Money and Winning in the NFL

by John Morgan on Jul 3, 2009 10:56 AM PDT Comment 20 comments

This is my work in a panel discussion with the Washington Post. I was asked if money is important to winning and replied with a somewhat different angle than the other panelists.

The headshot was taken shortly after I cut my hair into a mohawk. If someone has a suggestion for how I can submit a less Travis Bickle-inspired photo, I'm interested.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hmmm...

They cut off the top of my head.

by John Morgan on Jul 3, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a better picture.

by LantermanC on Jul 3, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol WAT?!

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I thought that was supposed to be the mohawk.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Branch proved to be an injury-prone bust."

I take offense!

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 11:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I didn't write that

“Branch has disappointed and proven injury prone. "

by John Morgan on Jul 3, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he was referencing Farrar.

I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.

by Dukeshire on Jul 3, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that was in Doug's piece.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't mind me

I’m deliriously tired.

by John Morgan on Jul 3, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great stuff, John.

Good to see your work reaching some different venues.

Money can be spent well and spent poorly, but ultimately more money is always better. More money means more opportunities and more wherewithal when those opportunities bust.

Ding, ding, ding.

by BrianL on Jul 3, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, reading some of the other writer's opinions

it seems like a lot of them say that brains are more important than money, but nowhere is it written that you can only have one and not the other.

by LantermanC on Jul 3, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That pretty much sums it up

As bad as Snyder and Cerrato can be the Redskins have been fairly successful in a brutal division. Snyder’s money has bought them a lot of mulligans, same for some of the other big spenders.

by Nate Dogg on Jul 4, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting to read the various points of view,

certainly no consensus.
As for Travis Bickle; doing away with the 1000 yard stare into the abyss would be a start. lol.

I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.

by Dukeshire on Jul 3, 2009 12:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I look crazy.

by John Morgan on Jul 3, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, if the choice is one or the other...

…I think it’s pretty obvious that you’re better off with a front office that understands how things work, as opposed to a bunch of hoo-hahs who simply throw money at the problem. Most personnel guys have a little bit of both. Certainly Ruskell has exhibited both tendencies. He’ll get reckless and reactive at times, but his last few months have been pretty amazing.

And I stand by the Branch statement. Sorry…:-)

Welcome to the WaPoFlo, John!

by Doug Farrar on Jul 3, 2009 2:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

True, but brains also cost money

And if teams are willing to shell out more money for players wouldn’t they also be willing to spend more on better coaches and front office people? Maybe? I don’t know, I’m guessing, but it sounds reasonable. I guess it ultimately depends also on how smart the owner is and who they think has brains.

by B.B.Finnegan on Jul 3, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

I think that more money helps a team win, but obviously it’s just a small factor. There’s really no substitute for lucking into a great quarterback. Thankfully, the system allows teams to keep their quarterbacks no matter the size of the market and that prevents the NFL from having Yankee- or Red Sox-like perennial superpowers.

As for Ruskell, I think he’s made mostly good moves, though some have busted nonetheless.

by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given our location, I wonder

how much we ‘overpay’ free agents to choose Seattle over other cities. The perception seems to be all things being equal go to a warm-weather city (ie: rain-factor). We’ve seen this as recently as Kris Dielman. How much of a factor is that in the overall amount of money our team spends?

I enjoyed the piece. Cool to see JM on other sites making sense.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jul 3, 2009 7:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Probably affected Deon Grant's contract.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 4, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think of Chad Brown, too.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jul 4, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs