Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Not being a big player in free agency? JESUS CHRIST DIE JERRY RICHARDSON YOU BASTARD


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
147 replies to this topic

#136 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:42 PM

yeah that's actually the definition of an eye to the future. a try out. meaning you'd play in the future.


Really? I googled it and couldn't find any of that. If they truly were looking to the future, you'd hsve thought they would have locked him up while relatively inexpensive.


yeah actually it was the biggest contract ever given to someone being brought in to backup a starter but dont let the facts get in the way of a good story, unless you think 6.2 mil over 2 plus 2mil of incentives isn't big for David Carr.


You seem to forget that the Bucs (Gruden) was collecting QBs that year. They had Sims under contract costing more than we paid Carr, traded for Plummer though he refused to play and signed Garcia for 5 mill per year. At least 2 of those guys are sitting at costs higher than what you call the "biggest contract ever given to someone being brought in to backup a starter". That cut the supply and along with other teams in need of backups, drove the cost up.


the point is that the only thing arguing pro bowl births are good for is a means to identify dipshits whose points don't deserve consideration. they're stupid as hell to talk about because there's no way to objectively compare players and a popularity contest is the lowest turd in the poo barrel.


Then you really don't have a point, you have an opinion. Your opinion is that the pro-bowl is a popularity contest. Owners, Players and agents view it differently otherwise, there would not be 7 figure bonuses tied to it.

what the f**k does that have to do with what they did in the market 3 years later?
which defensive tackle got a bigger deal in 2006?


Are you seriously stating that any of those 290# pass rushing DTs could fill the role of the run plugger we wanted in the middle? That supply was shorter than tthe QBs. We paid for what we wanted.

#137 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:43 PM

LOL. I think Fiz would rather argue with someone and win than have sex with a supermodel.


But he can't win

#138 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:46 PM

But he can't win


Not against you, no. LOL

#139 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 06:05 PM

Not against you, no. LOL


This thread will be



EPIC

#140 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:42 PM

You seem to forget that the Bucs (Gruden) was collecting QBs that year. They had Sims under contract costing more than we paid Carr, traded for Plummer though he refused to play and signed Garcia for 5 mill per year. At least 2 of those guys are sitting at costs higher than what you call the "biggest contract ever given to someone being brought in to backup a starter". That cut the supply and along with other teams in need of backups, drove the cost up.

yeah 67 year old jeff garcia, chris simms on his rookie contract, and jake plummer refusing to play really drove up the cost of quarterbacks. which quarterback was the starter when they brought in garcia?

besides, gruden is an absolute lunatic about his quarterbacks, and garcia was brought in to at least compete.

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2786694

So the Bucs, convinced that they could not resurrect the deal for Plummer and still seeking a veteran quarterback to compete with Chris Simms for the starting job, turned their attentions to Garcia.


Carr was brought in with the intention of rehabilitating him.

Then you really don't have a point, you have an opinion. Your opinion is that the pro-bowl is a popularity contest. Owners, Players and agents view it differently otherwise, there would not be 7 figure bonuses tied to it.

lol oh there's money attached to it excuse me.

Endorsements, the true way to judge a players' excellence

Are you seriously stating that any of those 290# pass rushing DTs could fill the role of the run plugger we wanted in the middle?

well considering they pulled one off the street in 2009, yeah I do.

That supply was shorter than tthe QBs. We paid for what we wanted.


lol keep trying to apply your university of phoenix online econ 101 to football it's hysterical.

Edited by Fiz, 02 March 2010 - 07:45 PM.


#141 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:50 PM

Not against you, no. LOL


not when he starts off his replies by misunderstanding every single thing I say.

#142 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:15 PM

yeah 67 year old jeff garcia, chris simms on his rookie contract, and jake plummer refusing to play really drove up the cost of quarterbacks. which quarterback was the starter when they brought in garcia?.


Correct, the 67 yo Garcia that they committed 2 years at 5 million each. Plummer who they committed a 2nd round pick for and Simms who they committed more than we paid for Carr despite the fact that he was coming off a splenectomy. I can't help you if you want to deny that spending like that will drive the price od all QBs up.

besides, gruden is an absolute lunatic about his quarterbacks, and garcia was brought in to at least compete. .


