Okay TSE, I have tried to be nice and respectful here. But if you wanna dance, let's dance.
TSE wrote:Of course the teams would make the trades, I see how they make trades and what they go for.... You can't defeat my logic, and my logic guarantees I will only have that which I want to have, otherwise I WILL get paid MORE than what that asset is worth, it's impossible to not happen when logic is your guide.
Fine. Find me
ONE instance of a team accepting the type of trade you're proposing, and I'll shut up. But you seem to think you know better than all 32 NFL GMs, and here's the deal .. you may well be right. But if no one will play ball with you, you're left playing with yourself. New England got a 2nd round pick and a 2012 first rounder for a 2011 first from the Saints (the Mark Ingram trade, a fact you conveniently ignored in your response). Show me your logic actually working in the
REAL WORLD, and I'll stop arguing with it. Until then, you're kidding yourself.
TSE wrote:I see an easy path to dominate for multiple decades by repeatedly improving and building through logical sports science that allows one with the best strategy to simply put themselves in a perpetual dominant position. Nobody has ever done that in pro sports because they don't understand that which I understand and so I'm always looking at things that make sense to me that seemingly nobody else knows what I'm talking about. And since I see an easy path to attain that, I see failure in any strategy that doesn't even come close to hitting that goal. As long as every transaction is logical, you can hit that goal, and there are dozens and dozens of decisions every year and every single team makes a vast multitude of illogical decisions. There's no reason for that, and he who simply chooses not to make illogical choices generates a massive reward that is akin to taking candy from a baby. I'm a grown man I can steal candy from a baby 100% of the time and forever as long as I can stay alive.
So you are smarter than, literally, everyone who's ever managed a sports team? You really wanna go on the record saying that? That doesn't sound a bit egomaniacal, Ahab? If not, I honestly envy you; as for myself, I've always had the self confidence to know that I don't know everything.
TSE wrote:... I was against the Stafford pick because he was a rookie yet at a monstrous salary. The name of the game is getting youth and upside, but also to do it at the right price. Any time you can get the next great player when they cost nothing, that's a bonus, that's why I was seemingly the only guy in the world that wanted Legarrette Blount, because I knew i had nothing to lose and I profiled him as a guy that I know I could turn into a winner if he was on my team. He was as cheap and free as you could get. Min salary, super young, no trade or draft pick, and a chip on his shoulder and a qualified sense of talent according to my scouting eye...
Since the NFL changed the rules about pass defense after the Pats beat the Rams in 2001, the SuperBowl winning QBs have been Brad Johnson (the very next year), Brady, Brady, Roethsilberger, Petyon Manning, Eli Manning, Roethislberger, Brees, Rodgers, and Eli (again). In fact, the last five losing QBs have been Brady, Kurt Warner, Peyton, Big Ben, and Brady (again). The last decade has proven you need a truly elite QB to even make the SuperBowl; you really wanna go on the record against the Stafford pick again, seeing as he's now one of four QBs to ever even throw for 5K yards in a season?
Oh, and the Bucs will
LEAP at the chance to take Richardson to replace Blount, too ... so are you sure you wanna brag about that pick, too?
TSE wrote:I use a logical and rationale basis for interpreting the game and the players, not an emotional one where I let the media and horribly unqualified NFL GMs and analysts to paint the picture that the guy is a loser and accept that. I AM the master of logic, not them, so I will decide the formula and process for determining who is worth what, not anybody else, just me and those that are qualified at or above my level. That's bang for your buck and allows you to save money to then afford the expensive FA's when appropriate. And fixing one position for free allows you more flexibility to make subsequent trades and as you intelligently solve problems the next problem becomes easier and easier to pinpoint. You can have 40 stud players on a team for starter and depth categories very easily and only you can prevent yourself from getting there.
Again, I ask you to show me any instance of this happening in the real world. I live in New England, where I've watched Bill Belichick masterfully manage a team to 9 conference championships in 11 years, and yet he's a failure by your standard. I can't believe I'm about to quote his movie, but in "Star Trek VI," Spock said, "Logic is the starting point of wisdom." You can be as logical as you want, but if you're only functioning in the world of your own mind, you're basically partaking in intellectual masturbation; as for me, I wanna actually get laid (i.e. win the SuperBowl for real).
TSE wrote: Every asset should be used to gain a return or you are doing something wrong and that type of attitude is needed in order to master this game. Everybody understands the concept of depreciation with a car, but ZERO NFL GM's understand that with their players. You need to look at 53 men on you team as assets that can help you accumulate wealth and/or assets that depreciate, and if you don't have an exit strategy that gives you a harmonious wealth building formula, then you are a loser, and if you get this then you can't be stopped because logic is infallible.
So, by your own infallible logic, you would have traded Matthew Stafford last year before his 5,000 yard season because you hadn't gotten the ROI you expected, right? You'd have an inferior quarterback, in a quarterback-driven league, because you didn't appreciate that, sometimes, blue chip stocks go
DOWN and you have to hold on to them regardless (assuming you believed in your investment in the first place). Football players don't just depreciate from the moment you draft them; the good ones
APPRECIATE for the majority of their careers.
And, by the way, NOTHING IS INFALLIBLE. Nothing, and no one. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you will NEVER convince me otherwise; I doubt I'll convince you either, so there's really no point in trying, but I just wanted to say that.
TSE wrote:For the poker analogy, well I look at my strategies in how I manage present and future pieces such that I'm in that hand with the Q-Q decision, but BEFORE the hand is played out, I already have amounted in my bank for the next 5 years worth of tournaments that I get to start with twice as many chips as every other player plus I get to have 3 down cards instead of 2 in those games. I got that by managing my present and stashing away value for the future. And after 5 years then the next 5 years after that I'm going to have triple chips and maybe 4 cards and then hit a peak where I can sustain a near theoretical max for an extremely long and indefinite time period. That's the level you are missing on ascending to within your already being pointed in the right direction.
And, to close, thank you for making my point for me. The NFL is a "winner take all" tournament. You don't
GET to take chips to the next table (i.e. the next season). The Patriots don't get to start this season with any extra chips because they lost the SuperBowl; they just get to pony up to the table this fall and try again. If you set yourself up well, you can contend for years to come .. but that doesn't mean you should hold back any time you've got a shot at the big prize. At a certain point, if you don't shove all in with your pocket queens, you become the Baltimore Ravens ... a team that has gone deep into the playoffs for many years in a row, but has never won the ultimate prize. And, just for the record, I have won the most money at poker tables against players who believed they knew better than I did. In fact, I lived for it, and I would sucker them into pots when they thought they were being "logical" and I was the donkey ... and then I'd turn over my cards, shake their hand, and say, "Good game" as they left, wondering how such an inferior player beat them.
TSE, I honestly respect your opinions and the time you take in explaining them; I just respectfully disagree with you, and view the NFL (and I suspect life in general) in a different way than you do. Therefore, I'm not going to continue to argue with you on these boards; as far as I'm concerned, we can respectfully agree to disagree, and that'll be that. Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my post in such detail, and I sincerely hope the Lions manage to do something next week that we're both happy with!