Is it arrogance?

[mrt144]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:

So here's a meta conversational notion.

People who are optimists are viewed by cynics as such: "They don't see reality in front of them. They find no fault with anything because the aggregate output satisfies them."
People who are cynics are viewed by optimists as such: "Being critical of every aspect of the team doesn't make you wise or reasoned. By virtue of finding no virtue in any aspect of the team, your critiques and criticism have little weight since they are so numerous."

The difference between a skeptic and cynic is the willingness to adjust attitude and opinion as information becomes available. A skeptic will provide some or negotiate some reasonable criteria (2 Rings in 9 years?) to meet to sway their opinion. A cynic will assume bad outcomes inherently and ignore or dismiss outcomes that COULD sway a skeptic.

One of the most confusing things about this differentiation is that cynics seem incapable of seeing themselves as cynics and totally believe they are in fact skeptics despite no evidence that they have a mutable opinion pertaining to whatever team or player conversation is happening.

Also, one can be a skeptical optimist but it requires a recursive look at future optimistic leanings when presented with outcome input. Basically, "I think there will be good outcomes but I will flip my wig over bad outcomes."

One of the giveaways between a skeptic and cynic is the 'infinite gripes syndrome'. Basically some sort of criteria was met but instead of actualizing that met criteria conversationally, the cynic moves the conversation to their next gripe about the team.

"Sure, they addressed this issue, but what about THIS issue now?" Merely handwaving away success to address a failure.

Examples:

Optimist: "I feel good about our chances this season because I trust the people with agency in how the team operates."
Cynic: "I feel dour about our chances this season because I do not trust the people with agency in how the team operates"
Skeptic: "I don't know about our chances this season. There are many positive things over time that we've witnessed but there are also nascent flaws that could get in the way. I don't know if it will be a good season and am incredulous that it will be inherently but I would be delighted to see our season pan out as designed or requisite adjustments be made in season to address inherent flaws and new ones that pop up."

Optimists: Rams fans in the now getting a taste of the SB. "McVay will make the tweaks to deliver a ring in 2019 or 2020. I know this."
Cynics: Seahawks fans in the now chiding Rams fans about what their 2021 season will be like. "Even if you win a SB, your future is going to be crap because of how you got there. If you don't win a SB, you'll look really stupid for McVay et al even trying, so don't even get excited about the strides made. Every outcome for you will be crap at the end of the day."
Skeptic: I don't know if the Rams will be electric in future seasons. Here is the criteria that meets 'electric'. They have a lot of short term considerations that elevate their chances in the short term and long term considerations that might diminish them in the long term. We'll see how it plays out and I'll eat some crow if it goes against my speculation, I think the Rams will ________________

One thing that verily gets in the way of functional conversation is indulging in the meta conversation and pigeon holing those who don't wholly agree with you as an 'optimist, cynic, or credulous' and ascribing an absolute intent to the other.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:
Screw hope, everything sucks. :?

Of course being an optimist does not make one inherently condescending. That being said, people with an optimistic view towards the Pete and John regime (the common wisdom on this board these days) CAN BE condescending. The point that I am making is that the perception of being "condescending" has more to do with WHAT one is arguing than HOW one is arguing. So, for example, I think that Pete and John have been making really bad roster choices over the last couple years and the whole "sign five players for 2 million each instead of 1 player for 10 million" no longer works for them. Disagree? Fine. I like a good discussion! Heck, maybe I'm wrong! But the issue is HOW one makes that argument. And the truth is that those of us willing to make unpopular statements are way more likely to get attacked than we are to attack. A healthy fan base in one in which there is room for both the optimists and the pessimists.

 

[mrt144]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:
Screw hope, everything sucks. :?

Of course being an optimist does not make one inherently condescending. That being said, people with an optimistic view towards the Pete and John regime (the common wisdom on this board these days) CAN BE condescending. The point that I am making is that the perception of being "condescending" has more to do with WHAT one is arguing than HOW one is arguing. So, for example, I think that Pete and John have been making really bad roster choices over the last couple years and the whole "sign five players for 2 million each instead of 1 player for 10 million" no longer works for them. Disagree? Fine. I like a good discussion! Heck, maybe I'm wrong! But the issue is HOW one makes that argument. And the truth is that those of us willing to make unpopular statements are way more likely to get attacked than we are to attack. A healthy fan base in one in which there is room for both the optimists and the pessimists.

So let's reframe how we look at it to maybe get a different perspective.

Proposition: PC/JS have bungled a lot of roster moves.
Evidence: Percy, Jimmy, Malik, etc etc
Tying Evidence to Outcome: The team still floats in spite of this. Sure it ain't swimming, but its mostly above average game outcomes in aggregate.
Reassessment of Proposition:
The bungled moves of PC/JS are maybe a limiting factor on peak outcome realization. But they are not so limiting in aggregate as to create >7 loss seasons since RW arrived.
New Proposition:
PC/JS have bungled these specific moves and this is how it affected the team.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:

So here's a meta conversational notion.

People who are optimists are viewed by cynics as such: "They don't see reality in front of them. They find no fault with anything because the aggregate output satisfies them."
People who are cynics are viewed by optimists as such: "Being critical of every aspect of the team doesn't make you wise or reasoned. By virtue of finding no virtue in any aspect of the team, your critiques and criticism have little weight since they are so numerous."

The difference between a skeptic and cynic is the willingness to adjust attitude and opinion as information becomes available. A skeptic will provide some or negotiate some reasonable criteria (2 Rings in 9 years?) to meet to sway their opinion. A cynic will assume bad outcomes inherently and ignore or dismiss outcomes that COULD sway a skeptic.

One of the most confusing things about this differentiation is that cynics seem incapable of seeing themselves as cynics and totally believe they are in fact skeptics despite no evidence that they have a mutable opinion pertaining to whatever team or player conversation is happening.

Also, one can be a skeptical optimist but it requires a recursive look at future optimistic leanings when presented with outcome input. Basically, "I think there will be good outcomes but I will flip my wig over bad outcomes."

One of the giveaways between a skeptic and cynic is the 'infinite gripes syndrome'. Basically some sort of criteria was met but instead of actualizing that met criteria conversationally, the cynic moves the conversation to their next gripe about the team.

"Sure, they addressed this issue, but what about THIS issue now?" Merely handwaving away success to address a failure.

Examples:

Optimist: "I feel good about our chances this season because I trust the people with agency in how the team operates."
Cynic: "I feel dour about our chances this season because I do not trust the people with agency in how the team operates"
Skeptic: "I don't know about our chances this season. There are many positive things over time that we've witnessed but there are also nascent flaws that could get in the way. I don't know if it will be a good season and am incredulous that it will be inherently but I would be delighted to see our season pan out as designed or requisite adjustments be made in season to address inherent flaws and new ones that pop up."

Optimists: Rams fans in the now getting a taste of the SB. "McVay will make the tweaks to deliver a ring in 2019 or 2020. I know this."
Cynics: Seahawks fans in the now chiding Rams fans about what their 2021 season will be like. "Even if you win a SB, your future is going to be crap because of how you got there. If you don't win a SB, you'll look really stupid for McVay et al even trying, so don't even get excited about the strides made. Every outcome for you will be crap at the end of the day."
Skeptic: I don't know if the Rams will be electric in future seasons. Here is the criteria that meets 'electric'. They have a lot of short term considerations that elevate their chances in the short term and long term considerations that might diminish them in the long term. We'll see how it plays out and I'll eat some crow if it goes against my speculation, I think the Rams will ________________

One thing that verily gets in the way of functional conversation is indulging in the meta conversation and pigeon holing those who don't wholly agree with you as an 'optimist, cynic, or credulous' and ascribing an absolute intent to the other.

Your arguments are interesting, gotta think a little bit about it. Here is my issue. Think about how we view this front office like how they view the players on the team. If a player had two amazing seasons five years ago but was steadily declining the team might cut that player. I think that we all would agree that the team shouldn't keep players on the roster for what they did in the past. A lot of the arguments against me was that since this regime led to Super Bowl victories that we should continue to have faith in them. I don't consider that optimism. I consider that sentimentality. Like, I LOVED Lofa Tatupu, but I thought that the Hawks made the right choice in releasing him. The same thinking should be applied to coaches and GMs.

 

[HawkFan72]

Teams who overspent to sign a free agent on Day 1 of Free Agency this year:

-Redskins
-Lions
-Titans
-49ers
-Jaguars
-Bills
-Raiders
-Cardinals
-Jets

By all means, use those teams as a model of success.

The Seahawks were praised by fans and media for signing Matt Flynn and laughed at for drafting Russell Wilson in the same offseason.

Most times signing who the media and fans want you to is not the right answer.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

Teams who overspent to sign a free agent on Day 1 of Free Agency this year:

-Redskins
-Lions
-Titans
-49ers
-Jaguars
-Bills
-Raiders
-Cardinals
-Jets

By all means, use those teams as a model of success.

The Seahawks were praised by fans and media for signing Matt Flynn and laughed at for drafting Russell Wilson in the same offseason.

Most times signing who the media and fans want you to is not the right answer.

That was 7 years ago. How did last year work? Was the combo of Shamir Stephens, Tom Johnson, Ed Dickson, Mingo, and Jaron Brown last year a better investment than spending 10 million on a single player? I mean, the only player out of those five who is worth anything is Dickson and even that could be stretching it. I get the hesitancy to make big moves but you gotta spend money somehow. This team has not made good choices with these bargain bin signings for quite a while. Is five Mingo's really better than one Landon Collins?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, it never gets old to have the negative crowd tell the positive crowd the positive folks NEVER criticize the team. Couldn't be more wrong, criticism comes from even the so called "homers"
Nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't make you less of a fan. The 24/7 bashing is such a waste of energy, but hey, do you. I spend plenty of time getting on the team, especially if it's the wait til the 4th quarter to actually start rolling. It's extremely annoying and there's no excuse for it. They need to play 4 quarters of football, not just coast thru the 1st half and then turn it on in the 2nd half.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This team has not made good choices with these bargain bin signings for quite a while. Is five Mingo's really better than one Landon Collins?

No, but a Mingo, Iupati, Meyers and resigning KJ and Fluker is. All players that fit under the crazy amount that Collins signed for.

Do you want one overpriced star, or do you want a team that has BOTH the talent and depth to play an entire NFL season and hopefully playoff games?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Every year it's the same thing. The Hawks don't sign a high priced (WAY TOO HIGH) vet and they somehow are being "stupid" etc. This team had taken chances plenty of times and over paid some guys. I'd rather they wait til the 2nd wave like they have been doing so far. And they are taking care of their own as well.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

This team has not made good choices with these bargain bin signings for quite a while. Is five Mingo's really better than one Landon Collins?

No, but a Mingo, Iupati, Meyers and resigning KJ and Fluker is. All players that fit under the crazy amount that Collins signed for.

Do you want one overpriced star, or do you want a team that has BOTH the talent and depth to play an entire NFL season and hopefully playoff games?

A team with the dearth of talent that we have needs playmakers. We need playmakers more than replacement level players with big names. Of those players you listed their are a couple who are often injured (Iupati and Fluker),or old (Iupati and KJ), or old and coming of injuries(Iupati and KJ), or who stink (Mingo). The Meyers signing was nice but, of course, it would have been nicer if we would have kept him last year. I don't think that our talent evaluation is strong anymore and I am not optimistic about these signings. With all the whiffs we've had lately I would feel more comfortable with a player like Collins.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

This team still has to take care of Russ, Frank, Wags, Reed to name a few. They can't be overpaying for a guy who isn't close to the best safety in the game.

 

[mrt144]

Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:

So here's a meta conversational notion.

People who are optimists are viewed by cynics as such: "They don't see reality in front of them. They find no fault with anything because the aggregate output satisfies them."
People who are cynics are viewed by optimists as such: "Being critical of every aspect of the team doesn't make you wise or reasoned. By virtue of finding no virtue in any aspect of the team, your critiques and criticism have little weight since they are so numerous."

The difference between a skeptic and cynic is the willingness to adjust attitude and opinion as information becomes available. A skeptic will provide some or negotiate some reasonable criteria (2 Rings in 9 years?) to meet to sway their opinion. A cynic will assume bad outcomes inherently and ignore or dismiss outcomes that COULD sway a skeptic.

One of the most confusing things about this differentiation is that cynics seem incapable of seeing themselves as cynics and totally believe they are in fact skeptics despite no evidence that they have a mutable opinion pertaining to whatever team or player conversation is happening.

Also, one can be a skeptical optimist but it requires a recursive look at future optimistic leanings when presented with outcome input. Basically, "I think there will be good outcomes but I will flip my wig over bad outcomes."

One of the giveaways between a skeptic and cynic is the 'infinite gripes syndrome'. Basically some sort of criteria was met but instead of actualizing that met criteria conversationally, the cynic moves the conversation to their next gripe about the team.

"Sure, they addressed this issue, but what about THIS issue now?" Merely handwaving away success to address a failure.

Examples:

Optimist: "I feel good about our chances this season because I trust the people with agency in how the team operates."
Cynic: "I feel dour about our chances this season because I do not trust the people with agency in how the team operates"
Skeptic: "I don't know about our chances this season. There are many positive things over time that we've witnessed but there are also nascent flaws that could get in the way. I don't know if it will be a good season and am incredulous that it will be inherently but I would be delighted to see our season pan out as designed or requisite adjustments be made in season to address inherent flaws and new ones that pop up."

Optimists: Rams fans in the now getting a taste of the SB. "McVay will make the tweaks to deliver a ring in 2019 or 2020. I know this."
Cynics: Seahawks fans in the now chiding Rams fans about what their 2021 season will be like. "Even if you win a SB, your future is going to be crap because of how you got there. If you don't win a SB, you'll look really stupid for McVay et al even trying, so don't even get excited about the strides made. Every outcome for you will be crap at the end of the day."
Skeptic: I don't know if the Rams will be electric in future seasons. Here is the criteria that meets 'electric'. They have a lot of short term considerations that elevate their chances in the short term and long term considerations that might diminish them in the long term. We'll see how it plays out and I'll eat some crow if it goes against my speculation, I think the Rams will ________________

One thing that verily gets in the way of functional conversation is indulging in the meta conversation and pigeon holing those who don't wholly agree with you as an 'optimist, cynic, or credulous' and ascribing an absolute intent to the other.

Your arguments are interesting, gotta think a little bit about it. Here is my issue. Think about how we view this front office like how they view the players on the team. If a player had two amazing seasons five years ago but was steadily declining the team might cut that player. I think that we all would agree that the team shouldn't keep players on the roster for what they did in the past. A lot of the arguments against me was that since this regime led to Super Bowl victories that we should continue to have faith in them. I don't consider that optimism. I consider that sentimentality. Like, I LOVED Lofa Tatupu, but I thought that the Hawks made the right choice in releasing him. The same thinking should be applied to coaches and GMs.

Well sentimentality feels like it's converted into implicit and explicit trust among some. Even within the notion of sentimentality, it is applied differently towards players, like Lofa as you mentioned, and coaches (like the perception that the board carries water for past deeds). To me, it seems like players are ammunition to be consumed while coaches are a gun to be maintained until broken or better pops up.

