Originally Posted by eriadoc
I more or less expressed the same reservations about the numbers myself. You never know how a surrounding cast truly impacts individual numbers. But evidently, there's another metrics type scoring system out there that ranked GQ right about average for the entire year and Ed Reed substantially below average. Both of those combined with my own eye test tell me that GQ is the better player now (even if that's just average) and going forward I expect that to continue.
We're just looking at Ed Reed a few years too late. But also as I said, if they sign him for less than what GQ got paid/what they wanted to pay GQ, then hey, I'm down with it. But I think they're going to overpay.
I think they may have felt GQ was as good as he was going to get possibly. As far as the numbers go, I can't really dispute it much. Reed has always given up big plays. Its just part of the way he plays and he'll give up a few here because he gambles some. I think the FO is betting that his intangible factor far outweighs what GQ would bring to the table. GP said it pretty well last night. Its going to be boom or bust.