FA Spending Correlation With Winning

[Sydla]

Already have, it was in my list.

Neither of which had double digit sacks and one is actually a DT, not a DE.

So basically, you actually didn't do much to refute the comment that it's pretty rare that a rookie DE comes in and has a drastic effect on the pass rush of a team.

 

[mattjames2010]

Sure thing bud. No responsibility on your part, all of it on someone else.





More than you are. More than just an opinion. But, as usual, you're not smart enough to see the difference.

Great argument. Can't wait for more throwaway comments to be quoted by you from the very guy you criticize on here daily.

 

[mattjames2010]

Neither of which had double digit sacks and one is actually a DT, not a DE.

So basically, you actually didn't do much to refute the comment that it's pretty rare that a rookie DE comes in and has a drastic effect on the pass rush of a team.

So, it has to be "double digit sacks"? That's what makes an impact? Unbelievable. Go sit down, your infantile brain is about to overload with piss poor arguments.

If a rookie DE is giving you 8-9 sacks, they were an impact player. Ansah, 8 sacks, impact player. His original point that it doesn't happen, end of discussion.

Now, go to bed mental midget.

 

[visionary]

That's a generalization, and it's not accurate. We drafted better under Parcels. We drafted poorly under Phillips. It hasn't been a monolith.

You and I obviously disagree on whether we've been drafting and developing better under Garrett. I see a bad roster in 2010 that's gotten steadily better and that had a major setback last season largely due to injury. It's an open question whether we've gotten good enough at it to really be among the most competitive teams in the league, and then we've got the huge open question whether or not we can do it at QB, which is the most difficult position to fill. I happen to like that Garrett gives us the stability for that sort of incremental improvement because I think it's a much higher likelihood that we replace him with somebody and Jerry starts swinging for the fences again and winning that way is lightning-in-a-bottle hard. That doesn't make me an idealistic homer. It actually makes me a realist.

Roster "getting better" is not a generalization lol?

I asked you in another thread, what is the objective of playing professional football? You ducked out because you are obviously blind to the answer

Well, I'll help you out

It is not getting better, or stacking, or having good days, or all the other Garrett buzz words

It is winning games (please write it down so you don't forget)

 

[Stash]

Great argument. Can't wait for more throwaway comments to be quoted by you from the very guy you criticize on here daily.

As expected. You've got nothing. You're nothing but a miserable clown looking for an argument anywhere he can find it. Sad...

 

[Stash]

Here's the latest from Todd Archer on the Cowboys options for pass rushers getting thinner and thinner:


The Cowboys can look to the draft for help, but their second-round picks the last two seasons, DeMarcus Lawrence and Randy Gregory, did not record a sack as rookies. Pass-rushers generally need time to get used to the league. The franchise leader in sacks, DeMarcus Ware, had eight sacks as a rookie in 2005 and four came in the final two games.

As much as Joey Bosa makes sense at No. 4 or other defensive ends make sense in subsequent rounds, to expect a large number of sacks is folly.



But according to the knuckleheads around here, I'm sure he's way off-base with his facts too...

 

[Stash]

So, it has to be "double digit sacks"? That's what makes an impact? Unbelievable. Go sit down, your infantile brain is about to overload with piss poor arguments.

If a rookie DE is giving you 8-9 sacks, they were an impact player. Ansah, 8 sacks, impact player. His original point that it doesn't happen, end of discussion.

Now, go to bed mental midget.

Sure thing limbo bar. 8 sacks is "world-beating", "All-Pro" stuff now. You must be thrilled with those 8-8 seasons too.

 

[mattjames2010]

As expected. You've got nothing. You're nothing but a miserable clown looking for an argument anywhere he can find it. Sad...

Until you provide something, other than Garrett quotes, there's nothing to "refute". It's got to the "point and laugh" stage.

 

[mattjames2010]

Sure thing limbo bar. 8 sacks is "world-beating", "All-Pro" stuff now. You must be thrilled with those 8-8 seasons too.

And yet, you're impressed with a guy who had 6 sacks and 7 hurries.

It's okay, I'll give you time to go back and rework your initial point with Hardy.

 

[Stash]

Until you provide something, other than Garrett quotes, there's nothing to "refute". It's got to the "point and laugh" stage.

Sure thing. He - and everyone else - are wrong, and you're right. Because you say so.

I see exactly who this forum is "pointing and laughing" at. It's a shame that you haven't realized that it's you yet.

 

[Stash]

And yet, you're impressed with a guy who had 6 sacks and 7 hurries.

It's okay, I'll give you time to go back and rework your initial point with Hardy.

I can see past one year, while you're unable to. I'll defend a guy who was proven good enough to have 26 sacks in his last 31 games as a Panther. He's done it. Refute that.

 

[mattjames2010]

I can see past one year, while you're unable to. I'll defend a guy who was proven good enough to have 26 sacks in his last 31 games as a Panther. He's done it. Refute that.

So we have to go all the way back to 2013 to defend a player in 2016?

 

[Idgit]

Roster "getting better" is not a generalization lol?

