Not being a big player in free agency? JESUS CHRIST DIE JERRY RICHARDSON YOU BASTARD

[Fiz]

Not against you, no. LOL

not when he starts off his replies by misunderstanding every single thing I say.

[Sandy Claws]

yeah 67 year old jeff garcia, chris simms on his rookie contract, and jake plummer refusing to play really drove up the cost of quarterbacks. which quarterback was the starter when they brought in garcia?.

Correct, the 67 yo Garcia that they committed 2 years at 5 million each. Plummer who they committed a 2nd round pick for and Simms who they committed more than we paid for Carr despite the fact that he was coming off a splenectomy. I can't help you if you want to deny that spending like that will drive the price od all QBs up.

besides, gruden is an absolute lunatic about his quarterbacks, and garcia was brought in to at least compete. .

My understanding was that you claimed we overpaid for Carr. We paid what the market required. We weren't the only team in the bidding.

Carr was brought in with the intention of rehabilitating him.

.

Possibly, but the primary motive was for Carr to push Jake. It was made clear to him that Jake was the starter.

lol oh there's money attached to it excuse me.

.

Of course there's money attached but the selling point by the agants to the teams is the indication of ability, not popularity. Popularuty does not result in productivity on the field.

well considering they pulled one off the street in 2009, yeah I do.

.

The difference might be that there was one avalable in 2009. There wasn't in 2006. BTW, how is referringto a transaction 3 years after the fact more relevent than referring to one 3 years before. I can show a correlation to the Jenkins extension. Show me one to the Hollis signing.

lol keep trying to apply your university of phoenix online econ 101 to football it's hysterical.

No point so hurl an insult. That's no way to attempt to display intelligence. Make a counter point or save the bandwidth.

[Sandy Claws]

not when he starts off his replies by misunderstanding every single thing I say.

Actually, I understand a lot more than you think I do.

Cup your hands and place one above each ear.

[Fiz]

Correct, the 67 yo Garcia that they committed 2 years at 5 million each. Plummer who they committed a 2nd round pick for and Simms who they committed more than we paid for Carr despite the fact that he was coming off a splenectomy. I can't help you if you want to deny that spending like that will drive the price od all QBs up.

I can't help you if you still don't understand the difference between paying for a qb to start and paying for him to backup. there is a huge difference, but the carr situation is more complicated than all the others so maybe it's mucking up the issue.

My understanding was that you claimed we overpaid for Carr. We paid what the market required. We weren't the only team in the bidding.

who gives a poo what the market says? If you're in a bidding war with cleveland it doesn't matter what they wanted, you're overpaying for a shell shocked QB.

Possibly, but the primary motive was for Carr to push Jake. It was made clear to him that Jake was the starter.

Here you go Jake, here's a QB who wakes up in the middle of the night screaming. Feel threatened.

Of course there's money attached but the selling point by the agants to the teams is the indication of ability, not popularity. Popularuty does not result in productivity on the field.

no it doesn't, but it results in pro bowl votes!

The difference might be that there was one avalable in 2009. There wasn't in 2006. BTW, how is referringto a transaction 3 years after the fact more relevent than referring to one 3 years before. I can show a correlation to the Jenkins extension. Show me one to the Hollis signing.

jenkins was a better player and deserved the money. kemoeatu obviously didn't deserve the money, but he was the biggest name on the market. and they splurged on him. and it didn't pan out. which is the entire point of the thread.

[Fiz]

I mean listen you can't apply supply and demand econ 101 market theory to free agency.

If the market decides you're going to have to pay out the nose for like steve tauscher, you don't do it.

[necroplasm]

Free Agency is so tight this year. I prey we draft really well.

[PanthersFanNY]

I mean listen you can't apply supply and demand econ 101 market theory to free agency.

If the market decides you're going to have to pay out the nose for like steve tauscher, you don't do it.

Unless you're the Redskins.

[Mr. Scot]

Fans never see free agency the way owners and GMs do. We're like kids wanting the excitement of a shiny new toy, and when free agency hits, the proverbial store is open. They, of course, are the guys who actually have to make the business run, and as such they have to count the costs of everything they do.

I wouldn't say they've been all that much less or more successful than a lot of other teams, honestly. Every team has its successes and flops. We know more about the Panthers because we follow them more closely, but if we looked at it objectively I don't know that we'd be all that far from anyone else.

Under Fox and Hurney, the team has usually chosen to focus on role players and castoffs. A few big name signings, yes, but never the big splash. And they're not alone in that. There are other teams who do the same.

Worth noting that per reports, the team has let its Pro Personnel department pretty much fritter away to nothing. It's basically just Mark Koncz and a couple of guys now. They're putting their big focus on the draft, which is a perfectly viable approach.

(it just doesn't make for fun offseasons like the Redskin fans get)