A tale of two Brians
by JasonB on Mar 2, 2010 10:00 AM EST
in News
99 comments
In the past year the Eagles have said goodbye to two of the great Eagles of the past decade. Two guys that will almost certainly go down as some of the great Eagles of all time. Two guys that were faces of the franchise and fan favorites.
Two guys named Brian.
Brian Dawkins and Brian Westbrook. Both moves have drawn some scorn from fans, but the most recent Brian to leave hasn't drawn near the same level of criticism. Still. some in the media have seen fit to dial up the melodrama... First, Beasley Reese of CBS
The Eagles unceremoniously fired Brian Westbrook Tuesday. He was a fan favorite and the best all purpose running back in their history, but once damaged, he is tossed aside.
He laid it on pretty think there... As did on again, off again Inquirer columnist Stephen A Smith.
No matter how much things may change, leave it to the Eagles to remain the same. Produce, and they'll keep you. At least until you're 30 years old. Then a meeting with the press ensues, of course, followed by gratuitous praise for years of service. Right before Andy Reid gets back to the business of being competitive, while Joe Banner maintains salary-cap space - and both are assured that Donovan McNabb is still around to receive the brunt of the blame.
Melodrama aside, the release of Brian Westbrook isn't anything like the release of Brian Dawkins. Despite the best efforts of these two, most Eagles fans aren't reacting the same way. Is it because Westbrook wasn't as beloved as Dawkins? Maybe... but mostly it's because Eagles fans are smart and they know letting the latest Brian go was a lot smarter than the one before him.
Find out why after the jump.
Let's skip a little further down Stephen A's article...
Brian Dawkins can attest to it. So can Hugh Douglas. So can Jeremiah Trotter, Bobby Taylor, Jon Runyan, Tra Thomas, Troy Vincent, and a host of others.
Stephen highlights a number of reasons why letting Westbrook go was the right thing while letting Dawkins walk might not have been. Look at the guys on his list and think about the circumstances of their departure.
Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent were released after the Eagles spent a first and a second round pick on corners in the same draft. Those two picks were Lito Sheppard & Sheldon Brown. While they were unproven, we at least knew they were highly drafted, blue chip kind of prospects. And hey... when they decided to let Lito Sheppard go they had Asante Samuel there to replace him.
When Jon Runyan and Tra Thomas left, the Eagles traded a first round pick and handed out $100 million worth of contracts to offensive lineman. Jason Peters worked out pretty well, while Stacy Andrews didn't. Plus, they thought they'd have a two time pro bowler in Shawn Andrews back and there was still the second round pick in Winston Justice that they believed in. Obviously not all those paid off, but the point is that the team clearly tried to replace the departing vets with top talent.
I also think of them letting Duce Staley walk. Duce was a very popular Eagle, a team leader, and a very productive player. Like all these other guys, he was let go when the Eagles felt he wasn't worth a big new contract. Like all these other guys, the Eagles had a successor ready to go. His name was Brian Westbrook.
Letting the old guys walk has always been the Eagles way, but they've also always had a successor in place. They didn't with Brian Dawkins.
Sean Jones was a decent player for the Browns, but was never really suited to the FS spot. They probably did think Quintin Demps would be better, but that was a 4th round pick going into his 2nd year. Hardly a blue chip. Finally, Macho Harris was a corner in college, who was basically forced to play Safety for the first time in his career because they were scrambling. Any way you slice it, the Eagles were no where near as prepared to let Dawkins go as they were with Taylor, Vincent, Thomas, Staley ect...
That brings us to Brian Westbrook. The most obvious difference between he and Dawkins is that #20 was coming off a season where he made the pro bowl and was named NFC defensive player of the month for December. Brian Westbrook was coming off arguably the worst year of his career where he suffered two concussions while also battling knee and ankle injuries. Beyond that though, the Eagles seem far more prepared for the departure of Westbrook than they were for Dawkins.
In LeSean McCoy, they've got a second round pick who broke the Eagles rookie rushing record and is now heading into his second year. They've got an All Pro fullback in Leonard Weaver who proved himself a capable runner and pass catcher last year. They certainly could use some backups, but the top of the depth chart looks pretty well stocked with promising talent. Plus, there's scores of good veteran backs in free agency and likely several solid backs to be had in the mid rounds of the draft. Point is, they've invested a lot more in the future of the RB position than they did the future of the safety position.
