PDA

View Full Version : BeerBaron's General Offseason Thoughts


BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 10:50 AM
A few people have asked me to do a write up of my thoughts on some things that have been happening this offseason, so I've decided to oblige. I swear that I think of so much more to talk about but when I sit down to actually write them, I can only remember about half of it. (I usually just throw in some filler talk about the Giants and Patriots since they have the most numerous/responsive fans, ha)

First, the music:


Av2OaPEnsnI
0YDIy_Gw_P8
TYTt0-LpLbE
2DmmLAicrQA


1.) The Broncos look like the AFC West favorites with Peyton Manning

This prediction isn't exactly off the wall, but it seems like there is a little debate about it.

Before this signing, I would have predicted the Chargers to win the division, simply because they have the best QB. The "Norv Turner effect" could and probably would hurt them, but really, they were, by a slight margin, the "best" of a bad bunch. The Chiefs have Matt Cassel and guys recovering from injuriezz, the Raiders are still the Raiders being led by a washed up Carson Palmer and the Broncos...I think it's pretty clear that I didn't expect year 2 of the Tim Tebow experiment to work out.

Now that you add Peyton to the mix in Denver and remove the noxious, smothering Tebowmania cloud, I like Denver's chances the best.

They have some young talent at WR who should flourish under Peyton in Decker and Thomas. They've added some solid TEs in Dreessen and Tamme, and we all know how much Peyton loves throwing to his TEs. Their o-line isn't bad. McGahee + maybe a mid-round rookie should be an adequate enough run game. Defensively, I still have a few doubts but they have some talent to work with plus the whole draft to help fill any remaining holes.

Assuming Peyton is healthy enough to play all year, I do like the Broncos chances the best.

And there's that health question...all we can do, for right now, is assume. You'll read one report that says Peyton's arm is shot (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/27/nfl-scouts-concerned-about-mannings-arm-strength/) (supposedly in one of his neck surgeries, a nerve leading to his throwing shoulder was damaged reducing his arm strength.) Then you'll read another where his arm is just fine. (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7695280/2012-free-agency-john-elway-denver-broncos-watch-peyton-manning-work-north-carolina)

Considering the Broncos decision makers got to watch him throw then decided to give him more money than his last deal with the Colts would have paid out, I'm going to err on the side of his arm looking good until more evidence is produced.

So for now, quite early in the offseason still, I'm going with the Broncos as the favorites to win the AFC West, though not by a wide margin. And that really is the first step in the process...as we learned the last two years, anything can happen once you get to the playoffs. And in the weakening AFC, it's looking even easier to put together a good run and potentially make it to the Superbowl.

Speaking of the weakening AFC...

2.) The Balance of Power has Swung Back to the NFC

Take a look back through recent NFL history. You'll probably notice that, during any given stretch of time, you can pick out which conference was dominant. In the late 80s and into the mid-90s, the NFC was king. The 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants up to the Favre/Holgrem Packers...the NFC was on top. Then things started to flip around and we saw the Shanahan Broncos step up, leading into the Patriots/Colts/Steelers dominance over most of the 2000s. Even if you look beyond the Superbowl winners, it seems like the majority of the league's elite teams in those years also came from the same dominant conference.

And starting in 2007 when the Giants beat the nigh-invincible Patriots, the pendulum started to swing back towards the NFC being in command after the AFC was in command for most of the decade. With the Saints in 2009, the Packers in 2010 and the Giants last year, the NFC has retaken the title of "most dominant conference" in terms of Superbowls.

Now, we're starting to see the NFC fill in those other "elite" team spots near the top. The Giants and Packers are at the top, with the 49ers appearing not far behind. Look a little further back and you find the Saints, who would otherwise be up at the top if not for the bounty madness. You can also see other playoff level contenders who could put together a Superbowl run if some things fall just right for them like the Falcons, Lions, Eagles, Bears, Cowboys...maybe even the Panthers.

Meanwhile, in the AFC, we see the "old guard" top teams starting to decline while the young up-and-coming teams aren't rising. The Patriots are still dangerous, and always will be when led by Belichick and Brady, but for them to be the cream of the AFC crop with their weaknesses doesn't bode well. The Colts have collapsed, crashed and burned. The Steelers hit a wall with the age and injury level of the team catching up last year. They've moved a lot of money into future years banking on the salary cap to rise enough to cover the guaranteed money they handed out. I'm always expecting the Ravens to finally take that step back...and they keep staying the course. But for how much longer? I hate their coordinators, Flacco doesn't appear that he's ever going to take that next step into franchise QB territory and, like the Steelers, they are going to be faced with their own age issues in some key areas soon enough. Houston was a team that I thought might be poised to take over, but they don't seem to have any idea what they're doing in order to maintain long term success. I have more faith in the Bears winning every Superbowl for the rest of all time than I have in the Bengals to do anything sensible with all of their cap space and multiple first round picks. Adding Peyton has made the Broncos short term contenders, but that division is otherwise...questionable...in the long term. Throw in some other teams who seem to be going in the right direction but are probably still a ways off from serious contention (Tennessee, Buffalo) and the AFC is fading fast.

Take a look at ESPN's most recent power rankings for a moment:
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/35552/nfl-power-rankings-houston-still-strong

The top 10 is currently split 5/5 for AFC/NFC. However, the AFC teams in appear to be trending downwards as I outlined above, while most of the NFC teams appear to be holding strong. Throw in the fact that 6 of the next 7 outside the top 10 are all NFC and my point is further made.

I know that I'm going to settle in for another 4-5 years or so of NFC dominance. How about you?

3.) The Running Back Dilemma

So you've got a good running back. He's really versatile...he can run inside, run outside, catch and pass block. He's doesn't have especially exceptional physical tools or anything like that, but he's an overall asset to your offense.

For the last 4 years, he's been playing on base salaries barely above the league minimum...which is fantastic. But now he's up for free agency and wants $40 million guaranteed.

What do you do?

Well, I can think of three options.

Option A: Pay him. He's one of the best at his position and has earned all of that guaranteed money afterall. <here is where you insert the GM of an NFL team laughing.> Unless you're ********, this option is out.

Option B: Franchise tag him. This one is pretty palatable to NFL teams. Instead of that asinine amount of guaranteed money, you get him reasonably cheap for one year on the franchise tag. If he tears up a knee or starts to show signs of slowing down, you can simply let him walk NEXT year...or, if someone makes you an offer you can't refuse for him, trade him.

Option C: Let him walk. Just call it quits. You can always find another capable back for 1/80th the salary. You save the cap space for positions that are harder to find and more worthwhile to keep while you just run a revolving door at RB.

For me, I'm all over Option C. **** overpaying RBs. And quite honestly, we're seeing the league starting to adopt this mentality too.

The league average seems to be hovering over option B right now. There are still a few instances where teams gave big money deals to their RBs (Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson...DeAngelo Williams...) but for the most part, when a top RBs contract expires, teams seem plenty satisfied to tag him and move on. (Forte, Rice, Foster last year on an RFA tender.)

One thing about that approach that I especially do not like is that with the RB not under contract, he can skip out on training camp. And I'm a major proponent of the idea that no matter what a player does on his own, it cannot match the intensity level of working out with the team in an official capacity. Those guys who hold out seem to start off sluggish and are more prone to injuries early in the year. We saw it with Foster and Chris Johnson, and hell, it goes beyond only applying to RBs in that we saw it with Darrell Revis a few years back as well.

Ideally, and what I'm seriously hoping the Bears do, is to trade the franchised RB. Let someone else pay the huge salary required to make him happy. The Bears offered him a plenty fair deal that would pay him more than Jamaal Charles got over a shorter period of time...that would easily make him a top 10 paid back..but noooo. He wants more than that. He and his agent surely look at that DeAngelo Williams contract and want more, because Forte (and like 15-20 other backs in the league) is better than Williams.

I'd say **** that and let some other team pay it. Ask for a late first round pick and accept the highest second rounder you get offered. Roll with Michael Bush and a mid-round rookie next season. Combined, they probably wouldn't even cost a fifth of what Forte would cost his new team.

Overall, it just doesn't make sense to pay such ludicrously high salaries to such a fungible, easily injured position with the shortest life-span in the sport. If I can assemble a platoon of backs making $500k to $1m a year out of mid-round picks and get 80% of the production I'd get out of Forte for 40-80 times the cost, you bet your ass I'd do it.

Every other year, I'd draft a RB in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th round, run him ragged, draft his replacement, supplement with the occasional late round pick or cheap free agent, then let him walk when his rookie contract was up. (If he was particularly good, then franchise and trade him.)

The platoon approach is the way to go. The last 3 Superbowl champs (Giants, Packers, Saints) have all done it, as have 3 of the last 4 Superbowl runners-up (Pats, Colts, Cardinals.)

We're only going to see the league continue to trend in this direction I feel.

4.) Young QBs WILL Play

"Team X should draft QB prospect Y and let him sit behind incumbent QB Z for a few years!"

If you have more free time on your hands than I do, go through the Draft section and count how many times some variation of that statement is uttered.

If the amount is higher than zero (and I absolutely guarantee that it's well above that,) then that amount is far too high.

The situation where a rookie QB is allowed to sit for any length of time simply does not occur very often anymore. It is, in fact, squarely in the minority of cases.

Let me break it down for you:

2011:
Cam Newton - Started every game.
Jake Locker - No starts, sat behind Matt Hasselbeck
Blaine Gabbert - Started 14 games
Christian Ponder - Started 10 games
Andy Dalton - Started every game
Colin Kaepernick - No starts, sat behind Alex Smith

In 2011, 4 of the 6 QBs drafted in the first two rounds started at least 10 games. The two that sat only sat because of relatively unexpected good performances out of the team and the veteran QB in front of them.

