Quote
stlramz
And apparently you can’t identify any team presently that doesn’t have “sufficient talent on hand”
That’s what I figured.
Because if you did, then we would know for sure that a turnaround the next year was impossible by your definitions.
As you said earlier “No one turns a team around overnight unless there is already sufficient talent on hand.”
It’s too easy to retroactively identify all the talent winning teams have as you have been doing throughout this thread because, according to you, only talented teams win.
If a crappy NY Giants team wins this year, you say “of course, 2 x SB winning QB, elite WR, stud running back, Nate Solder brought over from New England to help OL, Evan Engram, sterling sheppard, Landon Collins, Ogletree, Jenoris Jenkins....the cupboard was not bare.....”
And you can virtually do that with every team.
I don't follow the logic of "impossible." In fact that I didn't get it. Anyway. First off this is about history, not predictions. You turned it into "predictions" when I knew better .A losing team can appear not to have sufficient talent when a new coach and staff know it does. That isn't always knowable by fans until they start winning. A good example is Goff, who many (and emphatically not me) listed as a bust, while Snead and McVay knew better. The fact that fans cannot always predict things like this is just not the point. (Though having said that, in 2011 a lot of us knew already that Harbaugh was a good coach and that they were loaded on defense, so we said watch out, they are going to be tough to handle).
The point is---historically, no team I can think of that had an overnight turnaround did it without a good share of inherited talent at key positions. I based everything on the history.
Though as an aside, I am kind of surprised that you think the Giants had enough talent inherited from 2018 to win. In fact it's confusing since you list Solder when he was added in 2018, not before (and is not playing well). They're starting Jamon Brown, the Rams guard they picked up on waivers during the season and immediately put in the line up. Why do you think they are they doing that? Along with the OL there's the problems with Eli, and so on
Either way, moving the goal post to predictions completely misses the point. And anyway, you did not answer any of
my questions. Want me to list them again?
And no you cannot do with virtually any team what has been done in the analysis here. How many starters did Noll replace before he had his team and started winning in his 4th year? (I think it's 3.) Compare that to the 75 Colts, who started winning immediately while starting 8 defensive holdovers from before 75, and having most of their OL intact, plus good players at qb and RB and WR and TE. That's a carryover of 16 starters. Tell me that virtually ANY team carries over 16 starters with a new coaching hire when they've been losing. That happens under 2 conditions. One is that the new coaches are deluded about what they have. Another is that the new coaches know what they have and know that it's not going to take a couple of years to get to winning because they can play with a large percentage of what they have. For example, Snead and McVay knew who Goff, Gurley, and Donald were before they even hit OTAs, even if some media guys or fans didn't. (And that's just to name a few of them).
Look back at rebuilds, and overnight turnarounds, and do the math on which ones kept players and won with them and which didn't. And remember the great rebuilds include some if not almost all of the best coaches the NFL ever had. So if all you have to do is add a great coach, then, there's a long list of hall of fame coaches who disagree. So, to say it again, I think Cowherd's point is mistaken about how the NFL works. According to his advice, if taken too literally, guys like Noll, Gibbs, Walsh, Belichick, and Vermeil would all be fired before they started winning. Why didn't they win? They didn't have the players yet.
....
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2018 08:53PM by zn.