I've been hovering around the periphery withholding my own opinions somewhat but bottom line for me is the following:

I trust PC/JS to the extent that they will consistently field a team that in aggregate is more successful than it is not. There is some historical backing to this notion so it doesn't arise out of thin air. When all of the elements align very well, they have an ultimate winner on their hands. So then, the question becomes "are PC/JS doing the things to align the elements?" and honestly, I am borderline ignorant on this stuff by choice. There's simply too many players, transactions and hoopla about the draft and trades and FA pickups for me to make sense of it in a meaningful way. To wit, with the draft itself, we don't see the value of the player until they're halfway through their tenure - I can't make leaps of faith on what a drafted player will do for the team based on them beasting on MAC players and I will withhold most feelings on them until their 3rd year, if they make it that far or I do.

So I default to the tangible which is what we see in games and that's where I spend most of my interest looking. I don't care about what a guy is supposed to do or be, I care about what he is doing and how that compares to peers at the same point in their career and fulfilling an absolute need on the team.

Success, as I use it most times, means a 1 game above a .500 record. It does not mean 'entertaining' which 2017 help me articulate a differentiation from Success from. It does not mean Superbowl victories as I consider that more of a crapshoot than seasonal record. And something where I don't think Pete or Schotty have the tactical or strategic chops above their peers to make the playoffs anything greater than a talent based crapshoot for the Hawks. I know this is a low barrier but it gets the ball rolling on defining what I mean and where I think there can be room for improvement.

But there is also Ultimate Success which is a SB win and then there is a hierarchy of aims, methods, actions and outcomes which interact with putting you into a position to seize that Ultimate Success. Which leads me to....

I find the greatest flaw of the PC/JS regime is how they seemingly hang their hats on superior talent to execute a dogmatic game plan. Running into stacked boxes because of dogma and using aggregate seasonal results to buttress the argument that it is a strength of the team. Relying on generational talent with DBs to run a Cover 3 scheme that consistently gives up painful 3rd and longs. To an extent, this is like the 80-20 Rule - PC/JS do 80% of stuff well, correctly, successfully, but that 20% is an annoying anchor that seems beyond fixable or inspection. Additionally, if the team's fortunes is as talent bound as I imagine, PC/JS regime has not supported that mode recently as much as they did in the past with the 2010-2013 roster transactions. Some of this is their own doing, some of that is the nature of the game changing on some petite level, some of it is repeated freak injuries - but that's the nature of the game. If I am correctly identifying this situation as such (talent being the integral factor), then clearly PC/JS have been clearly deficient in stoking the fires for Ultimate Success and arguably deficient in maximizing seasonal success by how they've fulfilled a team operating on talent as the biggest factor. JS is only privvy to some of the agency there though as player utilization looms large on the overall question of Success.

At the highest level, I feel like Pete makes incorrect inferences from prior actions and situations - like "The Play" at the end of SB49. Although I'd have to do exhaustive statistical analysis of all Hawks passing plays and route concepts to reconcile my sensation with reality, the sensation of avoiding short over the middle passes feels like a reaction to that instance. Yes, that might have been the most grievous outcome ever to a short pass over the middle but the takeaway shouldn't have been "Lets run mostly outs, curls, digs, fades and posts" but "how the hell do we get better at this from every facet of consideration so we don't stomp on our dicks in crunch time when such a play is just the ticket?". I entertain arguments of playing to strengths and away from weaknesses, but I also resolutely believe that avoidance does not lead to meeting a baseline level of competency nor does avoidance lead towards optimal contextual application of plays available.

