This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
In a league where opportunities are very limited... by Wooderson
and large amounts of money are being spent, measurables are the quickest way to quantify and justify resource expenditure in development.
This isn't European soccer, where the best teams get 60+ games a year, or the NBA/NHL/MLB with far more than that.
The players you draft have to produce, and do so quickly, and measurables are a large component of standardizing results.
Otherwise, you just have to go on "guts instinct", and sign players that don't land in the top of the draft and try to build a system around that. But that's crazy, no one would ever do that...