net
Cheesehead
Again, I'm no fan of Ted Thompson. I think he set Mike Sherman up to fail so he could clean house. It remains to be seen if the new regime will be any better.
But I also agree, tepidly, with Ted in not overpaying. Go the Mike Florio's ProFootballTalk.com column and read what some very average players are making from the first few days. It reminds me of baseball, where .250 hitters are paid like Willie Mays should have been.
If spending money meant winning, the Vikings and the Redskins should have been contending for the Super Bowl...did I miss something or did the Love Boaters miss the playoffs last year? Weren't the Foreskins "one and done" in the playoffs? Even with Joe Gibbs and all those "wonderful" FA's?
I believe there's a balance there. The Cincinnati's and Arizona's(Browns and Bidwells--you can throw the Saints in there, too) have a notorious 'cheap' reputation. Marvin Lewis got the Bengals to open up and they started winning, and I suspect the same thing will happen in Arizona. But the reality is New England set the table for modern FA. They cleverly signed players who filled a need, but didn't cost an arm and a leg(overpay the market price). Oakland has spent money stupidly on players in the past and don't have much to show for it, except one recent Super Bowl loss.
Buying players doesn't guarantee anything, much like drafting players doesn't guarantee anything. What you need is a balance of meaningful FA signings and clever drafting, coupled with effective coaching.
So far, Ted is so-so, and I'm keeping an open mind about McCarthy, but I still look at the 49'er offense ranked 32nd last year and wonder. I also wonder about the defense without Jim Bates. We will see, won't we?
But I also agree, tepidly, with Ted in not overpaying. Go the Mike Florio's ProFootballTalk.com column and read what some very average players are making from the first few days. It reminds me of baseball, where .250 hitters are paid like Willie Mays should have been.
If spending money meant winning, the Vikings and the Redskins should have been contending for the Super Bowl...did I miss something or did the Love Boaters miss the playoffs last year? Weren't the Foreskins "one and done" in the playoffs? Even with Joe Gibbs and all those "wonderful" FA's?
I believe there's a balance there. The Cincinnati's and Arizona's(Browns and Bidwells--you can throw the Saints in there, too) have a notorious 'cheap' reputation. Marvin Lewis got the Bengals to open up and they started winning, and I suspect the same thing will happen in Arizona. But the reality is New England set the table for modern FA. They cleverly signed players who filled a need, but didn't cost an arm and a leg(overpay the market price). Oakland has spent money stupidly on players in the past and don't have much to show for it, except one recent Super Bowl loss.
Buying players doesn't guarantee anything, much like drafting players doesn't guarantee anything. What you need is a balance of meaningful FA signings and clever drafting, coupled with effective coaching.
So far, Ted is so-so, and I'm keeping an open mind about McCarthy, but I still look at the 49'er offense ranked 32nd last year and wonder. I also wonder about the defense without Jim Bates. We will see, won't we?