I asked you in another thread, what is the objective of playing professional football? You ducked out because you are obviously blind to the answer

Well, I'll help you out

It is not getting better, or stacking, or having good days, or all the other Garrett buzz words

It is winning games (please write it down so you don't forget)

You'll have to point me to the other thread where I ducked out. Unless you're talking about the exchange we had where you were asking about the importance of a football mindset, I don't know what you're referring to. And that question I didn't duck out on, I told you I don't really know how important mindset it, and I don't find the question particularly interesting.

To answer your specific question here, of course the objective of playing games is to win them. And the objective to building a team is much more complex than the objective of playing the games. Confusing the two the way you have here muddles things up. I don't need to write that down, because it's kind of a simplistic question that doesn't have all that much to do with the topic of the thread, which revolves around spending in FA for what typically amounts to a lot more than one season's worth of contracts.

 

[Stash]

So we have to go all the way back to 2013 to defend a player in 2016?

Seriously? This is the best that you can do?

 

[mattjames2010]

Seriously? This is the best that you can do?

You just answered a question with a question. That's considered question dodging.

If you can't see the flaw in the only way to defend a player is going back 3 years, I'm not sure what else to say to you. What he did in 2013 with another team is not relevant, it was not the Hardy we saw in 2015. I am not against bringing him back, but don't attempt poor defenses.

 

[Stash]

You just answered a question with a question. That's considered question dodging.

If you can't see the flaw in the only way to defend a player is going back 3 years, I'm not sure what else to say to you. What he did in 2013 with another team is not relevant, it was not the Hardy we saw in 2015. I am not against bringing him back, but don't attempt poor defenses.

How is it "not relevant"? Because you don't want it to be? Because it blows up the poor case you're trying to make against him?

Please.

Say whatever you want about Greg Hardy the person. But the fact is that he's a proven pass rusher with the numbers to back it up.

Instead of focusing on "only 6 sacks" in 12 games, maybe we should be looking at those other guys we had out there not doing their jobs when they needed to? Hardy's produced? Have they?

Lawrence had a fine year, with Hardy on the other side. If you want to make the case that Hardy's presence had nothing to do with that, feel free. I doubt you'll have company on that island.

If you want to say that Crawford didn't disappoint in 2015 based on expectations vs production? Again, feel free. I think you'll be lonely yet again.

And, do we even need to bring up Nick Hayden's name? He's not worth the effort to type.

 

[mattjames2010]

How is it "not relevant"? Because you don't want it to be? Because it blows up the poor case you're trying to make against him?

Please.

Say whatever you want about Greg Hardy the person. But the fact is that he's a proven pass rusher with the numbers to back it up.

Instead of focusing on "only 6 sacks" in 12 games, maybe we should be looking at those other guys we had out there not doing their jobs when they needed to? Hardy's produced? Have they?

Lawrence had a fine year, with Hardy on the other side. If you want to make the case that Hardy's presence had nothing to do with that, feel free. I doubt you'll have company on that island.

If you want to say that Crawford didn't disappoint in 2015 based on expectations vs production? Again, feel free. I think you'll be lonely yet again.

And, do we even need to bring up Nick Hayden's name? He's not worth the effort to type.

I am strictly talking Hardy, the player.

And it's not relevant because it was 2 freakin' seasons ago with a different team before a year away from football. A lot crap has happened with Hardy in those years, very little positive. His play in 2015 IS what will be the deciding factor if he's brought back or not, unless he takes a small offer from us.

2015 - FAR MORE relevant than 2013. Do you not agree with this? I'm not sure how you could disagree.

Crawford didn't disappoint, because I never expected the guy to have double digit sacks. He go the hurries and sacks I expected. We've addressed the Hayden issue, if you haven't been paying attention.

And I'm not focusing on just the "6 sacks" from Hardy, I'm focusing on how he impacted plays consistently. 7 pressures, I actually thought he had more, is pathetic. Even IF he had double teams, if he's the player you are making him out to be, he should still have been far more of an impact player than that. There is no way to pain this in a different light: 6 sacks, 7 hurries from a veteran DE is mediocre.

 

[visionary]

You'll have to point me to the other thread where I ducked out. Unless you're talking about the exchange we had where you were asking about the importance of a football mindset, I don't know what you're referring to. And that question I didn't duck out on, I told you I don't really know how important mindset it, and I don't find the question particularly interesting.

To answer your specific question here, of course the objective of playing games is to win them. And the objective to building a team is much more complex than the objective of playing the games. Confusing the two the way you have here muddles things up. I don't need to write that down, because it's kind of a simplistic question that doesn't have all that much to do with the topic of the thread, which revolves around spending in FA for what typically amounts to a lot more than one season's worth of contracts.

How about 6 seasons? Or 25?
Keep making those excuses

 

[Toruk_Makto]

What I think is crazy is that we would spend millions of dollars on a guy like Zack Martin when he becomes available but if Martin played for any other NFL team other than the Cowboys then Dallas wouldn't come near him.

Because the Cowboys know the player. They feel more comfortable investing in them.

This should be self evident.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Even given the facts you have people here whining.

In related news....

Old men shake fists at sun.