Silly me, I took the name of the thread at face value.
Looks like five more years of horseshit Offensive Lines
-
DanielVogelbach
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:43 pm
Re: Looks like five more years of horseshit Offensive Lines
There's only so much you can ask for. It's not about how good the GM is. It's about how good the GM is compared to the other GMs in the league.
NFL is pure competition between the franchises, since they all have the same salary cap. John Schneider could be a football genius of the highest degree, but as long as the other 31 franchises also have the football equivalent of a jedi master, then there's no competitive edge.
One thing that you could look at would be if there's an idea of going in cycles of terrible to great working better than wallowing in mediocrity or even slightly good but not making deep runs to conference championship or Super Bowl. I think most fans would prefer to suck for a while, then compete for Bowls, then suck for a while, etc.
I guess you would say rebuild cycles versus trying to sustain. This is definitely applicable in baseball, but not sure if as applicable to NFL. Perhaps you can maintain decent competitiveness even during a rebuild or that would even be desired since there is a lot more rebuilding to do if your whole team sucks and NFL rosters are so big. But, even in the NFL if you completely suck then you get higher draft picks. You can trade veterans for draft picks and then suck and get better picks. I think it still might be a good idea, but then there was the Patriots that were good forever even in the salary cap era.
I think it kind of goes back to whether or not you think a GM can be so good that he can outsmart the entire league. I think maybe the Patriots were doing that to some extent. It wasn't just Tom Brady. But, as teams catch up then it becomes more difficult. It's kind of like how Billy Beane had an advantage with his advanced stats, but now everyone uses advanced stats.
NFL is pure competition between the franchises, since they all have the same salary cap. John Schneider could be a football genius of the highest degree, but as long as the other 31 franchises also have the football equivalent of a jedi master, then there's no competitive edge.
One thing that you could look at would be if there's an idea of going in cycles of terrible to great working better than wallowing in mediocrity or even slightly good but not making deep runs to conference championship or Super Bowl. I think most fans would prefer to suck for a while, then compete for Bowls, then suck for a while, etc.
I guess you would say rebuild cycles versus trying to sustain. This is definitely applicable in baseball, but not sure if as applicable to NFL. Perhaps you can maintain decent competitiveness even during a rebuild or that would even be desired since there is a lot more rebuilding to do if your whole team sucks and NFL rosters are so big. But, even in the NFL if you completely suck then you get higher draft picks. You can trade veterans for draft picks and then suck and get better picks. I think it still might be a good idea, but then there was the Patriots that were good forever even in the salary cap era.
I think it kind of goes back to whether or not you think a GM can be so good that he can outsmart the entire league. I think maybe the Patriots were doing that to some extent. It wasn't just Tom Brady. But, as teams catch up then it becomes more difficult. It's kind of like how Billy Beane had an advantage with his advanced stats, but now everyone uses advanced stats.