2010:
Sam Bradford - Started every game.
Tim Tebow - Started 3 games
Jimmy Clausen - Started 10 games
Colt McCoy - Started 8 games

Again, 3 of the top 4 QBs drafted in the first 3 round started at least half of the games their rookie year. Even Tebow is notable because he was supposed to be a huge project who sat for at least a year to develop...but nope, he was starting by the end of his rookie year.

2009:
Matt Stafford - Started 10 games (missed starts due to injury)
Mark Sanchez - Started every game (missed 1 start due to injury)
Josh Freeman - Started 9 games

All 3 of the top drafted QBs started more than half their games, and the top two only missed starts due to injury.

2008:
Matt Ryan - Started every game
Joe Flacco - Started every game
Brian Brohm - 0 starts (behind Aaron Rodgers)
Chad Henne - 0 starts (behind Chad Pennington)

Here were have a 50/50 split of the top drafted QBs. Ryan was supposed to be pro ready and he was, but Flacco was supposed to be the raw, small school prospect who got some time to develop...but nope. Starts every game. Even the 2nd round exceptions have solid reasoning as to why they didn't start. Brohn was behind Aaron Rodgers and is terrible. Henne likely would have gotten starts but the Dolphins went on a surprise playoff run behind Pennington at QB.

2007:
JaMarcus Russell - Started 1 game
Brady Quinn - 0 starts (behind Derek Anderson)
Kevin Kolb - 0 starts (behind McNabb)
John Beck - Started 4 games
Drew Stanton - 0 starts
Trent Edwards - 9 starts

This year was the island in a sea of rookie QBs starting. Quinn almost certainly would have gotten starts had Derek Anderson not come out of nowhere for a great season and Kolb was behind an entrenched starter in McNabb.

2006:
Vince Young - Started 13 games
Matt Leinart - Started 11 games
Jay Cutler - Started 5 games
Kellen Clemons - 0 starts
Tarvaris Jackson - Started 2 games

Another year where some of the top rookies got starts. Four of the top five drafted started a game and the top two both started well over half.

So let's break this down:

28 total QBs surveyed in the last six years.
20 started at least one game as rookies. (71%)
15 started at least half their rookie season (54%)
5 started every game as rookies (18%)
11 first rounders started half their games as rookies (out of 16, 69%)

So what does this tell us?

- Nearly 3/4 of highly drafted rookie QBs will get at least one start as a rookie
- Over half of highly drafted rookie QBs will start more than half the games their rookie season.
- Nearly 1/5 of highly drafted rookie QBs will start every game their rookie year. (Would be even higher barring injuries.)
- Nearly 70% of QBs drafted in the first round will start half of their rookie year.

So if you take absolutely nothing else away from this write up, please take remember this:

ROOKIE QUARTERBACKS ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO "SIT" IN THE MODERN NFL!

Nearly three quarters of highly drafted rookie QBs will start at least one game. Those that do sit are typically behind a veteran who gives a surprisingly good performance. For instance, last season, Matt Hasselbeck and Alex Smith had better seasons with more team success than anyone would have reasonably predicted. Otherwise, the rookies behind them would almost certainly have played by the end of the year.

Remember that the next time you want to talk about a QB prospect "sitting." A highly drafted rookie QB is MORE LIKELY to start at least 8 games than he is to sit the whole year. Remember that.

So no, guys like Tannehill, Gabbert Osweiler, Weeden, Cousins, Foles, etc. are unlikely to "sit and learn" next season. In fact, if any of them are drafted in the top 2-3 rounds, they're about 70% likely to end up starting at least one game. And over 50% likely to start half the games.

Remember that.

5.) Random Tidbits
(Those last items took a lot of out of me, so I'm just going to gloss over a few other points.)

- The NFL needs to make all officials full time - For whatever reason (cost) this still hasn't happened. Invest a few of those billions of TV dollars to make all NFL officials full time. Spend the offseasons reviewing rules and going over game film to discuss with them how to handle tricky calls. It's unbelievably stupid that this isn't already instituted.

- The Ravens take a step back next year - I touched on it briefly in my AFC/NFC power struggle item, but I'll elaborate a little further here. I'm sure that right now you're already thinking up counters to whatever arguments I make..."Oh but BeerBaron, they win like 12 games every year and haven't missed the playoffs since Harbaugh took over and blah!" I'm aware. But this year, I think they take a step back. That dropped TD and missed FG in the AFC Championship game are as close as this core group is every going to get to sniffing the Superbowl. Flacco has apparently developed all the further he can in that offense. He has the tools to make a great throw from time to time, but he'll also make plenty of stupid decisions and just doesn't seem to be advancing as a franchise QB. Age is catching up in a few spots on both sides of the ball as well. Free agency took a bit of a toll with the loss of Grubbs as well some defensive role players and they didn't really bring anyone new in. Oh and their coordinators! What a godawful mess they are... They're supposed to be such a great drafting team and...I just don't know. We'll see. But I for one am not going to be shocked if they suffer a .500 season next year. I always say that they won't win a Superbowl with Cam Cameron on the staff...now I might expand that into "they won't win one at all with this team."

- Quick Giants Note - I don't expect them to repeat as champs. I can all but guarantee you that Perry Fewell goes back to the utterly conservative "crap" defensive scheme of the first 14 weeks of last season. With a full offseason to try and implement it, he'll feel that it's the best way to go. Maybe they'll be less terrible this time around...who knows. Throw in the fact that when the Giants don't have their backs to the wall, they underachieve and we have the makings of a disappointing year.

- Quick Bears Note - In the last two years, the Bears are 11-5 and 7-3 with a healthy Jay Cutler...we get him back, plus make any improvements at all whatsoever anywhere else on the team, and we should be back in playoff contention.

If I think of more stuff to add, I shall. So have at it.

broncosfan
04-02-2012, 11:06 AM
I agree with the broncos part. If Peyton Manning is 100% (or near) the Broncos will win the division.

For like 5 years the Chargers have been the offseason favorites because of Phillip Rivers and their "talented" team, they're not even that talented anymore. They've lost Shawne Merriman, Ladainian Tomlinson, Jamaal Williams, etc. And the guys they now have are mediocre or only good (Shaun Phillips, Jammer, Floyd).

The Chiefs should be the favorite, because they're the most talented team in the division, but with Matt Cassel at the helm they're not going anywhere.

The Raiders I don't wanna talk about.

killxswitch
04-02-2012, 11:24 AM
I've said for years that NFL officials need to be full-time. It's incredibly stupid that they aren't.

Really, they should just take power away from the on-field officials and make a lot of the calls video-based. With all the hi-definition, slow-motion camera angles possible, a guy with a screen is going to make a better call. I don't care about any of that human element ********. The players on the field are the human element. The calls need to be right, not "human".

bigbluedefense
04-02-2012, 11:24 AM
I've come to the conclusion that it's almost impossible repeating as Champs in today's league. So I'm not expecting it.

I also expect Fewell to go back to his crap. But I do expect us to make the playoffs and play well enough to have a home game. Our division is weak, we should win the division. Philly is the only team that scares me, but they have some glaring flaws too.

If we can win a playoff game, I'll be ok with that. That's all I want this year. Anything on top of that is gravy.

I will say this though: our defense as is, is very close to being as complete of a defense as you can have. We have a great versatile secondary and the best dline in the league, and good (not great but good) OLBs. If we just get a MIKE in the draft, we can run pretty much any scheme we want. You can pretty much call anything and it should work with this unit's talent as long as we can grab that MIKE that's been evading us for years.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 11:33 AM
I've said for years that NFL officials need to be full-time. It's incredibly stupid that they aren't.

Really, they should just take power away from the on-field officials and make a lot of the calls video-based. With all the hi-definition, slow-motion camera angles possible, a guy with a screen is going to make a better call. I don't care about any of that human element ********. The players on the field are the human element. The calls need to be right, not "human".

That was actually a proposed rule change this offseason, spearheaded by the Bills of all teams, but didn't pass.

The rumor has always been that the league wants someone actually on the field making the final call. They're afraid that if the call goes up to the booth and a decision is made there exclusively, it'll be viewed as the call "coming down from the ivory tower." (I don't remember who put it that way, but it's fitting.)

All of the people who believe that football is fixed will argue that any questionable call is being made by the league office to influence the games for gambling reasons or something equally asinine.

My personal theory is that it didn't pass because challenges are a time where the league can sell more advertising. The league wants to find a balance between "sell the most advertising" and "the game is too long to keep the fans engaged." Keeping lengthy challenge procedures where the official has to go over and make the call guarantees an extra few commercial breaks per game.

But in all seriousness, that rule change is one that needs made sooner rather than later.

I've come to the conclusion that it's almost impossible repeating as Champs in today's league. So I'm not expecting it.

I also expect Fewell to go back to his crap. But I do expect us to make the playoffs and play well enough to have a home game. Our division is weak, we should win the division. Philly is the only team that scares me, but they have some glaring flaws too.

If we can win a playoff game, I'll be ok with that. That's all I want this year. Anything on top of that is gravy.

I will say this though: our defense as is, is very close to being as complete of a defense as you can have. We have a great versatile secondary and the best dline in the league, and good (not great but good) OLBs. If we just get a MIKE in the draft, we can run pretty much any scheme we want. You can pretty much call anything and it should work with this unit's talent as long as we can grab that MIKE that's been evading us for years.

Aye, I almost put something in there about the Eagles winning that division. I think I'll wait until closer to the season to do a "predictions" thread for that kind of thing though. Things could change.

We've seen before where the Giants will have success and then get complacent. A good portion of the team just doesn't seem to be made up of guys who give 100% all the time, and it's further complicated by your coordinators doing idiotic things.

