EmeraldBullet wrote:Was listening to the radio and clayton and moore said that it wasn't worth 9 million to sign him. He helped us tremendously in the 9ers game. If we didn't have him, I don't think we would've won that game. At this point in the season, had we lost to the 9ers, we'd be in a much different position. In my opinion signing him was worth the 9M.
EmeraldBullet wrote:Was listening to the radio and clayton and moore said that it wasn't worth 9 million to sign him. He helped us tremendously in the 9ers game. If we didn't have him, I don't think we would've won that game. At this point in the season, had we lost to the 9ers, we'd be in a much different position. In my opinion signing him was worth the 9M.
RiverDog wrote:You can say that about a lot of players when you win a game in OT by virtue of a long FG.
I don't buy the argument that Ziggy was worth the money we spent on him simply because of his performance in one game. It's the same flawed logic some use to justify the trade for Percy Harvin based only on his KO return for a TD in the Super Bowl.
c_hawkbob wrote:I disagree. I think Harvin was worth the money even if only based on that single play in the Super Bowl that announced to the Broncos that no, there was NOT going to be a dramatic 2nd half turnaround of the game's fortunes in this Super Bowl!
A whole lot of money is very regularly spent with a whole lot less tangible return and nary an eyelash is batted.
Not that this by extension justifies the Ansah signing, but it at least validates the argument.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests