Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

JKool · 03-20-2005, 12:52 PM

Ok, that sounded like progress. However, now I\'m confused.

If Joe Horn is better than either of the Eagles WRs (pre-TO), then why not just stop talking about making the playoffs and records? Obviously talent is evaluated quite well independently of records and/or making the playoffs (and I agree).

My point about a player on a team with a better record being judged a better player is an \'other things being equal\' (at least I think I said that) judgement. Thus, if we have a lot of information, we would not use that argument. Say all you knew about a player was the record of the team he played on - you would count that as some evidence of his ability, wouldn\'t you? This is why people get all upity about \"playoff experience\" and the like, I believe.

Either way, I don\'t think this matters very much, but I was wondering if you did - since you seem to be saying you don\'t care about the record of the team but you do care about whether they made the playoffs (which clearly has to do with a team\'s record). I was just trying to determine what \"not making the playoffs\" had to do with evaluating Joe Horn\'s ability to help us make the playoffs. Certainly his abilities are the kind of things that would help, right? If you say no, then I\'m confused - since if Joe were to have gone to the Eagles (instead of TO) he would have helped them make the playoffs, since he would have been better than either of their other two, right?

Notice that both my arguments were intended to be general arguments. I acknowledge your counter-examples (just as I did before), but we\'d need to show that my arguments (actually, I\'m really only interested in the second one) don\'t hold in most cases (in general) to show that they are wrong.

Your second argument seems to me to be this: a team that has a worse record has better means of getting at least one player they need (as they have a higher draft pick).

I agree with that. Of course, a team with a bad record is more likely to need far more than just one player (unlike a team with a higher record - e.g. a 10-6 team that didn\'t make the playoffs because of the wild card system, that may very well not need any new players to make the playoffs). That is the sense in which, in general, a team with a better record is in better shape than a team with a worse record - even if they don\'t make the playoffs.

Why is this last point relevant? Well, if Joe is part of what is helping us be 8-8, then he is a good part of the team. (That is, if without him we would be 6-10, then we are better off with him than without, even if we don\'t make the playoffs.) Of course, it is possible that he is holding us back from making the playoffs, but I don\'t see an argument for that. More or less, we don\'t need a #1 WR while we have Joe, we have one.

I\'m not suggesting that someone else might not help us more than Joe, but I\'m just having trouble understanding why I should think that he is expendable on the grounds that we haven\'t made the playoffs while he\'s been a Saint.

Also, if you think, in general (rather than in rare cases), that it is possible for teams to suddenly make the playoffs with almost no personel changes, why are you interested in changing our personel? Surely, we could be like Dallas? I\'m sure you didn\'t mean the point this way, so I was hoping you could tell me what you meant here.

Further, I agree with you that our not improving from 8-8 is odd (and altogether frustrating). My explanation is that we haven\'t found the missing pieces in any given year (one year we need a CB badly, another a DT, another a LB). But, I don\'t think that being 8-8 is some sort of curse - in fact, I believe it shows that we are only a player or two (or a good coach or two) away from making the playoffs. I don\'t see how if we\'d been 1-15 every year I could believe the that we only a few moves away.

Maybe we\'re just talking about different things? Interesting still, no?

saintswhodi · 03-20-2005, 01:30 PM

It\'s very interesting Kool. I am in agreement with that.

My point about a player on a team with a better record being judged a better player is an \'other things being equal\' (at least I think I said that) judgement. Thus, if we have a lot of information, we would not use that argument. Say all you knew about a player was the record of the team he played on - you would count that as some evidence of his ability, wouldn\'t you? This is why people get all upity about \"playoff experience\" and the like, I believe.

But that\'s not all we know about players, so I can\'t ever in any instance make that assumption. We all know much more than just thta nout players, so it\'s a criteria that would ask me to ignore facts that I know, which I think makes it faulty criteria or a faulty assumption. Not that it can\'t be argued, just that makes it faulty to me.

Either way, I don\'t think this matters very much, but I was wondering if you did - since you seem to be saying you don\'t care about the record of the team but you do care about whether they made the playoffs (which clearly has to do with a team\'s record). I was just trying to determine what \"not making the playoffs\" had to do with evaluating Joe Horn\'s ability to help us make the playoffs. Certainly his abilities are the kind of things that would help, right? If you say no, then I\'m confused - since if Joe were to have gone to the Eagles (instead of TO) he would have helped them make the playoffs, since he would have been better than either of their other two, right?