Press the Giants and you get the most dangerous team in football. Insert them as frontrunners though, and you end up with a team tries to coast a little too much for their own good.

WCH
04-02-2012, 11:40 AM
I've come to the conclusion that it's almost impossible repeating as Champs in today's league. So I'm not expecting it.


Last offseason, I told a fellow Packer fan that (if I were a gambler) I'd almost be willing to bet my life savings that the Packers wouldn't repeat. If I were a fan of another team, I'd have been tempted to bet big money against them at least until they crossed the 14-win point.

Lil Quip
04-02-2012, 11:42 AM
2) I definitely see where you are coming from, where the AFC's old guard (and by old I mean the past few years) definitely looks weaker. I think a big advantage of the NFC is their up and comers seem to be closer than the AFC.

Using the power rankings although flawed is somewhat required, so I understand why you used it. As a Pats fan, I can't take anything away from the Giants, they won the SB pure and simple. However, that team seems so bi polar. They beasted in the playoffs, but I totally see them having a post SB hangover or having their hot streak at the wrong part of the season. They are one because they won. I just don't see them being top five at seasons end next year.

I like Houston to entrench themselves as the elite and a healthy Shaub goes a long way. I think Detroit will be in the upper echelon although they need to get better on D. But really look at the Pats Packers and Saints. Not exactly the most dominant defensive teams. The Bills scare the crap out of me. I think they are getting underrated. Fitz can lean on the run game again and with that D, look out. History shows that it will get Brown'd, but the Bengals look like they should be in the upper echelon too.

3) For almost every team in the league, your logic is flawless. There are exceptions though. A healthy AP is in my mind far and away the best runner in the league, and a platoon will not do an adequate job replacing him. Also, a guy like Ray Rice is worth that money. You can get a cheap platoon that individually good at each phase, but Rice is above average to great in basically every function of a running back. Is it worth it to pay him? I would.
Also, it makes sense for teams to hedge their bets. Teams find cheap replacements in the draft, but not every team does. I still think it is okay to spend mid level money on a good guy who is limited, as they are a much more known quantity that the new guy and much cheaper than the star.

As for Forte, which I assume that item was about, I think he falls in the Ray Rice area. Not an expert on the bears, but he just seemed to be such an integral cog in your offense. Your second best offensive player deserves some money I would think, although the knee injury scares me and should drop some money off his demand.

4) It has been pretty obvious that rookie QBs are playing very early, but that does not change the fact that teams would rather have him sit behind a vet. It just isn't feasible these days.

When you don't have a vet and start the rookie week one, you are setting that in stone. Maybe I am being a little outlandish, but I will bring up a hypothetical. A QB has a glitch in his mechanics. Week one comes around and he almost has it out of his system, muscle memory is almost there. Force him to start, he gets flustered, goes back to square one. With a vet, you sit him that week. He finally gets 'it?' He eclipses the starter. Needs a few more weeks, go with the vet.

The key is the vet allows a team to start the rookie when he is ready not when the NFL is ready aka the first game. This puts more power in the team's hands and not in things out of their control. That being said, for Griffin and Luck, I just think they will be better than any vet brought in by week one.

Dallas357
04-02-2012, 11:50 AM
fire tom coughlin, it's what all the giant fans were saying last year, so why change now.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 11:57 AM
........

2.) There is some debate to be had, and the Power Rankings thing was just a minor part of the argument of it. And it's definitely in that "next tier back" of teams where the NFC's dominance begins. You can make an argument that, as of right now, the Pats and Giants, Ravens and Packers, etc. are relatively equal. But get a tiny bit further back and the next teams up for the NFC just seem so much stronger. The odds just seem so much better for an NFC team to step up and win it all in a given year than they do for an AFC team.

3.) See, where the argument comes in for someone like Peterson, is the injury factor. When you hand $40 million guaranteed dollars to a player who is getting hit and piled on and knocked around 20-30 times a game, you're taking on a huge risk. And that risk was realized with Peterson last year.

Even Rice and Forte, I wouldn't do it. It may be challenging to find one guy who can replicate everything they give you, but it's far from impossible. In fact, RB is by far the easiest position to do that at. The dropoff from the "elite" talent available early on in the draft to the guys at the end is less than any other position.

I would gladly take my chances drafting a RB in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th round every other year or so, supplemented by late rounders or cheap FAs, than to pay top dollar to keep one.

Think about it monetarily. If you can have 3 mid-round picks who, combined, cost you $2 million against the cap in a given year produce at 80% of the level of Forte or Rice, wouldn't you rather go with them than pay $40 million to one of those guys?

Then you can reinvest all of that money saved in other positions that are more difficult to fill long term, such as QB, WR, OL, DL...pretty much any position other than RB. The net gain would be better for your team overall.

4.) Hell yeah every team would like to keep their rookie QB on the bench. But that wasn't my point. My point was that very few actually get to do that.

For instance, in your hypothetical, it's highly unlikely that a young QB is going to be "fixed" in one in-season week if an entire offseason, training camp and preseason couldn't do it. The veteran is going to get the first team reps that week and it'll be difficult to incorporate the rookie.

Except for in the rare instances that the veteran/team performs better than expected, like the Titans and 49ers last year, or the Browns in Brady Quinn's rookie year, your going to see that rookie starting games. He's more likely to start at least half his games as a rookie than not to.

It just drives me crazy when people ignore the evidence and proclaim that "such and such a team should draft so and so and sit him for two years!!"

Ha! When was the last time any highly drafted rookie QB sat for two years? Aaron Rodgers? One time in the past 7 years that it happened? Yeah, no...

Young, highly drafted QBs just don't get to sit anymore. It's a terrible argument to make.

Gay Ork Wang
04-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Question: why do teams not always try to already draft the next RB in succession and let him share carries his rookie year? that would actually reduce the uncertainty somewhat and you can let the Rb go with less risk than if you just draft an unknown commodity.

vidae
04-02-2012, 12:22 PM
Keep sleepin on the Chiefs you turkeys!

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Question: why do teams not always try to already draft the next RB in succession and let him share carries his rookie year? that would actually reduce the uncertainty somewhat and you can let the Rb go with less risk than if you just draft an unknown commodity.

I think teams do try to do this in different ways. For example, the Texans drafted Ben Tate and played him quite a bit last year. (He ran for 900+ yards.) If Foster's demands proved unreasonable or he just didn't play well last year, they could have moved onto Tate.

I think other teams try similar things but have less success. The Bears with Marion Barber and now Michael Bush. Yes, the plan is to have Bush backup Forte and handle the short yardage, but if a trade opportunity for Forte comes up or he holds out into the season, they'll fall back on Bush.

And I think this is something we'll see more and more of in coming years. The devaluing of RBs along with the cheap platoon approach at the position is going to keep becoming more and more prevalent.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Keep sleepin on the Chiefs you turkeys!

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/11/09/1109_qb-matt-cassel_485x340.jpg

You managed 10 wins with him once. Lightning like that doesn't strike twice.

Gay Ork Wang
04-02-2012, 12:28 PM
I think teams do try to do this in different ways. For example, the Texans drafted Ben Tate and played him quite a bit last year. (He ran for 900+ yards.) If Foster's demands proved unreasonable or he just didn't play well last year, they could have moved onto Tate.

I think other teams try similar things but have less success. The Bears with Marion Barber and now Michael Bush. Yes, the plan is to have Bush backup Forte and handle the short yardage, but if a trade opportunity for Forte comes up or he holds out into the season, they'll fall back on Bush.

And I think this is something we'll see more and more of in coming years. The devaluing of RBs along with the cheap platoon approach at the position is going to keep becoming more and more prevalent.
wouldnt that lead to a drop in RB contracts? which would lead into more teams thinking about keeping top talent again?

vidae
04-02-2012, 12:28 PM
We have the most talented team in the division position for position except QB. A team this talented (barring injuries, of course) isn't going to be a division doormat.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 12:33 PM
wouldnt that lead to a drop in RB contracts? which would lead into more teams thinking about keeping top talent again?

That could easily happen. When the salaries of the top players start go down, it will drive down the price of the franchise tag at the very least, making that an even more attractive option.

But that's more than a few seasons away I'd think. Plus there will always be the occasional Adrian Peterson or someone like that popping up that a team just can't force itself to let go of.

For the foreseeable future at least, the cheap platoon approach will be the way to go.

We have the most talented team in the division position for position except QB. A team this talented (barring injuries, of course) isn't going to be a division doormat.

Well you have the Raiders for that at least...

Your talent elsewhere is quite good, but QB is the most important position in the sport right now and probably headed forward forever.

I'm not counting the Chiefs completely out. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying for that. We just saw the Alex Smith led 49ers sniff the Superbowl. Anything can happen in this league.

I just think that with a reasonably healthy Peyton Manning, the Broncos become the favorites of a weak division.

SolidGold
04-02-2012, 01:16 PM
Nice write up - I agree with pretty much everything.. and Alice In Chains is the best band of all time :banana:

Shane P. Hallam
04-02-2012, 01:30 PM
wouldnt that lead to a drop in RB contracts? which would lead into more teams thinking about keeping top talent again?

It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 01:39 PM
It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

BBD and I have been calling this for at least two years now. The 49ers seemed to be the closest to it...and no, the Broncos and Tebow didn't count.

However, with the pro-passing game rule changes and so much being invested in QBs, I doubt we'll ever get back to the point of LTs and Shaun Alexanders setting TD records and winning MVPs.

Maybe a RB could win it if he does it in Marshall Faulk fashion with a 1000/1000 season and if no QBs have particularly elite years.

tjsunstein
04-02-2012, 01:43 PM
It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

The 49ers are doing exactly this right now.

