36 replies to this topic

[Zod]

WHen its put that way, how many deals over the past 5 years can we look back on and not be happy about, starting with the huge Delhomme money after his career ending playoff game.

[Panthro]

The title doesn't show up in full on huddle mobile

[SpinTk]

hind sight is 20/20. pretty dumb statement in my opinion.

[Mage]

Are we talking what were actually bad deals or what turned out to be a bad deal, if that makes sense?

I don't think paying Beason what we did was bad but obviously it has not worked out for us and Beason is probably out of his starting spot in the middle. Delhomme's deal was probably the worst - the most inexcusable deal ever and made no sense logically, even if Delhomme played remotely well in the playoffs game (he had been wildly inconsistent that year though to his credit always delivered in the clutch, mainly just lobbing up balls to Smitty though).

The DeAngelo Williams deal was dumb only to be compounded by the Jonathan Stewart deal. Love Stewart but just thinking it over, no reason to give 2 running backs big bucks.

[natty]

Virtually every single deal signed Delhomme is uncomfortable besides FA pickups. Lots were players that I thought deserved to get re-signed did but all the numbers seemed at very least a bit high. Overspend a bit here and a bit there and all of a sudden you got nothing left.

[CRA]

hind sight is 20/20. pretty dumb statement in my opinion.

I don't think he is talking about those rare ones where hindsight really comes into play.

Delhomme's deal wasn't bad in hindsight. It was bad when we offered it to him.

DeAngelo and Stewart both being signed isn't bad in hindsight....no team in NFL history has done such a thing (and all those other team in the history of the league didn't have a mobile QB and a FB who is a really a RB on board). Comes down to touches simply not being there regardless of OC.

Anderson/Godfrey/etc are just overpaid....hindsight doesn't make that so.

Most of the obvious bad deals are "justified" here using fan logic. We like them....therefore try to rationalize why we blantenty overpay or focus on one spot

[cbully]

I don't think he is talking about those rare ones where hindsight really comes into play.

Delhomme's deal wasn't bad in hindsight. It was bad when we offered it to him.

DeAngelo and Stewart both being signed isn't bad in hindsight....no team in NFL history has done such a thing (and all those other team in the history of the league didn't have a mobile QB and a FB who is a really a RB on board). Comes down to touches simply not being there regardless of OC.

Anderson/Godfrey/etc are just overpaid....hindsight doesn't make that so.

Most of the obvious bad deals are "justified" here using fan logic. We like them....therefore try to rationalize why we blantenty overpay or focus on one spot

Delhomme mos def didn't deserve his contract and the RB contracts were a bit too much too. The reality is that year we could pass the ball was the birth of our RB duel so yes they should have ran 1000+ yards sadly because we couldn't pass the ball. Thus our backs don't suck but that year certainly made them overrated and now overpaid! I love them, Stew more so based on power and will, but those contracts suck.

Lets' not even go to our defensive contracts! smh... yes we have great players but we could have offered less.

[beach]

My favorite Gettleman quote: "I don't believe in communism"

Thank god for that

[Frash Brastard]

Contract extensions currently in progress that come to mind....

Charles Godfrey
James Anderson
DeAngelo Williams
Jonathan Stewart

[Mr. Scot]

My favorite Gettleman quote: "I don't believe in communism"

Thank god for that

He wasn't discussing economic theory.

In context, he was talking about people being included on decisions rather than one guy issuing orders and everyone else being in the dark until he speaks (i,e, the way the old Soviet Union used to operate).

[beach]

He wasn't discussing economic theory.

In context, he was talking about people being included on decisions rather than one guy issuing orders and everyone else being in the dark until he speaks (i,e, the way the old Soviet Union used to operate).

yeah haha I know

Twas a joke mate!

[Mr. Scot]

yeah haha I know

Twas a joke mate!

Gotcha.

I don't like communism either

[Mr. Scot]

On the topic, it tells me he's gonna be really careful about signing contracts rather than just throwing money at whomever has an above average season.

[CRA]

On the topic, it tells me he's gonna be really careful about signing contracts rather than just throwing money at whomever has an above average season.

Also, if you look at Bradshaw, Jacobs, Ward, etc from his era in NY ( I think they where Earth, Wind, and Fire about the same time Double Trouvle emerged)....he will let certain positions simply walk or take reasonable money to stay. NYG ain't about paychecks to RBs

[SpinTk]

I don't think he is talking about those rare ones where hindsight really comes into play.

Delhomme's deal wasn't bad in hindsight. It was bad when we offered it to him.

DeAngelo and Stewart both being signed isn't bad in hindsight....no team in NFL history has done such a thing (and all those other team in the history of the league didn't have a mobile QB and a FB who is a really a RB on board). Comes down to touches simply not being there regardless of OC.

Anderson/Godfrey/etc are just overpaid....hindsight doesn't make that so.

Most of the obvious bad deals are "justified" here using fan logic. We like them....therefore try to rationalize why we blantenty overpay or focus on one spot

delhomey, i'll give you.

but as to dwill and jstew, "no team[mates] in NFL history" rushed for the amount of yards they have. from 2008-2011 they have been no. 1 and 2 respectively at yards per attempt in the league.

anderson can easily be worked around. godfrey, too.

it's just a simple statement trying to pack too much of a punch.