soxfan121 said:The 13th and 14th best players on your team leaving would be "devastating"? Really?
It's not just about talent. It's about scheme fit and team building. A very wise man once said "You're not collecting talent, you're building a team." I think you all know who said that, but evidently you all don't understand it. You can't simply lose one player and replace him with the next and expect everything to be "rainbows and glitter." This isn't baseball.
SMU_Sox said:I like that idea, 121. One player from each side of the ball. Although that could end up benefiting one sided teams.
Doing a 3-5 seems to violate the protect 12 rule. MMS said no new rules. Not that I don't like it, 121, just that it seems to run afoul of the agreement.
But doing steals first isn't a new rule it's just how to execute what we're doing. And it seems like everyone can get behind it.
The one player per side of the ball isn't a new rule but a way to execute it. I like it. I want to hear more from others about it - let's keep this a respectful discussion .
If we want new rules we can have them. MMS isn't a dictator, he's an organizer. He wants what we want.
ElcaballitoMVP said:You're missing my point completely. You asked what well run teams lost two studs in one offseason. I'm giving you examples of well run teams that lost players that were significant contributors and still went on to conference title games, all within a much more difficult salary cap environment. It doesn't matter if the Pats viewed Amendola as an upgrade (which I disagree with, btw) or if Goldson was a product of the Niners system. They were able to handle the loss of these players, but we can't handle the loss of our 13th/14th best? You aren't losing RG3, you aren't even losing a Jamie Collins. And if you do lose a guy like Rahim Moore, for example, you can go ahead and steal someone like Reggie Nelson from me.
Ultimately, I don't care what we do. I drafted one of the youngest teams in the league and I'd love to watch those young guys grow up together, but I'm also not going to get my panties in a bunch if I lose a guy like Alfonzo Dennard or Karlos Dansby. The impact of losing 2 (at most) of these kinds of players is not going to devastate my team. Not even close.
I'll give you that you answered my question with the Pats losing two studs, but I thought it was understood that I meant for cap reasons, not murder reasons. I said this that started the whole discussion "In the NFL you have enough cap space so that if you always play your cards right you'll never lose a player you want to keep." The Niners you listed aren't studs, and the Patriots were not lost for cap reasons. My original statement is still right.
It is called an example, dingleberry.
You had lots of trouble figuring out what X was and why they wanted you to solve it in school, huh?
What was X? X is a letter.