two more......

[vikesfan]

Re: Re: two more......

Originally posted by slanidrac16
GO CARDS

[/QUOTE2. Cosey Coleman.. plug him into the RG spot and this line can be very good.. he is young and has a mean streak.. would be a great pick-up also.. off th top of my head I cant remenber if he is a RFA or UFA.. if he is a RFA see what is needed to get him here..]

Coleman is UAF. He is good but not the best in past protection. I don't see us going after any of the OL that are left out there . Someone posted that Green likes to basically go after tackles and then move 1 inside to guard. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is not true. To the best of my memory DG has never moved a T to G. He did move a G to T coming out of college. And he moved a T to C coming out of college. When he signed FAs to play G they were FA Gs.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
And how long and enduring of a dynasty did they ultimately create?

I assume the years you quoted were the years following their actual big spending, otherwise they make no sense at all.

Baltimore got a ring on 2001, but going into 2002 lost Shannon Sharpe, Sam Adams, Rod Woodson, Duane Starks, Jamie Sharper, and Jermaine Lewis because of the cap hell they'd put themselves in. 2002 they went 7-9 and 3rd in their division.

The Raiders made it to the superbowl in 2002 before Tampa kicked their butts 48-21. Then last year.....

Seems to me the Titans came up a little short last year too, and look at the probems they are having to deal with this year.

I can see sometimes if a team thinks they can make a legitimate run at being Super Bowl champ, then they might overspend a little to try and make it over the hump.
But history has generally shown that's only robbing Peter to pay Paul and your "examples' are perfect proof of that.
And for Oakland and Tennessee, what did it really buy them????

Dude the point is to win the RING. The Super Bowl not the Cap Bowl.

What dynasty do the Cards have? The Dynasty of missing the playoffs every year.

I am sure everyone here can live with a SB ring in 2001 and missing the playoffs.

The Vikes have been the BEST cap managed team in the NFL the last 2 years. They have missed the playoffs the last 2 years.

If the TENN WR had slightly longer arms they beat STL in that SB. If McNair had been healthy vs. NE they are probably playing in the AFC final.

It is not about cap management it is about making the playoffs.

Look at NE they won a SB and missed the playoffs so did BAL. And after their 1 year off both teams were back in the playoffs again.

There are no more dynasties in the NFL even NE missed the playoffs 2 years ago.

The Eagles were close to a SB and they let a bunch of good FAs go and never got over the hump. But they did have great cap management, and they realized the error of that by going for Kearse and TO.

Look at the teams that won SBs:
TB loaded with FAs: B Johnson, 3 starting OL, their #1 WR (a trade which is similar to FA), their #2 and #3 WRs, their TE, their top DL.

And they missed the playoffs this year. Do you think their fans care really?

Look at NE 15 FAs signed SB year one and 6 were big names. Last year NE signed more FAs.

As for OAK they might have easily won a SB if the refs hadn't ripped them off in NE. Or if their coach
hadn't used the same plays and playcalling versus Gruden that had to be the most idiotic move in the history of the NFL - he gave the SB away.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by john h
when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

Well what I was getting at is, as FA money dries up, you DON'T have to overpay. You can sign players like Taylor and Coleman to sweet deals. Otherwise they will not be playing in the NFL next year. With a guy like Taylor structure a deal so that if he gets cut in a couple years he doesn't hurt your cap.

 

[AZCB34]

Re: Re: Re: two more......

Originally posted by vikesfan
[/QUOTE2. Cosey Coleman.. plug him into the RG spot and this line can be very good.. he is young and has a mean streak.. would be a great pick-up also.. off th top of my head I cant remenber if he is a RFA or UFA.. if he is a RFA see what is needed to get him here..]

Coleman is UAF. He is good but not the best in past protection. I don't see us going after any of the OL that are left out there . Someone posted that Green likes to basically go after tackles and then move 1 inside to guard.

That is not true. To the best of my memory DG has never moved a T to G. He did move a G to T coming out of college. And he moved a T to C coming out of college. When he signed FAs to play G they were FA Gs.