One might ask why I have such a low barrier to qualify Success and really SB49 told me "Never feel that crappy about a football game again". I really don't want to feel catatonic over a football game and buy into the hoopla and excitement until the damn thing is cinched - Then I'll whoop it up and pop the bubbly. While the Patriots and BB told me "There is clearly only one guy who fully knows what he's doing and even then he errs (Malcolm Butler says Hi from the sideline)". Finally, the 2017 Hawks season told me "Football is a good thing but there is an intangible quality to how its played that defines whether I find it entertaining or not. Ugly wins are still ugly and still wins but they make me more interested in the guts of the team itself more than the outcomes. Outcomes matter and there are no 'style points' but the two are not unrelated as one might think or imagine".

FWIW, I had to labor to collect these thoughts over time and call myself an idiot on more than one occasion. Maybe in doing some of the legwork to set up a framework for others we can say what we mean and mean what we say more clearly.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And hey, if someone gets injured, we can count on it being John Schneider's fault :lol:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This team has not made good choices with these bargain bin signings for quite a while. Is five Mingo's really better than one Landon Collins?

No, but a Mingo, Iupati, Meyers and resigning KJ and Fluker is. All players that fit under the crazy amount that Collins signed for.

Do you want one overpriced star, or do you want a team that has BOTH the talent and depth to play an entire NFL season and hopefully playoff games?

A team with the dearth of talent that we have needs playmakers. We need playmakers more than replacement level players with big names. Of those players you listed their are a couple who are often injured (Iupati and Fluker),or old (Iupati and KJ), or old and coming of injuries(Iupati and KJ), or who stink (Mingo). The Meyers signing was nice but, of course, it would have been nicer if we would have kept him last year. I don't think that our talent evaluation is strong anymore and I am not optimistic about these signings. With all the whiffs we've had lately I would feel more comfortable with a player like Collins.

You draft and develop playmakers firstly, then once your core group is ready to compete you go after a couple impact players. Harvin, Jimmy, Avril, Bennett......they all were acquired during championship runs in order to hopefully push us over the top.

You don't do that backwards like so perennial bad teams do, go spend ridiculous money on over priced free agents that rarely live up to their contracts.

 

[AgentDib]

How did last year work? Was the combo of Shamir Stephens, Tom Johnson, Ed Dickson, Mingo, and Jaron Brown last year a better investment than spending 10 million on a single player?

Unrestricted free agents do tend to be a bad deal. So what makes you think that going harder into UFA is the solution? When have big ticket FAs ever worked out for this franchise?

The difficulty with free agency is what's known as the Winner's Curse in auctions. The true value of players is somewhere in the middle of the range at which all 32 teams value them and they end up on the team that guessed the highest. The only way to get value out of this is to sign players with fewer suitors which often happens much later in the process.

 

[mrt144]

How did last year work? Was the combo of Shamir Stephens, Tom Johnson, Ed Dickson, Mingo, and Jaron Brown last year a better investment than spending 10 million on a single player?

Unrestricted free agents do tend to be a bad deal. So what makes you think that going harder into UFA is the solution? When have big ticket FAs ever worked out for this franchise?

The difficulty with free agency is what's known as the Winner's Curse in auctions. The true value of players is somewhere in the middle of the range at which all 32 teams value them and they end up on the team that guessed the highest. The only way to get value out of this is to sign players with fewer suitors which often happens much later in the process.

Wait wait wait, can the NFL implement silent auctions for Free Agents? That'd be WAY more interesting and compelling.

 

[SchadenfreudeHawk]

This team has not made good choices with these bargain bin signings for quite a while. Is five Mingo's really better than one Landon Collins?

No, but a Mingo, Iupati, Meyers and resigning KJ and Fluker is. All players that fit under the crazy amount that Collins signed for.

Do you want one overpriced star, or do you want a team that has BOTH the talent and depth to play an entire NFL season and hopefully playoff games?

A team with the dearth of talent that we have needs playmakers. We need playmakers more than replacement level players with big names. Of those players you listed their are a couple who are often injured (Iupati and Fluker),or old (Iupati and KJ), or old and coming of injuries(Iupati and KJ), or who stink (Mingo). The Meyers signing was nice but, of course, it would have been nicer if we would have kept him last year. I don't think that our talent evaluation is strong anymore and I am not optimistic about these signings. With all the whiffs we've had lately I would feel more comfortable with a player like Collins.

