Remember kids....

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

6 minutes ago, frash.exe said:

the level of dialogue has regressed since july. not that it was that great to begin with, but there’s something about marty hurney being the guy on this team that mesmerizes ppl into making stupid arguments to flex this evaluation prowess they see in him that plainly never panned out for obvious reasons in the past.

why try to learn or understand anything when you can just shriek "lol gettledouche huddle logic he drafted cam and luke" over and over again

[Car123]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Then why didn't Hurney get us the same result with all those same players?

If all it took was having those guys on roster and it was so easy to fill in the talent around them, why were we not successful until Gettleman took over?

A team is made up of 53 players, not two, six, or ten. And it's the quality of the entire team as a whole that determines whether you win or lose. Your not understanding this is why you fail at these arguments.

I realize this may be hard for you to accept, but Hurney drafting your favorite player doesn't make him a good GM.

Rookie Manning was nowhere close to veteran Manning. Peyton matured and lifted Indianapolis. 

We weren't going to reach Super Bowl 50 with a rookie Cam Newton.

[MHS831]

5 hours ago, Ace_Aladdin said:

Just cause a player is a LT doesn't mean he automatically brings more value to the team.

I see your logic, but disagree.  But to pay a player based on their value is a noble concept and I understand that.  However, this is not a democracy.  Think of it as coin collecting.  That's right--coin collecting.  a 1955 proof nickel minted in Denver is worth a nickel if spent at Walmart.  Sell it to a coin collector, it is worth $3.  Sell it to a desperate coin collector, it is worth $4.  That same nickel in much worse condition minted in San Francisco is worth a nickel at Walmart but $5 to a coin collector- $10 to a desperate collector. Reason? It is harder to find a nickel minted in San Francisco because they didn't make as many.  The collector needs the "S" mint to complete his set for 1955 because they are in demand more than a proof "D" nickel.  So to make them equal in value, you have to spend them at Walmart.  The eyeball test gives the "D" nickel the appearance of being worth more, but the rarity of the "S" mint--unseen to the novice--drives the price up. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Car123 said:

Rookie Manning was nowhere close to veteran Manning. Peyton matured and lifted Indianapolis. 

We weren't going to reach Super Bowl 50 with a rookie Cam Newton.

A veteran Cam Newton also doesn't make the Super Bowl with a lousy team built around him.

I get that you think this team is one superhero surrounded by 52 other guys. That's not what it's like in the real world.

[jumpman910]

One thing I'm glad is gone and hope it left with Dave is this height requirement for cb. Probably the sole reason we took Worley about 10 spots over Kendall Fuller. 

Because Jaire Alexander is only 5'10 but some team is going to get a dog and shutdown corner but wouldn' eeven be on our board in years past. 

Not to get off topic, on the bright side Worleys "working out" now 

[TheSpecialJuan]

yee

[Car123]

43 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

A veteran Cam Newton also doesn't make the Super Bowl with a lousy team built around him.

I get that you think this team is one superhero surrounded by 52 other guys. That's not what it's like in the real world.

Stop being so obtuse. 

Can you admit that our success was due to Hurney's ability to select exceptional talent and Gettleman's expertise in integrating castoffs into the team?

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Car123 said:

Stop being so obtuse. 

Can you admit that our success was due to Hurney's ability to select exceptional talent and Gettleman's expertise in integrating castoffs into the team?

Being able to get good talent when you're all too frequently picking near the top of the draft doesn't exactly say "skilled evaluator".

Let me reverse the question: Can you admit that the reason we were in position to pick Cam Newton in the first place was because Marty put together the sh--tiest roster in football the prior-year?

[grimesgoat]

Scot - I'm pretty sure you are arguing with a parody poster. 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

i just thought of something - imagine how good this team would have been with cam, smitty, hardy, luke, TD58, gross, gamble, double trouble, olsen, barnidge (pro bowler in 2016), and a healthy ryan kalil without gettlemoron to run half those guys off

except that was the 2012 team and it went 7-9

[BrianS]

Here's some interesting information on Gettleman vs Hurney . . .