My understanding was that you claimed we overpaid for Carr. We paid what the market required. We weren't the only team in the bidding.


Carr was brought in with the intention of rehabilitating him.
.


Possibly, but the primary motive was for Carr to push Jake. It was made clear to him that Jake was the starter.


lol oh there's money attached to it excuse me.
.


Of course there's money attached but the selling point by the agants to the teams is the indication of ability, not popularity. Popularuty does not result in productivity on the field.


well considering they pulled one off the street in 2009, yeah I do.

.



The difference might be that there was one avalable in 2009. There wasn't in 2006. BTW, how is referringto a transaction 3 years after the fact more relevent than referring to one 3 years before. I can show a correlation to the Jenkins extension. Show me one to the Hollis signing.


lol keep trying to apply your university of phoenix online econ 101 to football it's hysterical.


No point so hurl an insult. That's no way to attempt to display intelligence. Make a counter point or save the bandwidth.

#143 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,395
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:17 PM

not when he starts off his replies by misunderstanding every single thing I say.



Actually, I understand a lot more than you think I do.:D

Cup your hands and place one above each ear.

#144 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:26 PM

Correct, the 67 yo Garcia that they committed 2 years at 5 million each. Plummer who they committed a 2nd round pick for and Simms who they committed more than we paid for Carr despite the fact that he was coming off a splenectomy. I can't help you if you want to deny that spending like that will drive the price od all QBs up.

I can't help you if you still don't understand the difference between paying for a qb to start and paying for him to backup. there is a huge difference, but the carr situation is more complicated than all the others so maybe it's mucking up the issue.

My understanding was that you claimed we overpaid for Carr. We paid what the market required. We weren't the only team in the bidding.

who gives a poo what the market says? If you're in a bidding war with cleveland it doesn't matter what they wanted, you're overpaying for a shell shocked QB.

Possibly, but the primary motive was for Carr to push Jake. It was made clear to him that Jake was the starter.

Here you go Jake, here's a QB who wakes up in the middle of the night screaming. Feel threatened.

Of course there's money attached but the selling point by the agants to the teams is the indication of ability, not popularity. Popularuty does not result in productivity on the field.

no it doesn't, but it results in pro bowl votes!

Posted Image

The difference might be that there was one avalable in 2009. There wasn't in 2006. BTW, how is referringto a transaction 3 years after the fact more relevent than referring to one 3 years before. I can show a correlation to the Jenkins extension. Show me one to the Hollis signing.

jenkins was a better player and deserved the money. kemoeatu obviously didn't deserve the money, but he was the biggest name on the market. and they splurged on him. and it didn't pan out. which is the entire point of the thread.

#145 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:36 PM

I mean listen you can't apply supply and demand econ 101 market theory to free agency.

If the market decides you're going to have to pay out the nose for like steve tauscher, you don't do it.

#146 necroplasm

necroplasm

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-February 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,092
  • Reputation: 9
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 09:03 PM

Free Agency is so tight this year. I prey we draft really well.

#147 PanthersFanNY

PanthersFanNY

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,669
  • Reputation: 44
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 09:14 PM

I mean listen you can't apply supply and demand econ 101 market theory to free agency.

If the market decides you're going to have to pay out the nose for like steve tauscher, you don't do it.


Unless you're the Redskins.

#148 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,882
  • Reputation: 13,397
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 March 2010 - 01:09 AM

Fans never see free agency the way owners and GMs do. We're like kids wanting the excitement of a shiny new toy, and when free agency hits, the proverbial store is open. They, of course, are the guys who actually have to make the business run, and as such they have to count the costs of everything they do.

I wouldn't say they've been all that much less or more successful than a lot of other teams, honestly. Every team has its successes and flops. We know more about the Panthers because we follow them more closely, but if we looked at it objectively I don't know that we'd be all that far from anyone else.

Under Fox and Hurney, the team has usually chosen to focus on role players and castoffs. A few big name signings, yes, but never the big splash. And they're not alone in that. There are other teams who do the same.

Worth noting that per reports, the team has let its Pro Personnel department pretty much fritter away to nothing. It's basically just Mark Koncz and a couple of guys now. They're putting their big focus on the draft, which is a perfectly viable approach.

(it just doesn't make for fun offseasons like the Redskin fans get)