There's just no parallel. You can make a lot of good arguments as to why letting Brian Dawkins go, or more specifically failure to adequately replace him was a mistake. But I really don't see how the same arguments can be made for Westbrook. Not only has his play declined much further than Dawkins, the Eagles have done far more to prepare for his departure.
1 recs |
99 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Sigh
Instead of drafting Rolle in the 3rd, can we just trade it to get Dawkins back?
About 10 minutes ago, I was pondering my own existence. Then I decided that it didn't matter.
Well I don't think Eagles wanted Dawk to leave
I mean they did offer him a 2 year contract. I just don’t think anyone expected Denver to blow the roof on him and then it was either way overpaying an aging FS, or move on.
i agree
We didn’t let him go like we did with Westbrook
In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard.
-Theodore Roosevelt
Congrats;
For attaining the rank of, “Single Most Insignificant and Unorginal Poster,” on this forum.
Apparently enough, your next original thought will be your first.
Congrats
for attaining the rank of the biggest dick poster on this board.
Hopefully this will be your last.
Reid- Best Coach in Eagles History
McNabb- Best QB in Eagles History
This is the year
So reading this
Dawkins, no matter his play, was not worth keeping at that money. So given how your season finished would you have paid him the money in 2009 to ensure better safety play.
Does this also mean that if Kolb is McNabb’s successor that McNabb is shown the door after the 2010 season?
by G Fan in England on Mar 2, 2010 10:23 AM EST reply actions
1. Dawkins would have been indispensible at any price given how our secondary/linebackers played last season.
2. Yes
About 10 minutes ago, I was pondering my own existence. Then I decided that it didn't matter.
Dawk’s shortcomings are in coverage, so I don’t know how much difference he would have made in the secondary, short of maybe cleaning up all of Samuel’s whiffs. As for improving the play of the LBs, maaaaaaaaaaybe. But it’s not like the team could have predicted they’d lose their promising young MLB and his experienced backup. Certainly, they should have a had a better plan in place for replacing Dawkins, but at any price? No.
by Tracer Bullet on Mar 2, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
I would much rather have given him 5 million a year average with a large bonus (to make it easier to cut him later) than trusted Demps. He was one of those timeless guys, and I just don’t understand why everybody could see it but the Eagles administration. Especially considering how shallow last year’s draft was for safeties.
About 10 minutes ago, I was pondering my own existence. Then I decided that it didn't matter.
HE CHOSE MONEY
over the Eagles. End of story. He sold out, not us.
I'm sure they saw it
Fans can be sentimental. Teams can’t. Sentiment doesn’t win football games.
by Tracer Bullet on Mar 2, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
2nd Question
I read the post much differently than you.. it’s more than just having a backup. The talk is about having a capable backup that is prepared to step in when the current player is unable to continue performing at that level. If that point is just after the 2010 season, then yes.
…But just stating that Kolb is McNabb’s successor therefore McRibb is gone next season oversimplifies the reasoning presented.
But you
need to decide on Kolb soon as his contract expires after 2010, so if McNabb plays all 16 games you will be none the wiser on Kolb.
If you give Kolb an extension now he is the successor as he will want starter money to stay or you tender him as an RFA at the end of 2010 assuming no CBA. If you tender him you may well lose him for a first and a third and you are left with McNabb and no back up.
Do you think that McNabb will be offered a new contract beyond 2010?
by G Fan in England on Mar 2, 2010 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
I can see the Eagles signing Kolb to an extension and then, depending on his play next year, franchising McNabb in the hopes of trading him to someone. I don’t think he’ll be offered a new contract in 2010. I do wonder, though, at what role the potential work stoppage the following season is having on their thinking.
Let the beasting begin.
by TransplantedFan on Mar 2, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
I agree
about the 2011 position, but will the Eagles really Franchise McNabb given what the cost would be?
by G Fan in England on Mar 2, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
once slapped with the franchise tag, mcnabb wouldn’t sign right away. they would listen to what people had to offer as far as contracts and the like. if a team really wants him, we would likely land a first round pick from the deal. they would probably tender him at a higher worth than a first rounder, but they can adjust the terms as they seem fit after listening to all of the offers
1.) Yes, but that’s not really the issue. I’m sure if the Eagles could have brought him back for 2009 on a one year deal, even a big one year deal, they would have done it. The point of this deal is for the next couple years. While it’s safe to say it was a failure in 2009, if the Eagles do something this offseason to improve the safety position now and down the road, this transaction can still come out OK. Also worth noting, IMO, that having Dawkins around wouldn’t prevented the Cowboys’ defense from giving it to the Eagles’ offense prison style.
