we'll be hamstrung when we do get to the point where we're one or two players away. ....and yes, I do remember "Cash solves cap...blah, blah, blah":) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by Yusuf06 Art I don't think anyone is saying that our F.O. arrangement doesn't give us a leg up on other teams in terms of "getting what we're shooting at" as you put it. Rather I think most of us are concerned that we're not shooting at the right players. Given that scenario, it matters much less whether you get the guys you target or not because at best you're going to be Rod Gardner (50/50) and will get good value (e.g. Griffin) half the time and get screwed (e.g. Boonell) the other half. The bad half of that equation hamstrings you going forward with regard to shoring up other areas of need and keeping your own home grown F.A. The fact that Snyder is so agressive also has another downside. True, we do get the guys we target. However it means we'll often overpay to do so. In this regard it doesn't matter whether the player turns out to be good or not. My point here is that this rubrick means we end up overpaying even for the guys that turn out to be quality players in order to keep them from entertaining other offers. Coles is a good example of this. Is he a good player? Absolutely. Was I glad we got him? Absolutely. Do I think we overpaid for him? Probably so. If we're one or two players from making it over the hump, this is a viable strategy. However for day-to-day routine player aquisition it means there's a good chance we'll be hamstrung when we do get to the point where we're one or two players away. ....and yes, I do remember "Cash solves cap...blah, blah, blah":) Yusuf, We didn't overpay for anyone that I can see the last few offseasons. At least in terms of free agency. Coles is the closest you get to that claim being legitimate and the restricted nature of his free agent status required something larger in contract than we might otherwise have had to make. I think most of us agree Brunell's price tag was a bit higher than expected. Therefore, charges of overpaying seem strange. One guy we got as a restricted free agent and the other we got in trade are the closest you can come to saying we overpay. The fact is we don't overpay at all as a general rule. We pay well in line with the market value of the players we attain. We just don't have acquired more than one in an offseason where most teams don't have an owner willing to spend. We're now entering the fourth year of an aggressive cap approach by our front office that pays above league average in guaranteed money and below league average in base salary. Indeed, it would be apparent that cash does solve cap as for four years now we haven't seen any limitations of the strategy. Obviously at some point you have to achieve consistency rather than shuffling through players to fit very different systems. That comes when you establish a coach who is in it for more than a year or two. For example, we could have entered LAST offseason maintaining continuity, but we had to address areas Gibbs and Williams needed. And we did that. We haven't signed one player in free agency the last three years who was a "bust" no matter the cost, so, I'm not quite sure how you come up with complaints about the who we shoot for in free agency. Even Trotter wasn't a bust as he was a two year starter and triple digit tackle guy even while not being ideal for the system. The biggest bust, obviously, has been Brunell. I think if you count Brunell as half the time you need to explain things further to me as I don't understand that reasoning. You can't look at the activity we've made in the last three offseasons and feel we failed. Failure didn't come in March. It came in October. Given that, it's not the front office that appears to be our primary issue. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.