What to think? vs. What to think.
From Spad's recent post:"It's a rare happenstance in any sport. Reid has always said he'll look anywhere for talent and he's proven it in his time as the Eagles head coach. At a time when the Eagles shed talent in Simon, they are looking ahead to more additions and subtractions to improve the roster.
And guess what? It's OK with you. You trust Reid and Heckert and Jeffrey Lurie and Joe Banner and you should. "
Okay, this is just weird. First of all, it seems to me that a number of fans are continually frustrated with the Birds' nickel and dime approach to their players and the salary cap. I suppose that running the team like a business is fine in theory, but it almost seems as if they are focused on longetivity (which is good) at the direct expense of a championship (which is bad). In my cynical view, I wonder if they are more interested in keeping the team just good enough to maximize revenue, rather than make some serious moves to win it all and face the chance of some less-profitable rebuilding years afterwards.
Another thing about this "article" that strike me as weird is the fact that this is one of the few times that Spado has written in the second person. It's as if he's aware of the fans' concern over the front office, but wants not simply to reassure us, but to tell us what to think. Maybe the Lurie/Banner/Reid administration is getting its game plan from the Rove/Bush/Rumsfield administration? And Spads is Scott McClellan?
posted by Dave Popstar at 8:45 AM
2 Comments:
no, spads is Judy Miller, carryign the torch for those clowns!
Seriously, I think the FO/coahces are runnnig this ship right. we have potentially 10 pro bowlers a year, many of whom are so b/c of teh system. Locking up skilled players early to long-term deals and I think is the way to go. Look at the teams that try to buy their way into the super bowl every year, and see where that's gotten them. I'd rather have 10 shots at a title with 90% talent than 1 or 2 shots with 100% talent across the board. Basic statistics. Your odds are better.
We definitely have a very good front office in many ways, but as always "Joe Spadaro" takes the overly-optimistic angle; I agree with Pop's points here. After the loss against Carolina 2 years ago, I distinctly remember Angelo Cataldi making the point on WIP that the Birds org just wants to keep the team just good enough to stay in contention every year. I thought that was an interesting view at the time. And the plan sounds great on paper; but the Birds' FO has strengths that also are weaknesses when put into human terms. Fielding a "good" team which is also fiscally responsible is a wonderful concept, but fans (like me) will grow tired of it if they don't bring home some hardware soon and players will grow weary too. I admit, this is the most exciting time for me as a fan that I can remember; but I'm beginning to feel like the Birds don't care about their fans or their players, and have embraced the "Brave New World" theory of football: We'll breed 4 of each player we need so that everyone is fungible. Treat people like commodities and they have no loyalty and they inspire no one. Each player has an individual situation (i.e. TO) and special cases need to be handled differently sometimes. "Bottom Line" Banner seems to be a great money manager, but he's an a-hole as a person. This sterile approach to team building doesn't inspire people - it will eventually bite them in the ass unless they win a Super Bowl, and like REAL quick. (yeh, I know it's not proper English but this is about the Birds)
Post a Comment
<< Home