Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka
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.
|
Nobody gives a shit if you are “ok” with the criticism.
Some free agents are misses. Like Howard. Some are good. Like Inman and Mitchell. Like glowinski. Being on the outside of the playoffs with 60 million in the bank is valid criticism. Whether you like it or not.
Worst case, a healthy Luck is going to get you 8 wins. Every time. Give that man as much talent around him as you can. Anything else is dumb