Broncos - Ware's the defense? Topic

Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2012 8:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 1/19/2012 9:47:00 PM (view original):
I think I can point to a lot of teams that aren't going to show any kind of aggression in the offseason
The Broncs might not either.  They're just talking right now.
I realize that.  Hence "It seems like he and Elway have the attitude that they're gonna be aggressive this offseason and make some moves. I hope that's the case."
1/20/2012 12:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

So you think there's any team out there that's not creating "next year" buzz?

1/20/2012 1:11 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Depends what you mean. Is there any team/coach out there telling their team "we're gonna suck next year"? No. Are there teams resigned to the fact that they're going to suck next year and have no intention of spending money or pursuing big names this offseason? Yes.
1/20/2012 2:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Such as?
1/20/2012 2:54 PM
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie
Yeah.  I'd be interested to hear who.  In the NFL?  Who resigns themselves to being poor?   The NFL has the fewest repeat playoff teams of any league.  Why would any team just assume they were gonna suck and do nothing about it when every season you have teams like the 49ers, Lions, Texans, Bengals, Broncos & Giants make the postseason after missing postseason last year.
1/20/2012 3:08 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
K...Dolphins, Bills, Browns, Jags, Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Buccaneers, Lions, Packers, Cardinals, Rams.

I don't see any of those teams being super active in trades or FA to land any big names. Obviously the Lions, Packers, Eagles and Chargers have good teams that won't need many additions, and the Falcons blew a lot of resources to get Julio, but the rest suck and they know it. They'll have a hard time attracting any good players, and I doubt we'll see much activity from them.

But I know you guys are just being contrarians, because you're smart enough to know (at least I hope you are) that not every team makes moves every year - and some teams have no intention of making any moves, even if they suck. You may not understand it and I don't either - because winning is the main goal. But there are likely more owners/GMs than we think who are all about the business side, and as long as they're making money, they don't care much about the product on the field.
1/20/2012 10:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Couldn't one argue that putting Tebow on the field is about the money?
1/21/2012 8:44 AM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 48 129 11
Prospect
Absolutely. When he first entered the league and was riding the pine, he was selling more jerseys than any other player. He is one of the, if not the, biggest draws in the sport right now. Everyone wants to see Tim Tebow play, whether you hate him and want him to fail or love him and can't get enough of him.
1/21/2012 9:30 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2012 8:44:00 AM (view original):
Couldn't one argue that putting Tebow on the field is about the money?
Yes, one could - but as you yourself have said many times, if Tebow's not winning more than he's losing, he's back on the bench. Bowlen is one owner who I'm confident cares about the onfield product.
1/22/2012 3:54 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't know.  He hired Fox instead of a good coach and Elway instead of an established talent evaluator.
1/22/2012 4:09 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Seems to me Fox drastically improved the defense and got his team to a 4-win improvement and the playoffs in a season they weren't supposed to do jack. He's way too conservative on offense, but he can clearly coach.

Elway - jury is still out, but he knows football and has a passion for his team.
1/22/2012 7:40 PM
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie
Posted by Jtpsops on 1/20/2012 10:40:00 PM (view original):
K...Dolphins, Bills, Browns, Jags, Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Buccaneers, Lions, Packers, Cardinals, Rams.

I don't see any of those teams being super active in trades or FA to land any big names. Obviously the Lions, Packers, Eagles and Chargers have good teams that won't need many additions, and the Falcons blew a lot of resources to get Julio, but the rest suck and they know it. They'll have a hard time attracting any good players, and I doubt we'll see much activity from them.

But I know you guys are just being contrarians, because you're smart enough to know (at least I hope you are) that not every team makes moves every year - and some teams have no intention of making any moves, even if they suck. You may not understand it and I don't either - because winning is the main goal. But there are likely more owners/GMs than we think who are all about the business side, and as long as they're making money, they don't care much about the product on the field.
The question wasn't "Who isn't going to do much this off season".  The question was....  "Who would resign themselves to being bad, and do little to nothing about it?"  
1/23/2012 4:27 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Ya, I got the question, but since my point was that not all teams intend to be active/aggressive in the offseason, or believe they'll win it all next season, I stuck with that. I understand that you like to skew arguments in your favour, but don't attribute ideas to me that aren't mine.

The closest thing I said to what you're implying is that some owners/front offices in professional sports don't care much about the on-field product if they're making money. Which is true - I've watched one first hand in Baltimore for the last 15 years, and I know there are others.
1/24/2012 9:34 AM
eschwartz67
Posts: 2003 (0)
Hall of Famer
839 1 1 112 1
Rookie
OK....  I quit.  You and Mike are among the most difficult people in the world to have any type of normal/civil conversation with.  You get called on something, and spin it that the OTHER person is either A) Stupid or B) Vindictive or C) Both.

I skewed this argument to my favor?  I will copy and paste what you posted....  and what I asked in return.  Then you tell me.....   Who would resign themselves to being bad?   Resigning themselves implies that they would do nothing about it.  See the definition below....

re·sign  (r-zn)
v. re·signed, re·sign·ing, re·signs
v.tr.
1. To submit (oneself) passively; accept as inevitable: I resigned myself to a long wait in line.
2. To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification.

JT:   Depends what you mean. Is there any team/coach out there telling their team "we're gonna suck next year"? No. Are there teams resigned to the fact that they're going to suck next year and have no intention of spending money or pursuing big names this offseason? Yes.

E:  Yeah.  I'd be interested to hear who.  In the NFL?  Who resigns themselves to being poor?

JT:  K...Dolphins, Bills, Browns, Jags, Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Buccaneers, Lions, Packers, Cardinals, Rams.

I don't see any of those teams being super active in trades or FA to land any big names. Obviously the Lions, Packers, Eagles and Chargers have good teams that won't need many additions

E:  The question wasn't "Who isn't going to do much this off season".  The question was....  "Who would resign themselves to being bad?"

JT:  Ya, I got the question, I understand that you like to skew arguments in your favour, but don't attribute ideas to me that aren't mine.


You're right.  I apologize.  You never said that teams would resign themselves to being bad.  After re-posting what you actually said, you said, teams will be resigning themselves to suck next season.  My bad.

I'll ask again....  WHO RESIGNS THEMSELVES TO SUCK IN A SEASON WHEN IN THE NFL MANY TEAMS GO FROM WORST TO FIRST???

Then I swear on my mother's grave....   I will never post anything about anything you or Mike say again.....

1/24/2012 10:23 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
"not every team makes moves every year - and some teams have no intention of making any moves, even if they suck. You may not understand it and I don't either - because winning is the main goal. But there are likely more owners/GMs than we think who are all about the business side, and as long as they're making money, they don't care much about the product on the field."

Clearly you can read, so how about reading the complete thought?  You must be a journalist. You stop after the bolded part above, so that you can have support for your argument. I gave you the reasoning for my statement. Are you going to sit there and tell me there are no owners in professional sports (including football) who don't care about the on field product as long as their pockets continue to be padded with cash? Would you like to explain to me why teams like the Browns and Bills (and teams like the Lions and Cardinals before them, and the Buccaneers and Bengals before that) go close to a decade or more without even sniffing the playoffs?
1/24/2012 10:41 AM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...175|176|177|178|179...190 Next ▸
Broncos - Ware's the defense? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.