MJW, the statement was indefensible and you're offered improvement of the team was deconstructing it for the sake of not doing what we did. Your ideal mock off-season sounds like the last post super bowl off-season that ruined the team for 20 years, so I'm not interested in hearing about the details, whether I'm capable or not.
"I'm not going to read your rationale or research, but here's my response to it anyway."
K Dude. Good luck with that.
I've probably read everything everyone's posted here since 2006.
CJ Henderson was traded on Sep 27. Sherman signed on Sep 29. That's not an example of opportunity cost. But sure, let's pretend BLT is dumb.
How does that timeline invalidate the idea that Sherman represented an opportunity cost? Even if the choice was only between the two of them (which it wasn't?)
And I have no idea if BLT is dumb or not, but he has yet to contribute anything within my field of vision I'd call "intelligent."
nybf wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:11 pm
Yeah, pretty much everyone saw this coming. But what did they lose, 500k? Big deal. 10 x out of 10 you do that again.
Presumably there's the opportunity cost of whoever we might have pursued instead. But we can only speculate on that.
I wish we'd pushed harder for Gilmore, but it's entirely possible that a) the Patriots had no interest in helping the TB12 dynasty and b) Gilmore wanted to play in Carolina (being from SC) and the Patriots honored his wishes.
CJ Henderson would have been interesting also.
But, it is what it is. If CB and SMB come back (and stay) healthy for the stretch run, none of this really matters. We'll go back to being three deep at corner with one of the best 4th corners in the league in Cockrell.
The opportunity cost of whoever we might have pursued instead of Sherman.
"But we can only speculate on that."
You then went on to speculate about Gilmore and Henderson. Unless you just brought them up as a non sequitur.
We didn't miss out on Henderson because we signed Sherman.
How does that timeline invalidate the idea that Sherman represented an opportunity cost? Even if the choice was only between the two of them (which it wasn't?)
And I have no idea if BLT is dumb or not, but he has yet to contribute anything within my field of vision I'd call "intelligent."
Presumably there's the opportunity cost of whoever we might have pursued instead. But we can only speculate on that.
I wish we'd pushed harder for Gilmore, but it's entirely possible that a) the Patriots had no interest in helping the TB12 dynasty and b) Gilmore wanted to play in Carolina (being from SC) and the Patriots honored his wishes.
CJ Henderson would have been interesting also.
But, it is what it is. If CB and SMB come back (and stay) healthy for the stretch run, none of this really matters. We'll go back to being three deep at corner with one of the best 4th corners in the league in Cockrell.
The opportunity cost of whoever we might have pursued instead of Sherman.
"But we can only speculate on that."
You then went on to speculate about Gilmore and Henderson. Unless you just brought them up as a non sequitur.
We didn't miss out on Henderson because we signed Sherman.
I have no idea where the burn is here.
We were going to add a corner.
Unless our front office is incompetent, they weighed each and every viable option. They didn't figure out they were looking to add a corner on the day Sherman was signed. They likely started having those conversations when SMB's elbow exploded.
The opportunity cost of adding Sherman was every corner we could have added instead. Can I prove Henderson and Gilmore were part of that conversation? No. I wasn't in the room. But "You can't prove the logical thing" is next-level Bootz.
"So let's get to the point
Let's roll another joint
And let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I got to go..."
The opportunity cost of whoever we might have pursued instead of Sherman.
"But we can only speculate on that."
You then went on to speculate about Gilmore and Henderson. Unless you just brought them up as a non sequitur.
We didn't miss out on Henderson because we signed Sherman.
I have no idea where the burn is here.
We were going to add a corner.
Unless our front office is incompetent, they weighed each and every viable option. They didn't figure out they were looking to add a corner on the day Sherman was signed. They likely started having those conversations when SMB's elbow exploded.
The opportunity cost of adding Sherman was every corner we could have added instead. Can I prove Henderson and Gilmore were part of that conversation? No. I wasn't in the room. But "You can't prove the logical thing" is next-level Bootz.
I can prove that Henderson was not an opportunity cost of adding Sherman because Henderson was traded before we signed Sherman. We did not miss out on Henderson because we signed Sherman. The timeline makes that obvious.
It's the rare player who transitions from corner to safety, but the great ones can manage it. Off the top of my head, Charles Woodson, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott.
It'll be interesting to see if Sherman can make that adjustment.
Cheb wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 pm
It's the rare player who transitions from corner to safety, but the great ones can manage it. Off the top of my head, Charles Woodson, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott.
It'll be interesting to see if Sherman can make that adjustment.
McCourty transitioned from CB to Safety and he's pretty good. That was a long time ago though.
We could use DB help in a lot of spots. I really don't care where they move him around. If Sherman is out there playing safety for the first time for us that tells you just how bad the alternative must be. We're already thin in the secondary and this Mike Edwards situation doesn't help.
Cheb wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 pm
It's the rare player who transitions from corner to safety, but the great ones can manage it. Off the top of my head, Charles Woodson, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott.
It'll be interesting to see if Sherman can make that adjustment.
Guarantee none of them did it in the final full month of the season coming off of an injury. I truly do not expect this to bode well.
Cheb wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:46 pm
It's the rare player who transitions from corner to safety, but the great ones can manage it. Off the top of my head, Charles Woodson, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott.
It'll be interesting to see if Sherman can make that adjustment.
Guarantee none of them did it in the final full month of the season coming off of an injury. I truly do not expect this to bode well.
Not to my knowledge.
But given that Edwards is out for a few weeks and Whitehead is injured, I would rather trust Sherman at the backup safety spot as opposed to Ross Cockrell or whomever.
He's a smart guy and a willing tackler. This should help mitigate his declining long speed that was showing when he was starting at left corner for us earlier this year, and hopefully will give him opportunities on tips and blitzes. One could argue that he could be excellent if all he did was cover finesse tight ends, which I would be totally fine with.
He hopes he doesn't have to play because that would mean they have had starters go down. Why are we acting like they gave Sherman a 5 year 90 million dollar deal?
Redrum wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:40 pm
He hopes he doesn't have to play because that would mean they have had starters go down. Why are we acting like they gave Sherman a 5 year 90 million dollar deal?
Our favorite ESPN has him listed over Davis on the depth chart.
Redrum wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:40 pm
He hopes he doesn't have to play because that would mean they have had starters go down. Why are we acting like they gave Sherman a 5 year 90 million dollar deal?
Our favorite ESPN has him listed over Davis on the depth chart.
They're more concerned with politics than sports these days.
Redrum wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:40 pm
He hopes he doesn't have to play because that would mean they have had starters go down. Why are we acting like they gave Sherman a 5 year 90 million dollar deal?
Seems BA is acting like that. I mean how many coaches say they “hope” they don’t have to use a player? Why even bring attention to that at all?