This is untrue cause the Eagles not only made the playoffs but the NFC Champ game before TO, which in this instance would have been before Joe. Joe would then have very little to do with them being in the playoffs. I don\'t see how that can be argued either. Also to say Joe would help us make the playoffs is inconclusive, cause for 4 years he hasn\'t. I can also name a bunch of guys who AREN\'T here that helped us get to the playoffs as much if not more than Joe did 5 years ago. So I still can\'t see he would help us make the playoffs can be made into an argument since we don\'t.

Why is this last point relevant? Well, if Joe is part of what is helping us be 8-8, then he is a good part of the team. (That is, if without him we would be 6-10, then we are better off with him than without, even if we don\'t make the playoffs.) Of course, it is possible that he is holding us back from making the playoffs, but I don\'t see an argument for that. More or less, we don\'t need a #1 WR while we have Joe, we have one.

Hence the discussions of trying to get someone else to fill in. We are not in the playoffs with Joe as our number one, surely it can\'t hurt to get someone else as a number one AND not having to pay Joe.

Further, I agree with you that our not improving from 8-8 is odd (and altogether frustrating). My explanation is that we haven\'t found the missing pieces in any given year (one year we need a CB badly, another a DT, another a LB). But, I don\'t think that being 8-8 is some sort of curse - in fact, I believe it shows that we are only a player or two (or a good coach or two) away from making the playoffs. I don\'t see how if we\'d been 1-15 every year I could believe the that we only a few moves away.

Yeah you could say that, but 5 years ago we were 10-6 and in the playoffs, then 9-7. Now 1 year out of the playoffs and then 9-7, you would think we had a good shot at the playoffs, no? Well, no is right. 7-9, then 8-8, then 8-8 and we still don\'t look like a playoff team. And with mediocre draft picks. So basically you are saying you don\'t reasonable see how if we were in a position the past few years to draft a LT or Vick in 2001 or a David Carr or Julius Peppers in 2002 or a Carson Palmer or Andre johnson Terence Newman in 2003 or an Eli, or Gallery or Sean Taylor in 2004 or a Mike Williams or DJ this year, well I will just disagree. Carolina was 1-15 a few years back, got to draft Peppers and they were pretty good afterwards. Same with Atlanta and Vick, same with San D and LT. Same with the Texans with Carr and Johnson. MAtter of fact, the expansion Texans now had the same win loss record as us last year in a MUCH tougher division. I think 8-8 has hurt us more than it has ever helped us be close to the playoffs. But to each his own.

JKool · 03-20-2005, 03:19 PM

(1)

But that\'s not all we know about players, so I can\'t ever in any instance make that assumption. We all know much more than just thta nout players, so it\'s a criteria that would ask me to ignore facts that I know, which I think makes it faulty criteria or a faulty assumption. Not that it can\'t be argued, just that makes it faulty to me.

I agree with this. I was merely trying to come up with something that would help me understand why W-L record might matter when we were talking about a particular player. I\'m coming to the view that it matters little, if at all.

(2)

Also to say Joe would help us make the playoffs is inconclusive, cause for 4 years he hasn\'t.

I agree wholeheartedly with this one. It is very unclear to me why people seem to think that W-L records can be easily translated into evaluations of players and vice versa.

(3)

I can also name a bunch of guys who AREN\'T here that helped us get to the playoffs as much if not more than Joe did 5 years ago. So I still can\'t see he would help us make the playoffs can be made into an argument since we don\'t.

Ok, you lost me here. You mean some guys, like Jeff Blake say, made a bigger difference in our making the playoffs that year than Joe, right? I\'m not sure why you\'re so sure of that, but I\'m open minded on this point.

(4) I knew you were investigating alternatives to Joe, so my point wasn\'t about that - it was merely that if Joe is any good, then he could be a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with a replacement. It also seems to me that Joe isn\'t going to cost us as much (in fact, he may even reduce our cap number this year by taking a longer contract) as I first thought.

(5) I\'m not sure we\'re talking about the same thing when it comes to your last point. My point was that a team with a middling record seems to need only one or only a few guys. You seem to be agreeing, noting some players that could have helped us greately if we\'d gotten even just one of them. I\'m not sure what you are getting at here - or that we even disagree.