2.) If they think Kolb is the guy, I’d imagine they won’t try to bring McNabb back after 2010… which is why I advocate trading him now if that’s the case.
Well
You pasted the below in your article
No matter how much things may change, leave it to the Eagles to remain the same. Produce, and they’ll keep you. At least until you’re 30 years old. Then a meeting with the press ensues, of course, followed by gratuitous praise for years of service. Right before Andy Reid gets back to the business of being competitive, while Joe Banner maintains salary-cap space.
So Dawkins was over 30 – had his skills reduced or was it a cap space move? If the former then the replacement was not in place so a bad move by Reid or the later in which case a bad move by banner. Which do you think it was?
McNabb is over 30, Kolb is waiting in the wings so will the Eagles do their thing as above and after the 2010 season (if McNabb plays for you) will there be a press conference for McNabb thanking him for all his service or will McNabb be kept just to be the scrapegoat if the Eagles do not win the SB.
by G Fan in England on Mar 2, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
That was from another article. This isn’t about McNabb/Kolb.
If you did want to somehow relate it to McNabb/Kolb, you would say that the Eagles drafted a QB pretty high. Whether Kolb can be a good starter or not, they’ve invested more in trying to replace McNabb than they did in Dawkins.
I agree
The article was about how the Eagles have replaced players over the last decade by having a successor to step in and the difference between Dawkins and Westbrook.
I have just looked ahead and asked have the Eagles got the successor to McNabb and if so, given how the Eagles let players go, will Reid appear in an interview and thank McNabb for his services at the end of 2010 given the likely cost to resign McNabb (where Banner comes in).
I did not mean to make it a McNabb/Kolb comparsion thread, I was asking from a business viewpoint when the Eagles will cut ties with McNabb because of age/cap numbers and not performance related.
I apologise if I have hijacked your thread.
by G Fan in England on Mar 2, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Honestly? I don’t think the rules are the same for the QB position. I think it has a set of rules all it’s own.
I accept
QB’s are treated differently.
However, who will decide when McNabb is no longer the QB of the Eagles The FO or McNabb?
Some of the great QB’s have been traded/released etc such as Montana, Favre, Warner.
by G Fan in England on Mar 3, 2010 5:38 AM EST up reply actions
Tit for Tat, mutherfuckas
As much as the weepy journalists glop the over the top disgust sentiment at Brian’s departure, those who criticize this embarrassing event are often guilty of matching the ridiculous level in their own cavalier attitudes toward his dismissal.
I mean, they didn’t even give the guy a call. Not even a call. It’s Westbrook, mofos!
Westbrook’s time is at an end. Also, the FO suits are douche rags. Seems pretty straight forward.
ya jason
from what i just read, i believe neither the GM or the owner called brian personally, even though they oozed about him when they talked to the media after his release. and i’m still waiting on someone to start a discussion on brian westbrook’s Dan Patrick interview.
i'm assuming that...
this is the article most people are referring to?
From the above article:
“And so you wonder: if they had spent a little more and made a little less, might the Eagles have hosted a parade by now? Given what Westbrook said, it’s a legitimate question.”
It is, and it makes me wonder as well.
by PhillyFan20XX on Mar 23, 2010 7:45 AM EDT up reply actions
What are YOU talking about?
You gotta be kidding.
Jesus Christ already.
It’s obvious why there was more outcry when Dawk left. It also has little to do with how much each Brian was loved. It’s was a performance thing.
Do we really need to ponder this?
But, they didn’t…even…give….the…man…a…call…
Please let that resonate in your minds.
But, they didn’t…even…give….the…man…a…call…
Yes they did. They said that they sat down with Westbrook and told him face to face that he was getting cut.
About 10 minutes ago, I was pondering my own existence. Then I decided that it didn't matter.
Yes "they" did? WTF?
Who is this “they” that you speak of?
Andy? That’s your “they?”
Banner or Lurie couldn’t have made some kind of contact? Geez. Guess they are still upset at that 3 mil situation.
