2000 Season Looks Alot Like The 2006 Season?

[djnemo65]

I just wonder where all these threads were prior to the start of the season. I seem to remember the consensus being here and elsewhere that we were a few big time playmakers on offense on pash rushers on defense away from being at the top of the heap. So we went out and added those players. This wasnt signing Mark Carrier or Bruce Smith, over the hill veterans, for their name recognition. We were continuing our strategy of signing young free agents entering the prime of their careers. Clearly our moves this year have been disastrous, but was going out and not doing anything an option? We would have killed the front office of they had done that as well.

It bothers me more when these phony prognosticators act like they knew all along that our offseason moves where superfluous and wouldnt work, when in fact, they lined up to pick us to contend for the NFC. Give me a break.

If you look at the core players on this team, most have been acquired through trade or free agency. Moss, Portis, Thomas, Washington, Griffin, Springs. Our philosophy has been to sign free agents entering the prime of their careers, and nobody had a problem with this when we were winning.

Moreover, with the exception of Arch, the problem has been with the performance of the players we already had and the unit as a whole. If we didnt have Lloyd or Arch or Carter do you think we'd be better now? I don't.
I mean come on, Ryan Clark wasnt THAT important, was he?