TACKLE
04-02-2012, 01:51 PM
It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

This very idea is something I've been pondering for a while and I very much agree that trends are cyclical. I do believe that if a team is ahead of the curb and really commits to the power run game/big personnel groupings/very controlled and limited passing game approach, they can have more success short term than their talent would indicate (off the top of my head, see. 2011 Broncos, 2009 Jets, 2004 Steelers to some extent).

However, what I wonder is, are the rules so skewed towards allowing passing offenses to succeed that playing "big" football won't work long term?

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 02:00 PM
This very idea is something I've been pondering for a while and I very much agree that trends are cyclical. I do believe that if a team is ahead of the curb and really commits to the power run game/big personnel groupings/very controlled and limited passing game approach, they can have more success short term than their talent would indicate (off the top of my head, see. 2011 Broncos, 2009 Jets, 2004 Steelers to some extent).

However, what I wonder is, are the rules so skewed towards allowing passing offenses to succeed that playing "big" football won't work long term?

I time traveled and gave an answer before you asked the question!

BBD and I have been calling this for at least two years now. The 49ers seemed to be the closest to it...and no, the Broncos and Tebow didn't count.

However, with the pro-passing game rule changes and so much being invested in QBs, I doubt we'll ever get back to the point of LTs and Shaun Alexanders setting TD records and winning MVPs.

Maybe a RB could win it if he does it in Marshall Faulk fashion with a 1000/1000 season and if no QBs have particularly elite years.

SolidGold
04-02-2012, 02:11 PM
It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

I'm also on the record echoing these sentiments.

vidae
04-02-2012, 03:27 PM
It will, and then teams will begin investing in smaller defensive players who can keep up with the passing game and rush the QB.

Know what the smart teams will do? Get a big bruising back and O-line after that when teams are all for defending the pass and dominate. It is cyclical I think.

You mean like Peyton Hillis as a tandem back to Jamaal Charles? BOOM!

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 03:43 PM
You mean like Peyton Hillis as a tandem back to Jamaal Charles? BOOM!

It usually takes players a full year from when they first get back on the field to totally recover from serious knee injuries.

I think Hillis will be more of the workhorse at first while Charles spells in more and more as the season progresses. He's lucky in that he was hurt early last year.

Ness
04-02-2012, 04:05 PM
The 49ers are doing exactly this right now.

Well hopefully we aren't placing our faith in Jacobs to fill that role.

bigbluedefense
04-02-2012, 04:36 PM
That was actually a proposed rule change this offseason, spearheaded by the Bills of all teams, but didn't pass.

The rumor has always been that the league wants someone actually on the field making the final call. They're afraid that if the call goes up to the booth and a decision is made there exclusively, it'll be viewed as the call "coming down from the ivory tower." (I don't remember who put it that way, but it's fitting.)

All of the people who believe that football is fixed will argue that any questionable call is being made by the league office to influence the games for gambling reasons or something equally asinine.

My personal theory is that it didn't pass because challenges are a time where the league can sell more advertising. The league wants to find a balance between "sell the most advertising" and "the game is too long to keep the fans engaged." Keeping lengthy challenge procedures where the official has to go over and make the call guarantees an extra few commercial breaks per game.

But in all seriousness, that rule change is one that needs made sooner rather than later.



Aye, I almost put something in there about the Eagles winning that division. I think I'll wait until closer to the season to do a "predictions" thread for that kind of thing though. Things could change.

We've seen before where the Giants will have success and then get complacent. A good portion of the team just doesn't seem to be made up of guys who give 100% all the time, and it's further complicated by your coordinators doing idiotic things.

Press the Giants and you get the most dangerous team in football. Insert them as frontrunners though, and you end up with a team tries to coast a little too much for their own good.

This is true, but don't forget, in 08 we were like 11-1 until Plax shot himself. We probably would have won the SB that year if it wasn't for Plax. And the reason for that was the team felt slighted in the offseason. They took offense to the notion that they were just a lucky team that wasn't that good.

This year you can already feel the same tension. The Eagles are more favored to win the SB than the Giants are. I can guarantee you that will resonate in the lockerroom and they're going to take the "nobody believes in us" approach to the season again like they did in 08.

Rosebud
04-02-2012, 04:47 PM
This is true, but don't forget, in 08 we were like 11-1 until Plax shot himself. We probably would have won the SB that year if it wasn't for Plax. And the reason for that was the team felt slighted in the offseason. They took offense to the notion that they were just a lucky team that wasn't that good.

This year you can already feel the same tension. The Eagles are more favored to win the SB than the Giants are. I can guarantee you that will resonate in the lockerroom and they're going to take the "nobody believes in us" approach to the season again like they did in 08.

Plus I think we'll start slow next year as Fewell tries to re-implement his zone-option coverages. Like with Gilbride, I get the idea of why he wants to do things that way, but NFL players aren't smart enough to do that with them unless you're keeping the same guys around for years and years and never face injuries.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 04:48 PM
This is true, but don't forget, in 08 we were like 11-1 until Plax shot himself. We probably would have won the SB that year if it wasn't for Plax. And the reason for that was the team felt slighted in the offseason. They took offense to the notion that they were just a lucky team that wasn't that good.

This year you can already feel the same tension. The Eagles are more favored to win the SB than the Giants are. I can guarantee you that will resonate in the lockerroom and they're going to take the "nobody believes in us" approach to the season again like they did in 08.

"We would have had a better chance" of winning the Superbowl maybe. That's a little too much extrapolation there.

Losing 3 of 4 to end the year then getting kicked in the balls at home in the playoffs is attributable to more than one stupid player doing something something stupid.

As for the Eagles this year, part of the reason why I'm kind of liking them right now is because I expect the Giants to step back. The Giants seem to be lousy front runners and I think the Eagles are best poised to take advantage of that.

There is still a lot of offseason to go and my opinion may and probably will change in some way, but I'm not in love with the Giants next season. If I were a betting person, I'd definitely bet against them repeating. As you yourself said, repeating is going to be damn hard for anyone in today's league anyway. I wouldn't go as far to bet against them winning the division or making the playoffs right now, but neither would surprise me if it happened.

Rosebud
04-02-2012, 04:52 PM
"We would have had a better chance" of winning the Superbowl maybe. That's a little too much extrapolation there.

Losing 3 of 4 to end the year then getting kicked in the balls at home in the playoffs is attributable to more than one stupid player doing something something stupid.

As for the Eagles this year, part of the reason why I'm kind of liking them right now is because I expect the Giants to step back. The Giants seem to be lousy front runners and I think the Eagles are best poised to take advantage of that.

There is still a lot of offseason to go and my opinion may and probably will change in some way, but I'm not in love with the Giants next season. If I were a betting person, I'd definitely bet against them repeating. As you yourself said, repeating is going to be damn hard for anyone in today's league anyway. I wouldn't go as far to bet against them winning the division or making the playoffs right now, but neither would surprise me if it happened.

Not really. Without PLax our passing game fell apart because all of our route patterns were built off of the attention that Plax was drawing that year. Without him our entire passing game could no longer function which took away our balance and crippled the rushing attack as teams could sell out against the run. We weren't a lock to win, but losing Plax was absolutely crippling that season.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 04:55 PM
You had 52 other guys who needed to step up and not suck. Situations like that rally some teams and send others into defeat mode.

If they hadn't just won the Superbowl, maybe it would have galvanized them to win that one. Instead....complacency?

Hopefully none of your players shoot themselves this year, but if the Giants dig into an early hole because of coordinating shenanigans, they might be a little too complacent to rally like they did late last year.

Rosebud
04-02-2012, 05:09 PM
You had 52 other guys who needed to step up and not suck. Situations like that rally some teams and send others into defeat mode.

If they hadn't just won the Superbowl, maybe it would have galvanized them to win that one. Instead....complacency?

Hopefully none of your players shoot themselves this year, but if the Giants dig into an early hole because of coordinating shenanigans, they might be a little too complacent to rally like they did late last year.

Problem is that the only player on the current team that we depend on as greatly as we did Plax is Eli, and if Eli goes down with 4 games to go in the season, no amount of galvanizing will lead the giants to another SB. Without Plax we just didn't have anyone who could get open without Plax drawing the defenses attention and the plays as drawn up no longer worked. I'm sure there was complacency there, but Plax was really just the absolutely worst person on the roster not named Eli for us to see hurt.

This year Eli's the only guy who's truly irreplaceable. If Cruz goes down we've still got Nicks n the youngins, if Nicks goes down than vice versa. If Tuck or JPP goes down we've still got the other one, Osi and Kiwi, if Webster goes down we still have TT, Prince and the inside guys like Bruce Johnson and Tryon, if Rolle goes down we've still got Kenny, TT, Sash/Grant. That year Plax and Eli were the irreplaceables.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 05:17 PM
Problem is that the only player on the current team that we depend on as greatly as we did Plax is Eli, and if Eli goes down with 4 games to go in the season, no amount of galvanizing will lead the giants to another SB. Without Plax we just didn't have anyone who could get open without Plax drawing the defenses attention and the plays as drawn up no longer worked. I'm sure there was complacency there, but Plax was really just the absolutely worst person on the roster not named Eli for us to see hurt.

This year Eli's the only guy who's truly irreplaceable. If Cruz goes down we've still got Nicks n the youngins, if Nicks goes down than vice versa. If Tuck or JPP goes down we've still got the other one, Osi and Kiwi, if Webster goes down we still have TT, Prince and the inside guys like Bruce Johnson and Tryon, if Rolle goes down we've still got Kenny, TT, Sash/Grant. That year Plax and Eli were the irreplaceables.

