Time for TT to hit a blue chipper

[Bretsky]

Going for broke is for impatient losers.

It happens all the time at the trade deadline in all sports. It rarely works. Usually you don't win the title (it's hard to win the title) and also suffer the consequences later (and 9-7 isn't always the lowside of the consequences).

Who is the one guy to put us over the top? Jonathan Stewart? Give me a break. How about you Bretsky?

You never know who that one guy is. Reggie Bush? Ryan Grant?

Keep building this thing Ted. If there's a guy or two that you think will make a difference in FA, get him. Otherwise, trust your ability to evaluate talent.

I'm not a GM; I don't know who exactly that player is so it's worthles to try to bait me into naming that player. I haven't spent the past 365 days scouting college football players. TT has, and I'd agree that if TT thinks a player will give us a shot to win a title near term he should not hesitate to trade up and get him. Ditto for free agency. It's OK to take chances. And I've never been one to set back and agree with everything that happens; probably why I find myself debating a lot here and there.

I will say Partial was right last year with his call and he took criticism for singling out Adrian Peterson as the guy worth moving up for. Maybe he'll be right again this year.

[KYPack]

What I'm wondering is, if this is such a good idea, of all of the various teams to win superbowls in the modern era, how many of them did so because they sold the farm to get a special player when they were already close.

I can't think of any team that has done this, but I haven't thought too much about it.

The only example of this I can think of is Tampa Bay.

Tony had 'em close, but couldn't get the offense together to get 'em over the hump.

They blew 2#1's, 2 #2's and got Chucky to coach from Oak. That did it. They bet the franchise & won the ring. & the Glazers fucked the team. Tampa got nothing out of the draft for 3 years. & Crazy Al davis didn't do shit for Oak with 4 extra 1st day picks.

What's the moral of that one?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harv, so what happens when we get back to the championship and lose?

Can happen to anybody. When you get to the Super Bowl, that game is almost a tossup. BTW, I wasn't calling you or Bretsky a loser. I re-read and it sounded like I was. What I meant is that the teams that try to sell the farm to get the one special player is usually a team that can't get over the hump. I'm not convinced this Green Bay can't get over the hump. I love Favre, but I'm not convinced that 1) we can't win with another QB if the roster keeps getting built like Thompson has been building, and 2) that Favre won't play two more years.

There have been a lot of times when a team sells the farm and that player isn't the right one to get them over the hump or their team wasn't close enough. Is there a player in the draft that I think gets us over the hump? Not really. I'd like to see us be active in FA, but I'm okay with sitting out the initial phase--when all guys are overpaid. You can say the market determines what a guy should get paid. I don't think so. I think the teams that have built from within and that have done the best not to overpay have been the ones that have been successful. Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, San Diego. People point to New England. However, they traded for Moss and Welker, and they actually got one of the few value deals last year in the signing of Adaluis Thomas. I wouldn't lump him in with most of the rest of these FAs that are getting overpaid. There haven't been a ton of consequences to overpaying in the last year or two, but history shows that eventually there will be. Also notice that their championship teams were mostly built from within. Lately, they've been going the FA route, and it hasn't worked. They haven't won the Super Bowl in the last few years--although they should have this year.

FA isn't over. I'm not convinced Thompson won't sign a couple of guys. I'm pretty convinced that he'll stay with his plan not to overpay though. I'm also convinced that he has a knack for evaluating talent.

[BallHawk]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I will say Partial was right last year with his call and he took criticism for singling out Adrian Peterson as the guy worth moving up for. Maybe he'll be right again this year.

For one guy it might have worked. Adrian Peterson. That's yet to be determined. But remember that the knock on Peterson was that he was injury prone, and nothing that happened in year one says that won't be a problem. He got hurt again. He runs violently, so it's a possibility he'll continue to get injured. Also, if we have Peterson, we probably don't have Justin Harrell... wait... Justin Harrell, James Jones (probably would have had to trade that pick), and Ryan Grant (probably don't trade for him).

BTW, you're a damn good Wii bowler.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

[RashanGary]

Maybe we can just all agree on everything like a bunch of sheep. One guy/gal can post something, then the rest of us can post 'I agree.' That sounds fun.

