tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post3441671183678911421..comments2023-04-29T06:23:15.959-04:00Comments on Defensive Indifference: Watch out for the Lions in 2009Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-8378873214989442772009-08-11T16:33:27.807-04:002009-08-11T16:33:27.807-04:00Worked out pretty darn well for the Rams, as I rec...Worked out pretty darn well for the Rams, as I recall. It was fun to watch another team put up ridiculous offense right after Minnesota had. I thought football was going to turn into a shootout dominated sport.<br /><br />Agree with your point about having one known star vs. having a few high picks. A star in hand is worth 4 in the draft, or something like that.<br /><br />I also agree with the main premise of your original post; I do believe bad teams can turn themselves around quite suddenly and dramatically. I only meant to offer another potential ingredient to those turnarounds in the leagues 'parody' machine.<br /><br />I'll just say this: Gonzalez would've helped the Falcons more last year than this year. Perhaps the takeaway from this dialogue is that teams who do awful should start looking into the type of trading that's associated with the 'win-now, the window is closing' mentality, because if they're truly on the brink of turning things around, they might as well load up and go all out immediately.<br /><br />Very interesting stuff.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-1909186196336066192009-08-11T14:38:29.693-04:002009-08-11T14:38:29.693-04:00My general point is that any team, no matter how b...My general point is that any team, no matter how bad, can turn it around in a year or two and, therefore, maybe shouldn't dump its veterans to acquire riskier talent (young players, draft picks).<br /><br />With a few exceptions (Matt Ryan notably), rookies aren't going to have a major impact on a team for their first year, so I don't think draft picks contribute, as a whole, to the rapid turnaround. As for schedules, I think those are fairly minor considerations, as we know that NFL teams in a division play against 12 common opponents and play 2 games against each other.<br /><br />As for the notion of "hitting on a winner" with your draft pick(s), would you rather have a proven quality veteran or a player who might or might not be good (and probably won't, as mentioned, for a year or two)? The Chiefs got a first- and third-round pick for Jared Allen. Would you rather have one or two possible stars (the picks) or one definite star (Allen). (Nothing's guaranteed, but I'd assume there's as good a chance of Allen continuing to be a star as there is of KC's draft picks developing into star players.) Granted, Allen was somewhat on the outs with KC management, but Tony Gonzalez definitely wasn't and the Chiefs dumped him, too, <i>after</i> trading for a quarterback and signing him to a big-money deal! Doesn't really make sense to me.<br /><br />I just thought about the Rams and Colts in 98/99. The 1998 Rams were 4-12 but they traded away the #4 draft pick for a great player (Marshall Faulk). The 3-13 Colts picked Edgerrin James with that pick, and I suppose the Rams might have done the same if they hadn't traded the pick, and he might have had the same great rookie season. The additions of Kurt Warner and Torry Holt and a healthy Isaac Bruce certainly didn't hurt, but it still could be regarded as unusual that a 4-12 team traded away a high draft pick for a proven veteran -- and how did that work out? :)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-62937719238630956042009-08-11T09:11:35.797-04:002009-08-11T09:11:35.797-04:00I agree that teams sometimes turn around quickly a...I agree that teams sometimes turn around quickly and suddenly their rebuilding moves look a little hasty. Playing devil's advocate, I have to wonder about a few things.<br /><br />Do teams that suddenly look good benefit from having been so bad? For example, a terrible team gets higher draft picks (I think it's interesting that the NFL draft isn't serpentine. I agree, but it's something to remember) and usually the league tries to give a team with a bad record a softer schedule the following year. Also, terrible teams trade away veterans for multiple talented youths who may be unproven. Hit on a winner or two between trades and draft, play an easy schedule, and watch defenses try to adjust on the fly to a new-look team, and bam! The wins roll on in.<br /><br />I love the stories of the Falcons (even though I still hate them from that game in '99) and the Dolphins over the past two years, but I suspect that one or both will come down to earth a bit this year. They'll both have tougher schedules and opposing defenses will be ready for they stuff they pulled last year. Also, their divisional opponents who may have had an off year last year (Saints, Patriots) should prove to be more of an obstacle on the road to the playoffs.<br /><br />It seems that the league is so good at synthesizing parity that they swing the pendulum of bad teams impressively far to the other side. The correction in that metephor suggests losing seasons for both, but much closer to .500 than in 2007.<br /><br />Ownership/management/coaching can keep a team consistenly in the doldrums (Lions) or stubbornly on top (Patriots), but for the most part, teams' win-loss records seem to follow a crude SIN wave over time.Peternoreply@blogger.com