You draft and develop playmakers firstly, then once your core group is ready to compete you go after a couple impact players. Harvin, Jimmy, Avril, Bennett......they all were acquired during championship runs in order to hopefully push us over the top.

You don't do that backwards like so perennial bad teams do, go spend ridiculous money on over priced free agents that rarely live up to their contracts.

But these "overpaid" players of today become the average salaried players of tomorrow. The fact is that we are not creating the new generation of play-makers in the draft. Free Safety is super important in Pete's scheme and we are horrible there. Who else is gonna generate pass rush besides Frank and Reed? What about Wide Receiver with Baldwin aging and injured? There are so many holes to fill and little draft capital and not a lot of success in recent drafts. Sure, not spending in free agency makes sense in general but that assumes that you make the right moves drafting or picking up cheap free agents. We haven't done those things for a long time.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Um, Fluke and Sweezy were both VERY cheap Free Agents that contributed big time last season. Kendricks contributed when he was in there, and also very cheap.
Our best RB is a 7th rounder. We had a rookie TE who was flat out ballin' and unfortunately got hurt. Dickson was an all pro. Jacob Martin was a 6th round pick, he also contributed. Flowers is a baller.
Not a lot of success? Hmmmm

This team has more pressing needs coming up than overpaying a free agent.
Wags, Russ, Frank, Reed etc. These are all guys that are very important to the future of this team.
You can't just go out and pay a safety 13 or 14 mil when he's not NEARLY as good as Earl was????
These players have earned their stripes with this team and are flat out priorities.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

No, but a Mingo, Iupati, Meyers and resigning KJ and Fluker is. All players that fit under the crazy amount that Collins signed for.

Do you want one overpriced star, or do you want a team that has BOTH the talent and depth to play an entire NFL season and hopefully playoff games?

A team with the dearth of talent that we have needs playmakers. We need playmakers more than replacement level players with big names. Of those players you listed their are a couple who are often injured (Iupati and Fluker),or old (Iupati and KJ), or old and coming of injuries(Iupati and KJ), or who stink (Mingo). The Meyers signing was nice but, of course, it would have been nicer if we would have kept him last year. I don't think that our talent evaluation is strong anymore and I am not optimistic about these signings. With all the whiffs we've had lately I would feel more comfortable with a player like Collins.

You draft and develop playmakers firstly, then once your core group is ready to compete you go after a couple impact players. Harvin, Jimmy, Avril, Bennett......they all were acquired during championship runs in order to hopefully push us over the top.

You don't do that backwards like so perennial bad teams do, go spend ridiculous money on over priced free agents that rarely live up to their contracts.

But these "overpaid" players of today become the average salaried players of tomorrow. The fact is that we are not creating the new generation of play-makers in the draft. Free Safety is super important in Pete's scheme and we are horrible there. Who else is gonna generate pass rush besides Frank and Reed? What about Wide Receiver with Baldwin aging and injured? There are so many holes to fill and little draft capital and not a lot of success in recent drafts. Sure, not spending in free agency makes sense in general but that assumes that you make the right moves drafting or picking up cheap free agents. We haven't done those things for a long time.

No, they just become the big mistake overpaid salaried players of tomorrow.

You seem to be fixated on Collins for some reason. Dude had a torn labrum last year, and that's a major surgery for a hard hitting safety, probably THE most important body part for a safety some would argue.

You really want to commit 45M of guaranteed money and 15M per year?

I don't. I'd rather focus on getting back to mining the draft and 2nd and 3rd wave of value free agents for guys who can help us going forward.......and if that doesn't work? Then Pete and John have lost their ability to evaluate talent, and I don't want them running my team anymore.

Dumb franchises overpay, smart franchises find value and develop.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

See New England...…..