Discussion about this post

User's avatar
andrew stead's avatar

The insurance policy analogy is apt: one doesn't just send State Farm a cheque for $10K, wait until the boat sinks or the house burns, and then ask for some coverage. Good GMing is having the discussion with HOU and then getting a framework in place with NE before making any trades.

The problem with the Hocks trade was paying a premium of draft capital and then having to extend him the following offseason. It should be either/or, not both. Likewise, there is a hidden benefit to hitting on day 2-3 picks. They haven't made life-changing money yet, the floor from which they negotiate is a lot lower, and so it's much easier to negotiate team-friendly contracts. We see examples with the JJ, Barr and Darrisaw extensions vs the Hunter, Diggs and Thielen extensions.

Ancient wisdom: the dose makes the poison. One dubious trade of draft capital has limited harm. When it's a continued pattern of behaviour, the result is a roster without young, cheap talent. That, in turn, requires overpaying in UFA and here we are. Problem 1 is the worst QB situation in the conference and that overwhelms everything else. Problem 2 is an old, very expensive roster.

Heckuva job, KAMie.

Nikole Miles's avatar

Also, I think our particular coaches / schemes need not only specific skill sets but also the right personalities. Rookies are going to have a harder time with some of the complex stuff KOC and Flo want to do. It's probably quite challenging to draft for them, and likely a learning curve for everyone to communicate, etc. Having young (in their career) coaches and a similarly young GM was probably going to result in some bumps - regardless of who was at the helm.

7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?