NFL offseason discussion (up to but not including draft) [Archive] - Page 2

Least Original User Name Ever

03-07-2008, 12:47 PM

Yes, but that wasn't the argument you were trying to make. You were saying that "franchise" tackles were drafted high and stayed with their team forever. The clear implication that highly rated and early projected tackles do not fall in the draft because team know they will have them forever and that they are reliably good. This simply isn't true. There are plenty of examples of highly rated tackles, all labeled as franchise guys before the draft, who both fell out of the top 5 and who either flopped or were traded/cut after their rookie contracts ran out.

I'd say they are a little more reliable than elite WR and RB prospects, but they aren't such rarities that teams draft them in spite of all else.

Not quite. I was saying that franchise tackles tend to stay with their team forever. People draft good tackles high to try and get one. This is important because there are so relatively few. In my opinion, Jake Long could very well be a franchise tackle, and is worthy of a top three pick. Yes, sometimes tackles that get drafted very highly, like Robert Gallery, are busts.

I may have mis-stated what I was saying in my attempt to hold two conversations simultaneously, but this is what I was attempting to get across.

Nib High football rules!

Death of Rats

03-07-2008, 02:53 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

03-07-2008, 03:08 PM

The thing is, Robert Gallery was never a franchise tackle. He was the very best of an extremely weak looking OT class in a fairly weak FA year for OL. He wasn't drafted high because he was one of the best, he was drafted high because he was the best of what was available, so if you needed a OT badly *looks at Oakland* you had to take a shot that he could live up to his potential. Unfortunatly for Oakland you also needed someone who could coach him to that level and they have not had that either.

This is also very true. I haven't looked, but franchise quarterbacks in the league might outnumber the franchise tackles. You can also argue that an amazing tackle (or two!) makes your quarterback that much better.

Omniscient

03-07-2008, 03:17 PM

The thing is, Robert Gallery was never a franchise tackle. He was the very best of an extremely weak looking OT class in a fairly weak FA year for OL. He wasn't drafted high because he was one of the best, he was drafted high because he was the best of what was available, so if you needed a OT badly *looks at Oakland* you had to take a shot that he could live up to his potential. Unfortunatly for Oakland you also needed someone who could coach him to that level and they have not had that either.

I don't agree with this assessment. Yes, tackles were scarce that year, but every single person who evaluated Gallery had him pegged as one of the best we'd seen in years and saw no apparent weaknesses in his game. To say he was soft and was overvalued is a bit of a retcon. In retrospect that's clear, but at the time he was every bit the prospect that Jake Long is this year. And there's not reason Long couldn't be just as big a flop.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-07-2008, 03:33 PM

Jared Allen.

Think that's bad? Leonard Little of the Rams killed someone while DUI and he got a 4-game suspension, IIRC - yet Pacman Jones and Odell Thurman got a year.

Goodell is not good at placing value judgments on criminal offenses (or accusations).
Actually Odell got two for what amounted to a couple missed drug tests and a DUI.
He was already serving a suspension when he got the DUI, GODell extended it for the remainder of the 2006 season, and then refused to reinstate him for the 2007 season. I want to believe that GODell is being fair but when he reduces suspensions for Jared Allen, gave Little a ridiculously short suspension for KILLING someone while under the influence, allowed Tank to play in the Superbowl last year...I just don't see how that is fair.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-07-2008, 03:35 PM

jk1245

03-07-2008, 03:39 PM

I don't agree with this assessment. Yes, tackles were scarce that year, but every single person who evaluated Gallery had him pegged as one of the best we'd seen in years and saw no apparent weaknesses in his game. To say he was soft and was overvalued is a bit of a retcon. In retrospect that's clear, but at the time he was every bit the prospect that Jake Long is this year. And there's not reason Long couldn't be just as big a flop.

Gallery has to get a little bit of a break for going to the most dysfunctional team in the NFL (he's had at least 4 OL coaches) . Anywhere else, and he might be an OK player. He' s been moved to guard and seems to be doing better.

I think Long might be closer to Gallery than Thomas. He won't have the misfortune of going to the Raiders, but I could see him potentially being an RT or guard in a few years.

Really Not All That Bright

03-07-2008, 03:39 PM

The thing is, Robert Gallery was never a franchise tackle. He was the very best of an extremely weak looking OT class in a fairly weak FA year for OL. He wasn't drafted high because he was one of the best, he was drafted high because he was the best of what was available, so if you needed a OT badly *looks at Oakland* you had to take a shot that he could live up to his potential. Unfortunatly for Oakland you also needed someone who could coach him to that level and they have not had that either.
Definitely disagree with this also. Every pundit was looking at him as the next Orlando Pace.

For once, the Raiders wasted a pick on a player who geniunely seemed worthy of it at the time.

Omniscient

03-07-2008, 03:58 PM

Gallery has to get a little bit of a break for going to the most dysfunctional team in the NFL (he's had at least 4 OL coaches) . Anywhere else, and he might be an OK player. He' s been moved to guard and seems to be doing better.

This is a very fair point. Were Gallery to be cut I bet there'd be teams pounding down the door to give him another shot on a decent team with a competent line coach. He basically got tossed into the fire and simply hasn't responded.

Similar situation to what happened with Marc Columbo. He was asked to play in his rookie season and battled injuries and looked like a bust. After the Bears cut him and he went to Dallas he found his stride and has been a great player. The Bears had a sound system in place, so they are different from the Raiders in that, but injuries aside it seems that his being cut motivated him and the change of scenery and fresh start allowed him to develop with less pressure. No reason a similar scenario couldn't happen with Gallery.

This paragraph from Wikipedia seems relevant and perhaps the perception of how much of a bust he's been could be overstated.

Robert Gallery was selected with the second overall pick in the 2004 NFL Draft by the Oakland Raiders, with a perfect 9.0 Draft Prospect Rating, the highest for any offensive lineman. [2] In 2004, he started 15 games at right tackle and gave up 3 Sacks. In 2005, he started all 16 games at right tackle and gave up 3.5 Sacks. The Raiders moved him to left tackle at the beginning of the 2006 preseason. In the Raiders' first game of the 2006 regular season, Gallery was part of an offensive line that gave up nine sacks (at least 3 charged to him) to the San Diego Chargers. He played 10 games on the season, and gave up 10.5 Sacks on the season, placing him 4th in most sacks given up, despite missing 6 games. His main problem in pass protection is his inability to handle edge speed rushers. He has also not benefited from the revolving door of offensive line coaches he has faced in his young pro career. In 2007, Oakland coaches moved Gallery to left guard. This move bolstered the offensive line of the Raiders as running back Justin Fargas gained 1,000 yards in 2007.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-07-2008, 06:49 PM

Gallery has to get a little bit of a break for going to the most dysfunctional team in the NFL (he's had at least 4 OL coaches) . Anywhere else, and he might be an OK player. He' s been moved to guard and seems to be doing better.

I think Long might be closer to Gallery than Thomas. He won't have the misfortune of going to the Raiders, but I could see him potentially being an RT or guard in a few years.
I agree with the "Gallery maybe getting some slack being a Raider" part...not so sure about Long.
As always, the draft remains and will remain as a crapshoot, despite college careers, combine workouts, draft status, etc.
Some guys just don't work out in the NFL, just as often as a 7th rounder makes a team and actually contributes (TJ Houshmanzadeh).

Really Not All That Bright

03-07-2008, 07:04 PM

Gallery is every bit as bad as you've heard. He doesn't give up that many sacks, but a) the Raiders have run the ball a lot while he's been there, and b) under Art Shell and Lane Kiffin, they've run a short-drop pass offense. Also, he was flagged for something like 25 false starts during his first two seasons. That's Flozell Adams territory (Adams is a good tackle but just doesn't seem to understand the concept of a snap count).

Unless you've actually watched him you can't understand how poor his pass blocking is. He just isn't quick enough to get his hands on speed rushers, so even if they aren't sacking the quarterback every time, they're almost always at least getting pressure from his side.

The move to guard made perfect sense because it plays to what he CAN do- use his mountainous physique to move defenders off the line.

I don't think the draft is a crapshoot, per se; some teams draft well year in and year out - Philadelphia, New England, St. Louis, Baltimore (well, on defense), and Buffalo.

Yes, really - Buffalo. The Bills have been bad for most of the decade, but that's due almost entirely to the fact that as soon as a player makes a name for himself, he gets the hell out of Buffalo. Mostly that's because Ralph Wilson is cheap. Even so, for every Pro Bowler that leaves, they always find some guy in the draft to replace him.

The list of players who've left the Bills for big free-agent deals (or who were traded away so the Bills wouldn't have to pay them) is ludicrous.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-07-2008, 07:05 PM

Isn't the draft fun?

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-07-2008, 08:09 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

03-07-2008, 08:27 PM

Well, I disagree with your sentiment. No matter where a player is drafted, his NFL potential is immeasurable against his measureables.
Some guys suddenly are injury-prone, some just never perform to their draft status and are average/marginal players, some are as predicted and some are outright busts.

Case in point: Ricky Williams. He broke his foot the first two years he was in the league and was affixed with the "injury-prone" sticker. It's wasn't true (two freak ankle breakings) and he went on to be a very good runner..until he decided he liked weed more than playing football (which is cool..it's his choice).

SenorBeef

03-07-2008, 08:36 PM

Ha ha. I am actually pretty tired of having my team being labelled as the poster child for malfeasance in the NFL.

So I supposed you'd like to see this (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/nfl_experts/post/Former-Bengal-Chad-Johnson-punched-Marvin-Lewis;_ylt=Aub0F1kBoiH7ePJbhBjmi2BDubYF?urn=nfl,70610).

Ugh. I feel bad for Shaun Smith.

He talked openly and honestly about various things at a Browns backers banquet which someone from the message board I hang out on taped. Then he put them up briefly so that we (the message board users) could see it. Somehow profootballtalk saw it, and then rotoworld, and now its way all the way to yahoo...

Ellis Dee

03-07-2008, 10:01 PM

Not quite. I was saying that franchise tackles tend to stay with their team forever.But that's only because you're defining a "franchise tackle" as the ones who tend to stay with their team forever.

And I completely disagree that "franchise cornerbacks" stay with their teams. So-called "shutdown" cornerbacks change teams like they change underwear.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-07-2008, 10:19 PM

But that's only because you're defining a "franchise tackle" as the ones who tend to stay with their team forever.

And I completely disagree that "franchise cornerbacks" stay with their teams. So-called "shutdown" cornerbacks change teams like they change underwear.

Nope. It's by design that they stay with their team.

Really, the problem with shutdown cornerbacks, other than the fact that they overuse that term way too much, is that the new offensive rules make playing cornerback a living nightmare.

Ellis Dee

03-07-2008, 11:07 PM

Here's (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83794037.html) an old but interesting article in support of your franchise tackle ideas. Some crazy stats in there.Really, the problem with shutdown cornerbacks, other than the fact that they overuse that term way too much, is that the new offensive rules make playing cornerback a living nightmare.That's a given; I don't think anyone would disagree with any of that. Since you already know all that, I'm wondering why you said this:Franchise tackles very rarely hit free agency. Same with true franchise cornerbacks.The same is absolutely not true with cornerbacks.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 08:31 AM

Here's (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83794037.html) an old but interesting article in support of your franchise tackle ideas. Some crazy stats in there.That's a given; I don't think anyone would disagree with any of that. Since you already know all that, I'm wondering why you said this:The same is absolutely not true with cornerbacks.

Who was the last franchise cornerback to hit free agency? Fred Smoot? Charles Woodson is as close as you can come, I think.

Really, with one of those high draft pick tackles, the worst thing that happens to them (barring injury) is moving to guard, where they tend to do better, like Robert Gallery. Of course, for an opposing stance, you've got Damien Woody who played guard for the Lions and was pressed into playing tackle and did a very good job.

Of course, we got rid of him in free agency.

Really Not All That Bright

03-08-2008, 08:38 AM

Who was the last franchise cornerback to hit free agency? Fred Smoot? Charles Woodson is as close as you can come, I think.
Fred Smoot, Charles Woodson, Nate Clements, Antoine Winfield, Dre Bly/Champ Bailey (trade), Ty Law (from Pats to Jets - obviously there's not much left of him now), Asante Samuel, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor....

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 08:53 AM

Here are the Lions' free agent acquisitions:

Retained Aveion Cason (Scouts Inc. grade = 53)
Retained Travis Fisher (Scouts Inc. grade = 65)
Signed Michael Gaines from the Bills (Scouts Inc. grade = 60)
Retained John Owens (Scouts Inc. grade = 49)
Signed Dwight Smith from the Vikings (Scouts Inc. grade = 66)
Retained Keith Smith (Scouts Inc. grade = 59)
Signed Chuck Darby from the Seahawks (Scouts Inc. grade = 64)

Go Lions!

yes, these grades are out of 100. please shoot me.

Really Not All That Bright

03-08-2008, 09:00 AM

Signed Dwight Smith from the Vikings (Scouts Inc. grade = 66)
Actually, Smith would be an instant upgrade on almost any team. His problem was that he spent the first half of his career trying to be a cornerback, rather than a safety (he was a corner in college and a nickelback for the first two years of his career, with the Bucs).

He's an excellent coverage safety, though. You'll see him knock the tar out of at least one receiver every game, and he rarely gives up big plays. He also picks off a lot of passes.

I simply can't understand why the Vikings let him to in order to sign a worse player for more money...

Travis Fisher is a solid corner whose career with the Rams was derailed by injuries. If he can get/stay healthy, he's a very good player.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 09:00 AM

Fred Smoot, Charles Woodson, Nate Clements, Antoine Winfield, Dre Bly/Champ Bailey (trade), Ty Law (from Pats to Jets - obviously there's not much left of him now), Asante Samuel, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor....

Smoot isn't a franchise cornerback (he's solid and physical, but not elite). He's rated as a 63 by Scouts Inc.
Charles Woodson is possibly the only one.
Nate Clements is a good one. I forgot about him. He's the third highest rated cornerback according to Scouts Inc. (a grade of 82)
Winfield is also a good one. The 4th best rated cornerback (rated 81).
Dre Bly was traded. That doesn't count.
Same with Champ Bailey.
Ty Law was an injury risk and was deemed as unnecessary (although he had a damn good year the first year)
Asante Samuel is very overrated, but we'll see about him this coming year or two.
Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor also aren't so shabby, or at least, they weren't when they were playing for the Eagles. Their careers dropped when they left Philly.

Woodson, Clements, and Winfield are the three that I'd say that are elite that left via free agency. Imagine how good the Bills' secondary might have been if they ponied up the bucks.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 09:04 AM

Actually, Smith would be an instant upgrade on almost any team. His problem was that he spent the first half of his career trying to be a cornerback, rather than a safety (he was a corner in college and a nickelback for the first two years of his career, with the Bucs).

He's an excellent coverage safety, though. You'll see him knock the tar out of at least one receiver every game, and he rarely gives up big plays. He also picks off a lot of passes.

I simply can't understand why the Vikings let him to in order to sign a worse player for more money...

I don't have a problem with Dwight Smith, but Rod Marinelli has a love affair with former Buccaneers. That scares me mildly.

Dwight Smith is pretty much like Kevin Kaesviharn. (Man, that guy's name is HARD to spell.)

Really Not All That Bright

03-08-2008, 09:08 AM

Smoot isn't a franchise cornerback (he's solid and physical, but not elite). He's rated as a 63 by Scouts Inc.
Charles Woodson is possibly the only one.
Nate Clements is a good one. I forgot about him. He's the third highest rated cornerback according to Scouts Inc. (a grade of 82)
Winfield is also a good one. The 4th best rated cornerback (rated 81).
Dre Bly was traded. That doesn't count.
Same with Champ Bailey.
Ty Law was an injury risk and was deemed as unnecessary (although he had a damn good year the first year)
Asante Samuel is very overrated, but we'll see about him this coming year or two.
Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor also aren't so shabby, or at least, they weren't when they were playing for the Eagles. Their careers dropped when they left Philly.

Woodson, Clements, and Winfield are the three that I'd say that are elite that left via free agency. Imagine how good the Bills' secondary might have been if they ponied up the bucks.
Ah, but it doesn't matter how you rate them - or Scouts Inc., for that matter. What matters is whether someone in the league thought highly of these players "franchise"-type money, and all of them got it somewhere.

Besides, the trades should definitely count, since the original point in dispute was whether franchise cornerbacks change teams often, not whether they hit free agency.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 09:11 AM

Ah, but it doesn't matter how you rate them - or Scouts Inc., for that matter. What matters is whether someone in the league thought highly of these players "franchise"-type money, and all of them got it somewhere.

Besides, the trades should definitely count, since the original point in dispute was whether franchise cornerbacks change teams often, not whether they hit free agency.

It's not about money at all. It was about skill. That's what the discussion was about the entire time. Out of those guys, Champ Bailey and Nate Clemens are making "franchise type" money.

No, the trades don't count because I expressly talked only about free agency before. I know that Bailey and Bly were traded. That's why I didn't count the trades.

Really Not All That Bright

03-08-2008, 09:21 AM

It's not about money at all. It was about skill. That's what the discussion was about the entire time. Out of those guys, Champ Bailey and Nate Clemens are making "franchise type" money.

No, the trades don't count because I expressly talked only about free agency before. I know that Bailey and Bly were traded. That's why I didn't count the trades.
But your grade is subjective. Contracts aren't.

Anyway, Winfield is certainly making franchise money - $35 million over five years, which made him the second highest-paid corner at the time. Samuel got 6 years and 57 million - just a hair under Clements' $80 million over eight years, and with the same amount ($20 million) guaranteed.

SenorBeef

03-08-2008, 09:23 AM

Are the scouts inc. grades insider info, or can you get them for free somewhere? I'm curious to see their ratings.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 09:24 AM

But your grade is subjective. Contracts aren't.

Anyway, Winfield is certainly making franchise money - $35 million over five years, which made him the second highest-paid corner at the time. Samuel got 6 years and 57 million - just a hair under Clements' $80 million over eight years, and with the same amount ($20 million) guaranteed.

Well, it's not my grade. It's a grade assigned from people that supposedly know things that we mortals can't know.

7 million a year isn't bad cash. I don't know if it speaks more for the scarcity at the position or for his overall skill or possibly both.

I'm not sold on Asante Samuel still. I need to see him play another year or so in someone else's system.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 09:27 AM

Are the scouts inc. grades insider info, or can you get them for free somewhere? I'm curious to see their ratings.

It's Insider info. I love the Insider soooooooooooooooo much.

