Seymour":1bf1vgqy said:
kidhawk":1bf1vgqy said:
On the flip side, if we have to keep Marshall because Darboh just isn't that good, or if we cut Marshall because he's washed up and Darboh doesn't meet expectations, we could have some red zone issues this season, and that would make for a difficult season ahead.
For now, I'll hold out for the positive scenarios and be happy with either. I'll keep the negative scenarios in the back of my mind, but hopefully they never come to fruition.
Exactly why I am speaking out on this! That highlighted scenario could easily happen IMO. A good run game can go a long ways to help that though, and they've done more to make that happen then make up for the 16 passing TD's they let walk. (I'm giving Solari the benefit of the doubt that he helps the running game)
Hang on - I am really trying to follow the logic here.
If Darboh isn't any good then adding Marshall is potentially a bad thing because Marshall could also turn out to be not any good.
Is that a correct summation?
But if Darboh isn't any good and we passed on Marshall, then wouldn't we be equally screwed? And if Darboh isn't any good but Marshall IS good, that would be a big win, wouldn't it? And if Darboh IS good and Marshall IS good then that's pretty much red zone solved, isn't it?
Let's say for example that Darboh is 50/50. That's a 50% failure rate.
Let's say Marshall is also 50/50. Please keep that in mind - in no way am I saying he is 100% success, just 50/50. That means in the 50% Darboh failure, we have a Plan B that is 50% effective, mitigating that 50% failure to a 25% failure.
So with only Darboh there is 50% chance we have 1 red zone target, and 50% chance we have no red zone target.
With Darboh + Marshall there is 25% chance we have 2 red zone targets, 50% chance we have 1 red zone target, and only 25% chance we have no red zone targets.
I'm really struggling to see how this is something to speak out on. The way I see the maths, we are mitigating a risk, which is a good thing, isn't it?