Spending $13.1 million

[thefuzz]

I can see that some of you care a lot about winning this season.

 

 

I can see that some of you care about having a consistent winner long term.

 

 

 

I like the second group more.

[Matthias]

Dave is the GM....not Ron.

Dave also comes to us via NY....and they were constantly criticized for a number of years for over investing at DL (specifically at DE) and it costing them elsewhere.

Hardy tag IMO screams Dave following his NYG blueprint. NY did comcial stuff at DE. Ron stinks....don't let others off the hook bc of it

 

That's true, but considering how well he's spoken on Hardy in the past, and how upset he got with the media concerning his off the field problems, I'm willing to bet he also played a role in retaining Hardy for a year.  If Rivera wasn't for it, I don't think he's offered the tag.

[CRA]

That's true, but considering how well he's spoken on Hardy in the past, and how upset he got with the media concerning his off the field problems, I'm willing to bet he also played a role in retaining Hardy for a year. If Rivera wasn't for it, I don't think he's offered the tag.

Ron speaks well about everyone. Great or horrible players

[AU-panther]

Keep in mind I only provided one example. There were plenty of people we could have chosen to spend that same $13 million on.

No one will ever know which direction would have provided the greatest impact. The only reason this subject was raised is many consistently make the point that we had no options, that there was no one worth signing, or they were all too expensive. In reality, it is very much open to debate as to whether franchising Hardy was the best option.

I don't think that many people try to claim we had no other options. The debate on its forum centers more on what we could have instead of Hardy.

Some people around here are dillusional and think that signing 5 players to multi year deals is equal to Hardy's one year deal just because this years cap total would be the same.

[Marguide]

Some people around here are dillusional and think that signing 5 players to multi year deals is equal to Hardy's one year deal just because this years cap total would be the same.

 

I don't think anyone is talking about signing 5 hypothetical players. The reality is we have quite a few holes on the roster. If we want to field a good product, they can't all be filled through the draft, or with 1 year deals for players with their best years behind them.

 

Everyone understands we have cap problems. You can't pay an offensive center and an outside linebacker left tackle money, not to mention the mess at running back. We need to realign where we are spending our money.

 

Tagging Hardy with no intention of working out a long term deal was equivalent to treading water. We tied up $13 million of cap space this year and are no closer to filling out our roster. If we had used the money to sign a LT and WR, for example, to a multi-year deal, how much closer would we be to having a balanced roster going forward?

 

 I have no idea what Gettleman wants to do with the team going forward, but renting expensive players on 1 year deals does nothing toward building this team into a consistent winner.

[AU-panther]

I don't think anyone is talking about signing 5 hypothetical players. The reality is we have quite a few holes on the roster. If we want to field a good product, they can't all be filled through the draft, or with 1 year deals for players with their best years behind them.

Everyone understands we have cap problems. You can't pay an offensive center and an outside linebacker left tackle money, not to mention the mess at running back. We need to realign where we are spending our money.

Tagging Hardy with no intention of working out a long term deal was equivalent to treading water. We tied up $13 million of cap space this year and are no closer to filling out our roster. If we had used the money to sign a LT and WR, for example, to a multi-year deal, how much closer would we be to having a balanced roster going forward?

I have no idea what Gettleman wants to do with the team going forward, but renting expensive players on 1 year deals does nothing toward building this team into a consistent winner.

I agree with a lot of this. My only point is Hardy's one year deal is not equal to what some people on this site believe we could have had instead.

Last year's unexpected sucess might have contributed to us trying to "tread water". For all we know if we had gone 4-8 last year we might not have tagged Hardy.

[Marguide]

[quote name="AU-panther" post="3100849"

Last year's unexpected sucess might have contributed to us trying to "tread water". For all we know if we had gone 4-8 last year we might not have tagged Hardy.

[Cpt slay a ho]

golden tate would have been beast here...............

[Doyle]

If Gettleman read this thread he would say "I wish it were that easy".

[General_Purr]

Hardy > other options

 

 

kraken stays 

 

kraken eats