Here's the Scouts Inc. grading scale:
90-100: Elite Player
Player demonstrates rare abilities and can create mismatches that have an obvious impact on the game. ... Premier NFL player who has all the skills to consistently play at a championship level. ... Rates as one of the top players at his position in the league.

80-89: Outstanding Player
Player has abilities to create mismatches versus most opponents in the NFL. ... A feature player who has an impact on the outcome of the game. ... Cannot be shut down by a single player and plays on a consistent level week in and week out.

70-79: Good Starter
Solid starter who is close to being an outstanding player. ... Has few weaknesses and usually will win his individual matchup but does not dominate in every game, especially when matched up against the top players in the league.

60-69: Average Starter
A valuable roster player but not a dominant player against the better players he faces on a weekly basis. ... Gives great effort and teams are glad to have him, but he may or may not go to the next level.

50-59: Good Backup
This is a player who is really on the bubble and only starts because of a deficiency at the position. ... He lacks complete overall skills, and although he will battle, he will hinder his team's ability to play at a championship level if he is forced to be in the starting lineup consistently over a 16-game season. Teams don't mind having him on the roster but are always looking to upgrade.

40-49: Below Average Backup/Core Special Teamers
Strictly a backup player who is not capable of starting. If forced to, he is only a short-term fix. ... He might make the roster because of special-teams contributions or experience. ... He is the type of player teams consistently look to replace with an upgrade. ... He always will be a borderline roster player.

30: Developmental Player
Players with this grade have very little film to evaluate. Such players might flash potential in the preseason but don't have any regular-season performances to judge. they usually have very little experience but have to be tracked due to developmental potential.

20: Rookie (Post Draft)
No professional tape to evaluate. These players will have an evaluation based on their college tape, but we will not put a new grade on them until after their rookie seasons. They will carry the 20 grade throughout their first NFL season.

10: Evaluation in Process
Need more information

PM me if you want your team's evaluations or a certain player's evaluations.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-08-2008, 10:09 AM

So I supposed you'd like to see this (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/nfl_experts/post/Former-Bengal-Chad-Johnson-punched-Marvin-Lewis;_ylt=Aub0F1kBoiH7ePJbhBjmi2BDubYF?urn=nfl,70610).

Ugh. I feel bad for Shaun Smith.

He talked openly and honestly about various things at a Browns backers banquet which someone from the message board I hang out on taped. Then he put them up briefly so that we (the message board users) could see it. Somehow profootballtalk saw it, and then rotoworld, and now its way all the way to yahoo...
Yeah, my Bengals board is all over that. We then proceeded to scrutinize in minutae the next day Marvin Lewis press photos, and we saw no evidence there was a shiner. So Chad either hits like a girl, Marvin didn't get hit in the eye or it didn't happen. Something happened, though, and the team hasn't been the same since.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 10:56 AM

Yeah, my Bengals board is all over that. We then proceeded to scrutinize in minutae the next day Marvin Lewis press photos, and we saw no evidence there was a shiner. So Chad either hits like a girl, Marvin didn't get hit in the eye or it didn't happen. Something happened, though, and the team hasn't been the same since.

I think he could hit like a girl. It amazes me how girly these professional athletes throw punches sometimes.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-08-2008, 07:20 PM

Now Brian Kelly is a Lion. The Tampa-to-Detroit parade keeps on going!

Jimmy Chitwood

03-08-2008, 08:05 PM

Ellis Dee

03-08-2008, 11:23 PM

PM me if you want your team's evaluations or a certain player's evaluations.Jimmy raises a valid criticism. Without giving the grades -- to avoid copyright issues -- could you post the top 10 rated players, from best to worst, for the QB, WR and CB positions? That would help us assess whether they are as insane as Jimmy says.

Boozahol Squid, P.I.

03-08-2008, 11:38 PM

QBs
Peyton Manning95
Tom Brady 92
Carson Palmer 82
Drew Brees 82
Donovan McNabb 79
Matt Hasselbeck 79
Ben Roethlisberger 78
Brett Favre 75
Marc Bulger 75
Philip Rivers 75

WRs
Chad Johnson 95
Marvin Harrison 91
Steve Smith 91
Torry Holt 85
Steve Smith 85 (NYG)
Andre Johnson85
Terrell Owens 83
Hines Ward 83
Larry Fitzgerald 82
Rod Smith 81

RBs

LaDainian Tomlinson 94
Larry Johnson 85
Reggie Bush 80
Frank Gore 80
Shaun Alexander 80
Deuce McAllister 79
Edgerrin James 79
Clinton Portis 79
Fred Taylor 79
Brian Westbrook 78

Boozahol Squid, P.I.

03-08-2008, 11:39 PM

Sorry, did RBs instead of CBs

1 Champ Bailey 93
2 Rashean Mathis 83
3 Nate Clements 82
4 Antoine Winfield 81
5 Chris McAlister 81
6 DeAngelo Hall 80
7 Terence Newman 79
8 Asante Samuel 79
9 Dre Bly 78
10 Nnamdi Asomugha 78

Ellis Dee

03-08-2008, 11:55 PM

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on those rankings. The Giants' Steve Smith is better than Larry Fitzgerald? Reggie Bush is better than Brian Westbrook?

But even if those ratings define the franchise players, let's look at the top 10 CBs:

Champ Bailey - traded
Rashean Mathis - career Jaguar
Nate Clements - free agent
Antoine Winfield - free agent
Chris McAlister - career Raven
DeAngelo Hall - free agent
Terence Newman - career Cowboy
Asante Samuel - free agent
Dre Bly - free agent (and subsequently traded; he's on his third team)
Nnamdi Asomugha - career Raider

Of the ten top CBs, only four are still with their original team, five hit the waiver wire*, and one was traded away. It's pretty clear that while you have a point about left tackles, you're way off base with cornerbacks.

*Technically they hit free agency, not the waiver wire, but I love that phrasing.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-09-2008, 08:13 AM

Scouts Inc's ratings are total garbage. They don't make any sense. Chad Johnson's the best player in the NFL. Steve Smith -- the one on the Giants -- is the 4th highest rated receiver in the league and the best player on his team. Houshmandzadeh's like the 30th best receiver. Randy Moss is like a 71 rating. Alge Crumpler's as good as Terrell Owens. Etc. It's the craziest shit I've ever seen.

I think Scouts Inc. is very harsh on grading, but that's fine if everyone's graded equally harshly, correct?

The scouting numbers ARE still from last year, though. I'd expect Randy Moss's numbers to be a smidgen higher this (past) year.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-09-2008, 09:12 AM

Really Not All That Bright

03-09-2008, 09:53 AM

As a Bengals fan, and I take my fandom pretty seriously, if Chad Johnson is listed as the best WR on Scout's list, that's all I need to know about them being absolute garbage.
Randy Moss isn't even IN the top ten? Didn't he, like, set the new record for TD's in a season last year?
LOL.
Edit: I just saw this is from last year, apparently. Chad Johnson is still not the best wideout in the NFL by last year's standards either. The guy doesn't score TD's! He had FIVE last year and THREE of them were in ONE game!
Well, actually, if those numbers don't include 2007, they make much more sense if you look at them from a consistency standpoint.

Johnson is #1 or #2 in receiving in the AFC year in and year out. Bailey is ballyhooed by the announcers year in and year out without ever actually seeming to play very well.

Obviously, some of the names on there are plain ol' nuts - Steve Smith II, Rod Smith (hasn't done anything in years), etc.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-09-2008, 10:08 AM

Also, I wasn't aware that Deangelo Hall actually hit free agency. I know he's being dangled as trade bait.

To further nitpick, Dre Bly wasn't the superstud that he ended up being when he was picked up in free agency by the Lions.

Ellis Dee

03-09-2008, 10:37 AM

Guys, Steve Smith (NYG) was a rookie in 2007. If that list is from last year, they included a USC Trojan.To further nitpick, Dre Bly wasn't the superstud that he ended up being when he was picked up in free agency by the Lions.No True Scotsman.

You're right that DeAngelo Hall isn't a free agent; the Falcons are shopping him around. Explain to me again how there is a meaningful distinction between trading a player away and losing him to free agency?

Least Original User Name Ever

03-09-2008, 10:57 AM

It's a meaningful distinction because it's the distinction I drew when I first started talking about it.

Ellis Dee

03-09-2008, 10:59 AM

It's a meaningful distinction because it's the distinction I drew when I first started talking about it.I'm asking why you made it in the first place.

EsotericEnigma

03-09-2008, 11:01 AM

For what it's worth, some Insider rankings are updated for this season (free agents). Asante Samuel is an 85 and Randy Moss is a 93.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-09-2008, 11:03 AM

Because I'm aware that Champ Bailey was traded for Clinton Portis because Reverend I-Don't-give-a-Care didn't like his contract. I also knew that Dre Bly was traded for Tatum Bell and George Foster. Those two are franchise cornerbacks. Therefore, they're out of the discussion. They never hit the open market. (Bly excepted, but that was before he became a turnover machine).

Not only that but the discussion was originally about franchise tackles hitting free agency (Willie Roaf went from the Saints to the Chiefs...I forgot about him) and I then extended/likened it to super-studly cornerbacks hitting free agency.

EsotericEnigma

03-09-2008, 11:33 AM

I don't understand what the big deal about this "franchise players don't typically move in free agency" argument is about. Is it such a surprise that really important players stay put? There's your definition of "franchise player" by the way, a player that's so valuable and important the franchise won't let him go. So, yeah, franchise players don't typically move. :D There's a reason that Guards, Outside linebackers, cornerbacks, and the like are moved in free agency; those positions aren't among the most important on the football field and are easily replaced.

Really, really good left tackles, quarterbacks, running backs, and middle linebackers don't typically move, because they're too important to the team. Once you get one, you keep him.

Another important thing to note is that really good players of all positions don't move often, as you would expect. Scouts Inc's own free agent rankings (flawed as they are) only list a single 90+ and only 9 80+ players total for this season, of all the free agents in the NFL. And just because a player is a free agent doesn't mean anything; of those 10 players ranked 80 or above, 8 have re-signed with their former team. As in, they aren't moving either.

Good players stay put, really good players at an important position almost never move. And in those rare instances they do, it probably doesn't have anything to do with what happens on the field (more like, money issues because of the cap, personality issues or conflicts, or age). I don't think any of this is anything but obvious.

Ellis Dee

03-09-2008, 12:02 PM

Is it such a surprise that really important players stay put? There's your definition of "franchise player" by the way, a player that's so valuable and important the franchise won't let him go. So, yeah, franchise players don't typically move. :DThat was my original throw-away point.Not only that but the discussion was originally about franchise tackles hitting free agency (Willie Roaf went from the Saints to the Chiefs...I forgot about him) and I then extended/likened it to super-studly cornerbacks hitting free agency.Super-studly cornerbacks change teams all the time, unlike franchise left tackles, so you were wrong to extend your point to cornerbacks. To arbitrarily say that trades don't count as leaving a team really honestly strikes me as bizarre. That's why I'm having trouble letting this go. Also, this...Because I'm aware that Champ Bailey was traded for Clinton Portis because Reverend I-Don't-give-a-Care didn't like his contract. I also knew that Dre Bly was traded for Tatum Bell and George Foster. Those two are franchise cornerbacks. Therefore, they're out of the discussion. They never hit the open market. (Bly excepted, but that was before he became a turnover machine)....is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

SIX TIMEOUTS BEFORE THIS SHITTY FUCKING BOARD WAS ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POST

Least Original User Name Ever

03-09-2008, 12:37 PM

That was my original throw-away point.Super-studly cornerbacks change teams all the time, unlike franchise left tackles, so you were wrong to extend your point to cornerbacks. To arbitrarily say that trades don't count as leaving a team really honestly strikes me as bizarre. That's why I'm having trouble letting this go. Also, this......is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

SIX TIMEOUTS BEFORE THIS SHITTY FUCKING BOARD WAS ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POST

I'm not saying that trades don't equal leaving a team. I'm saying that trades don't equal leaving a team via free agency. I chose to limit the discussion to cornerbacks that left in free agency.

That's fine. Call it whatever you want. Believe it, don't believe it, that's great. Can we get back to talking about football now?

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-09-2008, 09:55 PM

SenorBeef

03-09-2008, 11:42 PM

The Bengals are going to the Superbowl this year. Just got off the phone with Miss Cleo...it is the 20 year anniversary of their last appearance, the moon is waning, the seventh seal has been broken, rivers are turning to blood...
Well, you get the idea. Homerism sharpened to it's finest point=Bengals fan.

Well, your team ended last year with a poor record, a coach who has lost control of the team, an aging offense, and a joke of a defense. In what ways have you improved?

Ellis Dee

03-09-2008, 11:54 PM

Well, your team ended last year with a poor record, a coach who has lost control of the team, an aging offense, and a joke of a defense. In what ways have you improved?Sounds eerily similar to the Giants after the 2006 season. Keep hope alive!

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 06:40 AM

Sounds eerily similar to the Giants after the 2006 season. Keep hope alive!

For what it's worth, I never thought the Giants defense was ever that bad. They had some injuries and a down year, but what was their defensive ranking in '06?

Ellis Dee

03-10-2008, 08:17 AM

For what it's worth, I never thought the Giants defense was ever that bad. They had some injuries and a down year, but what was their defensive ranking in '06?The Giants had the 25th ranked defense in 2006, while the Bengals had the 27th ranked defense in 2007.

I agree with your sentiment, though, in that the Giants have had a history of better defense than the Bengals. Not great, certainly, but better than total crap. Here's their respective rankings since realignment: Giants Bengals
------ -------
2002 9th 17th
2003 22nd 28th
2004 13th 19th
2005 24th 28th
2006 25th 30th
2007 7th 27th
------ -------
Avg: 17th 25thIt is noteworthy that the Giants' average defensive ranking is slightly better (16.66...) than the best ranking the Bengals managed to get.

So yeah, the Giants were in better shape defensively than the Bengals. Mostly you're right in that they had many of the pieces in place but they kept getting injured. When they finally stayed reasonably healthy they won a Superbowl.

Even though the Bengals don't have that, I still say Keep Hope Alive!

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 08:19 AM

The Giants had the 25th ranked defense in 2006, while the Bengals had the 28th ranked defense in 2007.

I agree with your sentiment, though, in that the Giants have had a history of better defense than the Bengals. Not great, certainly, but better than total crap. Here's their respective rankings since realignment: Giants Bengals
------ -------
2002 9th 17th
2003 22nd 28th
2004 13th 19th
2005 24th 28th
2006 25th 30th
2007 7th 27th
------ -------
Avg: 17th 25thIt is noteworthy that the Giants' average defensive ranking is slightly better (16.66...) than the best ranking the Bengals managed to get.

So yeah, the Giants were in better shape defensively than the Bengals. Mostly you're right in that they had many of the pieces in place but they kept getting injured. When they finally stayed reasonably healthy they won a Superbowl.

Even though the Bengals don't have that, I still say Keep Hope Alive!

That last point was one I wanted to make, that the Giants seemed to have down years when injuries clobbered them (who doesn't, right?)

I'm happy that you didn't show the defensive rankings for the Lions.

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 08:30 AM

I'm happy that you didn't show the defensive rankings for the Lions.
Things will be much better this year. Sooner or later a defense composed almost entirely of ex-Bucs has to stop sucking.

We're not like the Pats, whose players invariably suck as soon as they turn out in someone else's uniform.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 08:45 AM

Things will be much better this year. Sooner or later a defense composed almost entirely of ex-Bucs has to stop sucking.

We're not like the Pats, whose players invariably suck as soon as they turn out in someone else's uniform.

...But...ex-Bucs past their prime? I really like Brian Kelly, but I liked his game a few years ago.

The fact that they're importing those guys (Hardy Nickerson and Derrick Brooks are on the speed dial now) over scares me. It's like the guy you still see dressed up like he's in the '70s because he was a stud then..now he's just a combovered mess of polyester.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 11:09 AM

So little FA news over the last week or so. I'm getting a little twitchy.

Will Bryant Johnson or DJ Hackett be helping the dangerously undermanned Bears WR corps? I must know...

I really don't want to be using high draft picks looking for immediate help at the WR position when we need depth at too many other key positions, like QB, RB, OT, OG, and DT.

God, how sad is it that I'm desperate for Bryant fucking Johnson.....

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 11:15 AM

I like DJ Hackett and I think he's a little underrated.

....Did that work?

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 11:23 AM

...But...ex-Bucs past their prime? I really like Brian Kelly, but I liked his game a few years ago.

The fact that they're importing those guys (Hardy Nickerson and Derrick Brooks are on the speed dial now) over scares me. It's like the guy you still see dressed up like he's in the '70s because he was a stud then..now he's just a combovered mess of polyester.
Kelly is still an excellent coverage guy- just not a great tackler.

Nickerson is retired. He's doing commentary for the Bucs radio network now... and Brooks will retire as a Buc. I doubt he's got more than this season left in the tank anyway.

I had Hackett on my fantasy team last year so I saw a lot of him, and I think he's very underrated too- I think he'll make an excellent #2 somewhere.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 11:25 AM

I knew Nickerson was retired, but I'm holding out hope for him and Kevin Greene.

That's a joke, by the way.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 11:26 AM

I like DJ Hackett and I think he's a little underrated.
That seems to be a pretty popular meme amongst experts and bloggers this offseason. I think the guy is a fine player, but people all seem to completely blind to the fact that he has played in a very pass-happy system with a outstanding QB. All of his numbers are a little inflated and he's one of those guys who gets severe cases of the drops. I like Johnson quite a bit more.

Then again if it comes down to it, I'll take Hackett over Booker as my #1.

twitch....twitch....twitch

kidchameleon

03-10-2008, 11:31 AM

That seems to be a pretty popular meme amongst experts and bloggers this offseason. I think the guy is a fine player, but people all seem to completely blind to the fact that he has played in a very pass-happy system with a outstanding QB. All of his numbers are a little inflated and he's one of those guys who gets severe cases of the drops. I like Johnson quite a bit more.

Then again if it comes down to it, I'll take Hackett over Booker as my #1.

C'mon you guys just signed the mighty Brandon Lloyd. :)
I think he might do better in a somewhat more stable offense in Chicago than the ever revoloving Redskin camp.

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 11:35 AM

C'mon you guys just signed the mighty Brandon Lloyd. :)
I think he might do better in a somewhat more stable offense in Chicago than the ever revoloving Redskin camp.
As long as they leave him on the field he'll make some amazing catches. He was almost a weekly fixture on Plays of the Week with the Niners...

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 11:46 AM

C'mon you guys just signed the mighty Brandon Lloyd. :)
I think he might do better in a somewhat more stable offense in Chicago than the ever revoloving Redskin camp.
I actually hadn't seen this info until you posted it. Here's a link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080307-brandon-llyod-chicago-bears,1,7201085.story).

I love this move. I know Lloyd extremely well from his playing days at my alma mater Illinois and when he last played under Ron Turner there he was simply awesome. I'd always followed his career in San Fran because of those frequent highlight reel catches and he was a staple on many of my fantasy teams a mid-late round sleeper. This year I might do that again.

There's been a lot made of his attitude and conflicts with coaches, but in fairness San Fran and Washington haven't exactly been easy places to be a WR of late. I'm optimistic that the combination of a one-year contract and reuniting with his college coach will go a long way to having him happy and getting max-effort from him. He's still young and has staggering physical skills, so he might be a good counter point to Booker and could challenge Bradley and Davis (if he's back). I like this addition more than using a 1st day pick on the WR position, that's for sure.

Still, I'm not ready for the Bears to stand pat at WR. If Johnson is still on the market at an attainable price, they should give him a run.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 12:14 PM

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 12:23 PM

Still, I'm not ready for the Bears to stand pat at WR. If Johnson is still on the market at an attainable price, they should give him a run.
Chad, you mean?

I highly doubt it. Considering that the Bengals' roster is getting worse during this offseason, if anything, I don't see any way they'll let their true talent go cheap.

On the other hand, maybe a one-for-one trade for Lance Briggs or Charles Tillman would be a possibility...

ETA: Never mind, I see you meant Bryant. I'm not impressed with him; if he couldn't get open with Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin lined up outside, I can't imagine he will in the Bears' offense. Perhaps more importantly he didn't do much when he started for Boldin, either.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 12:27 PM

I don't mind Byrant Johnson either. The Bears might have the receiver equivalent of the Seahawks receivers or the Chiefs receivers a few years ago, where there isn't a superstud among the group, but they're all solid.
I'd be thrilled if that were the case. Right now we're looking to get some major production from Devin Hester and Mark Bradley though. Hester still hasn't sold me on his being an every down WR and unless he's really sharpened up his routes and learned to block pinning your offense on him is a huge risk based on what he's shown. Bradley has some great skills and speed but he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Last season he wasn't hurt but couldn't get off the bench and isn't much of a blocker either. Our running game depends on our WRs blocking upfield and Lloyd, Booker, Bradley and Hester would comprise the worst blocking WR corps ever assembled in the Super Bowl era.

I'm sorry, but adding a rookie isn't going to make this group any more reliable and consistent and we can only hope to aspire to that of the Seahawks or Chiefs. The more I look at it the more convinced I am that we need Bryant Johnson. Pencil him in at the #1 slot and bump Lloyd and Booker down to #2 and #3 and we're looking much better. Hester and Bradley can come in situationally and maybe steal a job from one of the starters.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-10-2008, 12:46 PM

I'd be thrilled if that were the case. Right now we're looking to get some major production from Devin Hester and Mark Bradley though. Hester still hasn't sold me on his being an every down WR and unless he's really sharpened up his routes and learned to block pinning your offense on him is a huge risk based on what he's shown. Bradley has some great skills and speed but he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Last season he wasn't hurt but couldn't get off the bench and isn't much of a blocker either. Our running game depends on our WRs blocking upfield and Lloyd, Booker, Bradley and Hester would comprise the worst blocking WR corps ever assembled in the Super Bowl era.

I'm sorry, but adding a rookie isn't going to make this group any more reliable and consistent and we can only hope to aspire to that of the Seahawks or Chiefs. The more I look at it the more convinced I am that we need Bryant Johnson. Pencil him in at the #1 slot and bump Lloyd and Booker down to #2 and #3 and we're looking much better. Hester and Bradley can come in situationally and maybe steal a job from one of the starters.

Hester's hands are apparently only equipped to catch a punt or a kickoff. A football fired to him in any other format bonks off his hands like he had flippers.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 01:03 PM

Hester's hands are apparently only equipped to catch a punt or a kickoff. A football fired to him in any other format bonks off his hands like he had flippers.
Actually, he doesn't catch punts and kickoffs that well either. Half of his big returns followed a muff or a ball played off a hop.

Though, in fairness he didn't drop very many of the WR screens they threw to him, many of which were caught under immediate pressure. He did however drop a big catch or two thrown deep downfield, so maybe he just has trouble going over the shoulder.

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 01:09 PM

Hester's hands are apparently only equipped to catch a punt or a kickoff. A football fired to him in any other format bonks off his hands like he had flippers.
Catching a pass while looking over your shoulder is an awful lot harder than catching one you're facing, you know.

Omni, I don't know what you think Johnson is going to do for you that Booker or Lloyd won't, but even playing three seasons in the high-powered Cards pass offense he's never caught more than 49 passes, and never gone for more than 740 yards. He's been given plenty of opportunity; remember, they picked him in the '03 draft ahead of Boldin, and he was the other starter until they got Fitzgerald. Also, he's started 39 games, but only scored 9 touchdowns.

He's a decent slot receiver. I don't see him as even a #2 for any team that doesn't feature a premiere tight end, though.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 01:34 PM

Omni, I don't know what you think Johnson is going to do for you that Booker or Lloyd won't, but even playing three seasons in the high-powered Cards pass offense he's never caught more than 49 passes, and never gone for more than 740 yards. He's been given plenty of opportunity; remember, they picked him in the '03 draft ahead of Boldin, and he was the other starter until they got Fitzgerald. Also, he's started 39 games, but only scored 9 touchdowns.

Yeah, I'm fully away how pathetic it is that I think Johnson is a solution. Of course in this year's FA market he's simply the best available by my estimation. I do think he'd be the best guy on the Bears roster if they added them and that's the only reason I peg him as our #1, not that I expect him to be a monster or anything. I'm willing to drink the koolaid that he still could breakout on a different team and that he still has more potential than anyone else up for discussion.

He's a decent slot receiver. I don't see him as even a #2 for any team that doesn't feature a premiere tight end, though.
Olsen should be just that this year, so he might fit.

Really Not All That Bright

03-10-2008, 01:39 PM

Olsen should be just that this year, so he might fit.
Well, Olsen will certainly see a lot of passes thrown his way this year given the weakness of the WR corps.

I don't see him as a top-tier guy, though; more of a Marcus Pollard than Antonio Gates.

If I were you, I'd continue to pin my hopes on Lloyd. Somewhere in that rather impressive physical specimen is a #1 wide receiver waiting to get out. I genuinely believe he has as much raw talent as any WR in the league; time will tell if he ever actually produces like he ought to.

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 01:49 PM

Well, Olsen will certainly see a lot of passes thrown his way this year given the weakness of the WR corps.

I don't see him as a top-tier guy, though; more of a Marcus Pollard than Antonio Gates.
Pollard isn't a bad model and he'd be better than what the Bears have had for about 40 years at TE, but I think Olsen is quite a bit more athletic and agile a pass catcher than Pollard. He's a lot longer and faster with a little luck will be more similar to Dallas Clark or Todd Heap.

If I were you, I'd continue to pin my hopes on Lloyd. Somewhere in that rather impressive physical specimen is a #1 wide receiver waiting to get out. I genuinely believe he has as much raw talent as any WR in the league; time will tell if he ever actually produces like he ought to.

I basically agree with you, but consider my desire for Johnson as an attempt to diversify to mitigate risk.

Hamlet

03-10-2008, 02:12 PM

You know, if you got a mad scientist to combine Lloyd, Bradley, Hester, Booker, and either Johnson or Hackett, you might actually have a single #2 WR, who might, on a good day, play as a #1. Until then, however...

Omniscient

03-10-2008, 02:18 PM

kidchameleon

03-10-2008, 03:14 PM

Pollard isn't a bad model and he'd be better than what the Bears have had for about 40 years at TE, but I think Olsen is quite a bit more athletic and agile a pass catcher than Pollard. He's a lot longer and faster with a little luck will be more similar to Dallas Clark or Todd Heap.

Without the qualtiy QBing that Heap has. :p

SenorBeef

03-11-2008, 06:18 AM

The AFC North this year has to play both the AFC South and NFC East. Easy schedules for everyone!

Pittsburgh has an especially brutal schedule because they play the #1 ranked team from the AFC East and West, so in addition to arguably the best two divisions in football, they have to play New England and San Diego. The Browns play Buffalo and Denver.

Determining the ease or difficulty of a schedule is somewhat guesswork - every year teams surprise by either being better or worse than projected - but the AFC North's schedule seems pretty brutal so far. Fortunately everyone gets 14 of the same games, and you only need to win your division... it seems unlikely that any team from the AFC North is going to be a wildcard team with that schedule.

I'm predicting the Browns to win the division this year. I'm a homer, but not a totally crazy one - I haven't predicted the Browns to win the division since 2004 (oops). The Steelers were fading towards the end of the year, lost Faneca, and barely squeaked by a home win against the Browns in the second half of the season (mostly due to two horrible calls). They have a schedule that's 2 games harder, and they so far haven't addressed their weaknesses like the Browns have. I'm not considering the other teams in serious running for the division title.

With this schedule, 10-6 and possibly 9-7 probably wins the division.

Edit: Noticed the game against Indy is a home game. I hope it's in December, there's a blizzard, and Peyton gets frostbite on his asshole.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 06:32 AM

Homer.

The Steelers are winning the AFC North.

SenorBeef

03-11-2008, 08:08 AM

Homer.

The Steelers are winning the AFC North.

What makes you so confident?

Really Not All That Bright

03-11-2008, 08:30 AM

Carolina wins the NFC South; the Bucs have never had two good seasons in a row under Gruden, and with our starting tailback possibly out for most of the season, and everyone else on offense getting another year older, I see no reason we'll start now.

Ellis Dee

03-11-2008, 08:32 AM

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 08:42 AM

What makes you so confident?

Much more complete team, in my opinion. I'm not enamored by Ben Roethlisbergergergergerger, but I'd take him before Derek Anderson, Brady Quinn, or some genetic pairing of the two. The Steelers have better defense and a better offense as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see a repeat of 9-7 for the Browns. It'll be a lot closer to 7-9 and I think it'll be due to injuries. I've got nothing to base that on, just a feeling.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 08:43 AM

What's wrong with Carnell?

Also, Warrick Dunn doesn't suck.

Carnell runs like a big back and when he's healthy, he's solid, but he's got a question mark on him. If he can stay complete, I don't mind the Bucs at all. I think they'll win that division. Carolina has questions at quarterback and I don't know how Deangelo Williams will respond to a full workload.

Really Not All That Bright

03-11-2008, 08:54 AM

What's wrong with Carnell?

Also, Warrick Dunn doesn't suck.
His injury was reported as a torn patellar tendon, but there's also some ligament damage, and his recovery by all accounts is not going smoothly. There's an outside chance that he'll never play again *knocks wood*, but even if he does, running backs coming back from major knee surgery pretty much invariably take a year or so to get back to full strength.

I'm sad; I've followed his career since he was a freshman at Auburn, and I actually predicted we'd draft him two seasons before we did - and I was thrilled to bits. After his rookie season it looked like he'd be a superstar. Instead, he'll probably be stuck in RBBC systems for the rest of his career.

Dunn does not suck, and I'm glad he's come home, but I'm not sure what he's got left in the tank. Also, we've been almost exclusively a RBBC team since Gruden showed up, except during Cadillac's rookie year, and the results have not been pretty at all, despite O-line personnel who were generally much better run-blockers than pass-blockers.

As soon as Earnest Graham became the feature back by default last season, though, we suddenly had an extremely effective ground game. Graham is a much tougher runner than Cadillac, even though he isn't nearly as quick, and he wears down defenses much more. I was hoping they'd just hand Graham the ball 25 times a game again this year, and work Michael Bennett and then Cadillac in as change-of-pace runners.

With Dunn on the roster, though, I feel like Gruden will feel like he has to give him significant carries- say, 30%. That would be fine if it meant we were running the ball that many more times, but run-first just isn't an option for Gruden.

SenorBeef

03-11-2008, 09:15 AM

Much more complete team, in my opinion. I'm not enamored by Ben Roethlisbergergergergerger, but I'd take him before Derek Anderson, Brady Quinn, or some genetic pairing of the two. The Steelers have better defense and a better offense as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see a repeat of 9-7 for the Browns. It'll be a lot closer to 7-9 and I think it'll be due to injuries. I've got nothing to base that on, just a feeling.

The Browns finished 10-6, not 9-7. Same record as the Steelers. And since the Steelers beat them twice, that means they did significantly better against the rest of the NFL. The first time the Steelers beat the Browns was a Charlie Frye induced slaughter, and the second time was bullshit - Ben had several scrambles on which there was blatant holding that allowed the play to happen, and then on the last return of the game, there was totally phantom holding called on the Browns. They should've started IIRC around the Pit 35 or so, but instead started around their own 30 with about a minute left and no timeouts. Considering the game came down to a 52 yard field goal anyway, that penalty was the game, and it was complete BS.

The biggest weakness on the Browns was the LDE position - due to injuries and ineffectiveness of the backups, a would-be starting NT had to play out of position there, degrading both positions. The LDE spot is going to be filled by Corey Williams who I'm high on, and Shaun Rogers, who I'm not so high on but has potential, will start at NT - a massive revamping of the D-line with young talent. The back 7 are young but gaining experience, and the hopefully dramatic improvement to the D-line will take the unit from pretty bad to decent.

The Browns were pretty close to 11+ wins too with a horrible defense. If they can just improve to mediocre, the team can go somewhere. They lost to the raiders (sad, I know) after a game-winning field goal was negated by a last second timeout (the retry was blocked), despite performing horribly early they were in the second Cinci game until the final drive until they received a 50 yard offensive pass interference penality that was pretty much bullshit, the Arizona game came out to an arguable forceout (which, as discussed on other threads, I think the result of the game was legitimate, but it highlights that the game came down to about 1 or 2 feet), and I already covered the second Pittsburgh game.

The Cleveland offense didn't lose anyone, and gained Stallworth (who isn't great, but JJ isn't an ideal #2, but is a nice #3, plus Stallworth and Winslow drawing coverage from each other will be synergistic). The Steelers offense lost one of their best players in Faneca. The Browns defense had both its biggest weakness addressed (LDE) and the most important position on the field addressed (NT).

So, this year they already had an equal record to the Steelers, could've easily won the North if a few calls went the other way, and have already improved their weaknesses in the offseason. Whereas the Steelers clearly trailed off towards the end of the year. The Steelers also have to contend with a schedule that includes the Pats and Chargers where the Browns play Buffalo and Denver. This could easily go 0-2 vs 2-0.

The Browns may finish 10-6 again, which would be pretty good against a tough schedule. That's probably going to be the winning record in the AFC North.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 09:20 AM

The Browns finished 10-6, not 9-7. Same record as the Steelers. And since the Steelers beat them twice, that means they did significantly better against the rest of the NFL. The first time the Steelers beat the Browns was a Charlie Frye induced slaughter, and the second time was bullshit - Ben had several scrambles on which there was blatant holding that allowed the play to happen, and then on the last return of the game, there was totally phantom holding called on the Browns. They should've started IIRC around the Pit 35 or so, but instead started around their own 30 with about a minute left and no timeouts. Considering the game came down to a 52 yard field goal anyway, that penalty was the game, and it was complete BS.

The biggest weakness on the Browns was the LDE position - due to injuries and ineffectiveness of the backups, a would-be starting NT had to play out of position there, degrading both positions. The LDE spot is going to be filled by Corey Williams who I'm high on, and Shaun Rogers, who I'm not so high on but has potential, will start at NT - a massive revamping of the D-line with young talent. The back 7 are young but gaining experience, and the hopefully dramatic improvement to the D-line will take the unit from pretty bad to decent.

The Browns were pretty close to 11+ wins too with a horrible defense. If they can just improve to mediocre, the team can go somewhere. They lost to the raiders (sad, I know) after a game-winning field goal was negated by a last second timeout (the retry was blocked), despite performing horribly early they were in the second Cinci game until the final drive until they received a 50 yard offensive pass interference penality that was pretty much bullshit, the Arizona game came out to an arguable forceout (which, as discussed on other threads, I think the result of the game was legitimate, but it highlights that the game came down to about 1 or 2 feet), and I already covered the second Pittsburgh game.

The Cleveland offense didn't lose anyone, and gained Stallworth (who isn't great, but JJ isn't an ideal #2, but is a nice #3, plus Stallworth and Winslow drawing coverage from each other will be synergistic). The Steelers offense lost one of their best players in Faneca. The Browns defense had both its biggest weakness addressed (LDE) and the most important position on the field addressed (NT).

So, this year they already had an equal record to the Steelers, could've easily won the North if a few calls went the other way, and have already improved their weaknesses in the offseason. Whereas the Steelers clearly trailed off towards the end of the year. The Steelers also have to contend with a schedule that includes the Pats and Chargers where the Browns play Buffalo and Denver. This could easily go 0-2 vs 2-0.

The Browns may finish 10-6 again, which would be pretty good against a tough schedule. That's probably going to be the winning record in the AFC North.

Like I said. Closer to 7-9. I'll hedge my bet though and say .500 +/- a game.

SenorBeef

03-11-2008, 09:24 AM

Well, that wasn't an explanation.

What do you think the Steelers' record will be?

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 10:02 AM

Well, that wasn't an explanation.

What do you think the Steelers' record will be?

Better.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-11-2008, 05:19 PM

I don't see the Browns replicating their success from last season because I honestly believe that Anderson isn't all that great. He sucked towards the end of the year, his stats were padded by the first Cincinnati game, and he looked just awful in the Probowl.

Everyone likes their own team, I understand, and as a Bengals fan I am nothing if not an eternal optimist.

We have Carson and a good offensive line that was hurt and played uneven last year due to the injuries to our starting tackles and our center, leading to Carson hurrying many throws that resulted in INT's due to pressure, despite the low sack given up total last season. Chad and TJ and Henry will be back.

ALL of our starting RB's were injured last year, and when coupled with poor oline play, resulted in even more pressure on the passing game and Carson to try to win games. So, Rudi was hurt, Chris Perry was hurt all year, Kenny Irons never saw the field due to preseason ACL injury...and we had Kenny Watson and DeDe Dorsey, hardly starters, to carry the load. Even when Rudi did play, he was especially slow, whether from age or injury is uncertain.

