The "We have too many holes" argument

[Saxum]

On 3/11/2018 at 11:09 AM, prissythecat said:

I see you are a disciple of the Mike Ditka draft philosophy.  Nice.

 

I bet he wears the dress in the picture.  I wonder who looks better in dress him or Ricky Williams.

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

2012 Falcons were 13-3, they had a good well coached team. wasn't like they were rebuilding in 2013.

 

I'm just saying if we're 9-7, a little bit better than the 8-8 Falcons right?

 

I find it's a narrative made after the fact. People say "oh well the Rams have always been good". when last year they'd say "Rams have one of the worst rosters in the league". I could cite that narrative for at least one team every. single. year.

 

I get your argument. Agree to disagree.

 

 

Yeah, you can find a narrative like that every single year. Narratives are crafted for a purpose. But in very very few cases is a one-year turnaround what really happened.

 

Yeah, the Falcs 13-3 in 2012, but they were being strangled by the lack of high picks due to giving so much away in the Julio Jones trade. They were developing holes in that lineup and not filling them with good players. In 2013 they were just bad, going 4-12, in 2014, 6-10 and in 2015 8-8. Yeah, they were rebuilding. Not a full rebuild, obviously. Better called a reloading maybe but they were a team that spent three years retooling themselves to become winners again. You look at the difference between the rosters of the 2012 good team and the 2016 "overnight turnaround" and you see they had a huge turnover. It simply wasn't a one-year thing.

 

And no, a 9-7 team isn't a bit better than an 8-8 team. I mean, of course it was for those circumstances in that year, yeah ... but it doesn't show the underlying strengths of the roster or the direction the team is moving in.

 

Those 8-8 Falcons had been rebuilding, getting younger and improving consistently through a horrible period when they had some nice high draft picks. They had a franchise QB in his prime years. We on the other hand have been switching schemes nearly every year, shedding guys who no longer fit the scheme, have no franchise QB yet, and our best players are old guys, with the happy exceptions of our safeties and Tre White. Incognito, McCoy, Wood, Kyle Williams. Fair? We're not a team that has a strong young core yet, IMHO. We're in our second year in the system, but consistency will be hurt a bit by letting Dennison go and bringing in Daboll. The defense on the other hand should be helped by having a year in the system. 

 

And frankly, our 9-7 last year was very lucky. An easy schedule with opponents totalling well under .500 and we hit the good teams on the schedule perfectly during losing streaks. The timing was pretty uncanny.

[Bing Bong]

51 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, you can find a narrative like that every single year. Narratives are crafted for a purpose. But in very very few cases is a one-year turnaround what really happened.

 

Yeah, the Falcs 13-3 in 2012, but they were being strangled by the lack of high picks due to giving so much away in the Julio Jones trade. They were developing holes in that lineup and not filling them with good players. In 2013 they were just bad, going 4-12, in 2014, 6-10 and in 2015 8-8. Yeah, they were rebuilding. Not a full rebuild, obviously. Better called a reloading maybe but they were a team that spent three years retooling themselves to become winners again. You look at the difference between the rosters of the 2012 good team and the 2016 "overnight turnaround" and you see they had a huge turnover. It simply wasn't a one-year thing.

 

And no, a 9-7 team isn't a bit better than an 8-8 team. I mean, of course it was for those circumstances in that year, yeah ... but it doesn't show the underlying strengths of the roster or the direction the team is moving in.

 

Those 8-8 Falcons had been rebuilding, getting younger and improving consistently through a horrible period when they had some nice high draft picks. They had a franchise QB in his prime years. We on the other hand have been switching schemes nearly every year, shedding guys who no longer fit the scheme, have no franchise QB yet, and our best players are old guys, with the happy exceptions of our safeties and Tre White. Incognito, McCoy, Wood, Kyle Williams. Fair? We're not a team that has a strong young core yet, IMHO. We're in our second year in the system, but consistency will be hurt a bit by letting Dennison go and bringing in Daboll. The defense on the other hand should be helped by having a year in the system. 

 

And frankly, our 9-7 last year was very lucky. An easy schedule with opponents totalling well under .500 and we hit the good teams on the schedule perfectly during losing streaks. The timing was pretty uncanny.

Fair enough. I think our secondary is strong enough to build around for a one year turn around. We obviously need our quarterback. But I'm hoping that after we sign a king's ransom to move up from 12 we have enough picks and cap to get a complimentary player to KB.. not a KB clone, but a quick guy off the line, a jarvis Landry type (yuck), and an MLB. That's good enough for playoffs and at some point bulking up our D line would make us a contender.. really wish we had gotten Michael Bennett.. fills a perfect need and he was an absolute steal for the oggles.

 

I think most of that could get done in the off-season, provided our quarterback doesn't bust. Reverse jinx right there TBD, always call the rook a bust, instead of jinxing and calling him the franchise ?

 

And McDermott, you're great and all, but never pull that chargers move again. I was calling for your head at the time and am still holding that against your resume.. you did fantastic otherwise

Edited March 13, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks