Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hog1
I get your point..................but, If he doesn't have any business being GM, it would tend to discount the accuracy of his argument.
In a perfect world some of these things may be true. However, when Gibbs and his team took the skins, as we all know, the team had been in COMPLETE disarray for some time. When you must make radical player changes immediately, and the timing is not of your choosing, you make the best deal you can. It may not be the deal you want. Being in a weak bargaining position, makes it impossible to drive a really good deal, so you do the best you can.
Additionally, it is real easy to blow up a speculative, foundationless commentary when the author has no skin on the table.
|
Relying on another posters ignorant comment as the basis to discredit a post you don't agree with is as baseless as it gets, why don't you go ahead and explain how we are better off for having all 4 of those players, all 4 of which I said we shouldn't either extend their contracts, or trade for, before their signings became reality, now my evaluation of these players are starting to become more and more apparent, and yet so long as they play for the skins they are somehow better than what they really are because their redskins.
You make it sound as if we were pigeonholed into the Portis trade, or the Brunell trade, or resigning Samuels, what about Lavar?
Portis- 50.mil
Lavar- 68mil
Samuels- 47mil
Brunell- 43mil
Thats 208 million dollar's between 4 players, I want to hear which individual believes that these are deal's that are, decent, or even liveable, those salaries are disgusting for what they bring to the table, DISGUSTING!
No 208 million minus those 4 wouldn't go towards vastly improving our team? NOOOOOOOOO?
Further more if you can't get the deal you want don't go out and break the bank to do so.