The Bengals haven't had much resembling a defense lately, and last year was particularly bad in light of the fact that we lost ALL of our starting LB's except Landon Johnson to injury. Yep, ALL of them. Well, odell thurman was suspended, but indications are that he will return, along with Ahmad Brooks (injured, needed hammy surgery), Lemar Marshall (ruptured achilles)...and we also have a promising pair of 2nd and 3rd year CB's that were first round picks in Johnathon Joseph and Leon Hall, as well as up and comers at safety in Chinedem Ndukwe and marvin White, coupled with the return of Ethan Kilmer, who is a baller returning from injury.

We have never had a good defensive line, but we are in the process of addresing that, letting dead weight like Justin Smith go, adding Antwan Odom, we'll see Frostee Rucker, Johnathon Fanene and Robert Geathers...plus...we pick 9th and are going to try for Sedrick Ellis, and will likely have 3rd and 5th round compensation picks (Steinbach, Kitna)...

The future is bright for the Bengals...and we got ourselves a new, respected d-coordinator, too.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-11-2008, 05:43 PM

I see the AFC North as a competitive division. Nobody's going to really suck.

Well, maybe the Browns.

Omniscient

03-11-2008, 06:25 PM

Everyone likes their own team, I understand, and as a Bengals fan I am nothing if not an eternal optimist.
No, no we don't.

FTR, I think the Bengals are rat fucked until they get rid of Marvin Lewis.

SenorBeef

03-12-2008, 01:38 AM

I see the AFC North as a competitive division. Nobody's going to really suck.

Well, maybe the Browns.

Probably Cinci and Balt won't suck as much as they did last year, but they may have similar records due to the difficulty of the schedule. The odds of the Browns finishing last in the division are pretty slim...

You seem biased against them, which is a bit unusual - most Detroit fans I know seem to have a mutual sympathy being two teams with recent chronic suck combined with being in seperate conferences and not having any rivalry. What's up with that?

Least Original User Name Ever

03-12-2008, 10:11 AM

Probably Cinci and Balt won't suck as much as they did last year, but they may have similar records due to the difficulty of the schedule. The odds of the Browns finishing last in the division are pretty slim...

You seem biased against them, which is a bit unusual - most Detroit fans I know seem to have a mutual sympathy being two teams with recent chronic suck combined with being in seperate conferences and not having any rivalry. What's up with that?

Nah, I'm not biased. I just wanted to fire you up a little bit. I do think that the odds of the Browns finishing last in the division are better than their odds of finishing first. I dunno. I'm not quite convinced yet about the Browns. They've made some strides and some acquisitions, so let's see if they jell together and make a good defense.

Any Lions/Browns pseudo-rivalry comes from the Tigers and Indians. It's just overflow from that.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-12-2008, 10:21 AM

(Missed the edit window)

At its heart, Detroit is a baseball city. We'd go bonkers if the Lions ever won anything, we had a million people downtown when the Wings won, and we love it when the Pistons win, but Detroit really is a baseball city, much like New York City really is a basketball city.

SenorBeef

03-12-2008, 10:38 AM

Nah, I'm not biased. I just wanted to fire you up a little bit.

I tend to be really knowledgable about my team and pretty knowledgable about the AFC North, so I generally don't get riled up by comments that seem to indicate only casual knowledge of the division. I was willing to defend my claims though.

I do think that the odds of the Browns finishing last in the division are better than their odds of finishing first. I dunno. I'm not quite convinced yet about the Browns. They've made some strides and some acquisitions, so let's see if they jell together and make a good defense.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland both finished 10-6 - a few bad calls from 9-7 and 11-5 respectively. Cincinatti finished 7-9 and Baltimore 5-11. Since then, Pittsburgh has suffered a significant loss in FA but mostly stayed pat, Cleveland has addressed two of its most glaring weaknesses (three if you count defensive coordinator), Cinci has the inmates running the asylum, all sorts of locker room problems, and haven't improved so far, and Baltimore has a combination of inexperience and too-old former stars, a new coach that's some special teams coordinator no one has heard of who has to struggle to take the leadership of the team from Stabbin' Ray, and is the only team to lose to the Dolphins last year.

I'm not predicting a Cleveland superbowl win here (yet!) but it's pretty unreasonable to guess that they'll finish last.

Omniscient

03-12-2008, 10:50 AM

Pittsburgh and Cleveland both finished 10-6 - a few bad calls from 9-7 and 11-5 respectively. Cincinatti finished 7-9 and Baltimore 5-11. Since then, Pittsburgh has suffered a significant loss in FA but mostly stayed pat, Cleveland has addressed two of its most glaring weaknesses (three if you count defensive coordinator), Cinci has the inmates running the asylum, all sorts of locker room problems, and haven't improved so far, and Baltimore has a combination of inexperience and too-old former stars, a new coach that's some special teams coordinator no one has heard of who has to struggle to take the leadership of the team from Stabbin' Ray, and is the only team to lose to the Dolphins last year.

I'm inclined to agree here. I'm not sure what would make one assume that the Ravens, Bengals or Steelers would improve from last season's totals. They *might* but it's not based on anything that's happened so far. The Browns have gotten better in FA and the rest of the division has stood pat at best and I'd argue all have gotten worse.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-12-2008, 11:27 AM

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-12-2008, 07:37 PM

I tend to be really knowledgable about my team and pretty knowledgable about the AFC North, so I generally don't get riled up by comments that seem to indicate only casual knowledge of the division. I was willing to defend my claims though.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland both finished 10-6 - a few bad calls from 9-7 and 11-5 respectively. Cincinatti finished 7-9 and Baltimore 5-11. Since then, Pittsburgh has suffered a significant loss in FA but mostly stayed pat, Cleveland has addressed two of its most glaring weaknesses (three if you count defensive coordinator), Cinci has the inmates running the asylum, all sorts of locker room problems, and haven't improved so far, and Baltimore has a combination of inexperience and too-old former stars, a new coach that's some special teams coordinator no one has heard of who has to struggle to take the leadership of the team from Stabbin' Ray, and is the only team to lose to the Dolphins last year.

I'm not predicting a Cleveland superbowl win here (yet!) but it's pretty unreasonable to guess that they'll finish last.

How can you say that?

We had some off-field issues in 2006 and in the 2006 offseason, we had MAJOR injury problems that exceed those normally accrued by your average NFL team last year (most teams don't lose entire position groups and do well as a result...we lost all but one starting LB and ALL THREE starting RB's to injury, PLUS BOTH our Pro-Bowl-caliber tackles were injured for all or most of the season...kinda hamstrings the offense, you know?).

We haven't had any more issues since, and most of our "crimes" were petty shit like DUI's and weed, at least compared to the Tank Johnsons, Steve Foley's and the Kiels of the world. Oh yeah, and Leonard Little and that DE from KC whose name I always forget.

We're getting ALL our LB's back, we have signed a very good DE in Antwan Odom, we WILL draft for defense, Carson looks to rebound, we get back Kenny Irons, we still have our wideouts, we're going to acquire a pass-catching TE like Utecht or a draftee...

We also will have vast improvement in our secondary. We have back to back first round CB's in Hall and Joseph (whom was also hurt a good portion of last season), we have emerging talent at the safety positions, and our defensive line WILL be improved.

At least, that's how this homer sees it....

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-12-2008, 10:00 PM

Bump-chicka-bump-chicka-bump-chicka now-now...

Really Not All That Bright

03-12-2008, 10:30 PM

We haven't had any more issues since, and most of our "crimes" were petty shit like DUI's and weed, at least compared to the Tank Johnsons, Steve Foley's and the Kiels of the world. Oh yeah, and Leonard Little and that DE from KC whose name I always forget.
Psst... a DUI is usually a felony. Besides, that's was Leonard Little's crime too - he just happened to kill somebody while DUI.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-12-2008, 10:45 PM

Psst... a DUI is usually a felony. Besides, that's was Leonard Little's crime too - he just happened to kill somebody while DUI.
Psst...a first DUI is a misdemeanor.
Just FYI.
Killing someone while driving drunk is DEFINETELY a felony. But it was OK, Little didn't play for the Bengals, so he got a slap on the wrist....see the injustice yet?

Omniscient

03-12-2008, 10:53 PM

I don't really understand why Tank Johnson keeps getting held up as the poster child for severe crimes as a player. The guy illegally owned and carried guns. This is pretty stupid and it's a crime, but he's never been accused or brandishing it or getting into any bar fights. In most other states it would have been legal for a person to carry a handgun in his car with a concealed carry permit. Illinois doesn't allow it, but I'm sure that huge percentages of players carry guns.

You might not like it and it's a crime, but is that really worse than DUI arrests, vehicular manslaughter, domestic violence and murder. The guy illegally owned guns and mouthed off to a cop when drunk outside a club. In the grand scheme of things that's a lot more smoke than fire.

EsotericEnigma

03-13-2008, 02:25 AM

How can you say that?

We haven't had any more issues since (2005 and 2006)...

I didn't pay much attention to the Bungles last season, but I'm pretty sure your team just about quit on their coach, one player reportedly clocked your coach in the FACE!!, and the team still made costly mental mistakes all season long. Ask any Eagles fan how keeping (and refusing to trade) a disgruntled WR works. Hey, I'm an Eagles fan, ask me. It doesn't. It sucks.

Aren't the Bengals getting some hotshot player back from a two year suspension this year? Odell Thurman, right? Wasn't he good?

SenorBeef

03-13-2008, 04:16 AM

I didn't pay much attention to the Bungles last season, but I'm pretty sure your team just about quit on their coach, one player reportedly clocked your coach in the FACE!!

That was actually in the '05 playoffs where Chad decked Marvin.

You're right, though, FoieGrasIsEvil that simply getting healthy for another season will be an improvement for your team. I was thinking in terms of roster changes. You gained Odom, but lost Smith, who, while a bust for the 4th (?) pick in the draft, wasn't that bad.

And it's true that most of the off the field troubles for your team were minor to moderate - no one, for instance, was involved in or covered up murders - but they happened with a comical frequency. You know how much effort it takes to steal the criminals of the AFC North title away from the rats? It shows a lack of discipline. It seems like Marvin has lost control of the team.

Here are my predictions at this stage:

Browns 10-6
Steelers 8-8
Bengals 7-9
Rats 6-10

Really Not All That Bright

03-13-2008, 08:36 AM

Aren't the Bengals getting some hotshot player back from a two year suspension this year? Odell Thurman, right? Wasn't he good?
He was decent. Remains to be seen exactly how rusty he'll be - he's spent one season of his NFL career on the field, and two away from it.

I would be surprised if he's able to play at a high level right away.

Foie, you're quite right. I retract my statement.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 10:23 AM

The Lions release Kevin Jones and Kalimba Edwards. Kevin Jones was released before an escalator clause and Kalimba never came around and was productive.

We signed Tatum Bell to a year contract. It looks like we're taking a running back this year early again. Whee!

Really Not All That Bright

03-14-2008, 10:43 AM

The Lions release Kevin Jones and Kalimba Edwards. Kevin Jones was released before an escalator clause and Kalimba never came around and was productive.
Wow. Spend a first-round pick on running back, let him play for three years, and then just when he's getting really good (and you get a new offensive coordinator who might run the ball occasionally) - release him.

Brilliant plan.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 11:44 AM

Wow. Spend a first-round pick on running back, let him play for three years, and then just when he's getting really good (and you get a new offensive coordinator who might run the ball occasionally) - release him.

Brilliant plan.

Underrated receiver coming out of the backfield too. See kids, this is why I wanted to keep Martz. Switching offensive coordinators like this is a bad idea. Just give me an offensive coordinator for 4 years and a stable rotation of offensive linemen so we can evaluate our talent.

We resigned Tatum Bell to a year contract. Shoulda seen the writing on the wall there. Okay, here's the plan. I'm feeling a crazy acquisition of draft picks coming soon. There's got to be a method to this madness. To get nothing for Jones is silly.

This sucks. I hate football. Let's go Tigers!

kidchameleon

03-14-2008, 12:03 PM

Thing is with the AFC North, it's easy to put Cleveland on top now but they've blown their wad for the year. I can't see them making any other big FA moves and their draft likely won't do much for this year. Meanwhile the Ravens and Bengals could pull some nice players out fo the draft, depending on how they play it.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 12:13 PM

SenorBeef

03-14-2008, 12:14 PM

...Until they lost Phil Savage.

:)

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 12:22 PM

...Until they lost Phil Savage.

:)

Nah, they're still pretty damned solid. Phil Savage helped for sure and he should help the Browns out as well.

Omniscient

03-14-2008, 02:40 PM

Marley23

03-14-2008, 02:44 PM

ESPN is reporting that Bryant Johnson signed with San Francisco today.

Really Not All That Bright

03-14-2008, 02:48 PM

Hmm, wonder if the Bears can land him to doubly screw over the Lions.
He'd immediately be their best runner AND receiver...

Omniscient

03-14-2008, 02:58 PM

ESPN is reporting that Bryant Johnson signed with San Francisco today.

I came back to report the same thing. He apparently only signed a 1-year contract, and considering the 49ers suck and Alex Smith hasn't really shown much, it's a pretty baffling decision. True, Martz is there, and Johnson might see him as the guy who can help him have a huge breakout year in that system, but that seems like a long shot. Martz's system will take a little time to master and the Niners have more competition at WR than the other teams who expressed interest. You have to guess that Jackson, Bruce and Battle will be the top three guys going into camp, so Johnson will have to fight for playing time.

I can't believe the Bears weren't able to put together a reasonable offer for him. He'd assuredly be a starter and I'm sure we could have signed him to a 3-year deal at a pretty good price if this was his best alternative.

In other news, the Bears and Lovie Smith had a private workout in Boise with OT Ryan Clady this week. Most Mock's I've seen lately indicate that the top 3 and even 4 OT will be off the board before the Bears pick so I'm not sure that this will go anywhere, but I love the idea.

Really Not All That Bright

03-14-2008, 03:14 PM

I can't believe the Bears weren't able to put together a reasonable offer for him. He'd assuredly be a starter and I'm sure we could have signed him to a 3-year deal at a pretty good price if this was his best alternative.
DJ Hackett is still out there, and he actually has the game to be a starter. Don't fret.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 03:20 PM

For (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeff&id=3287468) you, SenorBeef.

Omniscient

03-14-2008, 03:36 PM

DJ Hackett is still out there, and he actually has the game to be a starter. Don't fret.

No reports of him planning any visits to Chicago. He apparently walked away from an offer from Washington (something that a lot of people have been doing this year, uncharacteristically) and has plans to visit the Titans, Bucs and Panthers.

I really don't want to see the Bears take a WR on the first day, but the FA crop is basically spent and we don't have enough now. Cedric Benson is just killing us in every way possible. We haven't been able to go after a RB in FA because of his salary and if we end up taking Mendenhall or Stewart with our first round pick it'll really cost us at other positions of need. I'd love to get both guys, but we need a OT and a DT much worse.

The perfect world outcome for me at this point is getting Hackett and Kevin Jones in free agency and drafting OT Clady in the 1st and QB Flacco in the 2nd. That addresses every position of need. The Bears haven't shown much urgency in adding a RB or WR in FA so neither of those will happen and Clady will probably be off the board. Though if we get Flacco I'll at least be able to sleep at nght.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 03:37 PM

...And the man crush continues...

Omniscient

03-14-2008, 03:43 PM

...And the man crush continues...
Gotta have something to get me through this long, lonely offseason.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-14-2008, 03:44 PM

Gotta have something to get me through this long, lonely offseason.

I understand. I just looked up Josh Johnson to see if there was anything new added to his info.

*le sigh*

Least Original User Name Ever

03-15-2008, 01:28 PM

Check the date. Yeah, here (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080315/SPORTS01/803150383/1048/sports) it is again.

Go ahead. Kick me in the teeth.

I hate football.

Really Not All That Bright

03-15-2008, 01:41 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

03-15-2008, 01:49 PM

Feh. If it weren't for Martz's ego (giving up on the run after 2 straight 100-yard games by Jones) and Shaun Rogers' inability to bypass the buffet line, the Lions would have won 10 games.

I think you got a real bargain in Bodden. I only saw him play last season but he was the only guy in the Browns' secondary covering anyone and seemed to have a real nose for the ball.

If Millen can stay lucid for the 12 minutes it will take to spend a first-round pick on a need position (RB, under tackle, offensive tackle?) you can have a really, really good team. It'd be even better if you had gotten something - anything - for Kevin Jones.

In fact, given that the Vikings' secondary seems to have gotten worse, rather than better, and the questionmarks surrounding Aaron Rogers, I'm going to pick the Lions as the NFC North champs.

You could end up with Kevin Smith in the 2nd or 3rd rounds and make both of my predictions come true :)

I'm sorry, get Jonathan Stewart in the first round? What did you say?

Apparently, I'm betting happy with the draft this year. A coworker and I have a bet going to see if McFadden will be the best rushing rookie (I say it's Stewart) and I delayed the actual bet until after the draft. I'm betting with you. Someone else at work wants to bet on Mendenhall being the Lions' pick (he says he bets his entire paycheck..I'm perilously close to accepting).

I hate football.

I miss Kevin Jones.

Somebody shoot me.

gonzomax

03-15-2008, 04:50 PM

Least Original User Name Ever

03-15-2008, 04:57 PM

Josh Johnson in mid-round 3 would be nice.

Seriously, I'd like to see the Lions not draft en masse and hope to fix problems with quantity. I want to see them draft for quality. Use a 4th rounder and a 3rd rounder and trade into the bottom of the second...Daniel Bullocks and a 4th rounder and possibly get into the bottom of the third...those kinds of things.

Fuckin' football.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-15-2008, 07:02 PM

Kitna is a very good QB. But they have nothing in reserve. If he goes down they are done. Plus they are not building for the future. Kitna is old. They have no experienced ,capable backups. As weird as it sounds,this will be Detroits best chance. They are set to get worse.
Kitna absolutely fucking sucks. You are crazy. Did you happen to watch the 2005 playoff game between the Bengals and the Steelers after Carson Palmer was injured?
Noodle arm, small hands, severe case of spontaneous fumbleitis when under pressure, forces throws...his best season as a starter was that lone Seahawks 9-7 team where they backed into the playoffs and they lost in the first round.
Are you kidding me?
Kitna is a good guy and a leader, but lacks the sheer physical tools to be a good QB, especially on a team like the Lions where Martz wanted to throw 40 times a game. Kitna is horrible.
A good guy to lead team prayer circles, though.
Never blamed Jesus when he lost, but was quick to give God praise when he won....blech.
God has no place in football. It's an evil game.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-16-2008, 07:52 AM

Kitna absolutely fucking sucks. You are crazy. Did you happen to watch the 2005 playoff game between the Bengals and the Steelers after Carson Palmer was injured?
Noodle arm, small hands, severe case of spontaneous fumbleitis when under pressure, forces throws...his best season as a starter was that lone Seahawks 9-7 team where they backed into the playoffs and they lost in the first round.
Are you kidding me?
Kitna is a good guy and a leader, but lacks the sheer physical tools to be a good QB, especially on a team like the Lions where Martz wanted to throw 40 times a game. Kitna is horrible.
A good guy to lead team prayer circles, though.
Never blamed Jesus when he lost, but was quick to give God praise when he won....blech.
God has no place in football. It's an evil game.