Gettleman drafted 28 players in his five years here.  Of those 28 players, 24 (85.7%) are still on an NFL roster.

In the five years prior to his release, Hurney drafted 41 players, and as of the offseason after Hurney's release, 33 (80.5%) were still on an NFL roster.  

Honestly, that's not that big a difference.  Further comparison is very difficult in the case of Gettleman, because you need to let the careers of the players run their course before you can really compare.  

As far as winning, it's easy.

Hurney's teams were 86-90 (48.86% winning) in his first tenure, Gettleman's teams were 51-28-1 (63.75% winning).

 

Trying to muddy things up by saying that Gettleman benefited from Hurney's moves is a slippery slope.  Gettleman took over in 2012 and we were in the Super Bowl in 2015.  By the same token, Hurney took over in 2002 and we were in the Super Bowl in 2003.  Do you then say that Hurney benefited from George Seifert?  If the first three years are largely or partially owned by the prior GM, then Hurney doesn't look very good because after 2005, our team had some pretty grim years.  Only one winning season between 2006 and 2012 when Hurney was relieved of his duties.

In short, you can't argue against Gettleman without also arguing against Hurney by the same exact methods.

 

But in the end, it just doesn't matter.  Marty Hurney is our GM right now.  If he's terrible, he'll be gone very soon.  If he's good, we get to watch an entertaining product for next season.

 

[Snake]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Being able to get good talent when you're all too frequently picking near the top of the draft doesn't exactly say "skilled evaluator".

Let me reverse the question: Can you admit that the reason we were in position to pick Cam Newton in the first place was because Marty put together the sh--tiest roster in football the prior-year?

Either way I doubt Hurney survives new ownership. I'm not sure Rivera will either but maybe longer than Hurney. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, grimesgoat said:

Scot - I'm pretty sure you are arguing with a parody poster. 

Could be. I'd like to think somebody isn't actually that silly.

13 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

i just thought of something - imagine how good this team would have been with cam, smitty, hardy, luke, TD58, gross, gamble, double trouble, olsen, barnidge (pro bowler in 2016), and a healthy ryan kalil without gettlemoron to run half those guys off

except that was the 2012 team and it went 7-9

Ouch.

[Snake]

3 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Here's some interesting information on Gettleman vs Hurney . . .

Gettleman drafted 28 players in his five years here.  Of those 28 players, 24 (85.7%) are still on an NFL roster.

In the five years prior to his release, Hurney drafted 41 players, and as of the offseason after Hurney's release, 33 (80.5%) were still on an NFL roster.  

Honestly, that's not that big a difference.  Further comparison is very difficult in the case of Gettleman, because you need to let the careers of the players run their course before you can really compare.  

As far as winning, it's easy.

Hurney's teams were 86-90 (48.86% winning) in his first tenure, Gettleman's teams were 51-28-1 (63.75% winning).

 

Trying to muddy things up by saying that Gettleman benefited from Hurney's moves is a slippery slope.  Gettleman took over in 2012 and we were in the Super Bowl in 2015.  By the same token, Hurney took over in 2002 and we were in the Super Bowl in 2003.  Do you then say that Hurney benefited from George Seifert?  If the first three years are largely or partially owned by the prior GM, then Hurney doesn't look very good because after 2005, our team had some pretty grim years.  Only one winning season between 2006 and 2012 when Hurney was relieved of his duties.

In short, you can't argue against Gettleman without also arguing against Hurney by the same exact methods.

 

But in the end, it just doesn't matter.  Marty Hurney is our GM right now.  If he's terrible, he'll be gone very soon.  If he's good, we get to watch an entertaining product for next season.

 

When you realize that 80% is a inflated number because we couldn't cut or was not allowed to cut at least two of those Hurney picks and that number falls to about 72%.