12/21/24
October 06, 2006
The Seven Deadly Sins: Nine NFL teams, seven deadly sins.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia to football at 02:07 PM - 6 comments
I enjoyed that very much. Not much else to say, the article speaks for itself.
posted by Psycho at 03:25 PM on October 06, 2006
Nice article, YYM. I find one contradiction in there. Robinson accuses Indianapolis of gluttony (and I concur) for paying Manning, Harrison, Freeney, Simon, and Wayne, and thus losing Edgerrin James. He then goes on to accuse New England of wrath for refusing to overpay (in my opinion) Deion Branch. Had they given Branch what he wanted, would New England not have been equally gluttonous? Yes, New England is under the cap right now, but I believe there are contracts for players more critical than Branch that may need to be re-negotiated during the season. New England has demonstrated that long-term fiscal sanity coupled with top-notch player selection and good coaching can produce consistent winning teams. Placing yourself into a future salary cap squeeze for the sake of one- or two-year's worth of results doesn't work. There are too many things that can go wrong. A case in point is Simon's illness that will cost him the season. (I do hope he will recover and get back onto the field sometime.) As far as the rest of Robinson's "sinners" list is concerned, I generally agree with him. I'm not so sure it is sin, so much as it is flawed teams that look for ways to mask those flaws in order to succeed.
posted by Howard_T at 03:36 PM on October 06, 2006
Yes, New England is under the cap right now, but I believe there are contracts for players more critical than Branch that may need to be re-negotiated during the season. I haven't heard any reason that NE could not have paid Branch. No upcoming extension, no salary cap squeeze, nothing. Those are all very good reasons, but I don't think they apply to the NE/Branch situation. They chose not to because they thought he wasn't worth the money he was asking. And, their offer that "he can seek a trade" thing did smack of wrath for me. I would definitely have picked the Raiders for sloth. As for the Falcons, I am not a believer in the balanced attack. I say go for what works. If anyone stops the running game, then work out the passing game. As for Indy's decision, I think a few things went into that decision and it wasn't based on a realization that they just didn't have enough money under the cap. They knew the day was coming, and they gave Wayne a good deal anyway. I think Indy thought he was replaceable. The same way they replaced Faulk.
posted by bperk at 04:30 PM on October 06, 2006
Those are all very good reasons, but I don't think they apply to the NE/Branch situation. They chose not to because they thought he wasn't worth the money he was asking. The Patriots' opinion has been the same for a while: you can find an All-Pro quality receiver in the draft almost every year and you don't even need to spend a first round pick. And let's never suggest the Lawyer Milloy cut was anything but savvy business. The guy hadn't recovered a turnover the year previous, had like one sack. What has he done since to suggest the Pats were wrong? Whenever the Pats have ugliness with a player signing the Milloy incident is brought up, but no one ever explains why.
posted by yerfatma at 07:08 PM on October 06, 2006
I don't really see how you can say the Bears, Eagles, and Ravens could get lazy? The Eagles and Ravens are in the toughest divisions in football and the Bears have the embarresment of losing last year to motivate them. You can't predict something like that. I do think that the Raiders have been lazy and so have the Bucs.
posted by kidrayter2005 at 10:27 AM on October 07, 2006
Good find Ying Yang. This was an interestingly written article by Charles Robinson.