Optimists rejoice

[retailguy]

Getting Howard Green was HUGE.

Was this pun intentional?

[Smeefers]

Was this pun intentional?

Perhaps?

[Bossman641]

Agreed! Getting Howard Green was HUGE. I still remember Raji sitting on the field after a game (can't remember which one), but he was the only healthy DL guy we had. I think that game there was Wynn and Wilson and BJ. BJ played every darn defensive snap. We lost, but he was the rock in that game and I knew that if we didn't get some guys around him to help him out, he'd go the way of so many other players and end up hurt. Getting Green was that extra guy that saved him.

I think you are remembering the Minn game in GB. Jenkins got injured during warmups and Pickett was out after the first couple of drives. It was Raji, Wilson, and Wynn the rest of the way. Don't know how they won that game.

[Scott Campbell]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Agree with you on Raji, Clay, Tramon, Shields, etc...

But when something happens over and over to the point it's beyond the league average, let's get real -- it's not luck. Definite trend.

When you get through all the injuries we got through, it's not luck. It's Thompson. And the staff he assmebled.

[mission]

It's Thompson.

Si.

[HarveyWallbangers]

<-- The original Optimist

[swede]

No need to start a new thread, but this blog entry from the Urinal is pretty cool.
It is pretty cool because I am a flawed human being, rejoicing in the pain of Bear and Viking fans.

Let me say that I am "optomistic" about it bringing joy to other flawed human beings that post here, as it picks the scabs of Bear and Viking misery.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/115637529.html

[sharpe1027]

Let me get this straight. Making a bunch of seemingly great moves cannot be credited to the GM and must be luck because it is too good? Seems circular to me. By that logic, I conclude that there are no good GMs in the league, only lucky ones.

[pbmax]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Agree with you on Raji, Clay, Tramon, Shields, etc...

But when something happens over and over to the point it's beyond the league average, let's get real -- it's not luck. Definite trend.

I think 3irty is saying even a good GM on a hot streak doesn't hit on two first round draft picks AND THEN find two starting CBs in the undrafted pile very often. So that kind of talent haul may not be repeated every two years. But what I think this year showed, is that all those other picks, the ones that do not produce All-Pros and can still be debated, if done right, can contribute to a very successful year. Colledge, Bishop, Jackson, Hawk, Jones and Nelson all helped, even if none will be superstars. By virtue of rising to competency, they helped the All-Pros immeasurably.

[sharpe1027]

I think 3irty is saying even a good GM on a hot streak doesn't hit on two first round draft picks AND THEN find two starting CBs in the undrafted pile very often. So that kind of talent haul may not be repeated every two years. But what I think this year showed, is that all those other picks, the ones that do not produce All-Pros and can still be debated, if done right, can contribute to a very successful year. Colledge, Bishop, Jackson, Hawk, Jones and Nelson all helped, even if none will be superstars. By virtue of rising to competency, they helped the All-Pros immeasurably.

That seems consistent with the context of 3irty's post. I think the use of the term "luck" is what I disagree with. Every GM has some years that are better than others. Having above-normal results any particular year is to be expected in any long-term strategy as are below-average results. The good years makeup for the bad years. It is not so much luck, as how the system is designed to work.

[MJZiggy]

<-- The original Optimist

Optimistic Realists?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Optimistic Realists?

Indeed. Or was it Realistic Optimists?

[swede]

Indeed. Or was it Realistic Optimists?

I remember that cult, filled with shadowy characters and easily split into pro- and anti- factions on any issue. What I don't remember is when it originated. Was it JSO or early Rats? Was or pre or post Sherman?

We really need a historian Rat to keep track of important events such as the race between Harlan and Brent for most retirements in a three year period.

[MJZiggy]

I remember that cult, filled with shadowy characters and easily split into pro- and anti- factions on any issue. What I don't remember is when it originated. Was it JSO or early Rats? Was or pre or post Sherman?

We really need a historian Rat to keep track of important events such as the race between Harlan and Brent for most retirements in a three year period.

First we'd have to decide whose were more dramatic and that could take a while.