I hate the "praise Jesus" stuff myself, but compared to what we had before, Joey Harrington, Kitna is a big improvement. Kitna has eaten the ball for a sack more and he's had the green light to throw in Martz's system. Trust me, Kitna's not perfect. He's roughly averag. The difference betweein him and Harrington was amazing. I shit you not.

Yes, that's how low the bar is.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-16-2008, 07:07 PM

I hate the "praise Jesus" stuff myself, but compared to what we had before, Joey Harrington, Kitna is a big improvement. Kitna has eaten the ball for a sack more and he's had the green light to throw in Martz's system. Trust me, Kitna's not perfect. He's roughly averag. The difference betweein him and Harrington was amazing. I shit you not.

Yes, that's how low the bar is.
I don't disagree that Kitna was an upgrade over Harrington, but that's just dissecting shades of grey on the shittitude scale, IMO.

I love referencing that Bill Maher schtick about how if atheletes are going to praise God when they win, they need to be consistent and BLAME God when they lose.

gonzomax

03-16-2008, 07:27 PM

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-16-2008, 08:02 PM

The difference between Harrington and Kitna was day and night. The way the team played was far superior. He can make throws Joey can not even dream. Theoretically Joey had the tools to be a star. Apparently he did not.
I hate the religious crap Kitna spews. I wonder if he feels god has deserted him for his evil ways now.? But I see him as a better than average QB.
Kitna is a good team guy, so therefore the team is arguably "playing better for him" then they were for Harrington after his honeymoon wore off.
Could it be argued that the Lions gained some offensive line talent prior to installing Kitna?

When I watched the Lions play (rarely) under Harrington, I always felt that a lot of his crappy play was attributable to poor offensive line protection.

When Kitna was here with the Bengals, he had Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson in his prime, a stellar offensive line group, etc, and all he could muster was 8-8 as his best season, hence my belief that he is truly mediocre at best.

He always had the knack for throwing the crucial INT that ruined games/playoff chances. Or spontaneously fumbling without contact. He does have very small hands and suspect arm strength.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-16-2008, 08:09 PM

Kitna is a good team guy, so therefore the team is arguably "playing better for him" then they were for Harrington after his honeymoon wore off.
Could it be argued that the Lions gained some offensive line talent prior to installing Kitna?

When I watched the Lions play (rarely) under Harrington, I always felt that a lot of his crappy play was attributable to poor offensive line protection.

When Kitna was here with the Bengals, he had Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson in his prime, a stellar offensive line group, etc, and all he could muster was 8-8 as his best season, hence my belief that he is truly mediocre at best.

He always had the knack for throwing the crucial INT that ruined games/playoff chances. Or spontaneously fumbling without contact. He does have very small hands and suspect arm strength.

Watching Harrington eat the ball constantly for sacks and skip the ball to wide open receivers got very old.

Trust me, the first game, I was happy with the switch. It's not even close.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-16-2008, 11:59 PM

Watching Harrington eat the ball constantly for sacks and skip the ball to wide open receivers got very old.

Trust me, the first game, I was happy with the switch. It's not even close.
How good do you think Kevin Jones would have been pre-injury behind a solid offensive line?
Why would you extend the same courtesy to Joey Harrington?

He was David Klingler with another uniform...

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 03:12 AM

Chris Brown signed with the Texans (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/SPORTS01/803140401/1027) over the weekend for 2-years and $3.6 million. Considering only $800k of that is a bonus it's a pretty cap friendly deal and it seems like a pretty good price for the guy. He's had trouble staying healthy but he's also shown some flashes of brilliance. He looks like one of those guys that could have a break out year in the right circumstance. The Texans probably aren't it, but I bet he wins the starting job.

He was another guy I would have liked to see in a Bears uni for that kind of price. He'd have been a decent alternative to Benson at a good price, I'm guessing Kevin Jones will be quite a bit more expensive than that. Time will tell.

Really Not All That Bright

03-17-2008, 08:27 AM

Chris Brown signed with the Texans (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/SPORTS01/803140401/1027) over the weekend for 2-years and $3.6 million. Considering only $800k of that is a bonus it's a pretty cap friendly deal and it seems like a pretty good price for the guy. He's had trouble staying healthy but he's also shown some flashes of brilliance. He looks like one of those guys that could have a break out year in the right circumstance.
Psst... he already had his breakout year. He rushed for just over 1000 yards in his second season, and hasn't done anything since.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-17-2008, 08:39 AM

How good do you think Kevin Jones would have been pre-injury behind a solid offensive line?
Why would you extend the same courtesy to Joey Harrington?

He was David Klingler with another uniform...

There's a difference. Kevin Jones is good. He had a monster of a rookie season despite playing half of it and put up some solid numbers with limited playing time in the Martz system. We jettisoned him because of the injuries and his salary cap number. I've heard that the Lions are actually talking about getting him back at a cheaper price (I don't think I put much stock on that, though).

With Jones, you could see that he was pretty good. You couldn't see that with Harrington. There's a reason that Joey's on his 4th team now.

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 03:14 PM

DJ Hackett is off the market (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3298035) after signing with the Panthers to a 2 year deal worth $3.5 million. The Panthers have pretty much remade their WR corps adding Hackett and Muhammad to run with Steve Smith. I'd be impressed if they had a better QB situation to go along with that.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but that seems like another pretty cheap contract for a proven guy like Hackett. The Bears should have looked harder at him. Looks like the Bears are standing pat until the draft. I really hope this doesn't mean they are targeting a WR with their #1 pick, too many questions about the WRs in this draft and we need lineman much worse and they aren't available in free agency,

Look at the WR deals signed this season.

Bernard Berrian - 6year, $42 million.
Javon Walker - 6 year, $55 million.
Jerry Porter - 6 year, $30 million.
Bryant Johnson - 1 year, $2 million.
DJ Hackett - 2 year, $3.5 million.

That just doesn't jibe.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-17-2008, 03:28 PM

Really Not All That Bright

03-17-2008, 03:33 PM

Look at the WR deals signed this season.

Bernard Berrian - 6year, $42 million.
Javon Walker - 6 year, $55 million.
Jerry Porter - 6 year, $30 million.
Bryant Johnson - 1 year, $2 million.
DJ Hackett - 2 year, $3.5 million.

That just doesn't jibe.
Well, if that list proves anything its that GMs will overpay for speed or even perceived speed time and time again. Porter is a one-trick pony; he can run downfield from the slot really, really fast, but makes no guarantees about actually catching the ball once he gets there.

Walker had excellent speed before two severe knee injuries; is he really worth paying $55 mil to find out if it's still there? Not a chance, IMHO.

For Berrian, see Jerry Porter, although he's at least proven that he can catch the ball without needing Jerry Rice and Tim Brown to draw away every defender.

I'm not impressed by Johnson, but he and Hackett came astonishingly cheap considering what the other guys got paid. Other than Berrian and Hackett, the three players on the list are has-beens or never-was's... but one of those two is going to be 1,200-yard receiver this year, and my money's on Hackett.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-17-2008, 03:42 PM

Well, if that list proves anything its that GMs will overpay for speed or even perceived speed time and time again. Porter is a one-trick pony; he can run downfield from the slot really, really fast, but makes no guarantees about actually catching the ball once he gets there.

Walker had excellent speed before two severe knee injuries; is he really worth paying $55 mil to find out if it's still there? Not a chance, IMHO.

For Berrian, see Jerry Porter, although he's at least proven that he can catch the ball without needing Jerry Rice and Tim Brown to draw away every defender.

I'm not impressed by Johnson, but he and Hackett came astonishingly cheap considering what the other guys got paid. Other than Berrian and Hackett, the three players on the list are has-beens or never-was's... but one of those two is going to be 1,200-yard receiver this year, and my money's on Hackett.

If I were the Eagles, I'd have paid for Walker. He's very good after the catch and McNabb had an amazing year when he had a receiver like that (T.O.)

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 04:35 PM

I don't want to sound like a homer, but if you can snag a Mario Manningham in the draft in the second round, I think you'll be happy with that. He's got game speed and he's a pretty damned good route runner.

I've seen him show up in a few Mocks in the late 1st round and he hasn't even had his Pro Day yet I don't think. Getting him in the middle of the second round might turn out to be a steal. Though just about every team at the top of the draft needs a WR so I'd be shocked if he got past the Dolphins, Rams, Chiefs, Jets, Ravens, Saints, Bills and Broncos the second time around.

Also, the Bears don't have a stellar track record with former Michigan stars and I hate Michigan personally, so I'm pretty OK with us not taking him. The biggest issue I have is that there are positions which are much more scarce which need attention in the second round.

Joe Flacco!!!!!

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 06:29 PM

I'm sorry, get Jonathan Stewart in the first round? What did you say?

Apparently, I'm betting happy with the draft this year. A coworker and I have a bet going to see if McFadden will be the best rushing rookie (I say it's Stewart) and I delayed the actual bet until after the draft. I'm betting with you. Someone else at work wants to bet on Mendenhall being the Lions' pick (he says he bets his entire paycheck..I'm perilously close to accepting).

Apparently Stewart is done for 4-6 months (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/news/story?id=3294633) after having toe surgery. Always what you want to hear about a young running back. Mendenhall probably just earned an extra couple million.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-17-2008, 06:49 PM

Apparently Stewart is done for 4-6 months (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/news/story?id=3294633) after having toe surgery. Always what you want to hear about a young running back. Mendenhall probably just earned an extra couple million.

Yeah, Mr. Stewart is now coming at a much lower draft position.

Really, I'm sure you'll be fine with any of the receivers, Omni. Chicago has such a good tradition of receivers and...oh...wait a minute...

I think it's the water. It must muddy the speed or something.

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 07:05 PM

I think it's the water. It must muddy the speed or something.

The WRs are probably just fine. It's just the QBs only learned about the legalization of the forward past a couple seasons ago. They are still trying to sort that out.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-17-2008, 07:18 PM

The WRs are probably just fine. It's just the QBs only learned about the legalization of the forward past a couple seasons ago. They are still trying to sort that out.

Yeah, a stud farm for quarterbacks you have not been.

Shush, you.

Omniscient

03-17-2008, 08:39 PM

Yeah, a stud farm for quarterbacks you have not been.

Shush, you.

One of my favorite ESPN articles on the topic, for Insiders (http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/050914).

<SNIP>
So simple, in fact, that I can sum up the Bears' QB Carousel from Hell in one sentence.

Now, you might want to start in 1993 when Jim Harbaugh begat Peter Tom Willis (honest) who begat Erik Kramer-Steve Walsh-Dave Krieg-Rick Mirer and Steve Stenstrom (that's a real dude, I swear), but for a franchise as horribly troubled as the Bears, to me it only seems appropriate that the Bears QB Carousel from Hell begins with journeyman Jim Miller, who by the end of the 1999 season appeared to have found a home in Chicago, that is until he was suspended for the final four games after testing positive for a banned substance he inadvertently ingested from an over-the-counter supplement (of course, happens to everyone's quarterback, right?) -- thus ending his attempt to become the only Bears QB other than Sid Luckman (in, oh, 1943) to break the century mark in QB rating; now, if memory, Google, the Bears' media guide and the collective brainpower of my football fanatic friends from Chicago serves me correctly, that season Miller beat out someone named Moses Moreno and then replaced the ineffective No. 1 pick Cade McNown who, himself, had been filling in for the injured Shane Matthews; which didn't really make sense in the first place since the Bears traded away their chance at some guy named Daunte Culpepper (whatever happened to that guy?) to take McNown (not to be confused with McNabb, McNair, McMahon, McCown-Luke, McCown-Josh or McDonald, Ronald) -- who ended up being very offensive in his own way (he got nailed for parking in handicapped spaces at UCLA), just never on the actual playing field, which, of course, didn't stop then-coach Dick Jauron from having him lead the 2000 team to a 1-8 start until, mercifully, Miller was reinserted for two games at which time he blew out his Achilles tendon and had to be replaced by Matthews, who was dumped, again, for McNown, who went 14 for 40 for 133 yards, one TD and one pick in the final two games of the season (and pretty much his NFL career) after which things finally began to calm down behind center in Chicago in 2001 when the Carousel from Hell went a little something like this: Matthews in then Matthews hurt, Miller in for Matthews then Miller hurt, Matthews in, props to Matthews, whose legendary noodle-arm did muster one sweet Hail Mary against Cleveland, then Matthews out, Miller in for the playoffs, Miller knocked silly by Philly, Matthews in, playoff hopes over-and-out, causing the 2002 Bears team to do what any cutting-edge NFL brain trust does when in need of a talent infusion at quarterback: look to Rhode Island and Calgary -- meaning, former RI QB Ken Mastrole who was cut in favor of former CFL'er Henry Burris, which was a big mistake because Mastrole went on to play for the Firecats in Arena2 which, frankly, sounds like a made-up league, while Burris went 0 for 1 as a Bears starter with a passer rating of 28.4, by far the worst rating of the eight players -- Miller, Chris Chandler, Cory Sauter, Marty Booker, Leon Johnson, Brad Maynard and Brian Urlacher (39.9 passer rating after missing on one pass) -- who filled in for the chronically banged-up Miller during a 4-12 season that so thoroughly discombobulated the Chicago front office it reasoned that after Jake Plummer turned down huge coin to become a Bear, the answer for 2003 was former Steelers QB Kordell Stewart and his run-first-pass-worst style, which might have worked had he not been, sadly, sidelined by an (un) injury thus subjecting fans to the QB known as Chandelier whose play was so gross, man, the Bears had no choice, man, but to insert 2003 first-round pick Rex Grossman who, after becoming the first Bears rookie QB in 22 years to win his pro debut, started the last three games of the Jauron era and the first three games of the Smith era only to blow out his left wheel diving for a TD in Week 3 of 2004, something that, of course, the Bears were totally prepared for -- right? -- because seamlessly in stepped Jonathan Quinn, from the Cradle of Quarterbacks known as Middle Tennessee State, to throw for a net 34 yards in Week 5 and 49 more in Week 6 before being replaced by Craig Krenzel, who cranked things up a notch, exploding for 69 yards in Week 7, which is enough to make the QB Ring of Honor in a place like Chicago, until he was re-re-re-replaced by Quinn and then by Jerry Jones reject Chad Hutchinson who, luckily, was there to lead the team to dead last in nearly every major statistical passing category and a QB nadir of such incalculable depth that the team actually signed Jeff George, a guy disliked more in locker rooms than impetigo, who, thankfully, wasn't invited back to 2005 camp, which left room for the kind of quarterback who embodies the Bears QB Carousel from Hell: Kurt Kittner (cut by five teams in seven months last season); and recent No. 1 QB Hutchinson (3-11 as an NFL starter), who was cut along with -- I swear -- someone named Ryan Dinwiddie, whom the Bears still preferred, presumably, over other available 2004 free-agent QBs such as Kurt Warner, Jay Fiedler, Brad Johnson, Jeff Garcia, Drew Bledsoe, Kelly Holcomb and Lance Covington (no, that's a made-up name, I just wanted to see if you were still paying attention) who had all signed with other teams long before Grossman broke his ankle in the preseason; leaving only Jeff Blake (because, obviously Steve DeBerg did not return their calls) and bringing us (directly, simply, effortlessly ... finally) back to Orton who -- God love 'em -- even in light of what this week's opponent, Detroit, did to Hall of Fame QB Brett Favre in the 2005 season opener, still thinks he could be the one to end the Bears' QB Carousel from Hell, saying, "I know the recent history, so I know the city and all the fans want a talented quarterback who is going to go out there and play well and win a lot of football games. Hopefully, I am that guy -- I think I will be"
<SNIP>

That was written in 2005. Here in 2008 things still have not improved.

Really Not All That Bright

03-17-2008, 10:18 PM

That was written in 2005. Here in 2008 things still have not improved.
Well, in all fairness, for about seven and a half games in 2006 it looked like Rex Grossman was going to the Pro Bowl.

Perhaps he was the victim of a truly cruel practical joke and thought he'd been traded to the Rams or something, then noticed that his jersey was the wrong shade of blue in Week 8.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-18-2008, 11:52 AM

One of my favorite ESPN articles on the topic, for Insiders (http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/050914).

That was written in 2005. Here in 2008 things still have not improved.
That's hilarious. If I was a Bears fan, I would probably cry instead of laugh.
At least I can take some hope from the fact that we have a franchise QB in Carson Palmer.

SenorBeef

03-18-2008, 06:16 PM

I think you got a real bargain in Bodden. I only saw him play last season but he was the only guy in the Browns' secondary covering anyone and seemed to have a real nose for the ball.

Bodden may have indeed been a bargain, but it wasn't due to his coverage skills last year.

He's a bit mysterious - his 2005 season was the most dominant cornerbacking season I've ever personally seen (especially considering the lack of pass rush). He was probably the best corner in the league in the second half of 2005. Chad was doing his "who covered 85" checklist - the only corner to get a "yes" check was Bodden. Bodden owned him so hard that Chad was probably coughing up his semen for 2 weeks.

2006 he spent most of the season injured or tending injuries and performed pretty badly. But they were the nagging minor injury type of thing, it seemed, so I had high hopes for his 2007.

He was pretty bad. He got flat out burned very frequently, his reactions were a step slow, his speed wasn't as good, and he had a tendency to fall down a lot for some reason. It may be that some of the nagging injuries sustained in 2006 didn't heal properly. When he was getting burned, he often fell over and grabbed his leg or something, but some Browns fans think he was trying to make an excuse for poor play.

Funny thing was that during his 2005 season, he wasn't a recognized name at all so he didn't get any credit. But some people started talking about him, and by 2007 people had heard of him in the context of being a young up and comer and started singing his praises - behind the curve. When he was really great, he didn't get credit, and when he was pretty bad, he got more credit than he deserved.

