- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 839
I see TT as being a very excellent "strategic" type of GM. By that I mean he's always considering long term, not just the immediate need. When dealing with a salary cap, that (IMO) is the correct way to do it. You're not putting all your eggs into one basket, or in the short term case, all your salary cap dollars into one time window. (Although I understand that's an effective approach too - if you do win the SB and if you're okay with successive losing years to recover.)
The QB eats the largest piece of the cap pie. After that, you can only maintain a core of about 12 players at least what they're worth. Then the remaining 53 must play at vet min, one-year "prove yourself" deals, or rookie contracts. That's the way it is when dealing with a cap. This is why when you look at a FA, not only are you bidding against other teams to get him, if you do get them it is a must they work out as you're expecting them to be part of your core because you just paid at least what they're worth. Seldom are you getting a deal. This is why draft, develop and maintaining your players is important.
Usually, GMs divide the draft into three parts. In the first three rounds they look for starters. Success means hitting on all three (maybe two) because if they don't there will be salary cap problems signing FAs to make up for misses. In rounds four and five, they're looking for backups and in rounds six and seven, STers or practice squad players. TT has been the most successful GM in finding starters overall! (Though admittedly not near the top in Round 1!)
If a team has a good draft, that means they "hit" on at least four draft picks. On the average, two will become part of their core and the rest will be lost to FA, or replaced by another hit. The Packers and TT have also been hugely successful in getting "hits", and keeping their "hits". After that it's up to the coaching staff to develop their core - thereby avoiding FA.
I believe TT has been very effective in his role of providing players to the coaching staff to develop. I've lived through the 70s, 80s and early 90s. I'd rather the team I'm a fan of is a contender every year, then building to be a short-term juggernaut (which really doesn't exist) that has a short term window to win it all before the losing begins. If they're built to contend every year then if they win the SB, "Awesome!", and if they don't then truly, "There's always next year!"
That's why I'm a TT backer.
The QB eats the largest piece of the cap pie. After that, you can only maintain a core of about 12 players at least what they're worth. Then the remaining 53 must play at vet min, one-year "prove yourself" deals, or rookie contracts. That's the way it is when dealing with a cap. This is why when you look at a FA, not only are you bidding against other teams to get him, if you do get them it is a must they work out as you're expecting them to be part of your core because you just paid at least what they're worth. Seldom are you getting a deal. This is why draft, develop and maintaining your players is important.
Usually, GMs divide the draft into three parts. In the first three rounds they look for starters. Success means hitting on all three (maybe two) because if they don't there will be salary cap problems signing FAs to make up for misses. In rounds four and five, they're looking for backups and in rounds six and seven, STers or practice squad players. TT has been the most successful GM in finding starters overall! (Though admittedly not near the top in Round 1!)
If a team has a good draft, that means they "hit" on at least four draft picks. On the average, two will become part of their core and the rest will be lost to FA, or replaced by another hit. The Packers and TT have also been hugely successful in getting "hits", and keeping their "hits". After that it's up to the coaching staff to develop their core - thereby avoiding FA.
I believe TT has been very effective in his role of providing players to the coaching staff to develop. I've lived through the 70s, 80s and early 90s. I'd rather the team I'm a fan of is a contender every year, then building to be a short-term juggernaut (which really doesn't exist) that has a short term window to win it all before the losing begins. If they're built to contend every year then if they win the SB, "Awesome!", and if they don't then truly, "There's always next year!"
That's why I'm a TT backer.
