Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12
that 49er team added a no. of players, but I can't remember, did they pay big $ for them? That was also in the very early years of unrestricted free agency & the good teams like the 49ers still had their core intact.
I agree though, I can't think of any team that's paid that kind of money for free agents in one year & been successful. The difference between what the Jets are doing & what the pats did last year is the high salaires iMO. Yes, the Pats got Moss, Stallworth et al, but they didn't spend huge sums on them. Just as Banks points out, the salaries also impact team chemistry, as we know as skins fans.
|
pats got:
ad thomas (BIG money)
randy moss (SUPER cheap - 3mill)
donte stallworth (fairly cheap)
wes welker (somewhat cheap)
kyle brady (not that cheap for a TE that didn't play much)
D edwards (cheap)
j gaffney (cheap)
other less important players (super cheap to ultra cheap)
still, that's a TON of FA adds, even if they got good values, that's the whole point - maximize production/talent per dollar, and there's no arguing they did that. now, they didn't win the superbowl, but they had plenty of chances - no arguing they bought 16-0 though.
the eagles had it work for a year after TO and kearse came in that FA class, the long term benefits may actually be negative, but it almost got them a super bowl.
I think it works for the browns and dolphins, but that just means the browns make the playoffs (10-6 +/- 2) and the dolphins win 5 games (+/-2). the browns went with big money big talent, and the dolphins went the economy route (which is smarter for them, since big money would just be wasted there with the lackluster talent and lack of youth).