I was never suggesting that being 8-8 helped us; I was suggesting that it tells us something about how we are doing (see the second argument in my earlier post). You seemed to be suggesting that any record that doesn\'t get you into the playoffs doesn\'t tell you anything about how the team and its players are doing (since you seemed to think that having Joe is neither here nor there because we don\'t make the playoffs). I was merely arguing that that isn\'t a way to evaluate Joe. Maybe I was/am just missing the point? I can\'t tell.

saintswhodi · 03-20-2005, 05:48 PM

That last point is interesting, and I think it shows where you are missing me. I am not using win/loss to evaluate Joe, I am using win/loss to evaluate the TEAM as a whole, Joe just happens to be the part we are talking about now. In that part, I wouldn\'t overpay to keep ANYONE on a team that doesn\'t even make the playoffs. I would not mind at all keeping certain players at fair contracts, but to me, noone is indispensible. That\'s not knocking Joe or anyone in particular, that is a knock of the team. My arguments on Joe were based on him saying he wants a top 5 contract, and was willing to hold out. To me that was pretty ballsy when you are on a non-playoff team, and I am of the attitude we could miss the playoffs just fine without you Joe. It has recently come to light Joe has had a change of heart, that doesn\'t change the argument though cause the argument started BEFORE the change of heart. If we can get Joe in on a reasonable deal, I am all for it, and have said so numerous times. Unless you are THE BEST in the league at any position, which noone on our team can claim to be, I did not and do not think it\'s in the team\'s bets interest to overpay, for ANYONE.

So again, not making the playoffs is an evaluation of the TEAM, and my main reason not to OVERPAY for Joe. Since that may no longer be the case(overpaying), then I really have no reason to go on. It was valid at one time but now isn\'t due to recent reports on Joe.

JKool · 03-20-2005, 06:09 PM

Ah, ha!

We agree on this:

I wouldn\'t overpay to keep ANYONE on a team that doesn\'t even make the playoffs.

However, I don\'t think overpaying anyone is ever a good idea (and I\'m willing to bet you agree).

Unless you are THE BEST in the league at any position, which no one on our team can claim to be, I did not and do not think it\'s in the team\'s bets interest to overpay, for ANYONE.

I don\'t think it is good to overpay even the best players (though I\'m not sure how you would determine who is the best player at any given position either way). Look at the Colts - pay Harrison, pay Manning, can\'t pay James. I\'m not sure any of those guys are THE BEST at their positions, though an argument could be made, but when it comes to paying guys, overpaying is always bad.

However, I don\'t see what any of that has to do with missing the playoffs or even the team record. Would you be willing to overpay Joe if we were a playoff team every years since he\'s been here? My guess is that you\'ll agree with me and say \"no.\"

saintswhodi · 03-20-2005, 06:27 PM

If we were going to the playoffs and Joe was going to the pro bowl, I would be slightly more willing to overpay for him than I am now. I don\'t mean sink into ruin for the team, but definitely willing to take on a few more dollars. The Eagles overpaid for Owens and Kearse, but that helped them get over the hump of not getting to the Superbowl. If we were in the playoffs, I would be more inclined to believe a key player in that should be entitled to compensation maybe above the norm. But not at all when you can\'t go once in 4 years.

Also, Peyton is considered the best QB in the league, and Harrison if not one, number two. James may be considered the 5th best back or lower, depending. So they still fit into what I am saying. PLUS, they are a playoff team who wouldn\'t even get close if they didn\'t have Manning, so I can see the sense in what they did.

BlackandBlue · 03-21-2005, 02:02 PM

As opposed to Drew Brees, Quentin Jammer, Terrence Kiel and LT? Good call. Keep up the effort though BNB.

Effort? Keep being an ass, and I can keep going for as long as you want.
So, I should be impressed by a team that drafts a few guys that turn around a decent year, who by the way were being questioned about this time a year ago, only to see a first round exit from the playoffs. Bravo, I guess that\'s something.

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by BlackandBlue]

saintswhodi · 03-21-2005, 02:21 PM

As opposed to a team that drafts in the middle rounds every year and never goes to the playoffs? Yeah.

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

BlackandBlue · 03-21-2005, 02:24 PM

At least Horn has won a playoff game.

saintswhodi · 03-21-2005, 02:27 PM

Damn you missed my smart ass edit. Here it goes.

Or are you saying you would rather pick in the middle of the 1st round for 4 straight years and not make the playoffs in any, or pick high for 4 but in that 4th one finally make the playoffs? I guess I can see that logic. Showed me. I guess no progress is more impressive than some progress. 4-12 tp 12-4 in a tougher conference or 8-8 to 8-8 in the weakest conference in years? Tough one there.

Also, didn\'t Randall Cunningham win a playoff game like 5 years ago too? Maybe we should sign him.

