Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
If you are making the argument that the Eagles have never been good enough to win a super bowl, then I am just disagreeing with you on that one point.
If, however, you think that the lack of championships alone is enough to discredit the job that their FO has done, I'd say its a rediculous argument.
And no one hates the Eagles more than I do, as much as I admire the way they seamlessly keep their team young.
|
What I am saying, and I didn't take the time to really outline it before, is this.
There seems to be a general concensus that there is one "good way" to manage your cap and various poor ways. That is probably over simplistic but then again the people making these judgements, the media, have made a science out of being overly simplistic.
These people have annoited Philly as the best cap mangers in football. My contention is this: What do they have to show for it? Yeah, they compete. Yes they have won some playoff games. I am not arguing that they have not been a good team. But I would argue that they have had one of the best coaching staffs in the league and a great amount of their success was wholly dependent upon them taking less experienced or less talented guys and and scheming and coaching them up to win. They are fantastic at it. Reid is great. But look at the actual talent level of thier team. Not nearly anywhere in the bottom but arguably only in the top half. They have consistently over the past 5 years had few weapons on offense. No real RB or WR besides TO. A quality QB and solid line play have been obvious strengths but imagine what they could have done with a decent all around RB. As for defense this is where they constantly have turnover. They do part ways with older guys and have done a pretty good job at replacing them via draft. Johnson is a very good coordinator. But for all this they haven't won a SB. Were they good enough at certain times? Maybe, maybe not.
I would wonder why a team that is the best at managing the cap hasn't won a super bowl. Actually I wouldn't. I think I know why.
Because while they are good at coaching, good at talent evaluating, and have a solid system in place for contracts they simply don't invest the money needed to raise their talent level. And that makes it easy to operate comfortably within the cap.
And don't anyone think for one second that I hold the Redskins "system" in anything other than negative regard. I look at a team like Indy or NE. Teams that use both the draft AND free agency to build a team and both have won SBs.
One question I'd love for us to throw around is this? Is there really a right way to run your cap/personell? Are the variables so great that possibly your cap mangement style is really a non-factor? How could we measure this stuff? I also tend to wonder if the correlation between winning and cap management style is a false one? Maybe I am over thinkng this stuff with the Eagles but it simply strikes me as a situation where everyone simply looks at the whole and sees success so they immediately project that onto all aspects of the operation when maybe that projection is just wrong.