chrisfx811
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2007
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.What did the 49ers do to keep there dynasty going?
Got the best wide receiver of all time in Jerry Rice.
Where was he in the playoffs?
Salary cap wasn't introduced until 1994.
It is using money wisely by paying for value per buck.
The team has done alright under BB so far. Unlighten me as to why you want them to change what they do. What team has done better in the last few years?
They should be doing like us, not our changing to pay "whatever it takes" to keep any one player.
Well, the Pats have also deemed that signing players like Brady and Seymour to large contracts is indeed "value per buck" and I don't see how a future hall of fame WR should not fall into the same echelon of players.
As far as the "In Belichick we trust" adage goes, though I too cater to this for the most part, he has in fact screwed up on player personnel decisions. We don't have to look all that far into the past when we saw BB and the front office enter the cut-down period of preseason with huge holes at the WR position, make a last minute desperate dash and grope at a trade for Doug Gabriel while having had ridiculous amounts of cap room to work with.
I'm in the camp that says I'd rather not see this happen again and I'm also in the camp that says Moss can play with the best of them so he should be given a contract that represents fair market value. Unless it's in the Pats brass' plans to swing a trade for Chad Johnson, there's nobody that comes close to Moss in terms of talent at the WR position in free agency. We have some cap room and the best talent is right under our noses. Get it done!
3 years has got to be the min he would take, and probably what most teams would be comfortable offering, given his age.
Any longer and it could have a bunch of garbage years/money at the end of it.
Well, in isolatation and looked upon as a one move, then yes, it wasn't that bad of a gamble. Considering the circumstances that led to that move, then I think it was indeed a terrible move. I'm sure you'll recall, we had lost both of our starting WRs and had something like $20M in cap room or whatever it was.If you want to fault BB on off-season moves, the Doug Gabriel trade isn't a very good example.
And that's exactly my point.That was a low risk move out of virtual desperation.
Well, in isolatation and looked upon as a one move, then yes, it wasn't that bad of a gamble. Considering the circumstances that led to that move, then I think it was indeed a terrible move. I'm sure you'll recall, we had lost both of our starting WRs and had something like $20M in cap room or whatever it was.
Yes, in hindsight he did, but I really don't think that's really the point. We can also use the same logic to say that going into the season with Caldwell, Gabriel and Jackson as the three top WRs at a critical skill position has proven to be the wrong decision given that one was cut in midseason, the other at the end and another still remain a question mark. No way should we have entered the season with such holes at such a critical position.And yet BB made precisely the right call on Givens and Branch. Givens spent two injury plauged seasons in Tenn. and Branch has underwhelmed in Seattle.
Yes, in hindsight he did, but I really don't think that's really the point. We can also use the same logic to say that going into the season with Caldwell, Gabriel and Jackson as the three top WRs at a critical skill position has proven to be the wrong decision given that one was cut in midseason, the other at the end and another still remain a question mark. No way should we have entered the season with such holes at such a critical position.
I disagree. I expect a better plan B from one of best front offices in football when they were on the verge of losing both of their starting WRs. And indeed, some of the blame goes to the players involved but some of it has to go to the front office without fans being apologist for the screw ups. You've noted that they screwed up with Monty when you treated him in isolation, but to me, that same screw up over a position occurred when we lost both Tedy and Teddy, had no back-up plan and ended up with the fiasco that were Monty and Chad at ILB. I differ from your opinion in that I don't blame the front office as much with Monty and Chad because there really was no way they could have foreseen that both of the starting ILB would be forced into retirement.Branch's stubborness played a huge role in that scenario unfolding. It was in no way entirely the fault of the organization.
I think sometimes, despite the best of planning, events unfold on a path where it's impossible to alter the final outcome. When that happens, you get what you can, and it was Doug Gabriel.
I hope not and I think the situations are different in the sense that Brach had just played out his rookie contract and was looking to sign his first big contract with a decent amout of guaranteed money. After witnessing what's happened to Givens, I can't say I blame players coming out of rookie contract for holding out for the best guarnteed money deals.That was the case with Branch, and I suspect it is going to be the case with Moss.
Its not like he's 34-35..he just turned 31 two weeks ago, a 4 year contract takes him to his 35th birthday, which is what TO will be turning this year, and he's getting an extension. The elite WRs usually stay elite up until around 34-36. I know a lot of NE fans want to use Dillon as a cautionary tale but WRs stay productive at a high level much longer than RBs do, and Moss doesnt get hit like Dillon did, he's the exact opposite. .
You've noted that they screwed up with Monty when you treated him in isolation, but to me, that same screw up over a position occurred when we lost both Tedy and Teddy, had no back-up plan and ended up with the fiasco that were Monty and Chad at ILB.
LOL. Maybe you should have read my post better, and especially the part where I stated: "I differ from your opinion in that I don't blame the front office as much with Monty and Chad because there really was no way they could have foreseen that both of the starting ILB would be forced into retirement."Maybe Belichick should have turned to the "what to do when your starting ILB has a stroke in the off-season" handbook.