Really?
You needed everyone in the organization to call him?
If your company lets you go, how many phone calls to do you need? You need the owner and all the top management to call you and say how sorry they are? Give me a break. The stuff people expect from this team is so silly sometimes.
This is really a weird thing to nitpick. This was the responsibility of Andy Reid. No team in the NFL would do things differently. Andy is the head coach and defacto GM, he is the only guy that should be telling guys who is staying and who is going.
Not only is this the way EVERY NFL team works, it’s the way any business works.
agree. EXCEPT...
if i have an extremely high opinion of an employee or coworker, and i say extra great things about him or her to the entire public, the real thing to do would be to drop an actual line to that person. it seems kinda false, kinda fake, kinda like stroking when you gush about someone and then fail to actually talk to them. if gocong gets cut, no one will gush about him, so i don’t expect anyone to think it’s important enough to call. it’s kind of a gay thing to talk about, but when you compound that with the reputation that the Eagles FO doesn’t give two shits about it’s players, i think it’s worthy of discussion. at least cowboy fans never have to question their owner and GM’s motivation to win games over making profit.
First off, their owner and GM are the same person.
Second, it seems patronizing for me half the organization to call a guy and tell him how much they love him after they essentially fired him.
Let’s be honest about this, nothing would have made it ok for Westbrook. Hearing from Lurie or Banner or whoever wouldn’t have made him happy. Getting fired sucks. There’s no two ways about that.
actually i’m accustomed to winning….well winning some. what does an owner who cares about his players have anything to do with winning. if anything, i’d rather have an owner and a team manager that doesn’t give a shit about the players. good business decisions are made with your brain, not with your heart
we’re almost on the same page. our front office will make it’s final decision based on the economics of the entire situation. westy said himself, if they can find someone to do the same job cheaper, then they will. which in a business world, is the obvious thing to do. but the eagles aren’t selling ipads or hamburgers. it’s a sports team. the objective is to win a title. too often money will come in the way of that. plus, let’s not forget that in recent history it always seems like our players have a problem with their contracts. maybe that’s just too much media coverage, or maybe there’s some validity to it.
if you have someone (mccoy) who can do the job as good if not better than the previous occupant (westbrook) for less money, it makes sense that you dump the previous player so you can use that money that you are saving on other parts of your roster. i really don’t see where the problem is. would you rather pay westbrook 7.5 million dollars and have him split carries with mccoy for 5 games before he’s on the sideline with his sweatshirt on or would you rather let mccoy do it by himself and put 7.5 million toward a premier defensive end. i’d rather have 2 guys making an impact than one impact guy and another guy standing on the sideline talking about how great his rehab is going
all i'm sayin...
is if my district manager decided to fire me after all the good stuff he has said about me in meetings and in emails to the entire district, saying i was an important piece and all that good stuff, and didn’t have any kind of direct communication with me regarding that firing, i’d consider him a massive douchebag, and i might have some rather negative things to say about my experience.
i hear that but do you need you district managers boss and his boss’ boss to call you to? you may have had meetings with them and they may have liked you and said you were doing a good job but they probably won’t be calling you when you get canned. lurie is ceo and banner is president. reid is like the district manager. he manages the district of “the team” and he did call brian and tell him
He was freakin Brian Westbrook. Not Josh Parry. Not Derrick Burgess.
He worked there for eight years in a public arena and was directly responsible for many of their wins and some of the most memorable momments in team history.
Are you fuckin’ kidding me?
he is brian westbrook. do you think that westbrook would walk away smiling if everyone patted him on the back as he cleaned out his locker? probably not. he’d still be upset and the eagles would still only care about the bottom line and the fans would still be up in arms about the teams lack of commitment to their players.
I don't think he'd said the same types of things.
I think that you are hopelessly inept at comprehension.
he would have said the same types of things regardless minus the “no phone call” argument. he still would have said that the team was all about money and the bottom line. it’s all a pride thing. westbrook still considers himself elite and thinks that he got hosed. this feeling wouldn’t change regardless of how many meaningless phone calls he would have received
Understand, he was asked these questions..
..and even though he knew they would be asked, he answered directly and seemingly without malice. Sure, it was about pride, but that doesn’t have anything to do with him feeling snubbed because the guy that he toiled for while he helped build a franchise couldn’t even say, “thanks.”