03-20-2005, 12:52 PM	#51
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? Ok, that sounded like progress. However, now I\'m confused. If Joe Horn is better than either of the Eagles WRs (pre-TO), then why not just stop talking about making the playoffs and records? Obviously talent is evaluated quite well independently of records and/or making the playoffs (and I agree). My point about a player on a team with a better record being judged a better player is an \'other things being equal\' (at least I think I said that) judgement. Thus, if we have a lot of information, we would not use that argument. Say all you knew about a player was the record of the team he played on - you would count that as some evidence of his ability, wouldn\'t you? This is why people get all upity about \"playoff experience\" and the like, I believe. Either way, I don\'t think this matters very much, but I was wondering if you did - since you seem to be saying you don\'t care about the record of the team but you do care about whether they made the playoffs (which clearly has to do with a team\'s record). I was just trying to determine what \"not making the playoffs\" had to do with evaluating Joe Horn\'s ability to help us make the playoffs. Certainly his abilities are the kind of things that would help, right? If you say no, then I\'m confused - since if Joe were to have gone to the Eagles (instead of TO) he would have helped them make the playoffs, since he would have been better than either of their other two, right? Notice that both my arguments were intended to be general arguments. I acknowledge your counter-examples (just as I did before), but we\'d need to show that my arguments (actually, I\'m really only interested in the second one) don\'t hold in most cases (in general) to show that they are wrong. Your second argument seems to me to be this: a team that has a worse record has better means of getting at least one player they need (as they have a higher draft pick). I agree with that. Of course, a team with a bad record is more likely to need far more than just one player (unlike a team with a higher record - e.g. a 10-6 team that didn\'t make the playoffs because of the wild card system, that may very well not need any new players to make the playoffs). That is the sense in which, in general, a team with a better record is in better shape than a team with a worse record - even if they don\'t make the playoffs. Why is this last point relevant? Well, if Joe is part of what is helping us be 8-8, then he is a good part of the team. (That is, if without him we would be 6-10, then we are better off with him than without, even if we don\'t make the playoffs.) Of course, it is possible that he is holding us back from making the playoffs, but I don\'t see an argument for that. More or less, we don\'t need a #1 WR while we have Joe, we have one. I\'m not suggesting that someone else might not help us more than Joe, but I\'m just having trouble understanding why I should think that he is expendable on the grounds that we haven\'t made the playoffs while he\'s been a Saint. Also, if you think, in general (rather than in rare cases), that it is possible for teams to suddenly make the playoffs with almost no personel changes, why are you interested in changing our personel? Surely, we could be like Dallas? I\'m sure you didn\'t mean the point this way, so I was hoping you could tell me what you meant here. Further, I agree with you that our not improving from 8-8 is odd (and altogether frustrating). My explanation is that we haven\'t found the missing pieces in any given year (one year we need a CB badly, another a DT, another a LB). But, I don\'t think that being 8-8 is some sort of curse - in fact, I believe it shows that we are only a player or two (or a good coach or two) away from making the playoffs. I don\'t see how if we\'d been 1-15 every year I could believe the that we only a few moves away. Maybe we\'re just talking about different things? Interesting still, no?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-20-2005, 01:30 PM	#52
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? It\'s very interesting Kool. I am in agreement with that. My point about a player on a team with a better record being judged a better player is an \'other things being equal\' (at least I think I said that) judgement. Thus, if we have a lot of information, we would not use that argument. Say all you knew about a player was the record of the team he played on - you would count that as some evidence of his ability, wouldn\'t you? This is why people get all upity about \"playoff experience\" and the like, I believe. But that\'s not all we know about players, so I can\'t ever in any instance make that assumption. We all know much more than just thta nout players, so it\'s a criteria that would ask me to ignore facts that I know, which I think makes it faulty criteria or a faulty assumption. Not that it can\'t be argued, just that makes it faulty to me. Either way, I don\'t think this matters very much, but I was wondering if you did - since you seem to be saying you don\'t care about the record of the team but you do care about whether they made the playoffs (which clearly has to do with a team\'s record). I was just trying to determine what \"not making the playoffs\" had to do with evaluating Joe Horn\'s ability to help us make the playoffs. Certainly his abilities are the kind of things that would help, right? If you say no, then I\'m confused - since if Joe were to have gone to the Eagles (instead of TO) he would have helped them make the playoffs, since he would have been better than either of their other two, right? This is untrue cause the Eagles not only made the playoffs but the NFC Champ game before TO, which in this instance would have been before Joe. Joe would then have very little to do with them being in the playoffs. I don\'t see how that can be argued either. Also to say Joe would help us make the playoffs is inconclusive, cause for 4 years he hasn\'t. I can also name a bunch of guys who AREN\'T here that helped us get to the playoffs as much if not more than Joe did 5 years ago. So I still can\'t see he would help us make the playoffs can be made into an argument since we don\'t. Why is this last point relevant? Well, if Joe is part of what is helping us be 8-8, then he is a good part of the team. (That is, if without him we would be 6-10, then we are better off with him than without, even if we don\'t make the playoffs.) Of course, it is possible that he is holding us back from making the playoffs, but I don\'t see an argument for that. More or less, we don\'t need a #1 WR while we have Joe, we have one. Hence the discussions of trying to get someone else to fill in. We are not in the playoffs with Joe as our number one, surely it can\'t hurt to get someone else as a number one AND not having to pay Joe. Further, I agree with you that our not improving from 8-8 is odd (and altogether frustrating). My explanation is that we haven\'t found the missing pieces in any given year (one year we need a CB badly, another a DT, another a LB). But, I don\'t think that being 8-8 is some sort of curse - in fact, I believe it shows that we are only a player or two (or a good coach or two) away from making the playoffs. I don\'t see how if we\'d been 1-15 every year I could believe the that we only a few moves away. Yeah you could say that, but 5 years ago we were 10-6 and in the playoffs, then 9-7. Now 1 year out of the playoffs and then 9-7, you would think we had a good shot at the playoffs, no? Well, no is right. 7-9, then 8-8, then 8-8 and we still don\'t look like a playoff team. And with mediocre draft picks. So basically you are saying you don\'t reasonable see how if we were in a position the past few years to draft a LT or Vick in 2001 or a David Carr or Julius Peppers in 2002 or a Carson Palmer or Andre johnson Terence Newman in 2003 or an Eli, or Gallery or Sean Taylor in 2004 or a Mike Williams or DJ this year, well I will just disagree. Carolina was 1-15 a few years back, got to draft Peppers and they were pretty good afterwards. Same with Atlanta and Vick, same with San D and LT. Same with the Texans with Carr and Johnson. MAtter of fact, the expansion Texans now had the same win loss record as us last year in a MUCH tougher division. I think 8-8 has hurt us more than it has ever helped us be close to the playoffs. But to each his own.

03-20-2005, 03:19 PM	#53
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? (1) But that\'s not all we know about players, so I can\'t ever in any instance make that assumption. We all know much more than just thta nout players, so it\'s a criteria that would ask me to ignore facts that I know, which I think makes it faulty criteria or a faulty assumption. Not that it can\'t be argued, just that makes it faulty to me. I agree with this. I was merely trying to come up with something that would help me understand why W-L record might matter when we were talking about a particular player. I\'m coming to the view that it matters little, if at all. (2) Also to say Joe would help us make the playoffs is inconclusive, cause for 4 years he hasn\'t. I agree wholeheartedly with this one. It is very unclear to me why people seem to think that W-L records can be easily translated into evaluations of players and vice versa. (3) I can also name a bunch of guys who AREN\'T here that helped us get to the playoffs as much if not more than Joe did 5 years ago. So I still can\'t see he would help us make the playoffs can be made into an argument since we don\'t. Ok, you lost me here. You mean some guys, like Jeff Blake say, made a bigger difference in our making the playoffs that year than Joe, right? I\'m not sure why you\'re so sure of that, but I\'m open minded on this point. (4) I knew you were investigating alternatives to Joe, so my point wasn\'t about that - it was merely that if Joe is any good, then he could be a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with a replacement. It also seems to me that Joe isn\'t going to cost us as much (in fact, he may even reduce our cap number this year by taking a longer contract) as I first thought. (5) I\'m not sure we\'re talking about the same thing when it comes to your last point. My point was that a team with a middling record seems to need only one or only a few guys. You seem to be agreeing, noting some players that could have helped us greately if we\'d gotten even just one of them. I\'m not sure what you are getting at here - or that we even disagree. I was never suggesting that being 8-8 helped us; I was suggesting that it tells us something about how we are doing (see the second argument in my earlier post). You seemed to be suggesting that any record that doesn\'t get you into the playoffs doesn\'t tell you anything about how the team and its players are doing (since you seemed to think that having Joe is neither here nor there because we don\'t make the playoffs). I was merely arguing that that isn\'t a way to evaluate Joe. Maybe I was/am just missing the point? I can\'t tell.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-20-2005, 05:48 PM	#54
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? That last point is interesting, and I think it shows where you are missing me. I am not using win/loss to evaluate Joe, I am using win/loss to evaluate the TEAM as a whole, Joe just happens to be the part we are talking about now. In that part, I wouldn\'t overpay to keep ANYONE on a team that doesn\'t even make the playoffs. I would not mind at all keeping certain players at fair contracts, but to me, noone is indispensible. That\'s not knocking Joe or anyone in particular, that is a knock of the team. My arguments on Joe were based on him saying he wants a top 5 contract, and was willing to hold out. To me that was pretty ballsy when you are on a non-playoff team, and I am of the attitude we could miss the playoffs just fine without you Joe. It has recently come to light Joe has had a change of heart, that doesn\'t change the argument though cause the argument started BEFORE the change of heart. If we can get Joe in on a reasonable deal, I am all for it, and have said so numerous times. Unless you are THE BEST in the league at any position, which noone on our team can claim to be, I did not and do not think it\'s in the team\'s bets interest to overpay, for ANYONE. So again, not making the playoffs is an evaluation of the TEAM, and my main reason not to OVERPAY for Joe. Since that may no longer be the case(overpaying), then I really have no reason to go on. It was valid at one time but now isn\'t due to recent reports on Joe.

