PDA

View Full Version : 40+ mill under the cap


broncosfan
02-17-2012, 12:59 AM
So I was watching the headlines at NFL.com and theres a video called "A little change in their pocket" where they talk about 8 teams that are 40+ mill under the salary cap and their options in free agency. The teams are: the Bengals, Broncos, Jaguars, Chiefs, 49ers, Seahawks, Bucs and Redskins.

There are 3 teams that just went to the playoffs (Bengals, Broncos and 49ers), 2 good teams that need a QB to take the next step (Seahawks and Chiefs) and 3 terrible, talentless teams (Redskins, Bucs and Jaguars).

In my opinion the first 5 teams should invest the money in extensions for their own players, get some continuity, and maybe get some 2nd tier guys for depth. The other 3 teams need to find a way to improve the talent level on the roster, maybe not go crazy like the Eagles did last year or as the Redskins have in recent years, but they really need some quality starters on their teams.

So I have two questions for you guys: Are all of those teams really 40+ mill under the salary cap? And if they are, what's the best way for them to spende the money?

Pat Sims 90
02-17-2012, 01:21 AM
The Bengals are 60+ under salary cap.

The Best way for them to spend their money is add more talent to Secondary, Interior OL, and Defense Line.

vidae
02-17-2012, 01:40 AM
The Chiefs are 63 million under the cap right now, but they need to sign Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Carr to long term deals.

We should have a little money to throw around.. to Nicks or Grubbs, hopefully!

descendency
02-17-2012, 01:49 AM
Let me go ahead and say it: Peyton Manning.

Prowler
02-17-2012, 02:22 AM
I hate all of your teams right now. Lions are dropping $21 million on just Calvin.

Razor
02-17-2012, 03:48 AM
I hate all of your teams right now. Lions are dropping $21 million on just Calvin.

I'd happily pay that man $21 million. If you can't pay him I'm sure BB would. :)

Bengalsrocket
02-17-2012, 05:11 AM
yea without Palmer and Chad on this team, we're like 60 million under the cap. I know Mike Brown, statistically speaking doesn't spend much in FA, but in the last few years he dropped some money on Odom, Bryant and T.O.

I'm not sure what the plan is this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him try receiver again.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 05:18 AM
yea without Palmer and Chad on this team, we're like 60 million under the cap. I know Mike Brown, statistically speaking doesn't spend much in FA, but in the last few years he dropped some money on Odom, Bryant and T.O.

I'm not sure what the plan is this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him try receiver again.

The Bengals should give up one of their first rounders if the Texans decide to tender him!

Brent
02-17-2012, 05:57 AM
http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/niners-talk/post/49ers-Mailbag-II-Is-30-million-in-cap-sp?blockID=650518&feedID=5936
The 49ers have $103.737 million devoted to the 2012 salary cap. But the approximate $12.6 million that went unused in 2011 will be applied to their 2012 cap. (Other sources have cited a higher number that does not reflect incentives earned in 2011.)

So, in essence, the 49ers have $91.3 devoted to the to-be-determined salary cap. Last year, the league-wide cap was $120.375 million.
It's not $40mm, but pretty close.

VernonLawson89
02-17-2012, 06:10 AM
Just re-sign all our guys we need back, then sign V-Jax or Colston, and call it a day.

Pat Sims 90
02-17-2012, 06:26 AM
The Bengals should give up one of their first rounders if the Texans decide to tender him!

Tender who? If your talking about Mario Williams he is a UFA which means there is no tendering him.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-17-2012, 06:29 AM
Maybe he meant tag?

Shane P. Hallam
02-17-2012, 06:37 AM
Tender who? If your talking about Mario Williams he is a UFA which means there is no tendering him.

Arian Foster I imagine

indyfan1985
02-17-2012, 11:35 AM
The Chiefs are 63 million under the cap right now, but they need to sign Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Carr to long term deals.

We should have a little money to throw around.. to Nicks or Grubbs, hopefully!

Colts are going after Grubbs with the Chuck Pagano ties to him.

ATLDirtyBirds
02-17-2012, 11:51 AM
Still most interested to see who blows their load on Super Mario.

Jughead10
02-17-2012, 11:54 AM
Still most interested to see who blows their load on Super Mario.

The Cowboys. Watch.

Complex
02-17-2012, 12:14 PM
yea without Palmer and Chad on this team, we're like 60 million under the cap. I know Mike Brown, statistically speaking doesn't spend much in FA, but in the last few years he dropped some money on Odom, Bryant and T.O.

I'm not sure what the plan is this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him try receiver again.

It was 2million dollars for T.O.

dan77733
02-17-2012, 12:27 PM
If the Texans dont franchise Foster (which would be a huge mistake in my opinion), giving up a late first round draft pick for him would be a steal for the Bengals. They have the franchise QB and WR. Add Foster, another WR via FA and then rebuild the secondary and OL in the draft and bam, the Bengals will have a young core for a long time to come.

-----

Anyway, as for my beloved 49ers, im just hoping that they can re-sign Smith, Brooks and Goldson before FA starts. In FA, im hoping for a WR who'll automatically be our number one receiver as soon as he signs the contract.

I have the receivers in order of who im hoping for in three categories.

26 years old and younger category, 5 year contract offer
1) DeSean Jackson (PHI, 25/Dec)
2) Mike Wallace (PIT/RFA, 26 in Aug)
3) Steve Johnson (BUF, 26 in July)
4) Pierre Garcon (IND, 26 in Aug)
5) Mario Manningham (NYG, 26 in May)

27 to 29 years old category, 3 year contract offer
1) Dwayne Bowe (KC, 28 in Sept)
2) Vincent Jackson (SD, 29/Jan)
3) Marques Colston (NO, 29 in June)
4) Laurent Robinson (DAL, 27 in May)
5) Robert Meachem (NO, 28 in Sept)

Overall category
1) DeSean Jackson
2) Mike Wallace
3) Steve Johnson
4) Dwayne Bowe
5) Vincent Jackson
6) Marques Colston
7) Pierre Garcon
8) Laurent Robinson
9) Mario Manningham
10) Robert Meachem

The overall category is the order of the player im hoping for. Dont really care about Robinson, Manningham and Meachem. Garcon is better than Crabtree but as of right now, not a guy who can come in and be our number one receiver. The top six overall players would be our number one receiver as soon as he signs the contract.

I'm expecting DeSean, Wallace, Johnson, Bowe and possibly Colston (depending on what happens with Brees and Nicks) to get franchised. Wallace is an RFA but if he doesnt get franchised and DeSean does, im hoping for Wallace the most because he's exactly what the 49ers need - a speed receiver on the outside who will require a CB and a safety in coverage. As an RFA, the trade compensation would be a first round draft pick and since the 49ers are drafting 30th, I would have no problem with seeing the team trade away that pick for Wallace.

The main top tier receiver that I can see being available in the open market will be Vincent Jackson and while I wouldnt mind him at all, I wouldnt give him more than a three year contract and dont really see it happening because if he's the only top tier receiver available, his contract will be nuts and I would then stay away.

Amazingly, trading away the 30th pick for Wallace may be the best and only choice depending on who gets franchised. If Wallace gets franchised, then well, no top teir WR for the 49ers.

If that happens, I go after OG Nicks or Grubbs to start at RG and solidify the young OL.

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 12:36 PM
Desean over Wallace? How do you figure that one?

Complex
02-17-2012, 12:38 PM
Half those WR's are not going to settle for a 3 year deal.

Jughead10
02-17-2012, 12:42 PM
Half those WR's are not going to settle for a 3 year deal.

Haha yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Especially Bowe. And as good as San Fran was this year, I'm not sure it is an attractive place that players are dying to go to. Especially offensive players.

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 12:53 PM
Haha yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Especially Bowe. And as good as San Fran was this year, I'm not sure it is an attractive place that players are dying to go to. Especially offensive players.

Money talks.

Jughead10
02-17-2012, 01:00 PM
Money talks.

Thats my point. The 49ers aren't at the point where they can maybe get someone on a 4 year deal where they would normally take a 5 year deal. The idea that Bowe would take 3 is laughable.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 01:04 PM
Arian Foster I imagine

yeah i meant arian foster

dan77733
02-17-2012, 01:16 PM
I would pay the player more money up front for a shorter deal. The money in the later years would be base salaries so if the time comes to where the team has to release that player, it will be a minimal cap penalty if that. Also, Bowe, Jackson, etc. would want a long term deal but if you're getting a 3 year/$30m deal with a lot of money of front, they'll take it over a long term deal with huge backloaded salaries because those backloaded salaries will never be seen (ala CB Nate Clements among many others).

If a player like Bowe, Vincent Jackson, Colston, etc. wouldnt accept a three year deal, the team could always offer him a five year deal and backload the huge base salaries in the 4th and 5th years of the contract while giving him a huge signing bonus up front and small base salary for 2012.

And as to why I have DeSean Jackson over Wallace, its only because DeSean is scheduled to be an UFA and wouldnt require any draft pick compensation. If he gets franchised, then Wallace becomes my number one target. And honestly, I prefer Wallace over DeSean but I think that it would be easier to sign DeSean if he's not franchised so while im playing favorites, im also trying to be somewhat realistic too. LOL. :)

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 01:20 PM
Some of these teams are going to have to spend money just to spend it, as the salary cap flooring is rising quickly due to the new CBA.

dan77733
02-17-2012, 01:25 PM
Some of these teams are going to have to spend money just to spend it, as the salary cap flooring is rising quickly due to the new CBA.

Thats why a team like the Chiefs will re-sign Bowe and Carr because they have the cap room to do so.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 01:44 PM
Thats why a team like the Chiefs will re-sign Bowe and Carr because they have the cap room to do so.
Maybe, but a ton of teams have cap room. The Bears are sitting at roughly 25 million and they aren't even mentioned among the teams with a lot of room.

I don't think they will, but the Bears could easily offer Bowe a contract at 10+ million a year. The extra 20 million that the Chiefs have over the Bears is largely irrelevant at that point.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 01:46 PM
did the carry over cap space start this offseason?

dan77733
02-17-2012, 01:53 PM
Maybe, but a ton of teams have cap room. The Bears are sitting at roughly 25 million and they aren't even mentioned among the teams with a lot of room.

I don't think they will, but the Bears could easily offer Bowe a contract at 10+ million a year. The extra 20 million that the Chiefs have over the Bears is largely irrelevant at that point.

True but there's on advantage that the Chiefs (and other teams with UFA's) have over the other 31 teams. They can re-sign Bowe and/or Carr before free agency even starts.

As a 49ers fan, I dont see Smith going anywhere and Goldson will be franchised if they cant reach a deal with him by March 5th. That leaves OLB Ahmad Brooks who im hoping SF re-signs because while I agree with Aldon Smith being a starter in 2012, having brooks opposite him is better than having Haralson opposite Smith.

As for Rogers, unless its a good deal for SF, I let him leave as an UFA. Sign DB Jason Allen from HOU to be the nickelback and start Brown/Culliver at CB. Culliver is going to be a stud if he stays healthy and Brown was the starter opposite Rogers this year. I like Rogers but he's not worth the money and long term investment. Re-signing him would be worse than signing Clements back in 2007.

mightytitan9
02-17-2012, 01:59 PM
If the Texans dont franchise Foster (which would be a huge mistake in my opinion), giving up a late first round draft pick for him would be a steal for the Bengals. They have the franchise QB and WR. Add Foster, another WR via FA and then rebuild the secondary and OL in the draft and bam, the Bengals will have a young core for a long time to come.



This will be an interesting scenario I think. To my knowledge the Texans are around 20m in cap space, which to my knowledge is not including the rookie pay.

It would cost the Texans what 8 or so mill to franchise foster, but they'd be letting mario run free. Otherwise they could franchise mario (at a whopping 22m) and tender foster. If they tendered him and I were a team like the Bengals, I'd frontload the contract to for next year possibly the first two, giving him a huge part of the money right then. Then when the cap actually comes to place he wouldn't it as much and the Texans may not be able to match

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 02:02 PM
This will be an interesting scenario I think. To my knowledge the Texans are around 20m in cap space, which to my knowledge is not including the rookie pay.

It would cost the Texans what 8 or so mill to franchise foster, but they'd be letting mario run free. Otherwise they could franchise mario (at a whopping 22m) and tender foster. If they tendered him and I were a team like the Bengals, I'd frontload the contract to for next year possibly the first two, giving him a huge part of the money right then. Then when the cap actually comes to place he wouldn't it as much and the Texans may not be able to match

come again?

mightytitan9
02-17-2012, 02:03 PM
come again?

if he gets franchised he gets 22.9 million this year

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 02:09 PM
if he gets franchised he gets 22.9 million this year

is 22 million the franchise number for DE's?

mightytitan9
02-17-2012, 02:14 PM
Well technically, if he were franchised he could be franchised at a much cheaper rate because he played LB last season. Problem is, he got 18m last season. And when your salary exceeds the top 5 at your position, you get 120% of your previous years salary. Therefore, 120% of 18m is around 22m

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 02:20 PM
Well technically, if he were franchised he could be franchised at a much cheaper rate because he played LB last season. Problem is, he got 18m last season. And when your salary exceeds the top 5 at your position, you get 120% of your previous years salary. Therefore, 120% of 18m is around 22m

never even knew that. they wont be franchising him then!

mightytitan9
02-17-2012, 02:24 PM
never even knew that. they wont be franchising him then!

Yeah, it's just cuz Mario got paid so much already that it just kept escalating

vidae
02-17-2012, 02:38 PM
Maybe, but a ton of teams have cap room. The Bears are sitting at roughly 25 million and they aren't even mentioned among the teams with a lot of room.

I don't think they will, but the Bears could easily offer Bowe a contract at 10+ million a year. The extra 20 million that the Chiefs have over the Bears is largely irrelevant at that point.

I don't think anyone will outbid the Chiefs for Bowe at this point, I just don't.

T-RICH49
02-17-2012, 03:14 PM
I don't think anyone will outbid the Chiefs for Bowe at this point, I just don't.

I'm more worried about losing Carr then I am Bowe

broncosfan
02-17-2012, 03:15 PM
Can't wait for the start of free agency to see where all of those players go and how much are they going to be paid.

Mario Williams will get PAID big time by whoever ends up with him. I mean 18 mill dollars to play a football season, in just his rookie contract, man that's a lot of money.

vidae
02-17-2012, 03:31 PM
I'm more worried about losing Carr then I am Bowe

Me too, but to lose either when we have so much money lying around would be unacceptable.

Still, in the last year Pioli has signed Tamba, DJ, Charles, Succop and Flowers to long term deals. I don't see why Carr and Bowe would be any different.

49erNation85
02-17-2012, 03:32 PM
I just want the 49ers to sing a big target Wide out and maybe an o line to help draft wise.

DiG
02-17-2012, 03:44 PM
I don't think anyone will outbid the Chiefs for Bowe at this point, I just don't.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0713/4779/155552_crop_340x234.jpg

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 03:48 PM
I don't think anyone will outbid the Chiefs for Bowe at this point, I just don't.
Well that's rather silly, then. Pioli should have a number in mind that he won't go over. Just because you have lots of money doesn't mean you need to blow it all on one or two players unless they are truly elite.

I don't want the Bears to get in a bidding war for Bowe, I was just using it as an example.

SickwithIt1010
02-17-2012, 04:05 PM
I hate all of your teams right now. Lions are dropping $21 million on just Calvin.

You're really complaining about having arguably the best WR in football?

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 04:08 PM
You're really complaining about having arguably the best WR in football?

this x100000

zachsaints52
02-17-2012, 04:16 PM
I just want the 49ers to sing a big target Wide out and maybe an o line to help draft wise.

Staley, Iupati, Goodwin, and Davis... what exactly do you need OL wise?

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 04:28 PM
You're really complaining about having arguably the best WR in football?
It's a silly complaint, but the Lions will have a hard time reaching the next level with so much money tied up in three players (Stafford, Megatron, Suh)

bucfan12
02-17-2012, 04:30 PM
After cutting Haynesworth, The Bucs have around 69 million in cap space. Hoepfully they land a big name and some mid-level target guys. DE/DT, LB, and CB.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 04:31 PM
It's a silly complaint, but the Lions will have a hard time reaching the next level with so much money tied up in three players (Stafford, Megatron, Suh)

there just so used to losing the only thing they know is complaining :D :D :D :D :D :D

zachsaints52
02-17-2012, 04:32 PM
After cutting Haynesworth, The Bucs have around 69 million in cap space. Hoepfully they land a big name and some mid-level target guys. DE/DT, LB, and CB.

If you get any big named free agents I expect youll will be overpaying them, because if its even money wise they will go to a team thats more ready to win now. Ala Jeff Faine.

dan77733
02-17-2012, 05:00 PM
This will be an interesting scenario I think. To my knowledge the Texans are around 20m in cap space, which to my knowledge is not including the rookie pay.

It would cost the Texans what 8 or so mill to franchise foster, but they'd be letting mario run free. Otherwise they could franchise mario (at a whopping 22m) and tender foster. If they tendered him and I were a team like the Bengals, I'd frontload the contract to for next year possibly the first two, giving him a huge part of the money right then. Then when the cap actually comes to place he wouldn't it as much and the Texans may not be able to match

Williams will hit free agency because Texans will not franchise him and while they could re-sign him, they dont need him. Their defense played damn good in the eleven games he missed. I personally would let him leave, extend Foster (or franchise him if he cant be extended) and find a second good receiver to start opposite Johnson.

If the Texans dont franchise Foster by the deadline and he's still an RFA, I would say that he's as good as gone.

Staley, Iupati, Goodwin, and Davis... what exactly do you need OL wise?

We need an RG. I would love Nicks or Grubbs to solidify the line but re-signing Snyder and going after a top tier WR is a better idea. If there's no top tier WR, then I easily go after Nicks or Grubbs.

49ers biggest needs are WR and RG. CB and OLB would be secondary needs because if Rogers leaves, the 49ers will start Brown/Culliver. They'll just have to sign a veteran to play nickelback and draft another corner somewhere. If Brooks leaves, Haralson and Smith will start at OLB but there's no depth behind them at all. Rather see Brooks get re-signed to start opposite Smith sending Haralson to the bench.

49ers are set everywhere else. Draft and a few veteran signings will be for depth purposes but in terms of starters, WR is the clear cut number one need while RG would be second.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 05:02 PM
Williams will hit free agency because Texans will not franchise him and while they could re-sign him, they dont need him. Their defense played damn good in the eleven games he missed. I personally would let him leave, extend Foster (or franchise him if he cant be extended) and find a second good receiver to start opposite Johnson.

If the Texans dont franchise Foster by the deadline and he's still an RFA, I would say that he's as good as gone.

Yeah lol hes worth a 1st round and an elite deal

EDIT: Even if he did get franchised the bengals could get him if they gave up two firsts, i'd say it would be worth it

Pat Sims 90
02-17-2012, 05:04 PM
Yeah lol hes worth a 1st round and an elite deal

EDIT: Even if he did get franchised the bengals could get him if they gave up two firsts, i'd say it would be worth it

The Bengals would be better off trading up for Richardson if they are trading draft picks for a RB.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 05:06 PM
The Bengals would be better off trading up for Richardson if they are trading draft picks for a RB.

Arian Foster > Trent Richardson

Pat Sims 90
02-17-2012, 05:11 PM
Arian Foster > Trent Richardson

Foster won't have that type of sucess outside of a ZB scheme.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 05:12 PM
Foster won't have that type of sucess outside of a ZB scheme.

Change to a zone blocking scheme. Foster IMO is the best RB in the league.

Pat Sims 90
02-17-2012, 05:14 PM
Change to a zone blocking scheme. Foster IMO is the best RB in the league.

That means the Bengals would have to change the entire OL and give up multiple draft picks for Foster. Or they could just give up a couple picks for Richardson and have better production from him.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 05:21 PM
That means the Bengals would have to change the entire OL and give up multiple draft picks for Foster. Or they could just give up a couple picks for Richardson and have better production from him.

fine... foster is a tank though and i think he could do well in a non zb scheme

Scotty D
02-17-2012, 06:28 PM
It's a silly complaint, but the Lions will have a hard time reaching the next level with so much money tied up in three players (Stafford, Megatron, Suh)

Yeah, its a good problem to have. I think all 3 will be top 5 at their position next year though.

ryno626
02-17-2012, 06:55 PM
I'm more worried about losing Carr then I am Bowe

Wouldn't they franchise the one they feel they have a lesser chance of resigning?

NY+Giants=NYG
02-17-2012, 07:10 PM
Yeah, its a good problem to have. I think all 3 will be top 5 at their position next year though.

Not if it clogs the cap, and all that money is centered around them.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 07:18 PM
Not if it clogs the cap, and all that money is centered around them.

But if he has an elite QB, WR and DT what else do you need? the packers alreday proved you can win without defense

NY+Giants=NYG
02-17-2012, 07:23 PM
But if he has an elite QB, WR and DT what else do you need? the packers alreday proved you can win without defense

Other players to step up. Luck, Lightning in a bottle, and very good depth, because just like the Packers, and our fan base know, you need good depth to come over injuries. Elite coaching and a great staff helps too.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 08:02 PM
With a healthy Stafford and Best and Suh playing like he can this team has to be considered serious superbowl contenders.

NY+Giants=NYG
02-17-2012, 08:20 PM
With a healthy Stafford and Best and Suh playing like he can this team has to be considered serious superbowl contenders.

They are doing well, but anyone who watches football or has been part of it understands things change big time from year to year. So while they did well this year, let's see how things shake out next year, and the year after. In this free agency era, being consistent is a tough thing. I am not too confident in Best especially with his concussion issues. However, like I mentioned before, they need more than just 3 players in Johnson, Stafford, and Suh. You are going to need depth in this free agency era to succeed.

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 08:23 PM
I've heard rumors thats a lot of people think Best will never play again. I wouldn't go into the season relying on him.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 08:27 PM
I've heard rumors thats a lot of people think Best will never play again. I wouldn't go into the season relying on him.

that would blow for the lions then. might have to consider taking a running back in the top 3 rounds because i think SMith and Morris are free agents. There arent too many free agents they could pick up either. Cedric Benson might be the best of a **** group.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 08:27 PM
With a healthy Stafford and Best and Suh playing like he can this team has to be considered serious superbowl contenders.
Yeah I dunno about that. The Lions did a nice job beating bad teams last year, but they lost to every good team they played.

Very simple fact: the Lions didn't beat a single team with a winning record last season. That's pretty damning when you want to throw "Superbowl contender" around. They're a few steps behind New York, Green Bay, New Orleans, and San Fran.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 08:28 PM
Yeah I dunno about that. The Lions did a nice job beating bad teams last year, but they lost to every good team they played.

Very simple fact: the Lions didn't beat a single team with a winning record last season. That's pretty damning when you want to throw "Superbowl contender" around. They're a few steps behind New York, Green Bay, New Orleans, and San Fran.

thats what everyone was saying about the bucs last year lol. maybe a top 5 selection then...

NY+Giants=NYG
02-17-2012, 08:45 PM
One thing that's important to note is that in this FA era, every year can have big shifts. One year a team can be good, and the next they can suck. Factor in bad coaching, injuries, and what else, it makes being consistent now a days pretty hard.

J-Mike88
02-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Foster won't have that type of sucess outside of a ZB scheme.
We don't know that, because he is in a ZB scheme, and he's the best RB in the league in it.

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 08:52 PM
Yeah I dunno about that. The Lions did a nice job beating bad teams last year, but they lost to every good team they played.

Very simple fact: the Lions didn't beat a single team with a winning record last season. That's pretty damning when you want to throw "Superbowl contender" around. They're a few steps behind New York, Green Bay, New Orleans, and San Fran.

The Pats didn't beat anyone with a winning record this year either until the AFC Championship game.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 08:52 PM
One thing that's important to note is that in this FA era, every year can have big shifts. One year a team can be good, and the next they can suck. Factor in bad coaching, injuries, and what else, it makes being consistent now a days pretty hard.

the best way to stay consistent is too have an elite quarterback and thats exactly what the lions have. they'll be in the playoffs again next year.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:01 PM
The Pats didn't beat anyone with a winning record this year either until the AFC Championship game.
http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/not%20sure%20if%20serious/grand/not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 09:05 PM
http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/not%20sure%20if%20serious/grand/not_sure_if_serious.jpg

It's a fact why wouldn't I be serious BF?

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 09:08 PM
It's a fact why wouldn't I be serious BF?

^^^

lol this...

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:12 PM
The Patriots:

-Have won 3 Superbowls in the last decade
-Have won 72% of their games under Bellicheck
-Have the best quarterback in football
-Actually DID beat a team with a winning record (Ravens)
-Won 2 playoff games and made the Superbowl
-Were 15-4 last year

The Lions:

-Are the Lions

I mean, yes, the Patriots example proves that statistic isn't the only one that matters. They also only lost 3 games to teams with winning seasons (the Lions lost 7), so a fair amount of it simply had to do with limited opportunities.

But the bigger point is that even the most uninformed fan could hold the Patriots and the Lions up and see it's not exactly a fair comparison.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 09:13 PM
The Patriots:

-Have won 3 Superbowls in the last decade
-Have won 72% of their games under Bellicheck
-Have the best quarterback in football
-Actually DID beat a team with a winning record (Ravens)
-Won 2 playoff games and made the Superbowl
-Were 15-4 last year

The Lions:

-Are the Lions

I mean, yes, the Patriots example proves that statistic isn't the only one that matters. They also only lost 3 games to teams with winning seasons (the Lions lost 7), so a fair amount of it simply had to do with limited opportunities.

But the bigger point is that even the most uninformed fan could hold the Patriots and the Lions up and see it's not exactly a fair comparison.

he said that.

Splat
02-17-2012, 09:16 PM
If the Chiefs don't lock up Bowe and Carr I'm going to kick Scott Pioli right in the nut sack.

It's not like they are going to do anything what so ever in FA, so they got to keep what talent they all ready have.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:16 PM
I know, but it's weird to hold something up in comparison that isn't true.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 09:18 PM
I know, but it's weird to hold something up in comparison that isn't true.

he said the patriots didnt beat a team with a winning record until the afc championship game. that is true.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:19 PM
he said the patriots didnt beat a team with a winning record until the afc championship game. that is true.
But it's pointless because they won. Had they not won, the comparison might make some sense, but they did, so....

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 09:19 PM
First of all I wasn't comparing them directly. Second the Pats team this year has nothing to do with the previous teams besides Brady and Belichick. Yes, it's a huge difference but in today's NFL if you have an offense like the Lions you can absolutely make a run.

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 09:20 PM
But it's pointless because they won. Had they not won, the comparison might make some sense, but they did, so....

You said Super Bowl contender. The Pats were a contender just by getting to the AFC Championship Game. So....you're wrong.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 09:22 PM
But it's pointless because they won. Had they not won, the comparison might make some sense, but they did, so....

the point is that it doesnt matter if the lions didnt beat a team with a winning record. neither did the pats and they got to the superbowl. that is exactly on the point. it could get any closer to the point.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:23 PM
Of course it matters. When you're projecting into next year, what happens in the past year certainly matters. It's obvious to look at the Patriots over the last 5-10 years and think that as long as Brady is playing at an elite level and Bellicheck is the coach, they are going to be in the hunt. This is a proven commodity.

The Lions were ******* awful for, well, ever, prior to this season. So of course it matters more for them to prove themselves by beating winning teams.

The Pats have beaten many great teams in the past few years; the Lions have not.

I can't believe this is even an argument.

SuperPacker
02-17-2012, 09:28 PM
Of course it matters. When you're projecting into next year, what happens in the past year certainly matters. It's obvious to look at the Patriots over the last 5-10 years and think that as long as Brady is playing at an elite level and Bellicheck is the coach, they are going to be in the hunt. This is a proven commodity.

The Lions were ******* awful for, well, ever, prior to this season. So of course it matters more for them to prove themselves by beating winning teams.

The Pats have beaten many great teams in the past few years; the Lions have not.

I can't believe this is even an argument.

who gives a ****.

also stafford was injured for the majority of that time.

bearsfan_51
02-17-2012, 09:34 PM
who gives a ****.

also stafford was injured for the majority of that time.
Uh huh...so you actually think the Lions and the Patriots are on the same level? If the Lions and Patriots played 10 games, how many of those would the Lions win?

broncosfan
02-17-2012, 09:35 PM
But if he has an elite QB, WR and DT what else do you need? the packers alreday proved you can win without defense

What the Packers (and playoffs in general) proved to me is that you CAN'T win a SB without defense. You need a very good defense to win, and even if you don't have the greatest defense ever, you need them to force turnovers and give the ball to the offense.

Offenses win games, yes.
Defense wins championships.

Nalej
02-17-2012, 09:36 PM
I say 9 out of 10.
The one game the Pats lose, Wes Welker drops the game sealing catch.

<---- Looks something like that


Uh huh...so you actually think the Lions and the Patriots are on the same level? If the Lions and Patriots played 10 games, how many of those would the Lions win?

Giantsfan1080
02-17-2012, 09:38 PM
I say 9 out of 10.
The one game the Pats lose, Wes Welker drops the game sealing catch.

<---- Looks something like that

It should have never came to that catch anyway. Don't get me started now because these bitter Pats fans are starting to piss me off.

broncosfan
02-17-2012, 09:46 PM
I say 9 out of 10.
The one game the Pats lose, Wes Welker drops the game sealing catch.

<---- Looks something like that

When the Giants had to drive 80 yards to take the lead, they did.
When the Patriots had to drive 80 yards to take the lead, they didn't.

It's not like that pass was the last play of the game.