Quote:Yet still, was the overall strength of personnel that much greater in the JDR/Shack beginnings compared to now, or did we underrate their accomplishments back then?

 

Is this a joke question?

 

Let's see.

 

In 2003, the new regime got a declining (but still with some value) Mark Brunell, a promising second year QB in Garrard, an in his prime Fred Taylor, an older but still productive Jimmy Smith, a servicable tight end in Brady, a Pro Bowl level guard in Chris Naeole, an ascending center in Brad Meester, a servicable right tackle in Maurice Williams, two rising stud defensive tackles in Stroud/Henderson, two solid defensive ends in Spicer/Meier and a fringe Pro Bowl safety in Darius.

 

It is such a laughable question.

 

Jagley, thanks for the response mate.  The intent was to get indicative responses from those that could constructively compare both eras.  Some of us don't football; it's too hard, we chose to be medical doctors instead.

 

Based on your response, is it fair to assume that you believe the personnel in 2003/2004 was heaps and bounds stronger than what we see currently, hence their 14 wins in 2 years, versus 7 in 2 years with the present regime?  'Chiefly' the same squad that went 6-10 in back to back seasons, in 01 and 02 under TC before he was let go for Del Rio?  The same squad that was considered cap strapped, aging and with no upside?  Hence the idea to start afresh with a NEW QB and COACH?  As stated, we had a splash of elite in Taylor, Twin Towers (though Henderson was just in year 2 after a subar rookie campaign) and Brackens. Garrard was never drafted to replace Mark, HENCE LEFTWICH in 2003.  Jimmy played 12 games that year and two more years after that.  He was in the prime of twilight.  Brady = Mercedes.  Beadles is also a probowler = Naeole.  Spicer and Meier are not comparable to superbowl champs fat Bryant and Clemons to you, along with 1st rounder Alualu, 2nd rounder Branch, Ryan Davis etc?  Darius, I give ya.  But a comparable investment has been in Cyprien...

 

The difference in personnel to me wasn't as astounding as the difference in production between the two eras.  As stated again, I believe they were better then, but were they that much better to get to 12 wins in year 3, AFTER 2 failed first rounders and free agents?  Would the current regime have had the same results with those players?

---