Ha ha. You defend while knowing being passive like he is is wrong.
BTW... The Bears went to the SB vs.Indy. They also narrowly lost the NFC Championship to us because they had to play their 3rd string QB.
Jared Allen was a huge difference maker for Minnesota who had Favre blow the NFC Championship for them. Favre and Allen were outside acquisitions and they wouldn't have been in the Chip without them.
Yeah, you like the conservative approach and that's fine but even you don't like the depths of it.
When you have the QB you go for it. New England does because it has Brady so it makes sense to go all out while you enjoy that special advantage. 7 Super Bowl appearances to 1. We act like we're in year 2 of a 5 year rebuild project that never reaches the 5th year.
Even cheerleader Vic from Packers.com sees it's time to go all in. Yet, we still have Ted Thompson shills defending our lack of aggression like it's actually made us better.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
The Bears team that went to the superbowl was before the influx of FA spending you pointed to as an example, and was largely brought there by a defense that was mostly home-grown. Unless you count Mushin Muhammad to be a stellar FA grab.
The Vikings not making the superbowl, however close they were, and it being one of their FAs to keep them out just kind of proves the point more.
I don't like the New England comparison because player personnel is not the only reason why the Patriots are better than us. They can coach the pants off of us. Even then, New England is more like Green Bay in regards to FA than most other teams. They don't chase big FAs (some exceptions. see: Revis), they take players later into their career or rejects that have worn out their welcome elsewhere.
I do consider myself pretty conservative, I just also feel that when there's a really good fit you should go for it ala Woodson and Calais is that fit to me.