Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
Made good points about Randel El and Archelleta being fairly bad signings for the price we paid. Pretty much said we haven't improved much from last year. Gave decent reasoning for it. Said Archelleta is a hitter and in our division will be forced to match up vs TEs and he sees that as a huge problem.
|
I have always felt Sharpe was a big time group thinker. He tends to espouse those types of views seeing as he came from the group think training grounds of ESPN.
His points about players for the dollars are somewhat valid if taken within the
INproper context. But in our case and a few others it simply takes more analysis than simply looking at it and saying we over-paid. There are basically two strategies for shaping a team's payroll. One involves careful structuring of salaries balanced with reasonable signing bonuses. The other calls for expanded bonuses with minimal initial salaries. The benefits of each can be argued but each basically allows teams to build talented teams. The Skins of course have pioneered the later. When these group thinkers say we over-paid they are looking at total value mostly which is of course often very irrelevant since no player will ever end up making the money of the entire contract. One advantage of this type of contracting is that it does allow you to seemingly pay "more" for players so when they say we over paid we actually in reality based on the context of the Skins contracting structure really didn't. They paid about market price when adjusted for their contracting structure in other words.
As far as not getting much better I am simply perplexed. Our main offensive problem last year was our lack of a 2nd WR. We added 2. Problem solved times 2. Our other offensive issues are lack of overall offensive effectiveness and an aging QB. We adde Saunders which can only be seen as helping the former and there wasn't much to be done about the latter. As far defense goes we addressed our main concern by acquiring a pash rusher of greater value than we have had in years and I am really perplexed by his valuation of Arch. Is he saying what we had was just as good? I think most objective scouts realize Arch is far better in coverage than he used to be and brings a serious upgrade in hitting the the secondary. That is definitely better than what we had.
We were one TD away from the NFC championship. With health we are obvious contnders since we have upgraded at the few spots where we needed.