Pass2Run
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 10,870
- Reaction score
- 12,220
I call it like I see it. Last year, many criticized my take about the Giants actually being a good football team. Indeed, I was correct about that. I also speculated that they might even be better than the Eagles. Obviously, whiffed on that speculation.
In any case, things change — every year. That's one thing that doesn't change in the NFL: it's always changing.
Injuries happen; new players get drafted; old ones retire; players get traded, some are flat out cut,. a few end up in the hoosegow or worse.
What ever happens.. pretty much everyone knows the drill.
Last offseason, everyone clamored on about, "be more like the Rams."
But wait a minute?
Isn't that called "selling out."
Once upon a time, we were like the Rams. The difference? We just weren't that good at it. We tried trading for the flashy payers and supplementing our roster. We even did a relatively good job during our worst years. Those 5-11 Campo years were bad. But we were usually more competitive than our record stated. Still, as Parcells said, you are what you are. Anyway, I'm not living in some world where statistics don't matter.
I've never been much of a math person, although I'm more interested in it this year than I was in the past. I never liked it because I didn't see how it applied. I was slow to learn, I guess. What the flock is this sheep herder getting at?
My expectations are real. I get that it's a difficult game. Even more importantly, I get that it doesn't take a team of flashy stars. Although, it's great if you have them. But it's a team game, and takes a team at each position to be good at the sport.
The reason the Cowboys are drafting a different profile of players lately, in terms of character, is because of this fact. When you're in the middle of the game, you can be a great athlete, and all of that. But if you're not on the same page as the worst guy on the team, the other team can scheme on that, then your star, flashy player means squat.
Mazi Smith may not be an upgrade over some of his draft class, or maybe not for other teams. But for the Cowboys, he most definitely does upgrade what they do overall as a team. Your weakest link can negate any talent your flashy player has. And you can have a flashy player, with all the talent in the world, then he (or she in women's sports) ends up costing your team more than anything because his mentals break down, at all the wrong times.
In fact, I think the Giants will be back this year? Why because they play well as a team. They're getting better, steadily, rather than taking the Rams' philosophy, which I think is the only way to go. Be competitive over a timeframe, don't sell out for a year.
Either way, the odds are against us, but that's what makes it so fun. I see the Giants competing again this year, possibly being as good as the Eagles, and the Cowboys end up taking the division. I have almost zero doubt we'll be in this mix for the NFCC.
In any case, things change — every year. That's one thing that doesn't change in the NFL: it's always changing.
Injuries happen; new players get drafted; old ones retire; players get traded, some are flat out cut,. a few end up in the hoosegow or worse.
What ever happens.. pretty much everyone knows the drill.
Last offseason, everyone clamored on about, "be more like the Rams."
But wait a minute?
Isn't that called "selling out."
Once upon a time, we were like the Rams. The difference? We just weren't that good at it. We tried trading for the flashy payers and supplementing our roster. We even did a relatively good job during our worst years. Those 5-11 Campo years were bad. But we were usually more competitive than our record stated. Still, as Parcells said, you are what you are. Anyway, I'm not living in some world where statistics don't matter.
I've never been much of a math person, although I'm more interested in it this year than I was in the past. I never liked it because I didn't see how it applied. I was slow to learn, I guess. What the flock is this sheep herder getting at?
My expectations are real. I get that it's a difficult game. Even more importantly, I get that it doesn't take a team of flashy stars. Although, it's great if you have them. But it's a team game, and takes a team at each position to be good at the sport.
The reason the Cowboys are drafting a different profile of players lately, in terms of character, is because of this fact. When you're in the middle of the game, you can be a great athlete, and all of that. But if you're not on the same page as the worst guy on the team, the other team can scheme on that, then your star, flashy player means squat.
Mazi Smith may not be an upgrade over some of his draft class, or maybe not for other teams. But for the Cowboys, he most definitely does upgrade what they do overall as a team. Your weakest link can negate any talent your flashy player has. And you can have a flashy player, with all the talent in the world, then he (or she in women's sports) ends up costing your team more than anything because his mentals break down, at all the wrong times.
In fact, I think the Giants will be back this year? Why because they play well as a team. They're getting better, steadily, rather than taking the Rams' philosophy, which I think is the only way to go. Be competitive over a timeframe, don't sell out for a year.
Either way, the odds are against us, but that's what makes it so fun. I see the Giants competing again this year, possibly being as good as the Eagles, and the Cowboys end up taking the division. I have almost zero doubt we'll be in this mix for the NFCC.