03-20-2005, 06:09 PM	#55
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? Ah, ha! We agree on this: I wouldn\'t overpay to keep ANYONE on a team that doesn\'t even make the playoffs. However, I don\'t think overpaying anyone is ever a good idea (and I\'m willing to bet you agree). Unless you are THE BEST in the league at any position, which no one on our team can claim to be, I did not and do not think it\'s in the team\'s bets interest to overpay, for ANYONE. I don\'t think it is good to overpay even the best players (though I\'m not sure how you would determine who is the best player at any given position either way). Look at the Colts - pay Harrison, pay Manning, can\'t pay James. I\'m not sure any of those guys are THE BEST at their positions, though an argument could be made, but when it comes to paying guys, overpaying is always bad. However, I don\'t see what any of that has to do with missing the playoffs or even the team record. Would you be willing to overpay Joe if we were a playoff team every years since he\'s been here? My guess is that you\'ll agree with me and say \"no.\"
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

03-20-2005, 06:27 PM	#56
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? If we were going to the playoffs and Joe was going to the pro bowl, I would be slightly more willing to overpay for him than I am now. I don\'t mean sink into ruin for the team, but definitely willing to take on a few more dollars. The Eagles overpaid for Owens and Kearse, but that helped them get over the hump of not getting to the Superbowl. If we were in the playoffs, I would be more inclined to believe a key player in that should be entitled to compensation maybe above the norm. But not at all when you can\'t go once in 4 years. Also, Peyton is considered the best QB in the league, and Harrison if not one, number two. James may be considered the 5th best back or lower, depending. So they still fit into what I am saying. PLUS, they are a playoff team who wouldn\'t even get close if they didn\'t have Manning, so I can see the sense in what they did.

03-21-2005, 02:02 PM	#57
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? As opposed to Drew Brees, Quentin Jammer, Terrence Kiel and LT? Good call. Keep up the effort though BNB. Effort? Keep being an ass, and I can keep going for as long as you want. So, I should be impressed by a team that drafts a few guys that turn around a decent year, who by the way were being questioned about this time a year ago, only to see a first round exit from the playoffs. Bravo, I guess that\'s something. [Edited on 21/3/2005 by BlackandBlue]

03-21-2005, 02:21 PM	#58
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? As opposed to a team that drafts in the middle rounds every year and never goes to the playoffs? Yeah. [Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi] [Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

03-21-2005, 02:24 PM	#59
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? At least Horn has won a playoff game.

03-21-2005, 02:27 PM	#60
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Should receivers get paid by thier stats? Damn you missed my smart ass edit. Here it goes. Or are you saying you would rather pick in the middle of the 1st round for 4 straight years and not make the playoffs in any, or pick high for 4 but in that 4th one finally make the playoffs? I guess I can see that logic. Showed me. I guess no progress is more impressive than some progress. 4-12 tp 12-4 in a tougher conference or 8-8 to 8-8 in the weakest conference in years? Tough one there. Also, didn\'t Randall Cunningham win a playoff game like 5 years ago too? Maybe we should sign him.