- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 93,237
- Reaction score
- 72,817
Think you’re on the wrong board, friendo!As a reminder...
Its only football.
Think you’re on the wrong board, friendo!As a reminder...
Its only football.
1. Fan is short for fanatic.As a reminder...
Its only football.
I take this stuff seriously. LOLAs a reminder...
Its only football.
Gladly!Take THAT Slan
To answer your first question. Yes. That’s exactly what free agency is. You target a major need and go after the player you want even if it means reasonably overpaying.
We don’t do that. We want a player . We try to get a player and then we settle for second or third choice for fiscal responsibility.
Sweat is a major anomaly but if the Eagles wanted him , he wouldn’t be here.
This is where your premise kind of falls apart. If the player isn't going to deliver, you shouldn't want him at any price, so even trying to sign them is a bad idea. If they do deliver solid play, then overpaying is no bad thing. Not unless you're in cap hell, which we decidedly aren't.No, that's not how it works. Firstly, you don't overpay. Milton Williams and Will Fries are both massive overpays, especially Williams. Overpaying for players that don't deliver hamstrings you in the future and causes locker room unrest.
Players also have a say, money generally talks, but again you have to have your limits, but it's not the only factor. Especially with players that are already set for life. Guys like Jon Allen are already multi, multi millionaires. If you had a choice between the Vikings for €20m or the Cards for €21m where would you go? Vikings have made the playoffs pretty consistently. Often guys will take slightly less for a real postseason shot.
Expecting Monti to Oprah FA is just unrealistic.
Honestly, the amount of whining on this board before day 1 of FA officially ended is astounding.
Indeed! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd much rather be damned if you do. People try so hard to skew the reasoning behind signing or not signing a player to fit their narrative. Milton Williams is a guess. I don't care how well people THINK he will play. It was fine for the Patriots, and that's why THEY did it. I only care what one Arizona Cardinals do. I could care less about any of the other 31 teams plans or philosophy. I expected "smart" aggressiveness, and we've been decent thus far. There were players signed that could have helped us, and that is what irks me the most. I'm gonna take a chill pill though for now, and wait until it all shakes out.This is where your premise kind of falls apart. If the player isn't going to deliver, you shouldn't want him at any price, so even trying to sign them is a bad idea. If they do deliver solid play, then overpaying is no bad thing. Not unless you're in cap hell, which we decidedly aren't.
They weren’t winning because of Cousins, because he was pretty bad. They had one of, if not the easiest schedules. Tampa had a rash of injuries early on or they would have clinched that division real early.They actually were on pace to win their division, but apparently Cousins was playing injured in the week 10 loss for the rest of the season - they were 6-3 at that point. Stuff like this happens with a 36 year old QB.
Of course you shouldn’t grossly overpay. I would never thought signing Williams or Fries at that cost would have been prudent.No, that's not how it works. Firstly, you don't overpay. Milton Williams and Will Fries are both massive overpays, especially Williams. Overpaying for players that don't deliver hamstrings you in the future and causes locker room unrest.
Players also have a say, money generally talks, but again you have to have your limits, but it's not the only factor. Especially with players that are already set for life. Guys like Jon Allen are already multi, multi millionaires. If you had a choice between the Vikings for €20m or the Cards for €21m where would you go? Vikings have made the playoffs pretty consistently. Often guys will take slightly less for a real postseason shot.
Expecting Monti to Oprah FA is just unrealistic.
Honestly, the amount of whining on this board before day 1 of FA officially ended is astounding.
That’s a complete false statement.. 6 of their first 9 games were against playoff teams. Including Phi and and KC. They beat Philly. Kirk played outstanding in 4 of their 6 wins. So he was pretty darn solid before getting injured in week 10. I typically like your takes - but did you just make this assumption out of thin air ?They weren’t winning because of Cousins, because he was pretty bad. They had one of, if not the easiest schedules. Tampa had a rash of injuries early on or they would have clinched that division real early.
This is where your premise kind of falls apart. If the player isn't going to deliver, you shouldn't want him at any price, so even trying to sign them is a bad idea. If they do deliver solid play, then overpaying is no bad thing. Not unless you're in cap hell, which we decidedly aren't.
If you don’t pay Hernandez do you just sign a lesser player so you pay less thus weakening your team?Nonsense. There are different levels of "delivering".
Will Hernandez has been a really solid guard, good even, should we give him $20m per? He's delivering right? So we should just pay him whatever it takes so he delivers here.
You want to pay them at the level you think they can deliver according to the value of the position. Milton Williams would need 10 sacks, 6 TFLs and 40 pressures to be worth that money. Don't see it happening.
Psst: Your hyperbole is showing.Nonsense. There are different levels of "delivering".
Will Hernandez has been a really solid guard, good even, should we give him $20m per? He's delivering right? So we should just pay him whatever it takes so he delivers here.
You want to pay them at the level you think they can deliver according to the value of the position. Milton Williams would need 10 sacks, 6 TFLs and 40 pressures to be worth that money. Don't see it happening.
He wasn’t benched until week 16, so did his injury in week 10??? have anything to do with anything. His best game was against an injury riddled Bucs team early in the season. His QB rating for the season was 88 & that’s with a phenomenal running game & a few stud WR’s. My only point is that whoever wins the FA season almost never is even in the running for the Lombardi. And yes, I also almost always agree with the positions you take on this board.That’s a complete false statement.. 6 of their first 9 games were against playoff teams. Including Phi and and KC. They beat Philly. Kirk played outstanding in 4 of their 6 wins. So he was pretty darn solid before getting injured in week 10. I typically like your takes - but did you just make this assumption out of thin air ?
Yes his injury was in week 10. As noted.He wasn’t benched until week 16, so did his injury in week 10??? have anything to do with anything. His best game was against an injury riddled Bucs team early in the season. His QB rating for the season was 88 & that’s with a phenomenal running game & a few stud WR’s. My only point is that whoever wins the FA season almost never is even in the running for the Lombardi. And yes, I also almost always agree with the positions you take on this board.
I’ll admit I would have gladly signed him on a 1 year 14 million deal, could end up being a steal.Did Reddick only get a one year deal? Why?
Evidenced by too many rings for one hand ? I know TB took them there but never won the SB without a quality run game. Epic failure is cardinals none!You do realize that this 'strategy' was an epic failure sans the greatest QB of all time, and requires actual good drafting?