Lets overpay for Jared Allen

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Ok then, how would YOU total up his record?

Well first I don't see the point of it, but that's besides the point. I would just add up the wins and losses, simple as that. I know the numbers aren't great but it's not 50-62.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well first I don't see the point of it, but that's besides the point. I would just add up the wins and losses, simple as that. I know the numbers aren't great but it's not 50-62.

You don't see the point in looking at the total number of wins and losses as a measure of success or failure? Interesting.

Upon what then, do you base the success of an owner who by all accounts has an important role in determining the team's overall makeup?

If you agree that the numbers "aren't great" but disagree with the manner by which I arrived at those numbers, then we differ by degree, but not in principle.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You don't see the point in looking at the total number of wins and losses as a measure of success or failure? Interesting.

Upon what then, do you base the success of an owner who by all accounts has an important role in determining the team's overall makeup?

If you agree that the numbers "aren't great" but disagree with the manner by which I arrived at those numbers, then we differ by degree, but not in principle.

But you're not even looking at the total numbers because you're pulling numbers out.

Besides you know that wins and losses isn't all it comes down to.

Team A:

Year 1: 12-4
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 4-12

Team B:

Year 1: 4-12
Year 2: 8-8
Year 3: 12-4

So who's the better owner?

[Beemnseven]

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Tell you what, SS -- I'll concede 2001 and give you that 8-8 record. But I stand by my omission of 1999 because Snyder didn't take over until just before training camp began and the team was already assembled by Charley Casserly. So that brings us to ... what, 58-70?

And yes, winning and losing is basically what it comes down to. As Parcells used to say, you are what your record says you are. But since your not looking at wins and losses, I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one are we?

Well answer my question about Team A vs. Team B

[GMScud]

Interesting couple of posts on this page. I would kind of agree with not counting '99 since Danny had basically zero say in the personnel that season. But you have to count 2001 w/ Marty. It was Snyder's 3rd season as owner. It counts, regardless of who was pulling the strings.

On a side note, are there any FA WR's who have experience in the WCO?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Interesting couple of posts on this page. I would kind of agree with not counting '99 since Danny had basically zero say in the personnel that season. But you have to count 2001 w/ Marty. It was Snyder's 3rd season as owner. It counts, regardless of who was pulling the strings.

On a side note, are there any FA WR's who have experience in the WCO?

DJ Hackett. Maybe Javon Walker

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well answer my question about Team A vs. Team B

OK, I'll play along. A 24-24 record over three years says mediocrity. On a year-by-year basis, some good seasons, some bad ones.

A 50-62 record, (or 58-70, or 68-76, if you prefer) says that you're in the range of .446 to .472, depending on how you look at it. Either way, as you said earlier the numbers "aren't great".

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

OK, I'll play along. A 24-24 record over three years says mediocrity. On a year-by-year basis, some good seasons, some bad ones.

A 50-62 record, (or 58-70, or 68-76, if you prefer) says that you're in the range of .446 to .472, depending on how you look at it. Either way, as you said earlier the numbers "aren't great".

Really? So if one team were to show improvement over the course of an owner's first three years while the other were to show a gradual decline your argument is "numbers are numbers."

Fascinating