Quote:
Originally Posted by FAX
I grant you all of that. And well said.
I would simply add that, his "genuine belief" in Cassel was sufficiently flawed and so grossly mistaken as to allow for (demand, even) legitimate questioning of Pioli's basic evaluation abilities.
|
How much did he really have to go on though Mr. Fax?
There was really only one season on the books (his final season in New England). Looks like an aberration in hindsight, but it looked like a pretty solid season at the time. It certainly didn't warrant an 8-figure contract, but that takes us back to the root problem...the contract.
Would the evaluation be as heinous if he'd allowed him to play for a year under the tag? Cassel stinks up the place...you chuck two at him. Who'd be calling for Pioli's head under that scenario? Probably a precious few people.
Quote:
|
Regardless of how his opinion might have been colored by emotion or affection or history or relationship, he is paid to "get it right" and be objective in his player assessments.
|
In the ultimate sense, yes.
In every situation, no.
No GM is free of botched player assessments.
Quote:
I have, obviously, believed from the outset that Cassel's contract terms were nothing less than absurd and my prior posts will prove that out. It made far more sense to give him a short-term deal and go from there. But the issues are really separate. Cassel's contract terms don't negate the fact that Pioli should have been able to better anticipate the ability and ultimate potential of his quarterback of choice ... especially given his prior, intimate experience with the player.
FAX
|
Intimate experience affords you a wider knowledge of a player, but it also increases the chance that you'll have an attachment to said player. An attachment that may affect how you evaluate him.
That said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Always a pleasure, Mr. Fax.