He did have a nose for the ball and made some big picks. But by the middle of the year, he was looking like the third best cornerback on the team. Eric Wright, the 2nd round draft pick, looked lost sometimes during the first half of the season, but started displaying good coverage skills in the second half. Brandon McDonald, a 5th round pick, came out of nowhere to supply some very nice coverage in limited playing time.

I wasn't happy about getting rid of him, but I trust Savage. I suspect that his nagging injuries are here to stay, or Savage would've demanded more compensation for him. I've also heard that Bodden might be looking to get a new contract - and based on the way he's played in 06 and 07, I wouldn't want to be in the position of giving it to him.

Really Not All That Bright

03-19-2008, 12:14 PM

I wasn't happy about getting rid of him, but I trust Savage. I suspect that his nagging injuries are here to stay, or Savage would've demanded more compensation for him. I've also heard that Bodden might be looking to get a new contract - and based on the way he's played in 06 and 07, I wouldn't want to be in the position of giving it to him.
Fair enough, I suppose, but it's always been my opinion that you can never have too many good cornerbacks in the modern NFL, and I imagine he could have been re-signed for something like $10 million over 3 years.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-19-2008, 01:37 PM

Fair enough, I suppose, but it's always been my opinion that you can never have too many good cornerbacks in the modern NFL, and I imagine he could have been re-signed for something like $10 million over 3 years.

I'm a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.

Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don't know why more people go to a Madden offense where you've got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.

Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.

kidchameleon

03-19-2008, 01:49 PM

I'm a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.

Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don't know why more people go to a Madden offense where you've got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.

Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.

Madden? Do you mean Martz, killer of QBs?

Omniscient

03-19-2008, 02:08 PM

Madden? Do you mean Martz, killer of QBs?
I think he's saying you should coach the games like you would play the video game.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-19-2008, 02:14 PM

I think he's saying you should coach the games like you would play the video game.

Bingo. Not many teams have a very good corner. Less have two, and almost nobody has 3.

Really Not All That Bright

03-19-2008, 02:50 PM

Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don't know why more people go to a Madden offense where you've got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.

Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.
Well, even the Colts keep at least one tight end on the field almost all the time. They're much more likely to use a three-wide formation, with Dallas Clark occasionally splitting out as a "fourth WR", than a true 4- or 5-wide set.

I think the reason 4/5-wide formations aren't used much is the law of diminishing returns; wideouts are valuable because each forces the defense to cover a much greater expanse of the field than a TE, fullback or tailback.

The problem is that the more receivers you line up, the less field each has to work with, and so the less extra effort goes into covering each.

Add to that the fact that quarterbacks can only make so many reads, and by the time he gets to his fifth read he's probably been sacked already, and keeping an extra blocker or two on the field makes more sense.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-19-2008, 03:14 PM

Well, even the Colts keep at least one tight end on the field almost all the time. They're much more likely to use a three-wide formation, with Dallas Clark occasionally splitting out as a "fourth WR", than a true 4- or 5-wide set.

I think the reason 4/5-wide formations aren't used much is the law of diminishing returns; wideouts are valuable because each forces the defense to cover a much greater expanse of the field than a TE, fullback or tailback.

The problem is that the more receivers you line up, the less field each has to work with, and so the less extra effort goes into covering each.

Add to that the fact that quarterbacks can only make so many reads, and by the time he gets to his fifth read he's probably been sacked already, and keeping an extra blocker or two on the field makes more sense.

Right, but then we get to the engine of the offense: the offensive line. All these plans crumble without the line to support it. (Didn't the Colts get rid of Dallas Clark?)

Really Not All That Bright

03-19-2008, 03:31 PM

Right, but then we get to the engine of the offense: the offensive line. All these plans crumble without the line to support it. (Didn't the Colts get rid of Dallas Clark?)
Nah, they franchised him.

Really Not All That Bright

03-19-2008, 03:37 PM

Nah, they franchised him.
Missed the edit window...

Upon further review it appears they've since signed him to a 6-year deal at $41 million total.

Ellis Dee

03-19-2008, 06:50 PM

I'm a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.Maybe, but since they skewed the rules specifically against defensive backs, having a good secondary isn't particularly valuable. Under the current rules, your best bet for attacking the passing game is a pass rush. Look what happened to the Patriots' "Madden offense" in the Superbowl.

Since you can no longer pressure receivers, you have to pressure the quarterback.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-19-2008, 08:46 PM

Maybe, but since they skewed the rules specifically against defensive backs, having a good secondary isn't particularly valuable. Under the current rules, your best bet for attacking the passing game is a pass rush. Look what happened to the Patriots' "Madden offense" in the Superbowl.

Since you can no longer pressure receivers, you have to pressure the quarterback.

This is also true. Really, what it comes down to is what the copycat NFL regards as the theory du jour.

Airman Doors, USAF

03-20-2008, 06:57 AM

News from Pittsburgh: Cedric Wilson punched his ex-girlfriend in the face at a bar (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3302774).

I don't care how good he is, that right there should be enough for the Rooneys to make him go away. There's no call for that sort of behavior from anybody.

FoieGrasIsEvil

03-20-2008, 07:47 AM

Airman Doors, USAF

03-20-2008, 07:59 AM

Either there or Oakland. It depends on who gets to him first.

Really Not All That Bright

03-20-2008, 08:20 AM

Well, to be fair, it was his ex.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-20-2008, 09:14 AM

Well, to be fair, it was his ex.

Oh. Well, in that case, he goes to Denver.

Ellis Dee

03-20-2008, 10:17 AM

I dunno, that story sounds pretty wacky to me:In January, they were involved in a fight at Wilson's home that ended with her holding police at bay for about 12 hours.
[...]
On Jan. 22, Wilson obtained a temporary protection-from-abuse order against Paulat, alleging she kicked him and that he feared she would shoot him if she got a gun.I might punch her too if she held me at gunpoint in my own home for a 12-hour standoff with police. (I'm assuming. How else do you hold police at bay for 12 hours?)

Gotta be careful who you make your baby-mama.

Really Not All That Bright

03-20-2008, 10:43 AM

How else do you hold police at bay for 12 hours?
Throw a continuous stream of doughnuts in the other direction.

He just got cut. Team says "this is not the type of conduct we expect from our players," etc.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-21-2008, 07:12 PM

So...uh...now the Lions are interested in Pacman Jones.

Well....guess the titty bars won't be safe anymore.

Omniscient

03-21-2008, 07:30 PM

So...uh...now the Lions are interested in Pacman Jones.

Well....guess the titty bars won't be safe anymore.

Pacman in close proximity to Windsor?!?! YES!

Least Original User Name Ever

03-21-2008, 08:08 PM

I'm mildly shocked. It would have been *that* easy to ask why the Bengals didn't make a push for him...

Although the Canadian ballet...hm.

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 02:18 AM

The NFL schedule gets released april 3rd. I'm excited to see it.

The Browns should get some national games. They were probably the most exciting team to watch last year - around 8 games came down to the final play or final few plays.

There was a:
51-45 shootout
An overtime with Seattle with a 4th and 1 stand
A game that we won and then lost with a field goal (Oakland did the last second time out thing, second kick was blocked after the first one made it)
A game we lost and then won with a field goal (the "Dawson Bar" kick in the second Baltimore game that was ruled no good, and then good)
A last-play field goal attempt a fierce rival
An almost-spectacular 4th and 30 (something like that) play to win the game on in Arizona where Winslow caught it at the corner of the end zone
Another game that came down to a last second throw into the end zone in the second Cinci game
And a blizzard 8 to 0 game of the sort loved by purists (probably my favorite game this year, although the crushing of spirits Baltimore with the whole surprise overtime thing is hard to top).

I'm not sure there's a team that had a more exciting season overall.

Good candidates:
an early/good weather game against Cinci. The Cinci/Cleveland matchup has produced 2 of the top 10 scoring games in NFL history in the last 4 seasons.
A home game against the Steelers the rivalry is really warming up as I don't doubt that most of the Browns are beginning to legitimately hate the Steelers. So very close last year - this is the year we overtake them.
Home game vs the Colts. Oh please, please let this be a late December game in Cleveland at night with 40 mph winds and -10 degrees cold. Media gets the revenge story. And a good reason to schedule it late - it may affect the playoff chances of either team in a way appropriate to the revenge theme.
At home vs the Cowboys. The Cowboys get 12 primetime games per year anyway, why not make one against the Browns?
At home vs the Giants. Exciting, upcoming team vs superbowl champs.

I listed a lot of home games... but most of our interesting ones are at home. I was there at the last Cleveland home MNF game in IIRC 2004. It was in December and my knees were so damn frozen by the end of the game that I remember it being unpleasant to walk back to my car. How nice something like that would be against the Colts...

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 09:34 AM

Yeah, I can't wait to see the schedule.I'm not sure there's a team that had a more exciting season overall.Regular season, you mean. And I agree with you completely. But once you introduce the second season, the Giants playoff run was one for the ages.Home game vs the Colts. Oh please, please let this be a late December game in Cleveland at night with 40 mph winds and -10 degrees cold.I want that as much as you do. I fucking hate prissy pass-happy teams, especially if they play in a dome. That the Bears let them win a Superbowl still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This also explains why I think those two Browns/Bengals games, along with that puntless Colts/Chiefs playoff game, were the three most pathetic games in NFL history. Anyone who doesn't think they were a disgrace might be better off as a fan of the Arena League.

In my opinion, the embarassment in London was a million times better than any of those ridiculous scorefests.

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 09:54 AM

Regular season, you mean. And I agree with you completely. But once you introduce the second season, the Giants playoff run was one for the ages.

Yeah, that's true.

This also explains why I think those two Browns/Bengals games, along with that puntless Colts/Chiefs playoff game, were the three most pathetic games in NFL history. Anyone who doesn't think they were a disgrace might be better off as a fan of the Arena League.

In my opinion, the embarassment in London was a million times better than any of those ridiculous scorefests.

I know you like to beat your chest about what a purist you are and that any games where the over/under is more than 12 make you cry on the inside, but it's a bit condescending to imply that anyone who disagrees is unworthy of being a fan. I may be taking my interpretation too far with that though.

And while it is indeed shameful that my team's defense took part in games where so many points were scored, that doesn't mean that they weren't exciting games to watch. I can appreciate games with scores of 10-7 - and as I posted, the 8-0 game in the Blizzard was probably my favorite game to watch this year - but that doesn't all mean that high scoring games aren't entertaining.

There's not that much variety in the NFL, it's a copycat league. There aren't that many different offenses and defenses being used. Focusing resources on one side of the ball is one way teams differentiate from others and adds from variety.

Of course my preferences lie in a more purist perspective. I'd prefer my team to have a dominating defense than a dominating offense, I'd be among the massive crowd that formed to burn the stadium down if they ever put a dome on it, etc. But I don't have to commit ritualistic suicide after watching a high scoring game.

In any case, I was talking about the potential primetime games from the scheduler's perspective. I'll take any primetime game we can get. And anticipating a high scoring game would be a good reason for the schedulers to make it one.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-22-2008, 09:58 AM

I like defensive games too, but going so far as to say that a fan of high-scoring affairs isn't a football fan is (slightly) too much.

Focus the hate where it belongs.

On the Cowboys.

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 01:27 PM

I know you like to beat your chest about what a purist you are and that any games where the over/under is more than 12 make you cry on the inside, but it's a bit condescending to imply that anyone who disagrees is unworthy of being a fan. I may be taking my interpretation too far with that though.As you are with your over/under of 12, which I never said. Hell, I find 24-17 games perfectly reasonable from a defensive perspective. Even 28-24 can still be reflective of a solid defensive effort. It's when you start to get well north of 60 combined points that it stops being real football.

106 total points: Browns over Bengals 58-48. This is just not a football score. This game didn't resemble the NFL game at all.

96 total points: Bengals over Browns 51-45. Same as above.

69 total points: Colts over Chiefs 38-31 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=26647&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2003&week=POST19&override=true), without a single forced punt. Not the worst point total ever, but the fact that neither defense was able to generate a single stop is just pathetic. No punts, no interceptions. There was a lost fumble, but many will argue that defenses don't "earn" fumble recoveries, so we can't credit the defense for the stop in that scenario. I do, but even with that, this game was a friggin' joke.

These three games averaged an over/under of 90 points. So after I blast them, you counter that I won't accept anything over 12? Is there really no middle ground between 12 and 90 in your world?

I stand by my post.

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 01:35 PM

These three games averaged an over/under of 90 points. So after I blast them, you counter that I won't accept anything over 12? Is there really no middle ground between 12 and 90 in your world?

I stand by my post.

Obviously I was a bit sarcastic. I was poking fun at your tendency to be a little rah rah football purist who scorns anyone who doesn't talk about how the invention of the forward pass irrevocably damaged football.

Or were you actually ashamed the day those games occured in your beloved sport? Did you hang your head? Do you think back on those days as Black Sunday?

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 03:04 PM

Obviously I was a bit sarcastic. I was poking fun at your tendency to be a little rah rah football purist who scorns anyone who doesn't talk about how the invention of the forward pass irrevocably damaged football.

Or were you actually ashamed the day those games occured in your beloved sport? Did you hang your head? Do you think back on those days as Black Sunday?I have already clearly stated my opinion on those games twice now. I'd appreciate it if you would stop lobbing strawmen at me in some vain attempt at a "gotcha."

Remember, my original point was that those games ought not be considered as reason for putting a rematch on primetime.I like defensive games too, but going so far as to say that a fan of high-scoring affairs isn't a football fan is (slightly) too much.Well then it's a good thing I didn't say that. Try reading it again:Anyone who doesn't think they were a disgrace might be better off as a fan of the Arena League.You guys are arguing nothing but strawmen. Nowhere did I condemn "high-scoring games", but you guys are acting like I just pissed in your cheerios because you think I did.

I slammed those three specific games, not high-scoring games in general. And I slammed those three specific games because two of them were brought up in the context of "maybe there will be another good game like those two, thus meriting a primetime matchup."

If you want to attack my position, you have to defend those three specific games. I have made no claims about any games where the combined score is less than "well north of 60."

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 03:12 PM

I have already clearly stated my opinion on those games twice now. I'd appreciate it if you would stop lobbing strawmen at me in some vain attempt at a "gotcha."

I'm not trying to play "gotcha", I was sarcastically criticizing what seemed to be smug condescension. What would there be to say "gotcha" about? You haven't contradicted yourself, just insulted people who might not share your views.

I slammed those three specific games, not high-scoring games in general. And I slammed those three specific games because two of them were brought up in the context of "maybe there will be another good game like those two, thus meriting a primetime matchup."

I listed it as a game that the media/nfl schedulers would look at as a good potential game for prime time. I'll take whatever prime time games we can get - I was just listing reasons which games could be chosen. I didn't say it was the epitome of my personal viewing experience.

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 03:59 PM

I listed it as a game that the media/nfl schedulers would look at as a good potential game for prime time. I'll take whatever prime time games we can get - I was just listing reasons which games could be chosen. I didn't say it was the epitome of my personal viewing experience.But then you also listed a Colts game in Cleveland late in the season, contradicting your previous logic. It read to me as a list of your criteria for which might be good matchups, not the schedule-makers.

I'm now curious to see if the schedule-makers pamper the Colts. Looking at just the away games in December, since realignment:

2007: @ Baltimore (12/09), @ Oakland
2006: @ Tennessee (12/03), @ Jacksonville, @ Houston
2005: @ Jacksonville, @ Seattle
2004: @ Houston, @ Denver (01/02)
2003: @ Tennessee (12/07), @ Houston
2002: @ Tennessee (12/08), @ Cleveland (12/15)

Wow. Exactly twice there have been good odds for a snow game for the Colts in the regular season since they left the AFC East. One could argue that it's because the away games are mostly divisional, and the divisional opponents are in the South. However, looking at 1999-2001, all the divisional away games after November were in Miami, with one single exception at the Jets.

Conspiracy!

ETA: Is it likely to snow in Cleveland by December 15th?

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 04:06 PM

But then you also listed a Colts game in Cleveland late in the season, contradicting your previous logic. It read to me as a list of your criteria for which might be good matchups, not the schedule-makers.

I explained after I stated it. The Colts laying down was partly responsible for the Browns making the playoffs, so the media is going to play up the "revenge game" aspect of it. If you have it late in the season, there's a greater chance it impacts either or both teams' playoff chances or seeding, possibly leading to a situation where Cleveland really has a chance to exact revenge upon the Colts. Enough drama for a primetime game.

ETA: Is it likely to snow in Cleveland by December 15th?

It'll certainly be cold enough.. I'm not sure what the stats are on mid-december precipitation but it's definitely not unlikely.

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 04:12 PM

I explained after I stated it. The Colts laying down was partly responsible for the Browns making the playoffs, so the media is going to play up the "revenge game" aspect of it. If you have it late in the season, there's a greater chance it impacts either or both teams' playoff chances or seeding, possibly leading to a situation where Cleveland really has a chance to exact revenge upon the Colts. Enough drama for a primetime game.hehheh, nice Freudian slip. You meant "partly responsible for the Browns not making the playoffs".

Now I remember the Titans game, but I didn't make the connection when I read your earlier post. That's a good point, but I'm not entirely sure the media is that football-savvy. The schedule-makers may be, but I wouldn't bet a ton of money on it. They have a million things to worry about.

Still, I'm rooting for that matchup right there with you.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-22-2008, 04:18 PM

I have already clearly stated my opinion on those games twice now. I'd appreciate it if you would stop lobbing strawmen at me in some vain attempt at a "gotcha."

Remember, my original point was that those games ought not be considered as reason for putting a rematch on primetime.Well then it's a good thing I didn't say that. Try reading it again:You guys are arguing nothing but strawmen. Nowhere did I condemn "high-scoring games", but you guys are acting like I just pissed in your cheerios because you think I did.

I slammed those three specific games, not high-scoring games in general. And I slammed those three specific games because two of them were brought up in the context of "maybe there will be another good game like those two, thus meriting a primetime matchup."

If you want to attack my position, you have to defend those three specific games. I have made no claims about any games where the combined score is less than "well north of 60."

Simmer down there, cupcake. It's really not a big deal. Good football is good football. Sheesh, there's no pile on..there's really no argument. I was making light of the situation.

In any case, nobody knows how the prime time matchups are going to go. Isn't parity fun?

More pee in my Cherrios, please.

Ellis Dee

03-22-2008, 04:30 PM

Simmer down there, cupcake.Sure thing, Nancy.

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 04:35 PM

In any case, nobody knows how the prime time matchups are going to go. Isn't parity fun?

Sure we do. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-22-2008, 04:59 PM

Sure we do. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup.