And, you still forget, as you side track yourselves while overloading your minds with this subject, that the undertone wasn’t just about his dismissal, but most probably about the entire state of the Eagles franchise and how they have little substance to show for this entire decade of self proclaimed, “Gold Standard Excellence.”
How ’bout the, “Fold Standard?” Has a nice ring to it.
Welcome to the Bigger Picture.
steve van buren
with the eagles 1944-1951. public arena. directly responsible for both the 48 and 49 championship wins (some of the most memorable moments in eagles history). Once he got hurt and couldn’t play anymore, should the eagles have kept him, too? should he still be on the team?
Should I be impressed that you know who Van Buren is/was?
Not really. Surprised but not impressed. See, you are yet another poster who is fundamentally incorrect in your comprehension of the original point.
NIce try, though.
Actually,…no.
Somebody's wrong here; You or me and Westbrook.
When you say that I’m factually incorrect you are also saying that Westbrook is lying. So, exactly, how would you know that?
So Andy told him to GTFO, great. You’d think that Both Banner and Lurie would have some kind of contact out of respect. I guess I need to shed some of this “human element” that I’m foolishly carrying around.
First, you’ve been tossing around this ambiguous “they.” So now we know you’re referring to both Lurie & Banner.
So not only should the head coach and VP of player personnel (Reid) have called Westbrook, so should the owner and team president? Let me ask you, if all three of those guys called him then would you have been happy? Should Howie Roseman should have also gave him a call?
maybe heckert should give him a call too. “i know i don’t work there anymore, but sorry about the firing. i would have never let this happen.” maybe spuds should have invited him on eagles live a few days later. they could have had a going away party with confetti and noisemakers and shit. they could have hung a banner (not joe) and put a hat on him and given him a gold watch before they booted him out the door. of course then all you disgruntled folks would have hammered the eagles for being so inconsiderate to shine the spotlight on him at a sensitive time in his life
congrats...your post was also asinine.
Way to stick together. With your logic, you two could fuck up a two car parade.
You are kind of sounding like an idiot jerk bag, really.
Howie Roseman had very little to do with this situation all along. That was ridiculous and completely irrelevant.
I am not surprised.
Call me all the childish names you like, you’ve still failed to explain why it was so unforgivable that everyone in the organization didn’t call Brian Westbrook to say goodbye.
They need to set up an alarm in the Novacare Complex...
Whenever someone is about to be released, you shuttle the player off to a secret sound-proof room, where Andy Reid tells you that you’ve been cut. Meanwhile, an fire-drill type alarm is going off throughout the entire building notifying all employees to hurriedly line up outside the door so they can all tell the player one at a time how great he is. Each employee should also have a gift ready (Crock Pot, slippers, cake, $25 gift card to Applebees, etc.), which the player can place in a team-appointed wheelbarrow to bring home. It’s the classy thing to do.
PR problem with releasing guys… solved.
hahahaha!!! i’m so glad that there are other people who get it and not just a bunch of rambling idiots who run with anything they hear on 610 or read in the inky
Nice work, shithead
I don’t even listen to 610WIP. I don’t live in the Delaware Valley.
I guess if I was a simple minded individual with a limited capacity for independant thought I’d think someone with above average literary skills and a cogent approach was “rambling.”
You remind of that super douche from Idiocracy when he tells Frito, “Hey, why you try’n to read that word?…Are you a fag?”
actually i find your “independent thoughts” and “above average literary skill” ignorant and inflammatory. just because you are a good writer or even a good speaker, doesn’t mean that you are correct in your assessment of the situation. me thinks someone is a little full of themselves and overestimates their intelligence(and underestimates the intelligence of others)
I thought I was sufficiently modest with the phrase;
“above average skill.”
That’s not exactly the same as proclaiming myself some sort of literary virtuoso.
Haha...
above average literary skills and a cogent approach
I, too, see my myself as having competent literary skills, and I see nothing “cogent” about your approach whatsoever.
What I do see, is a lot of “muthafuckas,” “mofos,” “douches rags,” “shithead,” etc. Take it to ESPN, brother.
bigmyc I’m amazed at your arrogance and the fact that you lash out at people when they disagree shows a lot about how you really feel about yourself.
We get what you are saying it’s not that hard to comprehend but your point is ridiculous at best and in most corporations would never even be discussed.