You would know better but I swear there was a point recently where the Vikes were playing a C and 4 Ts on their line. I thought I was watching a game a few years ago and a big point was made about it.

 

[vikesfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: two more......

Originally posted by AZCB34
You would know better but I swear there was a point recently where the Vikes were playing a C and 4 Ts on their line. I thought I was watching a game a few years ago and a big point was made about it.

Well Birk the C was actually a tackle in college. Their T the last few years has been a ex-G. Dixon has been a G for years. So maybe you misheard maybe it was game where they had an injury at G and played a T like Lindsey in an emergency that is still not 4 Ts.
Maybe they were refering to the quality being T quality or perhaps they could have been referring to size "the Gs were as big as Ts". But DG has always had Gs as Gs.
DG wanted Villariel to play G and he is a G.

?

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by RLakin
For someone who uses the term "oversimplification " as much as you do, you sure do a lot of it yourself. The point on coaching wasn't that Jeff Fisher was a bad coach. It was simply (maybe too much for you)dream on for the day when you say something "too much for me". that hypotheticals involving coaching don't always benefit the "underachieving" Cardinals and their departed staff. In fact, (hypothetically speaking) I think it was more of a reach to believe that the Cardinals were a .500 team than the Titans were not a championship one. 'So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Not that's not to say that the Titans should have been in a Super Bowl or that Jeff Fisher is a bad coach (which was your oversimplified inference, by the way)No it wasn't. I simply asked you which way you were going to have it....as YOU you yourself said:"Who’s to say that better coaching wouldn't have pushed the Raiders or Titans over the edge..." and then: "(Not to mention a perennial title contender in Tennessee.)" Which really proved my original point. That there's more to winning a superbowl than JUST cap management. Contrary to the baloney that johnh originally posted and I countered....the Cards have been one of the best cap managed teams since 2000, but that didn't win them a super bowl, so there must be "more to the story" eg...coaching etc.
Then you jumped in with all your horsecrap, and run off on all these tangents.....like your following paragraph...... . Rather that, in the event of Herculean coaching task, the odds favored the Titans (or Raiders in 03') taking the next step to Super Bowl glory than the Cardinals moving out of the top 10 of the NFL Draft. I guess you could say that (in my opinion) the team that lost to the Super Bowl champions (Ten) by one score had a better chance of reaching their goal (Super Bowl) than the franchise that lost by double digits to the teams picking 6th, 7th, 11th, and 14th did in reaching theirs (8-8 ). blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Now, onto the other stuff, for which I again stay the "oversimplified" route. Rather than broaden the argument to other teams, as you repeatedly keep trying to do, lets keep this on the 4 teams that I mentioned. Why? Because that conveniently fits your little rant????? (Face it the Cardinals do not belong in any comparisons with the Patriots or Eagles.) It seems to me that there is a clear cut choice here. Either you believe that risking short term success for short term failure is the model or you believe that long term failure will suddenly bring long term success. Yes, the Raiders are on decline along with Tennessee. But wouldn't you as a Cardinal fan rather have that "financially unstable" Super Bowl run followed with a quick downtime rather than the continual rebuilding process that happens to be financial stable. Face it, the proof is in the pudding and no amount of "amazingly oversimplified" spin will show that any other way. My point remains: since 2000 this team has been gradually improving in just about every imaginable area possible, from front office administration to overall talent on the team. There have been no miracles but the general direction has been upward and the Cards , here and now and at this point in time, AND looking to the future from here, are on the rise. They are not "in decline" from "almost" but still never winning a superbowl. I like the prospects of the Cards future now better than the Titans or Raiders...the Ravens....time will tell with them which direction they ultimately and generally end up sailing.

 

[SECTION 11]

Arguing the success of the Titans vs the Cardinals is pretty pointless. On the field the Titans have been much more successful, obviously.
Shouldn't the question of how they got there be of secondary importance?

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I expect they'll be 1M or so under, like most intelligent teams are.

What exactly makes that so intelligent?