Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt
Of course you can’t prove it. Not at this point. Pretty easy to see that Inman was a vast improvement. Mike Mitchell? Yep. Great add.
Maybe I am wrong but I can’t imagine we would be worse off by adding better talent. Usually that works out.
|
Haha - funny. Of course adding better players usually improves a team. My point is this: most of the free agents people here were pining for have underperformed, so adding them may not have helped at all. Imagine if we had signed Norwall - how would that have played out for us? Would we have drafted Nelson? How would Norwall's underperformance (if we assume he'd perform similar to how he performed in JAX) have affected our offensive line performance, and by extension, our entire offensive production? Yes, we'd have less cap space available, but would we have been better off?
Theorizing about adding "good' players is tempting, but ultimately foolhardy because there's no way to know how it would have played out, how the player's involvement would have affected the overall team performance, player development, and team chemistry.
I'm just saying that I'm happy with how things have turned out. If the team was 1-10 at this point and the draft picks had flamed out, then I guess I'd be ok with this type of criticism. But given what's happened this year, and the dramatic change in team perception, I'll disagree with it.