To the Herm haters.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think most coaches hired under those 3 years would have bowed to pressure from Carl Peterson, and accepted a reload. Why do I think that? Because Peterson has a long history of doing it. Instead, he'll throw a lot of money at some good not great veterans, and expect us to rejoice at a 9-7 season. We would have won more games but we would never become a Super Bowl contender. So when you say this team is worse off than in 2006...
is it really better to have won 7 games for a team that is built to win 9 games in the short-term, but not built to win a Super Bowl anytime in the future? And again... does that consider the fact that AGAIN the team was going to implode in 2007 regardless of who was coaching? (Again, it's like blaming Obama for the poor economy he inherited).

I think you are continuing to neglect that the choice to completely wipe the slate clean was a conscious decision. Maybe only 3-4 players (I think it will be more) will make it through the cut to start in a 3-4. But only one of them, Dorsey, is tied up in an unmanageable contract. The great thing about a Tank Tyler is it's a win-win proposition. If he's great, that's terrific. If he sucks, you cut him and you don't lose any money for it. This team has a clean slate, some young cheap talent to tinker with, and an enormous amount of flexibility and cap space to play with. I would rather have 2 wins with that situation than 7 wins with a team tied up in debt and a bunch of mopey, average veterans. So yes, I think that the situation we're in right now beats the hell out of the situation we would have faced if Peterson got his way in 2008.

So we were in better shape because of his drafts.

Now it's we're in better shape because of the cap space.

In all the years that Carl was in charge, how many times were we actually limited by the cap?