03-16-2012, 01:05 PM
|
#61
|
|
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,027
My Mood:
|
Re: Expensive vs. "middle-class" players
yet you over simplify with the eagles comparison.
just because you spend, does not mean you will succeed. by the same token, just because you spend, does not mean you won't. there's a reason a salary cap was put into effect.
all large market teams spend the same general amount. some spread it out over more players, some spend more on certain players and roll the dice by depending on draft picks for otehr spots.....
you did not see me complain that the pats have not spent money becuase I know they spend just as much as anyone else.
my while point of contention is not how much, but on what. the pats were ultimately successful when they spent more money on defense. as the cost of the offense has risen, this team has come to look more and more like the colts, a finesse team that needs a fast track. the defense simply does not scare anyone. and unless they increase the level of talent on the defense, they're not going to scare anyone next year, either. the quickes and most obvious way is to spend $$ on FA's. so far, the players they have targeted will have this team be no better defensively than last year. personally, I don't think fanene has anything on the minimum salary DL's the pats already have (deaderick, pryor, love), so I think fanene was a waste of money. double the 3.6M per he is getting, and you can fill another position with a much better player, or go and get the top guy who is going to make those around him better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patfanken
a gross oversimplification, IC. How did that high cost secondary work out for the Eagles? 
And as for the lack of spending being the reason for not winning superbowls, that's ridiculous. Did the Giants spend big for their 2 wins. Did the Packer or the Saiints. I don't remember either of those teams going nuts in FA before their superbowl wins. Please name a team in the last decade who rode the coattails of big FA spending who has won a superbowl.
The Bottom Line is the only difference in the Pats 3 wins and their 2 losses in the superbowl, is in the 3 wins the Pats were a good team that caught enough breaks and won. In the 2 losses the Pats were a good team that didn't catch enough breaks. Its really as simple as that.
The margin of victory in the NFL now is RAZOR thin, something as simple as getting one of the 3 fumbles, Manningham's foot being 3 inches further to right, Brady taking 2 steps to his left on the Safety, Gronk being healthy, Any of these and more could have changed the result of that game, without a single extra dollar being spent. The same goes for the 2007 game. Its not about the money |
__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.
|
|
|
7Likes
Linear Mode