I take exception to this and so should a lot of people here. Nobody is suggesting Partial shoudln't have differing opinions. It was frustrating initially that he was saying "you can do this or that" like it was black and white win or lose. It's obviously not that simple and everyone (even those in support of giving up something down the road to take a chance today) agree that it's not as simple as doing it or not doing it like the original posts here suggested.


Anyway, I think it's a great discussion and I love that it's so grey to so many people. Cleveland thinks they're taking those shots right now and I think they'll end up burrying their franchise. Not to be a prick, but I get satisfaction out of that becasue I know smart GM's (one of them who runs our team) will continue to exploit their mistakes and stay on top while bad teams continue to suck at the bottom. If it was black and white everyone would be the same and everyone woudl be 8-8 rather than having some 13-3 with a real shot and some 4-12 like SF who is going for broke. IF this wasn't so debatable, football would be a lot less fun. I'm just glad to see the conversation brought back to reality a little.

And yeah, I do think a lot of Ted Thompson. I love his approach. I think it's opportunistic and takes advantage of human weakness. This buisness has a lot of money circulating and a lot on the line but one thing you can always count on is desperation leading to doom and Thompsons approach lets people slit their throats while he consistantly moves toward the top.

[BallHawk]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

I'd call him a borderline stud. He still has consistency issues, but without a doubt he's a top 3 QB.....


Ah, who am I kidding? Brett's a straight-up stud.

[MJZiggy]

I want to win now with Favre. Obviously, you can't do that long term.

Perhaps you need to read the article on the homepage and tuck a copy under your pillow tonight just to be sure the idea sinks in...

[Partial]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

I'd call him a borderline stud. He still has consistency issues, but without a doubt he's a top 3 QB.....


Ah, who am I kidding? Brett's a straight-up stud.

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

[RashanGary]

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

Now you're reminding me of Adolf Partler playing of peoples fears and emotions. It works though. I can't say I've never been guilty of using the emotion of the public to rally support. Bravo!!

[Guiness]

...
Cleveland thinks they're taking those shots right now and I think they'll end up burrying their franchise. Not to be a prick, but I get satisfaction out of that becasue I know smart GM's (one of them who runs our team) will continue to exploit their mistakes and stay on top while bad teams continue to suck at the bottom.
...

No kidding, eh? Why are they making these moves? These are the moves you should see from a team that's close to having a good run, and needs a couple of pieces. The kind of shot NE took last year getting Moss, Stallworth and Seau.

OTOH Cleveland was close to making the playoffs. Maybe that's all they're hoping for

I think you're right. They may or may not make the playoffs next year, depending on whether or not injuries are good to them. But they don't have the depth to be good for a couple of years, and they're going to end up looking like the Redskins by the time 2010 comes around.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

No matter who you trade for... you can't be sure that is the guy to put them over the top. I still think it's a safer bet to acquire draft picks because your chances on hitting on them are higher with more picks. Hell, more than half of the top 10 picks don't become Pro Bowl players--and these are the guys that are supposed to be the studs. It's a crapshoot. Sherman traded up. Thompson trades down. I like Thompson's strategy more.

[Partial]

I like Thompson's strategy more as well. C'mon, everyone knows I am not a big proponent of trading up. Never have been and never will be. But, when you're this close and in the last year with a legend (as opposed to most teams who's best player in typically in their prime), you've got to go for broke. If it fails and you don't get the Lombardi trophy, at least you have your pride knowing that you took a shot at it and it went wrong. If you don't make any moves and you fail, you'll always have to question whether you did enough.

It seems like a unique situation to me because I cannot remember the last time one of the NFL's biggest difference makers was 38-39 and on the cusp of retirement with a supporting cast that is deep and good.

[RashanGary]

I still think it's a safer bet to acquire draft picks because your chances on hitting on them are higher with more picks.

Carefull, Harv. I try to keep "safer" out of this becuase it's an explosive gas can around here. Try to say better for now and for the future. It just leaves less room for debate

And if you can, find a way to sprinkle in something about how it benefits Favre.



OK, back to your regular scheduled programming.