Lets overpay for Jared Allen

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

How are those numbers wrong?

1999 -- Casserly's team, I don't count that
2000 -- 8-8
2001 -- Marty's year, not counting that either
2002 -- 7-9
2003 -- 5-11
2004 -- 6-10
2005 -- 10-6
2006 -- 5-11
2007 -- 9-7

Grand total = 50-62

Well if you're going to just make up your own rules and decide when he "didn't count" as an owner then I guess there's just no arguing with you.

[T.O.Killa]

Chiefs Franchised Allen today

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Chiefs Franchised Allen today

was this old news?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

was this old news?

it's been posted a few times in this thread

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well if you're going to just make up your own rules and decide when he "didn't count" as an owner then I guess there's just no arguing with you.

Ok then, how would YOU total up his record?

What's your objection to my discounting of 1999 when the team was already assembled and 2001 when he had no say over team personnel?

[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