You sure we won't have a Packers home game stuffed somewhere in there? Certainly there has to be a Colts, Patriots, or a Giants game in there.

SenorBeef

03-22-2008, 05:01 PM

Well, there are 2 or 3 primetime games per week and Dallas can only play 1 of them, so I'm sure a few more teams will get some games squeezed in there somewhere.

Perhaps the Eagles, Redskins, and Giants.

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 10:57 AM

Random football related thought I was having today.

Too much emphasis is placed in pass rushing on the QB's blindside. It has structured how we make our offensive lines - the left tackle is the agile, quick pass defender and the right tackle is the big mauler because he doesn't have to deal with a team's best pass rushers.

The advantage to pass rushing the blind side, of course, is that the QB doesn't see it coming, which leads to more sacks, and more fumbles.

But I was thinking - a lot of the value of a pass rush isn't just generating sacks. Those are significant, sometimes game-changing plays, but they only occur a few times a game. But a good pass rush will constantly put the QB under pressure - force him to turn potential big gainers into dumpoffs, or to throw the ball away, or to throw a bad pass and get it intercepted. This can happen much more frequently than sacks.

But when you have your best pass rusher on the blindside, you're trying to avoid letting him see that pressure coming, negating some of the benefit of those forced throws in order to get more sacks. I'm not so sure how good that tradeoff is.

Besides that, NFL offenses have adjusted to the way things are, and the QB's blindside is now the hardest place to pass rush, because the best pass blockers play there. Occasionally you get a good pass rusher who plays well on the other side like Michael Strahan and they do well because they can abuse right tackles with lesser pass block ability. But he's unique because he's big and strong enough to handle the right tackle in the run game. You wouldn't want Dwight Freeney over the right tackle on first and 10 most of the time.

But in an obvious passing down, why don't teams put their best pass rushers on the offensive right? It makes them both more likely to get to the QB, and more likely to make him rush and make a bad throw because he sees it coming. Since you know the team is going to pass, the downside of putting the lighter/quicker guy up against the team's better run blockers is negated.

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 11:21 AM

But in an obvious passing down, why don't teams put their best pass rushers on the offensive right? It makes them both more likely to get to the QB, and more likely to make him rush and make a bad throw because he sees it coming. Since you know the team is going to pass, the downside of putting the lighter/quicker guy up against the team's better run blockers is negated.
The better pass rushers often do get moved around. Jason Taylor, for example, rushes from both end position and even lined up as a rush linebacker, for example.

Freeney lined up at weakside LB a handful of times last season.

When Simeon Rice was in his prime, the Bucs sometimes used an overloaded line on passing downs, where Rice would line up on the left (his usual spot), then move all the way to the right and line up outside the RDE.

I think the problem is that NFL players other than QBs and the defensive leaders- usually a linebacker or safety- learn only enough of the playbook to know their own responsibilities. There aren't many other defenders who know every assignment, or even 2 or more.

In order to move a player around on the line, he needs to know his usual assignment plus the other guy's, and so does the other guy.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-24-2008, 01:25 PM

The better pass rushers often do get moved around. Jason Taylor, for example, rushes from both end position and even lined up as a rush linebacker, for example.

Freeney lined up at weakside LB a handful of times last season.

When Simeon Rice was in his prime, the Bucs sometimes used an overloaded line on passing downs, where Rice would line up on the left (his usual spot), then move all the way to the right and line up outside the RDE.

I think the problem is that NFL players other than QBs and the defensive leaders- usually a linebacker or safety- learn only enough of the playbook to know their own responsibilities. There aren't many other defenders who know every assignment, or even 2 or more.

In order to move a player around on the line, he needs to know his usual assignment plus the other guy's, and so does the other guy.

Bingo. They know when they move the guy around. They'd have to adjust the offensive blocking for him. The fun comes when you disguise how he's being used, usually with a stunt.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 07:43 PM

Sure we do. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup.heh, no kidding.

I was wondering about the justification for this a while back, thinking of it in terms of championships as opposed to market sizes. I don't actually know how these numbers will end up, but I suspect the NFC East will be at or near the top.

Superbowl championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_wins_by_team):

11 NFC East (Cowboys 5, Giants 3, Redskins 3)
6 AFC East (Patriots 3, Dolphins 2, Jets 1)
6 AFC West (Raiders 3, Broncos 2, Chiefs 1)
6 NFC West (49ers 5, Rams 1)
6 AFC North (Steelers 5, Ravens 1)
4 NFC North (Packers 3, Bears 1)
2 AFC South (Colts 2)
1 NFC South (Bucs 1)

22 NFC
20 AFC

Obviously the teams weren't always in these divisions, or even conferences. Still, I find this an interesting list. If the Eagles, Chargers or Bills didn't suck, maybe there would be a division with four Superbowl winners.

The NFC East's huge lead in Lombardi Trophies (nearly doubling second place) at least lends somes legitimacy to favoring it for primetime matchups. Having the biggest markets doesn't hurt either.

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 08:28 PM

That list is interesting, but I don't think who won the superbowl 10 to 38 years ago is a big factor in deciding these things.

I'd imagine they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't profitable, so people must like those games. I'd like to see more variety myself, especially as someone who doesn't particularly care about anyone in the NFC East.

Although I've been warming up to the Giants despite my general hatred of New York teams. You and, IIRC, Hal Briston wrote some flattering things about the Giants organization that made them sound pretty likable as an old school franchise.

You guys don't have cheerleaders, right?

Edit: That sounds like a weird question to ask. A lot of the teams that I consider old school, hardcore football cities/franchises don't. The Browns don't and the subject often comes up in offseason discussions - most people object to the idea. Essentially - we're there for the football, we don't need gimmicks to keep our attention. Green Bay, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago - all places I'd consider old school hardcore football towns.

Omniscient

03-24-2008, 09:02 PM

The NFC East's huge lead in Lombardi Trophies (nearly doubling second place) at least lends somes legitimacy to favoring it for primetime matchups. Having the biggest markets doesn't hurt either.

I have no idea why you think that past Super Bowls have anything to do with meriting primetime exposure. What happened in 1960-2000 has as much bearing ESPN and NBC's decisions as the quality of the host cities' strip clubs.

I'll grant that past success lends itself to a greater national fanbase, which is a factor, but it's only one component of that equation.

The networks only care about what will generate the greatest viewership. This is a factor of 4 things. Size of the broadcast markets of the teams playing, size of those team's national audience, the quality of the teams playing and that the matchup has a compelling storyline. The networks have been historically bad at predicting the last two items so they tend to err on the side of caution and schedule heavy on NFC East teams. Those teams are in some of the largest TV markets, are some of the oldest teams and have large numbers of transplants across the country. These teams draw reliably good rating based on sheer volume of people.

The problem with this is that for much of the country it has an adverse effect. The NFL, IMO, has been shortsighted in force feeding the rest of the country these games. Much of the country tunes out when watching the same match-up and the same rehashed talking points year after year, we can only hear about the Giants-Eagles and Redskins-Cowboys rivalry history so many times. The even greater problem is that they miss opportunities to create new storylines and introduce new players and new franchises to the country. They could be creating new stars and drawing in viewers in less traditionally deep football markets instead of beating tried and true games into the ground.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 09:45 PM

You guys don't have cheerleaders, right?Never have, never will, and I don't find it a weird question at all.

I think the thread you're thinking of was where a Lions fan -- I want to say LOUNE but am not positive and don't want to offend -- was so dispirited they wanted to choose a new team to root for.I have no idea why you think that past Super Bowls have anything to do with meriting primetime exposure.
[...]
I'll grant that past success lends itself to a greater national fanbase, which is a factor, but it's only one component of that equation.Asked and answered.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 09:52 PM

When it comes to cheerleaders, I have long wanted the Giants to get them for financial reasons. In a nutshell, cheerleaders bring in a couple million a year in calendar sales. (And I'd be all over that.) This money would help offset not selling stadium naming rights.

The way I see it, having cheerleaders is more oldschool than selling out your stadium name. So if it were a question of one or the other, I say load up GIANTS STADIUM to the rafters with cheerleaders.

Sadly, this is now a moot point, since those stupid Jets shoehorned their way into the new stadium deal, and as such it can't be named after the team(s). Thus my worst case scenario will happen in 2010; the Giants will become corporate shills by virtue of their stadium name. Booooo!

No word on what the sponsor will be yet, but my money's on Wachovia.

Here's the basic list of how teams make extra money, all of which I consider distasteful:

Cheerleaders (calendar sales and corporate appearances)
Stadium naming rights
Change uniforms (jersey sales)

I hate all three of those options. But if you have to do one of them, I'll take the cheerleaders every time.

Omniscient

03-24-2008, 10:07 PM

I hate all three of those options. But if you have to do one of them, I'll take the cheerleaders every time.
The biggest problem is that NFL teams are so insanely profitable that they don't need to do any of this stuff. It's just owners wringing the last couple drops juice from the fruit, even if they do it at the expense of alienating their fans.

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 10:19 PM

The biggest problem is that NFL teams are so insanely profitable that they don't need to do any of this stuff. It's just owners wringing the last couple drops juice from the fruit, even if they do it at the expense of alienating their fans.
Well, I'm not sure that cheerleaders are actually profitable. They're just handy to have around for "community involvement" kudos.

In response to Ellis' list, let's look at Superbowl winners from the past ten years instead:

AFC West: 1 (Denver)
AFC South: 1 (Indy)
AFC East: 3 (NE)
AFC North: 2 (Pittsburgh, Baltimore)

NFC West: 1 (St. Louis)
NFC South: 1 (Tampa Bay)
NFC East: 1 (New Jersey)
NFC North: Don't worry, everyone's proud of you just for trying.

Now that's parity.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 10:26 PM

The biggest problem is that NFL teams are so insanely profitable that they don't need to do any of this stuff. It's just owners wringing the last couple drops juice from the fruit, even if they do it at the expense of alienating their fans.Agreed, though I hold the bigger markets to a higher standard. I can't really kill the Bills for having cheerleaders, selling the stadium naming rights* or remaking their uniforms. They just don't have the money, as evidenced by their need to play some of the 2009 season in Toronto (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3068853).

* Interestingly, the Bills were one of the first to sell their stadium naming rights, striking a deal with Rich Products back in 1972. Even more interesting is that they were one of the first to go back, reverting to a meaningful stadium name when the Rich deal expired in 1998. This nugget courtesy of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wilson_Stadium#History).

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 10:26 PM

When it comes to cheerleaders, I have long wanted the Giants to get them for financial reasons. In a nutshell, cheerleaders bring in a couple million a year in calendar sales. (And I'd be all over that.) This money would help offset not selling stadium naming rights.

...

I hate all three of those options. But if you have to do one of them, I'll take the cheerleaders every time.

A reasonable assessment - although you don't have to do any of them. I'm sure the NY Giants are quite profitable and it's not like the organization will go under if they don't enact one of those revenue generating measures.

I'm pretty happy with Lerner, the owner of the Browns. The stadium name is Cleveland Browns stadium, there are no cheerleaders, the last time our uniform saw any substantial change was 1948 or so. We had a throwback uniform day last year and there was a slight difference in the striping and the helmets had the player numbers on them - that was it. It was awesome.

There's always a small push from asshats who need to be stabbed in the face multiple times to put a logo on the helmet, and it's always met with fierce resistance. It's unique, it's our symbol and our history. Thankfully the owner seems to get that.

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 10:33 PM

I'm pretty happy with Lerner, the owner of the Browns. The stadium name is Cleveland Browns stadium...
And yet they sold naming rights to one of the gates. What the hell is up with that?

(the southwest gate is the Cleveland Clinic Sports Health Gate, or something similarly inane)

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 10:37 PM

They sold the rights to all four gates to seperate companies. You only notice it when actually passing through that gate. Much better than selling the stadium name, IMO.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 10:42 PM

Well, I'm not sure that cheerleaders are actually profitable. They're just handy to have around for "community involvement" kudos.I originally read it in either Forbes or WSJ, but on the net I'm reduced to AskMen.com for a cite (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_150/171_sports_business.html):

The 25 NFL teams that have cheerleaders aren’t making a killing from the women on the sidelines, but the side venture does bring in a decent $1 million per season.

The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders appear in an annual swimsuit calendar that sells for $15.99 in the team’s online store. Fans with the gift of the gab took to a set of seven pre-paid phone cards, each with 10 minutes of talk time and a photo. The package had a suggested retail price of $34.95. In addition, the Cowboys run a camp every summer for aspiring cheerleaders where participants pay $189 for the three-day session.

Divisional-rivals Philadelphia also know that cheerleading can be a small cash cow. In 2003, the Eagles produced a lingerie calendar featuring topless cheerleaders, a risky first in what has been dubbed the “No Fun League.” The team printed 20,000 copies, which retailed for $12.99 -- or a little more than $1 a month -- for the experience of gawking at the fine specimens.

During the season, Eagles cheerleaders attend approximately 10 corporate gigs per week, at a price of $200 per hour, per woman. According to reports, the team makes about $500,000 from these appearances.Now that's parity.Great list.

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 10:46 PM

Interesting. I'd always been under the impression that the Cowboys cheerleaders were the only ones who actually made money for the team (and obviously they're a special case).

I can't believe you didn't notice what I called your team in that list

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 10:56 PM

They sold the rights to all four gates to seperate companies. You only notice it when actually passing through that gate. Much better than selling the stadium name, IMO.Absolutely. That's actually a great solution, though I suspect those deals net far less than a deal naming the entire stadium would.

You're absolutely right about the Giants not needing it. That Forbes article I originally read was written about either Steve Tisch or John Mara as they were getting ready to take over. This must've been 2004. Anyway, the idea was that with the biggest market in the country, there was no excuse for being the 20th (or so) most profitable team. So the discussion was about the standard ways that NFL teams increase revenue. (The other two main sources are luxury boxes and tv networks, like the Yankee's "Yes Network," but I was just listing the ones I find distasteful.)

The basic gist of the article (which I can't seem to find) was that the Giants ownership was ultra-conservative, and would never consider any of these measures under Wellington Mara. You're talking about a guy who agreed to effectively give money away via revenue sharing. His first love was Blue, not green.

One thing I was reminded of while trying to find that article is that one of the reasons the Giants aren't on the Cowboys level of profitability is that the Giants (and Jets) are building their stadium without taxpayer money.

ETA: I have no objections to associating the Giants with New Jersey. The reason I always refer to teams by their nicknames and never by location is that the two Jersey teams break the pattern, and pattern-breaking bugs me. It has nothing to do with disassociating from Jersey.

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 11:02 PM

One thing I was reminded of while trying to find that article is that one of the reasons the Giants aren't on the Cowboys level of profitability is that the Giants (and Jets) are building their stadium without taxpayer money.

ETA: I have no objections to associating the Giants with New Jersey. The reason I always refer to teams by their nicknames and never by location is that the two Jersey teams break the pattern, and pattern-breaking bugs me. It has nothing to do with disassociating from Jersey.
That might be true, but then they also get to keep 100% of the revenues. AFAIK the city of Arlington gets a cut of whatever the 'Boys make at Texas Stadium.

Still, I appreciate what Mara did. He always seemed like one of the owners who "got it".

Really Not All That Bright

03-24-2008, 11:03 PM

ETA: I have no objections to associating the Giants with New Jersey. The reason I always refer to teams by their nicknames and never by location is that the two Jersey teams break the pattern, and pattern-breaking bugs me. It has nothing to do with disassociating from Jersey.
I shall have to take solace in LOUNE's reaction when he reads the last line of my list, then.

Omniscient

03-24-2008, 11:13 PM

That might be true, but then they also get to keep 100% of the revenues. AFAIK the city of Arlington gets a cut of whatever the 'Boys make at Texas Stadium.

Still, I appreciate what Mara did. He always seemed like one of the owners who "got it".

I don't have the numbers but I wager that Arlington's revenue from the lease (and maybe concessions/parking depending how sweet the deal is) never comes close to equaling the taxpayer investment.

I wish the US Government would pass a federal restriction on states/municipalities using tax dollars to fund Professional Stadiums. That would mean that pro franchises would have to build their stadiums make relocation decisions based on sound business principles.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-24-2008, 11:14 PM

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 11:19 PM

The Lions don't have them either.Yeah, the Lions are a hardcore old-school franchise that should command much more respect than it does. The whole "can't win" thing is a lot to overcome.

I mean, I love the owners for how conservative they are, but they just don't seem like they care about winning. At all. It kind of annoys me.

Oh yeah, and the dome. Seriously, wtf? That pretty much erases all the old-school points.

Omniscient

03-24-2008, 11:24 PM

Yeah, the Lions are a hardcore old-school franchise that should command much more respect than it does. The whole "can't win" thing is a lot to overcome.

Um...Dome. End of case.

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 11:27 PM

Yep, domes immediately take you out of the running.

Edit: I remember a few months back some design firm made a mock-up of a retractable dome that could be added to Browns stadium to try to sucker in a super bowl. Fans went nuts.

If they ever tried to do something like that I could imagine a giant angry mob in Cleveland forming up to wreck the construction site.

Ellis Dee

03-24-2008, 11:34 PM

hehheh. Great minds. It really is a crime against the sport to have a dome.

I'm thinking that changing the uniform each and every year, always using bright, garish, neon colors that clash with each other; selling the stadium naming rights to Girls Gone Wild; bringing in a stripper-style cadre of cheerleaders like that football spoof movie; and then selling the naming rights to the team itself all would make it a more respectable old-school franchise if they'd just get rid of that accursed dome.

On Preview: Don't ever let that happen in Cleveland. Same proposal happened here in Jersey. The problem is the fine print: any stadium with a retractable roof is required to close the roof in any and all inclement weather. When it comes to the NFL, a retractable roof is a dome.

SenorBeef

03-24-2008, 11:44 PM

On Preview: Don't ever let that happen in Cleveland. Same proposal happened here in Jersey. The problem is the fine print: any stadium with a retractable roof is required to close the roof in any and all inclement weather. When it comes to the NFL, a retractable roof is a dome.

It definitely wouldn't. I don't think it was even a solicited proposal, probably some construction company doing some basic design work to hope to win a contract. Cleveland fans are a pretty hardcore bunch - we value our old school football tradition and fight to keep it that way.

It's sad that they'd have to do that to get a superbowl though. The superbowl always being in some warm and/or domed town is part of what usually makes the championship games better. A blizzard superbowl would be great.

SenorBeef

03-25-2008, 12:06 AM

Anyone know the 7 teams without cheerleaders?