QBs are exempt from that, obviously. The instances of a team succeeding after it's starting QB goes down are dwarfed ten-fold by the instances of where the team crashes and burns.

But for any other position, short of losing a truly all world talent, there are no excuses for finishing 1-3 then getting shellacked in the playoffs.

Giantsfan1080
04-02-2012, 05:18 PM
That 2008 Giants winning streak was the best football I've ever seen played by them which is really saying something considering the 2 SB streaks we had. They just dominated teams during that time.

WCH
04-02-2012, 05:35 PM
This is true, but don't forget, in 08 we were like 11-1 until Plax shot himself. We probably would have won the SB that year if it wasn't for Plax. And the reason for that was the team felt slighted in the offseason. They took offense to the notion that they were just a lucky team that wasn't that good.

This year you can already feel the same tension. The Eagles are more favored to win the SB than the Giants are. I can guarantee you that will resonate in the lockerroom and they're going to take the "nobody believes in us" approach to the season again like they did in 08.

If I'm not mistaken, the "best" regular season team has won the Super Bowl twice in the past 10 seasons.

2011: Packers, 15-1
2010: Patriots, 14-2
2009: Colts, 14-2
2008: Titans, 13-3
2007: Patriots, 16-0
2006: Chargers, 14-2
2005: Colts, 14-2
2004: Steelers, 15-1
2003: Patriots, 14-2
2002: Eagles/Packers/Bucs, 12-4

It hardly follows that a dominant 11-1 start means you will "probably" win the Super Bowl.

Ness
04-02-2012, 05:39 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the "best" regular season team has won the Super Bowl once in the past 10 seasons.

2011: Packers, 15-1
2010: Patriots, 14-2
2009: Colts, 14-2
2008: Titans, 13-3
2007: Patriots, 16-0
2006: Chargers, 14-2
2005: Colts, 14-2
2004: Steelers, 15-1
2003: Patriots, 14-2
2002: Eagles/Packers, 12-4

It hardly follows that an 11-1 start means you will "probably" win the Super Bowl.
The Buccaneers finished the 2002 season with a 12-4 record as well.

WCH
04-02-2012, 05:44 PM
The Buccaneers finished the 2002 season with a 12-4 record as well.

Good eye. Edited the original post.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 06:06 PM
The Bucs were the 2 seed behind the Eagles though. Record wise, sure, but they weren't top seeded.

Ravens1991
04-02-2012, 06:32 PM
Im obviously biased but I think the Ravens are no where near a 500 record. I agree Harbs picks his OC/DC like its a ******* rec league team picking your friends and letting them do there thing and that will keep us away from a ring but I still think we will be playoff contenders. Losing Grubbs will hurt but its a LG and he isnt a larry allen type G. He is a top 10 G maybe top 5 so I expect Rices production to decrease. Ray and Reed are the only really old guys on our D but when Ray went down last season we werent screwed and when Reed went down 2 seasons ago we werent screwed either. We will be what we always have been with harbaugh. The best 2nd tier team or the worst 1st tier team. However you wanna consider it.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 06:35 PM
Im obviously biased but I think the Ravens are no where near a 500 record. I agree Harbs picks his OC/DC like its a ******* rec league team picking your friends and letting them do there thing and that will keep us away from a ring but I still think we will be playoff contenders. Losing Grubbs will hurt but its a LG and he isnt a larry allen type G. He is a top 10 G maybe top 5 so I expect Rices production to decrease. Ray and Reed are the only really old guys on our D but when Ray went down last season we werent screwed and when Reed went down 2 seasons ago we werent screwed either. We will be what we always have been with harbaugh. The best 2nd tier team or the worst 1st tier team. However you wanna consider it.

Well, the .500 record idea was the lowest of the low on the spectrum barring something ridiculous happening.

What's better to take away is that I think last year was the closest you're getting to the Superbowl. The Ravens with Cam Cameron on the staff are never winning a Superbowl, and I doubt you even get that close again.

Ravens1991
04-02-2012, 06:49 PM
I agree we blew it. EVERYTHING was aligned for us to win it this year and we blew it. Being higher seed then Pitt, somehow Tebow making sure Pitt got eliminated round 1, The Pats not having a deep threat and a defense, Peyton Manning on IR. We blew it. Also in the regular season when we had games to be the #1 seed in the AFC we not only lost we didnt even show up. JAX,SEA,SD are examples of that. Thats my biggest issue w/ Harbaugh. Obviously his success was great in his first 4 years but I really dont know if he will ever get us over the hump. He has no say in what the coordinators do even when they are doing a pathetic job. For a motivator we showed up flat for 3 games that would have given us the #1 seed in the AFC. I know this isnt a thread about harbaugh but that kind of stuff just makes me mad

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 07:15 PM
I agree we blew it. EVERYTHING was aligned for us to win it this year and we blew it. Being higher seed then Pitt, somehow Tebow making sure Pitt got eliminated round 1, The Pats not having a deep threat and a defense, Peyton Manning on IR. We blew it. Also in the regular season when we had games to be the #1 seed in the AFC we not only lost we didnt even show up. JAX,SEA,SD are examples of that. Thats my biggest issue w/ Harbaugh. Obviously his success was great in his first 4 years but I really dont know if he will ever get us over the hump. He has no say in what the coordinators do even when they are doing a pathetic job. For a motivator we showed up flat for 3 games that would have given us the #1 seed in the AFC. I know this isnt a thread about harbaugh but that kind of stuff just makes me mad

And those bad losses were all on the road iirc. You had some other close calls too...plus that loss at Tennessee a week after smashing the Steelers in the most convincing fashion in years.

Last year was definitely set up about as well as it possibly could have been for the Ravens, no doubt.

There are still some positives headed forward in that Pittsburgh is on the decline, I think, but even then they're never going to give the Ravens an easy time. Plus the AFC overall, as I outlined, is just overall weaker than the NFC and most of the top teams are trending downward.

So you have a chance. I don't like your chances, but you have them. The last few seasons have shown that getting hot at the right time can do the trick.

But just the combination of coach, Flacco's lack of advanced development, age in key spots...plus the fact that Rice's situation still isn't fixed. He could end up holding out through camp and the preseason, and I wrote before about how that makes a guy, especially a RB, prone to sluggishness and injury to start the year. If Rice is anything less than 100%, you can especially forget about sniffing the Superbowl again.

Ravens1991
04-02-2012, 07:26 PM
Yeah I agree about the whole RB situation but Rice is on that level were u have to consider paying him big especially what he does in the offense. Granted a real OC will make Rice not as valuable. Also a NFL offense not a HS offense will help Flacco improve his development.

bigbluedefense
04-02-2012, 07:26 PM
I'm not saying we're going to repeat. I know it's pretty much impossible. But I don't think it's crazy for us to win the division. The Redskins are a ways to go, I just don't believe in Dallas, Dallas has to show me that they can show up in a big moment, until then I won't believe in them. And their front 7 leaves a lot to be desired.

Philly is a legit contender. The problem I have with them is, Peters going down is HUGE. Who is gonna block JPP this year? Vick is not the same qb he was for the first 8 games of 2010, and I think their secondary is overrated and their LBs are still an issue.

Granted, they're going to be tough. But when I look at both teams player for player, I think the Giants are the superior team. We have the superior secondary, dline, lb core (if that even counts, both are mediocre), WR core, qb. They basically have a better oline and Rb. That's about it.

But Philly is always tough. I won't count them out.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 07:47 PM
I agree that the NFL should employ officials full time and train them in the off-season, but I also think there does need to be a "human element" to refereeing. If it was all guys upstairs looking at HD TV's they could call holding, illegal contact, or pass interference on literally ever play. No matter what there will always be questionable calls and calls that go one teams way but that is a part of sports. Unless we got robotic referees their will always be scrutiny, but even then I bet a robot would make the dumbest call at a huge point in the game because it doesn't have human discretion lol.

TheFinisher
04-02-2012, 07:49 PM
Unless we got robotic referees their will always be scrutiny, but even then I bet a robot would make the dumbest call at a huge point in the game because it doesn't have human discretion lol.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/155/594/yesitis2.gif

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 07:59 PM
I agree that the NFL should employ officials full time and train them in the off-season, but I also think there does need to be a "human element" to refereeing. If it was all guys upstairs looking at HD TV's they could call holding, illegal contact, or pass interference on literally ever play. No matter what there will always be questionable calls and calls that go one teams way but that is a part of sports. Unless we got robotic referees their will always be scrutiny, but even then I bet a robot would make the dumbest call at a huge point in the game because it doesn't have human discretion lol.

I think you misunderstand. Penalties and things like that would still be called on the field by the officials there.

Replays is what would go up exclusively to the booth. If there's a questionable play, the booth official would signal to the referee to pause the game, the booth would take a look at the replay and then radio down the proper call.

That was proposed but voted down by the league.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 08:00 PM
I'm not saying we're going to repeat. I know it's pretty much impossible. But I don't think it's crazy for us to win the division. The Redskins are a ways to go, I just don't believe in Dallas, Dallas has to show me that they can show up in a big moment, until then I won't believe in them. And their front 7 leaves a lot to be desired.

Philly is a legit contender. The problem I have with them is, Peters going down is HUGE. Who is gonna block JPP this year? Vick is not the same qb he was for the first 8 games of 2010, and I think their secondary is overrated and their LBs are still an issue.

Granted, they're going to be tough. But when I look at both teams player for player, I think the Giants are the superior team. We have the superior secondary, dline, lb core (if that even counts, both are mediocre), WR core, qb. They basically have a better oline and Rb. That's about it.

But Philly is always tough. I won't count them out.

