Quote:
Originally Posted by 44Deezel
Different era. Teams win Super Bowls year in and year out now without over-spending on Wide Receivers. The Seahawks had Harvin for the Super Bowl, but won all year without him.
If being top 5 in WR spending was a common characteristic of Super Bowl winning teams over the last 10-15 years, I'd be all for it. It's a copycat league for a reason.
The Skins had a top 5 Offense just 2 years ago with the guys they already have on the roster. Unless he wants to sign on the cheap, I don't think it makes sense strictly from a business standpoint.
|
To think there is one formula to winning a Super Bowl is terrible, and frankly uncreative thinking.
The Seahawks won with a dominating defense, run game, and a mobile QB. The Rams won with a wide open offense. The Giants won with clutch pocket passing and dominating defensive lines. The Steelers won with dominating defense and an improvising QB. The 2000 Ravens won with one of the best defenses of all time and a QB who simply didn't screw things up.
There's lots of ways to win. Why can't the team spend at WR, but get production on the cheap in the secondary? You can't spend everywhere, but what if David Amerson and Phillip Thomas turn into something? Just because it hasn't been the formula doesn't mean it can't be. Nobody thought mobile QBs could win until Russell Wilson did this year.
And you keep citing Tom Brady. Do you want to count on RG3 becoming as legendary as Brady? I love RG3 but damn that's a high bar you're setting.