I guess I don't understand what is wrong with Crennel. The choice of him over Pendergast is a no brainer IMVHO.

Good thing they widened the concourses at Arrowhead

I like the Weis hire a lot better than Crennel, but still - it's a big step in the right direction

I've given it some thought and concluded that some people believe that they can build themselves up by tearing others down. It's typically a symptom of low self-esteem and immaturity.

It's wise to remember that old Hungarian proverb; When you point your finger at someone else, three of your other fingers are pointing back at you and your thumb is kind of sticking out sideways.

FAX

how many titles did the cat who wrote moneyball win?
Posted via Mobile Device

These are the key things here IMO:

A) There has to be a sense of legitimacy brought in here from our coaching staff. So in our case, especially with a young team, you bring in guys with rings, and they will listen and they will probably work a bit harder, because they know what these guys have done has worked.

B) You have to hire the best guys to implement your system. If these are the best guys available, then you hire them. If Dick Lebeau was available and he fit what I wanted to do, I certainly wouldn't avoid hiring him because he was "unoriginal". The new guy could suck just as easily, like Sheridan in New York. There are no guarantees that they'd be any good.

C) Usually it pays to know who you are hiring and knowing what you want. Dick Vermeil went out and hired a guy he had worked with, Al Saunders, to run his offense. Worked great. He went out and hired two defensive coordinators he had never worked with, GRob and Dumbther, and it failed miserably. And a lot of that had to do with DV having no real defensive philosophy other than wanting the other team to score less.

At the end of the day, if Pioli doesn't give these guys better talent that fits their systems, it won't work anyway...

You're gonna put that botch by Romo on Parcell's shoulders? That was not his fault in any way.

The 3-4 isnt a trend.

It has been around for quite some time.

But I fully agree, we shouldnt have changed to it when we had investment in a 4-3.

Isn't your thumb pointing at your woman who's always right about whatever it is you're talking about?

If you mean Michael Lewis, the guy who wrote it, 0.

However, Moneyball is more applicable in the NFL than MLB.

There are fixed assets (players) but teams change schemes to copy teams that have done well.

Look at the 3-4. It requires a very specific skillset. The teams who've succeeded running it did so because they could get tweeners at good value. Same for teams who first started running the Tampa 2. But when everyone starts running it, you have increased demand for a fixed supply, and if you're chasing the trend, that's a losing proposition.

If the majority of the league is running a 3-4, you shouldn't. It's bad business.

We aren't that far away. Just having actual LBers and a NT will be such an improvement. I think Hali showed what he can do this year and that was with no help.

I agree completely. I could care less who we emulate. I just want to see some ****ing wins and a team that is relevant late in the season.

Right now, it's the "hot" trend.

5 years ago, you could count the teams that run it on one hand.

Now, close to half the league runs it.

Meanwhile, Belichick is smart enough to see all these organizations chasing the trend, knowing players are going to harder to come by, so what does he do?

He's switching back to the 43. Lead the trend. Never follow it.

Its seriously hard to pick which one of your posts to rep sometimes ROFL

Although it's possible that you're alluding to one of Hamas's earlier posts, trying to undercut Beane's achievements (not the author, obviously) is preposterous, given his market and the dynamics of (then) MLB.