I know your better than that ESPN garbage BBD. You are definitely selling the Cowboys short. I don't think it was them "not being able to perform in a big moment" as much as it was them just not being good enough. Every team loses close games.

The athleticism on defense is significantly better and we haven't even had the draft yet. We've already talked about this in the cowboys discussion thread. They got better, younger, and more athletic at at least 3 spots (Carr, Carter, Connor), Pool could be an upgrade over Elam, and a healthy Jenkins will help the team because he was hobbled the entire season and still played pretty well.

The interior OL will be better, although we do need to find someone better than Phil Costa at center. A healthy Miles should only make the offense better, we don't have Martellus Bennett anymore to somehow magically make something bad happen on offense (although I do have a sick feeling that he is going to turn into a beast for the Giants because that would make perfect sense with the fortunes of both teams), and Dez should make significant strides in year three with a full off-season.

Combine all that with a solid draft and continued maturation by Jason Garrett and you have a team to be reckoned with. I don't mean to disrespect the Giants but let's be serious it's not like they were world beaters last season. Convincing losses twice to the Redskins, losing at home to the Seahawks in pathetic fashion, losing at hope to the Vince Young led eagles, and should've lost a number of other games including the first cowboys game and to the cardinals. We don't even need to talk about the luck the Giants received in the NFC title game with two fumbled punt returns in the 4th quarter and OT, of course something that has never happened in the history of the playoffs but it happens in favor of the giants... what do ya know?

Anyway, off the soap box, if you look at both rosters right now and say each team has a solid draft (the giants are probably better drafters at the moment under Reese but the Cowboys are picking a lot higher in every round), if both teams are clicking on all cylinders I really don't see how the Giants are a superior football team. Eli doesn't have Terence Newman, Alan Ball, Keith Brooking and Bradie James to laugh at and pick on anymore.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 08:00 PM
I think you misunderstand. Penalties and things like that would still be called on the field by the officials there.

Replays is what would go up exclusively to the booth. If there's a questionable play, the booth official would signal to the referee to pause the game, the booth would take a look at the replay and then radio down the proper call.

That was proposed but voted down by the league.

I know what you meant, I was just bringing my point to an extreme which could occur in the future.

Flyboy
04-02-2012, 08:11 PM
Depending on how badly Goodell brings on the hammer down on player suspensions, I still really like our chances in the NFC South and the NFC. Defensively, we are improved and our offense should be top notch even with the lost of Nicks (Grubbs should fit in JUST fine) and Meachem.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 08:27 PM
Depending on how badly Goodell brings on the hammer down on player suspensions, I still really like our chances in the NFC South and the NFC. Defensively, we are improved and our offense should be top notch even with the lost of Nicks (Grubbs should fit in JUST fine) and Meachem.

You guys have the Super Bowl hosting curse along with all of this turmoil. Sure on paper the Saints look to still be legit contenders, but somehow they won't even make the playoffs. Can't beat the curses man.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 08:41 PM
Depending on how badly Goodell brings on the hammer down on player suspensions, I still really like our chances in the NFC South and the NFC. Defensively, we are improved and our offense should be top notch even with the lost of Nicks (Grubbs should fit in JUST fine) and Meachem.

Let's talk after those player suspensions are announced, you've decided on the coaching situation and Brees is participating under contract.

bigbluedefense
04-02-2012, 08:46 PM
I know your better than that ESPN garbage BBD. You are definitely selling the Cowboys short. I don't think it was them "not being able to perform in a big moment" as much as it was them just not being good enough. Every team loses close games.

The athleticism on defense is significantly better and we haven't even had the draft yet. We've already talked about this in the cowboys discussion thread. They got better, younger, and more athletic at at least 3 spots (Carr, Carter, Connor), Pool could be an upgrade over Elam, and a healthy Jenkins will help the team because he was hobbled the entire season and still played pretty well.

The interior OL will be better, although we do need to find someone better than Phil Costa at center. A healthy Miles should only make the offense better, we don't have Martellus Bennett anymore to somehow magically make something bad happen on offense (although I do have a sick feeling that he is going to turn into a beast for the Giants because that would make perfect sense with the fortunes of both teams), and Dez should make significant strides in year three with a full off-season.

Combine all that with a solid draft and continued maturation by Jason Garrett and you have a team to be reckoned with. I don't mean to disrespect the Giants but let's be serious it's not like they were world beaters last season. Convincing losses twice to the Redskins, losing at home to the Seahawks in pathetic fashion, losing at hope to the Vince Young led eagles, and should've lost a number of other games including the first cowboys game and to the cardinals. We don't even need to talk about the luck the Giants received in the NFC title game with two fumbled punt returns in the 4th quarter and OT, of course something that has never happened in the history of the playoffs but it happens in favor of the giants... what do ya know?

Anyway, off the soap box, if you look at both rosters right now and say each team has a solid draft (the giants are probably better drafters at the moment under Reese but the Cowboys are picking a lot higher in every round), if both teams are clicking on all cylinders I really don't see how the Giants are a superior football team. Eli doesn't have Terence Newman, Alan Ball, Keith Brooking and Bradie James to laugh at and pick on anymore.

The thing is, when it happens one year, it's just the way the ball bounces. When it happens for 4 years to 5 years, it's a trend. All I'm saying is, I'm not sipping any Cowboys kool aid until they show me. That's all I want. Enough talking about it. They need to be about it. They gotta show it to us. Until then I have no reason to believe that this year will be any different. I really soured on the Cowboys on the final game of the season. That to me, was the most disappointing Cowboys performance of the past 5 years. All week they talked about how they were gonna show everyone that they're a mentally tough team, that they're not quitters, that they can overcome adversity etc etc etc. All week they talked about it.

And what did they do? They came out COMPLETELY flat in the first half. They quit 2 snaps into the game. They woke up in the 3rd quarter, but once it got close the Giants turned it on again and the game was over. That to me, showed me what the Cowboys were about. That's mental weakness, whether you believe in that or not, it's obvious how there is a significant difference to how the Giants respond to having their backs to the wall vs the Cowboys. The Giants thrive in that environment. The Cowboys just completely fall apart. And that's not a 1 year thing. This has happened for 4 years now. That's a trend.

Talent wise, I readily acknowledge that Dallas has a great offense. The issue I have is on the defensive side of the ball. The secondary is still a weakness, even with Carr. Is it better? Yes. But you still have the same safeties, and I need to see consistency out of Jenkins. Scandrick's contract was a bad contract. You don't pay that much to an average slot CB. And so was Sensy's contract. 2 bad contracts in the secondary, along with a 10 mill a season CB in Carr. That's a lot of money invested in an average secondary. That's going to be a problem moving forward while they try to continue to build up that defense.

The front 7 is still a ways to go. Lee is solid, Ware is a stud, Ratliff can be good but I don't see him being good in this defensive system that Rob is running, and that's pretty much all they got. 2 good players in a front 7 is very shaky. I know Carter has potential, but that's all it is right now, potential.

I do not expect their defense to be as poor as it was last year, but I don't think the improvements have been significant enough to leap frog the Eagles or Giants yet. I think both those teams are more talented than the Cowboys right now. The draft can change that, but right here right now, I'm just not buying Dallas.

Do I think they can make the playoffs? Yes I do. Do I view them as a legitimate SB contender? No, I don't. I think that's ultimately the biggest problem with Dallas, they keep making moves in an attempt to win the SB, thinking they're a couple of pieces away, but that's not the case. They need to really overhaul the depth of the entire team and install some fresh blood on the defense, but when you give out bad contracts like they have bc they're afraid of replacing players bc it can potentially impact their ability to win a SB in the upcoming year, you get yourself in a bad situation.

You can't put bandaids on a team and expect to win the SB. You gotta build it from the ground up, and they won't commit to the proper overhaul they need to get this team to where it needs to be talent wise to be a legit SB contender.

BeerBaron
04-02-2012, 08:56 PM
The Cowboys also signed Dan Connor. Supposedly, he and Lee will play two downs with Carter replacing Connor in nickel situations.

I like that a hell of a lot better than old farts in Brooking and James.

But anyway, I stand by my assessment that from the top down, the Cowboys are the dumbest organization around. Jerry needs to hire a real GM and get out of having a personal connection with every single player. He's trying to be George Steinbrenner in a league that actually has a salary cap...that's just never going to work.

Garrett should never have become head coach. He's hilarious unprepared for that...

And at the center of it all is Romo. He gets **** on a little too much and gets a little too much of the blame, but that's going to happen to the QB of "America's Team."

VAfy-ya
04-02-2012, 08:59 PM
I know your better than that ESPN garbage BBD. You are definitely selling the Cowboys short. I don't think it was them "not being able to perform in a big moment" as much as it was them just not being good enough. Every team loses close games.

The athleticism on defense is significantly better and we haven't even had the draft yet. We've already talked about this in the cowboys discussion thread. They got better, younger, and more athletic at at least 3 spots (Carr, Carter, Connor), Pool could be an upgrade over Elam, and a healthy Jenkins will help the team because he was hobbled the entire season and still played pretty well.

The interior OL will be better, although we do need to find someone better than Phil Costa at center. A healthy Miles should only make the offense better, we don't have Martellus Bennett anymore to somehow magically make something bad happen on offense (although I do have a sick feeling that he is going to turn into a beast for the Giants because that would make perfect sense with the fortunes of both teams), and Dez should make significant strides in year three with a full off-season.

Combine all that with a solid draft and continued maturation by Jason Garrett and you have a team to be reckoned with. I don't mean to disrespect the Giants but let's be serious it's not like they were world beaters last season. Convincing losses twice to the Redskins, losing at home to the Seahawks in pathetic fashion, losing at hope to the Vince Young led eagles, and should've lost a number of other games including the first cowboys game and to the cardinals. We don't even need to talk about the luck the Giants received in the NFC title game with two fumbled punt returns in the 4th quarter and OT, of course something that has never happened in the history of the playoffs but it happens in favor of the giants... what do ya know?

Anyway, off the soap box, if you look at both rosters right now and say each team has a solid draft (the giants are probably better drafters at the moment under Reese but the Cowboys are picking a lot higher in every round), if both teams are clicking on all cylinders I really don't see how the Giants are a superior football team. Eli doesn't have Terence Newman, Alan Ball, Keith Brooking and Bradie James to laugh at and pick on anymore.


I agree with you. No one is talking about the Cowboys this off-season but they've quietly(imagine that) improved. Pool isnt the savior at FS, but he's better than Elam and that's a start and I think the world of Carr so you should see improvement on the back-end. And the additions to the interior of the O-Line should bring more consistency in your run game. What I will say is the biggest question surrounding the Cowboys is and will always be Romo. The guy has heart, moxy, fearlessness, all those traits you want back there but he must excute in criticial moments consisntently for your team to be true contender. And Garrett has to step up as both a coach and a play-caller as well. The draft will tell us the other half of the story but I dont see any team as the front-runner in the NFC East. Three-headed monster at the top of that divivison, as of now.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 09:54 PM
The thing is, when it happens one year, it's just the way the ball bounces. When it happens for 4 years to 5 years, it's a trend. All I'm saying is, I'm not sipping any Cowboys kool aid until they show me. That's all I want. Enough talking about it. They need to be about it. They gotta show it to us. Until then I have no reason to believe that this year will be any different. I really soured on the Cowboys on the final game of the season. That to me, was the most disappointing Cowboys performance of the past 5 years. All week they talked about how they were gonna show everyone that they're a mentally tough team, that they're not quitters, that they can overcome adversity etc etc etc. All week they talked about it.

And what did they do? They came out COMPLETELY flat in the first half. They quit 2 snaps into the game. They woke up in the 3rd quarter, but once it got close the Giants turned it on again and the game was over. That to me, showed me what the Cowboys were about. That's mental weakness, whether you believe in that or not, it's obvious how there is a significant difference to how the Giants respond to having their backs to the wall vs the Cowboys. The Giants thrive in that environment. The Cowboys just completely fall apart. And that's not a 1 year thing. This has happened for 4 years now. That's a trend.

Talent wise, I readily acknowledge that Dallas has a great offense. The issue I have is on the defensive side of the ball. The secondary is still a weakness, even with Carr. Is it better? Yes. But you still have the same safeties, and I need to see consistency out of Jenkins. Scandrick's contract was a bad contract. You don't pay that much to an average slot CB. And so was Sensy's contract. 2 bad contracts in the secondary, along with a 10 mill a season CB in Carr. That's a lot of money invested in an average secondary. That's going to be a problem moving forward while they try to continue to build up that defense.

The front 7 is still a ways to go. Lee is solid, Ware is a stud, Ratliff can be good but I don't see him being good in this defensive system that Rob is running, and that's pretty much all they got. 2 good players in a front 7 is very shaky. I know Carter has potential, but that's all it is right now, potential.

I do not expect their defense to be as poor as it was last year, but I don't think the improvements have been significant enough to leap frog the Eagles or Giants yet. I think both those teams are more talented than the Cowboys right now. The draft can change that, but right here right now, I'm just not buying Dallas.

Do I think they can make the playoffs? Yes I do. Do I view them as a legitimate SB contender? No, I don't. I think that's ultimately the biggest problem with Dallas, they keep making moves in an attempt to win the SB, thinking they're a couple of pieces away, but that's not the case. They need to really overhaul the depth of the entire team and install some fresh blood on the defense, but when you give out bad contracts like they have bc they're afraid of replacing players bc it can potentially impact their ability to win a SB in the upcoming year, you get yourself in a bad situation.

You can't put bandaids on a team and expect to win the SB. You gotta build it from the ground up, and they won't commit to the proper overhaul they need to get this team to where it needs to be talent wise to be a legit SB contender.

Usually we see eye to eye but I couldn't disagree on most of these points.

To start, mental toughness. I really don't buy into that a whole lot. These guys a 21-35 year old grown men who are making millions of dollars to play a sport. They are professionals. Just because Justin Tuck sounds tough on NFL Network sound FX doesn't mean a thing. Tons of players have come out and said that ra-ra speeches don't win games. This isn't pop warner. I really think the Cowboys just weren't good enough because they were behind the curve with older, less athletic players in this new pass happy league, but this off-season hopefully has begun a positive change toward fixing that.

Now to the part about the Cowboys coming out flat.. how about they just got unlucky and the Giants played a solid football game. I can review that entire first half if you want. How about on the Cowboys opening drive on 3rd down, Dez makes one of your corners look stupid on a fade route (think it was Ross) but either because of his hand or the rain Romo over threw it out of bounds. Instead of you guys getting the ball back, we probably have it inside your 40. Next, look at the two fumbles that the Cowboys easily should have recovered but of course magically fall into the giants' laps. First, Devon Thomas muffs the pump that falls directly into Alan Ball's stomach, but of course he can't control it and the Giants fall back on it. This was at midfield, and the Giants ended up scoring a touchdown. The next fumble was by Jacobs when you guys were driving. Sensabaugh has it in his hands and tries to scoop and score, instead kicking it with his own feet and it falls into Eli's waiting arms 15 yards behind the LOS and the giants eventually score on the bradshaw touchdown run.

So that's that. Your telling me that had to do with mental toughness? I'm not trying to make excuses here but COME ON. If the Cowboys just simply fall on those two fumbles they may go into halftime with a 14-7 lead. Instead it's 21-0 Giants. And yes, when the Cowboys brought it to 21-14 with 11 minutes left and it's 3rd and 9, Eli heaves a bomb to Cruz that anyone on this planet who isn't blind could bat down, but of course Scandrick has no ball skills and allows the completion, basically ending the game.

Now, onto the Giants side of this "mental toughness" nonsense. What about 2010, when the Giants had the playoffs and everything ripe for the taking? Come week 10, the lowly 1-7, John Kitna led Cowboys come into New York and bent the Giants over like a little school girl, causing them to lose 4 of their last 8 and miss the playoffs? Where was the mental toughness there?

It really is all based on the situation. It's not like the Giants were some juggernaut in their super bowl wins or any season over the past 5 years besides 2008. They had 2 nice runs in the playoffs, with some of the best luck in the history of professional sports.

Back to the main point, I'm not taking anything away from the Giants but I really think the mental toughness stuff is really overblown. The better team wins. That's why the good teams are called "mentally tough." People only say that garbage because you can't be proved wrong about it. Nothing pains me more than when all of the former Patriots who are now talking heads (Bruschi, Heath Evans, Rodney Harrison) gush about how they are so mentally tough and that will be the difference... :gtfo:

On to your assessment of free agency, I'll give you a pass because you aren't a Cowboys fan, because they did exactly what you suggested we should do. They didn't go out and get one or two players thinking they were 1 or 2 players from a super bowl. They went out and got 7 quality players who are all upgrades over the people they previously had and are SIGNIFICANTLY YOUNGER.

Carr is 26, Newman was 34. Carter is 24, Bradie was 31. Connor is 27, Brooking was 37. Bernadeau is 26, Holland was 32. Livings is 30, Kosier was 33. Orton is 30, Kitna was 39. Pool is 28, Elam was 31. Vickers is 28, Fiammetta was 26.

So the only player we signed who is older is Vickers, but it's the fullback position, he's a freak, and he is both a performance and durability upgrade over Fiammetta. Every other player we signed is at least 5 years younger than the player they are replacing (besides Livings for Kosier), and they all should be upgrades. Sure they might have overpaid a bit for Carr, but they needed a corner and sometimes you need to overpay to get better.

They aren't all world beaters, but again they are upgrades, are all younger and better athletes, and we still have a top 15 pick in every round to get even better.

bigbluedefense
04-02-2012, 10:05 PM
Let me ask you something. Why is it that every time you make your arguments about both teams, the Giants are always super lucky, and the Cowboys are always unlucky?

If that's the case, then doesn't that completely negate your statements that the better team wins?

And if that's the case, and the better team wins, if the Giants won the SB 2 out of the last 4 years, doesn't that make them the better team?

You can't have it both ways.

You say that "if Scandrick had any ball skills he bats that down"

Ok...so how is that lucky? That means your player wasn't good. And if he wasn't good, then you agree with me that the contract Jones gave him was not a good contract (I'm not saying he's a bad player, just a bad contract).

You can't sit here and claim everything the Giants did was luck, and everything the Cowboys did was bad luck then tell me that better teams win.

Bc if you truly believe the better team wins, then you wouldn't bring "luck" into the equation. If your players aren't recovering fumbles, it's bc they aren't getting to the ball. If your players aren't causing fumbles, it's bc they're not swatting the ball.

If your qb can't hit an open WR bc he's getting hit, that's bc the pass rush got there. That's not luck.

The ball bounces the way it bounces, and every single team that played this season can point to 2 or 3 plays in the game that they "blew"

That doesn't mean they are unlucky, they just didn't execute. If you feel mental toughness is cliche, then I don't see how you can not say the same thing about luck.

I'm a firm believer that you make your own luck in football. Situational awareness is coached.

CDCB14
04-02-2012, 10:22 PM
Let me ask you something. Why is it that every time you make your arguments about both teams, the Giants are always super lucky, and the Cowboys are always unlucky?

If that's the case, then doesn't that completely negate your statements that the better team wins?

And if that's the case, and the better team wins, if the Giants won the SB 2 out of the last 4 years, doesn't that make them the better team?

You can't have it both ways.

You say that "if Scandrick had any ball skills he bats that down"

Ok...so how is that lucky? That means your player wasn't good. And if he wasn't good, then you agree with me that the contract Jones gave him was not a good contract (I'm not saying he's a bad player, just a bad contract).

You can't sit here and claim everything the Giants did was luck, and everything the Cowboys did was bad luck then tell me that better teams win.

Bc if you truly believe the better team wins, then you wouldn't bring "luck" into the equation. If your players aren't recovering fumbles, it's bc they aren't getting to the ball. If your players aren't causing fumbles, it's bc they're not swatting the ball.

If your qb can't hit an open WR bc he's getting hit, that's bc the pass rush got there. That's not luck.

The ball bounces the way it bounces, and every single team that played this season can point to 2 or 3 plays in the game that they "blew"

That doesn't mean they are unlucky, they just didn't execute. If you feel mental toughness is cliche, then I don't see how you can not say the same thing about luck.

I'm a firm believer that you make your own luck in football. Situational awareness is coached.

You make valid points, but if you watched every Cowboy game this year you could realistically say they should've been 12-4. If you don't think the Giants have been loved by the football God's then I don't know what to say to that. The way those fumbles bounced for the Giants in week 17 were luck. That's not execution, the pigskin bounces where it bounces, period. There's no way you can justifiably say those fumbles bouncing back to the giants was anything other than a lucky bounce.

Anyway, take week 1, Cowboys-Jets... your saying thats all not terrible luck? Now you could say it's bad execution but come on.. How many times does a fumble on the 1 yard line and a blocked punt happen in the NFL? Let alone two in the same game in the 4th quarter..

You also said you can't have it both ways.. so what about the Cowboys comeback against the 49ers in San Fran in week 2? They were down double digits the whole games, Romo broke ribs and punctured a lung and Jon Kitna had to play for the better part of the 3rd quarter, Felix Jones got hurt in the 1st quarter, DeMarco Murray didn't even know the playbook because he was hurt all of training camp, Dez was out, Miles was limping the entire 2nd half and didn't even play in OT, and this was all against the hardest hitting team in the league and a team that turned out to be in their conference championship. I don't care if know one thought the 49ers were good then, they were still the same team.

All i'm saying is that it's all subjective. We can all bend things like mental toughness to help or hurt our argument when talking about a team.

niel89
04-02-2012, 11:04 PM
Lies. Baltimore will never falter and Ray Lewis & Ed Reed will play forever.

WCH
04-02-2012, 11:12 PM
You know what's crazy? Ray Lewis turns 37 next month. It seems like just yesterday that the Browns...errr Ravens, drafted him.

tjsunstein
04-02-2012, 11:36 PM
I'd be responsive if you posted about the Packers, BB. Im surprised you didnt write more about anything NFC North related. Good read as always.

Jvig43
04-02-2012, 11:43 PM
You make valid points, but if you watched every Cowboy game this year you could realistically say they should've been 12-4. If you don't think the Giants have been loved by the football God's then I don't know what to say to that. The way those fumbles bounced for the Giants in week 17 were luck. That's not execution, the pigskin bounces where it bounces, period. There's no way you can justifiably say those fumbles bouncing back to the giants was anything other than a lucky bounce.

Anyway, take week 1, Cowboys-Jets... your saying thats all not terrible luck? Now you could say it's bad execution but come on.. How many times does a fumble on the 1 yard line and a blocked punt happen in the NFL? Let alone two in the same game in the 4th quarter..

You also said you can't have it both ways.. so what about the Cowboys comeback against the 49ers in San Fran in week 2? They were down double digits the whole games, Romo broke ribs and punctured a lung and Jon Kitna had to play for the better part of the 3rd quarter, Felix Jones got hurt in the 1st quarter, DeMarco Murray didn't even know the playbook because he was hurt all of training camp, Dez was out, Miles was limping the entire 2nd half and didn't even play in OT, and this was all against the hardest hitting team in the league and a team that turned out to be in their conference championship. I don't care if know one thought the 49ers were good then, they were still the same team.

All i'm saying is that it's all subjective. We can all bend things like mental toughness to help or hurt our argument when talking about a team.

Tony Romo throwing a pick six was just super unlucky in that Jets game.... nothing to do with a terrible decision. Good teams don't fumble at the one or get their punts blocked, that isn't luck thats execution and fundamentals.

Rosebud
04-02-2012, 11:53 PM
Why is the debate going on so long? Teams do get lucky sometimes, but for most teams it evens out over just the course of the season, much less multiple seasons. While we got lucky in some of our wins we also go unlucky in many of our losses where I can point to a play or two that would've completely changed those games. The way you deal with the things that are truly out of your control matter and the teams that are consistently luckier are that way because of what they're doing. 2 superbowls out of 4 with a great season pre-plax-shooting-himself is a really strong stretch and luck doesn't even come close to explaining it as the giants have faced plenty of bad luck alongside the good.

Jvig43
04-02-2012, 11:57 PM
I'm pretty certain this is the same guy who said the NFL is fixed anyway so Idk why I bothered. But his argument about luck and his example of the Jets game just brought the whole rage out in me. I watched that game so happy as a Pats fan going into the 4th, and it was a monumental collapse by the Cowboys- it wasn't luck. They just collapsed.

CDCB14
04-03-2012, 08:23 AM
I'm pretty certain this is the same guy who said the NFL is fixed anyway so Idk why I bothered. But his argument about luck and his example of the Jets game just brought the whole rage out in me. I watched that game so happy as a Pats fan going into the 4th, and it was a monumental collapse by the Cowboys- it wasn't luck. They just collapsed.

If you don't think professional sports are fixed then you live in a fantasy land. Is our economy in good shape right now too buddy?

I just think somebody's mad because the Patriots aren't going anywhere for a while. The NFL is going to be such a better place with the Pats being trash again.

:freakout:

NY+Giants=NYG
04-03-2012, 10:28 AM
Who cares about repeating? The media, esp. NFL network keep bringing it up as if that's very common in the free agency era. That's an exception. If a team can do that, good job especially in the free agency era. I know we are not going to repeat. After that, it really isn't much of a discussion, so don't know why the media talks about it like this is common.

It comes down to Perry Fewell. If he keeps his head out of his butt, we will be very good. If his butt gets lonely and he goes back to putting his head up his butt once again, then god knows, hold on for another wild adventure at MetLife Stadium.

Jvig43
04-03-2012, 10:56 AM
If you don't think professional sports are fixed then you live in a fantasy land. Is our economy in good shape right now too buddy?

I just think somebody's mad because the Patriots aren't going anywhere for a while. The NFL is going to be such a better place with the Pats being trash again.

:freakout:
Clearly that is the issue at hand here, me being angry about the Pats going nowhere and not your argument. Great job arguing your points by the way.

A Perfect Score
04-03-2012, 11:00 AM
Lies. Baltimore will never falter and Ray Lewis & Ed Reed will play forever.

Ed did just say that 4 or 5 more years isn't out of the realm of possibility...Strong words from a guy who was considering retirement a year ago.

I think this is Ray's last year though, almost assuredly. He wasn't quite as strong last season as he was the year before, but he's still playing at a remarkably high level for a guy as old as he is. I'd be hard pressed to name 10 ILBs who are definitively better then him at this point in his career.

BeerBaron
04-03-2012, 11:08 AM
Ed did just say that 4 or 5 more years isn't out of the realm of possibility...Strong words from a guy who was considering retirement a year ago.

I think this is Ray's last year though, almost assuredly. He wasn't quite as strong last season as he was the year before, but he's still playing at a remarkably high level for a guy as old as he is. I'd be hard pressed to name 10 ILBs who are definitively better then him at this point in his career.

It's difficult to find 10 ILBs who people don't immediately **** on and call pile jumpers. If you're not Patrick Willis you're either old and washed up (Ray, Urlacher) or you're a pile jumper who tackles RBs 5 yards downfield.

No other exceptions exist.

Except for maybe the ILB of the occasional "flavor of the week" team. This offseason, that seems to be anyone associated with the Buffalo Bills. Did you know that literally everyone on the Bills is underrated and is actually top 5 at their position? (And it's mostly non-Bills fans saying this kind of ****.)

That seems to happen to a different team every year. Last year I think it was the Lions. Literally every Lion was underrated and one of the best at his position.

CDCB14
04-03-2012, 11:20 AM
Clearly that is the issue at hand here, me being angry about the Pats going nowhere and not your argument. Great job arguing your points by the way.

Ha, thanks for the negative rep. You're accusing me of not arguing my points? When I suggest some NFL games are fixed you laugh without anything to back up your claims...

Just because no one has been busted yet or the league has kept in under wraps doesn't mean games haven't been fixed before. If you don't think there is business behind the scenes in multiple games throughout an NFL season then you really are a fool. I'm not saying Super Bowl winners etc. are predetermined because obviously that isn't the case, but stuff definitely goes on.

Huge scandals have been busted in every other sport, and football is the sport impacted most by referees and you're telling me it's completely clean at all times? I don't understand why you can't comprehend this.. it's a pretty simple concept.

Jvig43
04-03-2012, 11:28 AM
So if the NFL is rigged how are the Cowboys unlucky?

CDCB14
04-03-2012, 11:39 AM
So if the NFL is rigged how are the Cowboys unlucky?

It has nothing to do with the Cowboys at all. Are you telling me that the millions of garbage touchdowns and field goals at the end of games that magically cover the spread are just a coincidence?

You're smarter than that, aren't you?

Saints-Tigers
04-04-2012, 12:08 AM
The NFL would really benefit from the Cowboys being good too... I'd have to think the fix goes their way....

And they still blow it. Damn.