Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse
You know there is nothing wrong with that approach, right? Build a team through the draft. Hire good coaches to improve the talent on the roster. Re-sign the best players you develop, and cut the losses on those who don't work out. Trade for proven players when possible. Manage the cap well enough to allow for player development and remain flexible enough to not have to make roster cuts that hurt, like trading Tyreek or Diggs. it CAN be done that way, with adding a few key free agents in lieu of the splash signings everyone is clamoring for, right?
|
Yes it can be done that way. It is a viable method. Polian’s Colts followed largely the same philosophy. And I believe it cost them rings. They traded greatness for longevity IMO. Every method has strengths and weaknesses. The strength to this one is obvious, the weakness is not peaking and not adapting. What I see are teams that are willing to take more risks winning big more. It may mean more ups and downs, but that comes with built in advantages too - better draft picks. We have Irsay’s meddling to thank for AR, not Ballard. That’s just the most obvious example why a lost season isnt always a bad thing. Especially if you have the QB in place. To me it doesn’t make sense to not consider the window open now. If you do and AR is good, you help his development by giving him support, lessening his load, and you add a year to the window. If he sucks, well isnt it better to bottom out and have a shot at another QB? We saw where mediocre got us when the team had no QB. Why go back there? Restructure a deal or two, be aggressive looking at a 2-3 yr window, and see where AR takes you.
And I will say for the 1000th time that doesn’t necessarily have to be big names. It can be, but doesn’t have to be.