Jim Johnson 1941-2009
"The 0-2 pitch, swing and a miss! STRUCK HIM OUT! The Philadelphia Phillies are 2008 World Champions of baseball! And let the city celebrate! " - Harry Kalas 1936-2009
So now here comes the house psychoanalyst...
Analyze this; You are a dumb shit.
Just kidding (though, you might actually be one), but seriously, the lashing out just entertains me to be truthful but I don’t fire until I see the white of your eyes…at that point, what the fuck are you doing so close, anyway?
Hmmm. Lashing out at your psychoanalyst...
…will get you a nice chemical straightjacket. Have a nice vacation.
Whodie, I am sorry BM hurt your feelings. He must be having a bad day and probably needs a hug, a sippy-cup, and a nap.
When did I say anything about "everyone in the organization?"
Don’t you think exaggerating what I said to bolster your point is a little “childish?”
I'm confused
Westbrook has been interviewed stating he has not spoken to Banner or Lurie? Was it Reid who sat down with him?
I think most people agree Westbrook should have been cut, at least for his price tag. I am surprised that Lurie did not give him a call at any point. So far, that is the only beef I have with Westbrook being cut, and he is my second favorite player of the Reid era.
If i'm not mistaken
This is the first pick of Dawk in a Broncos uniform that has appeard on the front page
I'd rather be an Eagles fan till the day i die and go 0-16 every year than be a cockroach cowboys fan
no the wounds have healed i think
I'd rather be an Eagles fan till the day i die and go 0-16 every year than be a cockroach cowboys fan
So Jason and a few others touched on a lot of sore points here. Here's a few:
1. Was it wrong to let Westy go? I think the answer is no. It doesn’t seem like he’s NOW worth what he was going to be paid. Eagles like to build the next generation more than they like paying fading stars.
2. Was it wrong the way they let both Brians go? WTF knows? I’ve heard it both ways. They didn’t tell Westy on the 5th, they told him long before. I thought that was out of respect, but it seems like there is too much spin here to ever be sure what really goes on. – kind of like watching two friends in a divorce.
3. Do the Eagles value money over winning? Duh!!!! Of course they do. Otherwise they’d be closer to their cap last year and losing revenue this year (no cap = you can spend more than you bring in). The team is owned by a Billionaire. For those of you guys who don’t know, that’s a guy with a net worth of more than $1 Billion. He did not buy the team because he wants to make us happy. He bought the team because it makes him a LOT of money. Almost Bill Gates type money. If he can make the $ and make you happy at the same time, he will. But guess what gets priority? That’s right… the Billionaire.
Every million dollars he spends on a fading star is a million dollars that he can’t use to buy anther Rolls Royce, another Condo in Hawaii or another week with 17 of the hottest cheerleaders in the league while his body double makes a good show of convincing his wife that he’s on a business trip in Cleveland.
He spends pretty good. Better than most. The FO does a great job of picking talent – most of the time. The Dawkins fiasco was just that – a fiasco – but it was a fiasco last year. Let’s see how Dawk plays this year. And let’s see what the FO can do about shoring up that big-assed hole at the Safety postion.
I liked this post. It made me look at the situation in a different light. Thanks JB.
Lets look at the recently completed NFL playoffs and where the teams ranked in terms of their payroll, shall we?
Out of the top 10 2010 payrolls, 3 teams made the playoffs (New Orleans, NY Jets, Green Bay)
From 11-20, 4 teams made the playoffs (Baltimore,Arizona,Philadelphia,Indianapolis)
From 21-30, 5 teams made the playoffs (New England, Cincinnati, San Diego, Minnesota, and Dallas)
(shockingly, Dallas had the #29 overall payroll in the NFL, lowest among the playoff teams)
8 teams made it farther than the Eagles in the playoffs. Of those, 4 had lower payrolls, 4 had higher payrolls. Like I’ve said before… spending money = not the way to win. Spending money intelligently = winning.
For the record, the 3 payrolls in the NFL in 2009 were:
1. NY Giants (8-8, missed playoffs)
2. Miami Dolphins (7-9, missed playoffs)
3. Houston Texans (9-7, missed playoffs)
by wildcatlh on Mar 2, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, those are the 3 largest payrolls
Sorry about the typo.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bleeding Green Nation
Related FanShots on Bleeding Green Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