I want to say Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Chicago (?), NYG, Detroit...

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 12:12 AM

Anyone know the 7 teams without cheerleaders?

I want to say Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Chicago (?), NYG, Detroit...

Close, You forgot about New Jersey's B team.

Steelers
Browns
Jets
Giants
Bears
Packers
Lions

Ellis Dee

03-25-2008, 12:50 AM

Close, You forgot about New Jersey's B team.Jersey-B qualifies only as a technicality. While they don't have official cheerleaders, they do have the Flight Crew (http://www.newyorkjets.com/news/articles/show/1547-view-the-jets-flight-crew-before-the-big-debut), a "10-member flagcarrier/dance team."

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 05:08 AM

Some interesting news for the upcoming draft:

Niners forfeit fifth-round draft pick after tampering with Bears' Briggs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3310056)

NEW YORK -- The San Francisco 49ers forfeited their fifth-round pick in next month's NFL draft after commissioner Roger Goodell said they tampered with Chicago linebacker Lance Briggs.

In a statement released by the league Monday, Goodell also said the teams will switch picks in the third round of the April 26-27 draft. Chicago, which had the 12th pick, will get San Francisco's seventh pick and the 49ers will get Chicago's choice.

The Niners can't seem to stay out of their own way. Glad to see the Bears benefiting a little here, though moving up a half dozen picks in the 3rd (not sure why the hell the Bears are drafting 13th in the 2nd round and 12th in the 3rd) isn't exactly a huge windfall, but puts us in front of a few teams with very similar needs there where a OG, RB or WR might be available.

Really Not All That Bright

03-25-2008, 08:14 AM

I'm thinking that changing the uniform each and every year, always using bright, garish, neon colors that clash with each other; selling the stadium naming rights to Girls Gone Wild; bringing in a stripper-style cadre of cheerleaders like that football spoof movie; and then selling the naming rights to the team itself all would make it a more respectable old-school franchise if they'd just get rid of that accursed dome.
I, for one, am looking forward to watching the Detroit Doritos go 6-10.

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 03:12 PM

I, for one, am looking forward to watching the Detroit Doritos go 6-10.

Does this mean the Pats will become the New England Cheetos?

Least Original User Name Ever

03-25-2008, 03:48 PM

Heh...New Jersey Giants...that makes me...

...Hey..wait..."thanks for trying"??

*frowny face*

Least Original User Name Ever

03-25-2008, 03:51 PM

Yeah, the Lions are a hardcore old-school franchise that should command much more respect than it does. The whole "can't win" thing is a lot to overcome.

I mean, I love the owners for how conservative they are, but they just don't seem like they care about winning. At all. It kind of annoys me.

Oh yeah, and the dome. Seriously, wtf? That pretty much erases all the old-school points.

...I just said that the Lions don't have cheerleaders.

I completely agree with you and the dome. I remember watching NFL Films and the Vikings and how badass that was. Having a dome in the north means you give up your big home-field advantage. That is why we don't win in a microcosm. We're more concerned with having a stadium venue in which artists like to perform and the acoustics sound nice...not a stadium made for football.

You know, Ellis, I think we really got off the wrong foot on our relationship. Truce?

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 05:03 PM

What's up with the draft order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NFL_Draft#Current_first_round_order) this year?

The top of the first three rounds look like this:

Round 1
1. Miami (1-15)
2. St. Louis (3-13)
3. Atlanta (4-12)
4. Oakland (4-12)
5. Kansas City (4-12)
6. New York Jets (4-12)
7. New England (from San Francisco) (5-11)
8. Baltimore (5-11)
9. Cincinnati (7-9)
10. New Orleans (7-9)
11. Buffalo (7-9)
12. Denver (7-9)
13. Carolina (7-9)
14. Chicago (7-9)
15. Detroit (7-9)

Round 2
1. (32) Miami
2. (33) St. Louis
3. (34) Atlanta (from Oakland)
4. (35) Kansas City
5. (36) New York Jets
6. (37) Atlanta
7. (38) Baltimore
8. (39) San Francisco
9. (40) New Orleans
10. (41) Buffalo
11. (42) Denver
12. (43) Carolina
13. (44) Chicago
14. (45) Detroit
15. (46) Cincinnati

Round 3
1. (64) Miami
2. (65) St. Louis
3. (66) Kansas City
4. (67) New York Jets
5. (68) Atlanta
6. (69) New England (from Oakland)
7. (70) San Francisco
8. (71) Buffalo (from Baltimore)
9. (72) Buffalo
10. (73) Minnesota (from Denver)
11. (74) Carolina
12. (75) Chicago
13. (76) Detroit
14. (77) Cincinnati
15. (78) New Orleans

The Bears original picks were the 14th in the first, 13th in the second and 12th in the third. Wtf? Why are the Falcons picks 3rd in the first, 6th in the second and 5th in the third? As a matter of fact all those 4-12 team's picks seem to be a totally random. I thought this might have something to do with the coin flip but the Jets weren't involved in the coin flip and they are drafting all over the map. Cinci goes from 9th to 15th to 14th. None of these are based on trades as far as I can tell.

I mean seriously, what the hell is the system here?

EDIT: Looking at it from afar it appears that teams with the same record (regardless of tie breakers) rotate their way up in the draft order. Atlanta was the top 4-12 team in the 1st round and they go to the bottom of that tier in the next round moving everyone in the tier up one notch. Strange, how did I never know this about the draft.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-25-2008, 05:27 PM

Don't know for sure, Omni, but it looks like you're right concerning the rotation.

Really Not All That Bright

03-25-2008, 05:31 PM

Don't know for sure, Omni, but it looks like you're right concerning the rotation.
Yup, that's the usual system. Last year, for example, the Bucs lost the tiebreaker for the 3rd overall pick to the Browns, meaning they got to draft Joe Thomas, and the order was reversed for every even-numbered round.

Starting in Round 3, things can get really screwy due to the compensatory picks, but I don't think they announce those until a week or two prior.

Ellis Dee

03-25-2008, 09:43 PM

Niners forfeit fifth-round draft pick after tampering with Bears' Briggs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3310056)Where's the outrage? Where's all the posters gnashing their teeth about CHEATING? Where's Arlen Specter's press conference decrying insufficient penalty?

The lack of any of that is compelling evidence that the whole spygate thing is nothing more than sour grapes. The irony is that I firmly believe that Mangini launched spygate as a direct response to tampering charges (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/09/12/patriots_trade_branch_to_seahawks_and_file_tampering_charge_against_jets/). Sort of a "well, fuck you to."

Sadly, it would appear that any and all cheating in football -- which is full to the brim with cheating, mind you -- is just fine unless it is done by the Patriots. At least in the public's mind.

Really Not All That Bright

03-25-2008, 09:51 PM

Where's the outrage? Where's all the posters gnashing their teeth about CHEATING? Where's Arlen Specter's press conference decrying insufficient penalty?

The lack of any of that is compelling evidence that the whole spygate thing is nothing more than sour grapes. The irony is that I firmly believe that Mangini launched spygate as a direct response to tampering charges (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/09/12/patriots_trade_branch_to_seahawks_and_file_tampering_charge_against_jets/). Sort of a "well, fuck you to."

Sadly, it would appear that any and all cheating in football -- which is full to the brim with cheating, mind you -- is just fine unless it is done by the Patriots. At least in the public's mind.
Not really the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that a grey-area incident involving contract negotiations is the same as actual, in-game cheating.

This is more like a team being penalized for incorrectly reporting a player's salary cap charge.

Briggs was pretty adamant about leaving the Bears, and I think we can all agree it was an enormous surprise when a) they offered him a long-term deal, and b) he actually accepted.

Ellis Dee

03-25-2008, 10:10 PM

Not really the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that a grey-area incident involving contract negotiations is the same as actual, in-game cheating.I'd argue that the contract issues are more serious, since they have long-term consequences.

As for in-game cheating, there is holding on every single play, and yet I hear nothing from the Senate about how it needs to be cleaned up. And coaches don't cover their mouths while calling plays because they think it looks cool.

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 10:59 PM

As for in-game cheating, there is holding on every single play, and yet I hear nothing from the Senate about how it needs to be cleaned up. And coaches don't cover their mouths while calling plays because they think it looks cool.

You REALLY need to let this go. You're ruining your credibility.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-25-2008, 11:13 PM

Well, I understand your point, bt I think it may be a little ham-handed. Unfortunately, there are levels of cheating. I think you'd agree to that as well. Is holding on every play cheating? Is it cheating in the same way as reading lips on the opposing sideline? Is it cheating in the same manner of stealing a playbook? What about taking steroids? All those examples are at different places along the "cheating" spectrum, ranging from "we didn't see it" to "well, you didn't get caught", to "you must be punished", to "Congressional hearing".

Although it does beg the question: at what point does Congress feel like it should get involved?

SenorBeef

03-25-2008, 11:25 PM

And coaches don't cover their mouths while calling plays because they think it looks cool.

And I don't lock my door because I think the bolt closing sounds cool. Doesn't mean it's acceptable to break into my house because you infer I expect it because I lock my doors.

There are different types, and different degrees of cheating. Cheating that directly affects the outcome of games will trump contract negotiation cheating for most people.

Another factor is that while there's uncalled holding, it's a subjective judgement, and it's all out in the open. Anyone can see what the lineman did or didn't do - there was no secret attempt to take an advantage that no one else can see. If you think you see holding, is it definitely cheating? What if the ref saw it too and used his judgement to decide it wasn't? Cheating still?

There's a difference between pushing the boundaries for commiting a foul in an open to all to see judgement call, and secretly gathering data in violation of the rules.

I don't actually expect you to acknowledge this - you'll argue that if anyone ever got away with a foul in NFL history, then any and all cheating is perfectly fine.

Omniscient

03-25-2008, 11:51 PM

Some new player news that's going to have Broncos fans and FFL Keeper leagues pissed off; Marshall to be out four months after arm injury requires surgery. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3312027) Watch out for those McDonald's bags people.

Really Not All That Bright

03-26-2008, 08:13 AM

Well, let's get one thing straight: I don't think anyone thinks Congress really needs to be looking into Spygate.

I kinda like Arlen Specter. He seems like the sort of guy you'd want to have a beer with; but he certainly doesn't seem to have his priorities straight, no matter how big an Iggles fan he is.

Also, not a particularly effective investigator, if he's successfully getting stonewalled by the NFL.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-26-2008, 08:14 AM

Really Not All That Bright

03-26-2008, 08:46 AM

Agreed, but you'd have to think that he had "limited" resources to pursue this matter.
Eh? He's not some schmuck (well, not just a schmuck), he's a five-term Senator. I suspect he's got more than enough influence to have the FBI send out at least a few agents on a personal goose chase, and that would be the least of his resources.

Least Original User Name Ever

03-26-2008, 09:10 AM

Eh? He's not some schmuck (well, not just a schmuck), he's a five-term Senator. I suspect he's got more than enough influence to have the FBI send out at least a few agents on a personal goose chase, and that would be the least of his resources.

That's exactly what I'd be questioning. I know of Senator Specter and know that he's a respected Congresscritter. I just don't know/doubt the use of federal agents to investigate "Spygate". Hell, if he did do that, almost on a personal whim, I'd file that under "abuse of power".

Ellis Dee

03-26-2008, 07:29 PM

There are different types, and different degrees of cheating.I agree.

The thing that pisses me off about spygate is that people like Specter act as if the NFL supported and encouraged the Patriots, or are conspiring to let them keep doing it. The truth is the complete opposite: the NFL punished them.

Many people seem to feel that since the punishment wasn't as harsh as they wanted, the NFL didn't punish them at all. And in the same breath point at the severity of the punishment as evidence that the crime was so severe. You can't have it both ways.

Omni, I can't let it go because there's a friggin' douchebag in the Senate who felt the need to shit all over Superbowl weekend with his petty, whiny bullshit.

All that free publicity couldn't possibly have anything to do with his book tour, right? I mean, not even an Eagles fan could be that much of a shithead, could he? Yeah, right.

Ellis Dee

03-26-2008, 07:38 PM

And note that much -- if not most -- of the original outrage was in the form of "but they were caught CHEATING!" Liberal tirelessly pointed out again and again in a multi-page trainwreck that there are different forms of cheating, and that not all rule violations were cheating. (Uniform violations, for example.)

But he was soundly yelled down, and the righteous indignation over the dastardly CHEATING carried the day. In addition to taking potshots at Specter, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the boards in light of this new CHEATING!!!1!!1

Omniscient

03-26-2008, 08:58 PM

The thing that pisses me off about spygate is that people like Specter act as if the NFL supported and encouraged the Patriots, or are conspiring to let them keep doing it. The truth is the complete opposite: the NFL punished them.

Many people seem to feel that since the punishment wasn't as harsh as they wanted, the NFL didn't punish them at all. And in the same breath point at the severity of the punishment as evidence that the crime was so severe. You can't have it both ways.

Omni, I can't let it go because there's a friggin' douchebag in the Senate who felt the need to shit all over Superbowl weekend with his petty, whiny bullshit.

All that free publicity couldn't possibly have anything to do with his book tour, right? I mean, not even an Eagles fan could be that much of a shithead, could he? Yeah, right.

I think the vast majority of sports fans and critics all agree that the Senator's involvement is unnecessary and unwarranted. A goodly percentage of those think it's bordering on abuse of power. So in that you won't find much quarrel I think.

However, I think that Goodell destroying the tapes and the evidence was incredibly stupid and shortsighted. I have no idea what reason he had for it and that's what's opened up all the new drama. I'm much more angry with the NFL than the Patriots at this point and that seems to be the thrust of Specter's issue.

Still, the "everyone's doing it", "the tapes don't help" and the "it's not cheating" rationalizations really need to stop.

Ellis Dee

03-26-2008, 11:02 PM

Ugh, just saw it reported that the schedulers have picked the worst possible matchup as the Thursday season opener. Obviously it will be a Giants home game, so maybe you figure a matchup with anyone from the AFC North, or maybe hosting the Seahawks or something.

But instead, they picked yet another NFC East divisional matchup for a primetime game, and worse they picked the least interesting one possible. Redskins @ Giants (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/redskins-giants-will-start-the-season/).

Really Not All That Bright

03-27-2008, 09:37 AM

But he was soundly yelled down, and the righteous indignation over the dastardly CHEATING carried the day. In addition to taking potshots at Specter, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the boards in light of this new CHEATING!!!1!!1
You know that every team tampers with other peoples' players, right? Herm Edwards was calling out the Bucs a week ago for tampering since they signed Jeff Faine before he had a chance to visit any other teams. And he's probably right.

Every season a couple dozen guys get signed within the first few hours of free agency, and you know there's no way an NFL contract gets negotiated in less than 24 hours- even the veteran's-minimum ones.

SenorBeef

03-27-2008, 11:09 AM

But instead, they picked yet another NFC East divisional matchup for a primetime game, and worse they picked the least interesting one possible. Redskins @ Giants (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/26/redskins-giants-will-start-the-season/).

That does sound pretty boring.

I think the Browns/Giants game will be an interesting matchup and would've been a better first game. I'm anxious to test our elite pass protection against your elite pass rush.

Really Not All That Bright

03-27-2008, 11:24 AM

I think the Browns/Giants game will be an interesting matchup and would've been a better first game. I'm anxious to test our elite pass protection against your elite pass rush.
Elite pass protection is a bit of a reach; I know you were fourth in sacks allowed but I did see a few teams get consistent pressure on Anderson.

If LeCharles Bentley is completely recovered from injury in time for camp, though... Hooo boy. That will be a scary pass offense.

SenorBeef

03-27-2008, 08:43 PM

Elite pass protection is a bit of a reach; I know you were fourth in sacks allowed but I did see a few teams get consistent pressure on Anderson.

Anderson was the least sacked quarterback in weeks 2 through 17. The team sack stats are inflated because Charlie Frye created 5 of his own sacks in 20 minutes in one game in week 1.

And we don't run a quick-drop offense - we run a lot of passing plays that take time to develop - and Anderson is pretty much immobile. Anderson's quick release plays a big role in the low number of sacks, but the pass protection was excellent.

If LeCharles Bentley is completely recovered from injury in time for camp, though... Hooo boy. That will be a scary pass offense.

Pretty amazing that the line was so good when arguably the best lineman was on IR.

It's not looking too good for Bentley. You may not have read that after the surgery for his torn petallar tendon, he got a staph infection so severe that he was hospitalized for weeks and was at serious risk for having his leg amputated and he lots a lot of weight.

To his credit, he's been working superhumanly hard to come back.

There's some bad blood between him and the team, though. We're not sure what the story is, but we think it has something to do with him going to do his own rehab away from the team doctors. They quietly reworked his contract so that he becomes a free agent at the end of the year.

It looks like the team may not expect him to play again.

Ellis Dee

03-27-2008, 09:29 PM

You know that every team tampers with other peoples' players, right? Herm Edwards was calling out the Bucs a week ago for tampering since they signed Jeff Faine before he had a chance to visit any other teams. And he's probably right.

Every season a couple dozen guys get signed within the first few hours of free agency, and you know there's no way an NFL contract gets negotiated in less than 24 hours- even the veteran's-minimum ones.That's why I found it such an apt comparison. I'd wait for the avalanche of counter-arguments we saw against this particular logic when it came to stealing signals, but I expect all I'd hear is crickets.

Ellis Dee

03-27-2008, 09:40 PM

A couple things are up for discussion in the owner's meetings that I find troubling.

First is the issue of reseeding. I hate the very idea of this. If you win your division, you should get a home playoff game. Period. I suspect the owners will take less time coming to this conclusion than it took me to type it, so I'm not worried, but it still bugs me that it's even a question. Worse would be if they wanted to add more playoff teams.

Second is the clearly racially-motivated hair length issue. Yeah, yeah, like two white guys might be affected. Give me a break on that; they may as well call it the dreadlock rule. I find it interesting that most of the pundits railing against this have shied away from the racial component and instead claimed that hair, being part of your body, is not part of the uniform and therefore not subject to such rulings. Uh, what? No jobs enforce rules about hair? Really? So if your salesman showed up one day with a giant green mohawk, hey, that's part of his body, right? Puh-lease. I also can't seem to remember any of these pundits railing against the Yankees when guys like Johnny Damon had to get clean cut and shaven before putting on the pinstripes.

The conservative owners might actually pass this one, and while I defend their right to do so, it would offend me if they did. I love it when the longhairs get dragged down by their hair; that's all the incentive players need. If Marion Barber got tackled by his hair a couple-few times in a game, he'd be bald that Tuesday.