2008 NFL Mini Camps and Offseason Thread

The Game Room
101

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Who gives a shit how long they’ve been around? It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to Team W whether teams X, Y and Z have been in the league for forty years- what matters is whether X, Y and Z are any good.

The NFC East had three playoff teams last year by virtue of luck and the rest of the NFC sucking. The '07 Skins were poor, and must have found a rabbit’s foot shaped like a four-leaf clover or something. The Eagles were terrible. The Giants were terrible at times and pretty good at times- and there’s no way in hell you can argue with a straight face that they were the best team in the league, Superbowl or not. Only the Cowboys were consistently good.

In the AFC South, the Colts were excellent, the Jaguars were excellent, the Titans were decent, and the Texans were mediocre- and might have been quite good if not for losing their two best offensive players for half a season. More to the point, the AFC South sent three teams to the playoffs in the AFC, which is a hell of a lot better than the NFC.
The best division in football isn’t the one with the most history. It’s the one with the best teams- and the NFC East doesn’t have them. Anyone who thinks that a given won-lost record in the NFC is equivalent to the same record in the AFC doesn’t know anything about football.
[/QUOTE]

Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark.

102

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, not often that you can get so much wrong in a single post. Ouch, indeed.

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The NFC East had three playoff teams last year by virtue of luck and the rest of the NFC sucking. The '07 Skins were poor, and must have found a rabbit’s foot shaped like a four-leaf clover or something. The Eagles were terrible. The Giants were terrible at times and pretty good at times- and there’s no way in hell you can argue with a straight face that they were the best team in the league, Superbowl or not. Only the Cowboys were consistently good.
[/QUOTE]

You can call it luck and demean it however you want, but that doesn’t make ti true. The only thing you said here that was remotely true was about the Giants, but your statement was a little weak. The Skins weren’t “poor,” though I’ll give they were the worst of the playoff teams. The Cowboys were consistently good? What about their last four games (where they went 1-3)?

The Eagles terrible? You did not see a single game of theirs, admit it. It’s okay. Admit it, then admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and you can’t be bothered to look anything up before posting. The Eagles were 8-8, hardly terrible, and they beat the Cowboys on the road. Of their losses, most were just due to bad luck. They lost to the Packers because of two muffed kick returns, to the Giants because of a last second field goal miss (by a top 20 most accurate kicker, all-time), and to the Patriots because of a backup QB’s single mistake (they came as close as any other team to beating the Pats in the regular season). This was nowhere near a terrible team by any measure. +36 PF/PA (6th best in the league), top 10 in yards/game on offense and defense, and top 10 fewest points allowed per game. This is essentially the same team that went to four straight NFC championship games having an unlucky season. Give me a break, terrible.

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
In the AFC South, the Colts were excellent, the Jaguars were excellent, the Titans were decent, and the Texans were mediocre- and might have been quite good if not for losing their two best offensive players for half a season. More to the point, the AFC South sent three teams to the playoffs in the AFC, which is a hell of a lot better than the NFC.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, the “mediocre” Texans. Nice job with the propaganda adjectives. Are you referring to the Texans that lost to the Falcons?

Are you really sure the AFC is better than the NFC? Maybe. The AFC has better good teams, but the rest of the AFC is much worse than the rest of the NFC (AFC had four of the six teams with a win% of .250 or less, including the worst team in football). So maybe those good teams were artificially boosted by playing against the weakest competition in the league. The Pats got to play in by far the worst division in football, and the AFC West was at the very least just as bad as the worst of the NFC. The NFC East was really competitive from top to bottom, especially against each other. Not so in the AFC South, where two of the teams beat up on the other two (the two beat-upon teams bolstering their records by beating up on the rest of the sorry AFC, going 10-2).

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The best division in football isn’t the one with the most history. It’s the one with the best teams- and the NFC East doesn’t have them. Anyone who thinks that a given won-lost record in the NFC is equivalent to the same record in the AFC doesn’t know anything about football.
[/QUOTE]

No it isn’t about legacy, but don’t discount the far larger number of bad teams in the AFC either. Both the Eagles and the Texans had the same record, and there is no justifiable, statistical argument that can put the Texans in the same boat as the Eagles. So, maybe, the equivalent record in the NFC IS worth more, since you don’t get to pad it playing against the worst teams in the league.

I can’t believe I renewed for* this*.

103

A name you might hear more about this year (although maybe not - it takes corners a while to get rep) is Eric Wright. He was the Browns’ second round pick last year and had a pretty good rookie season after the first few games when the secondary was completely clueless as a whole. He was one of the few corners to keep Moss in check early on in the year.

He had very good man coverage skills - he was regularly in the pocket of the guy he was covering - but his ball skills were terrible. He made a lot of plays simply sticking to his man - more than once he racked up a pass defensed because the ball bounced off the back of his helmet which was right in front of the receiver’s hands.

But I’ve seen some video of him out of camp and he’s been getting his head around to find the ball while still sticking right to Braylon Edwards. And if you can cover him, you can cover the best.

It’s scary that a second year second round pick and fifth round pick are going to be starting corners, but they look pretty promising. The depth past that is atrocious though, our 4th corner was probably bagging groceries a few months ago.

Shaun Rogers looks like a beast so far. He showed up to camp at 355 and is apparently in great shape. I saw some video of a pass play where Rogers came up with the interception and then juked on his return in a way that you don’t usually see out of a 355 pound man…

If only this team had a real coach they might be going places.

104

[QUOTE=Jules Andre]
Oh, the “mediocre” Texans. Nice job with the propaganda adjectives. Are you referring to the Texans that lost to the Falcons?

Are you really sure the AFC is better than the NFC? Maybe. The AFC has better good teams, but the rest of the AFC is much worse than the rest of the NFC (AFC had four of the six teams with a win% of .250 or less, including the worst team in football). So maybe those good teams were artificially boosted by playing against the weakest competition in the league. The Pats got to play in by far the worst division in football, and the AFC West was at the very least just as bad as the worst of the NFC. The NFC East was really competitive from top to bottom, especially against each other. Not so in the AFC South, where two of the teams beat up on the other two (the two beat-upon teams bolstering their records by beating up on the rest of the sorry AFC, going 10-2).
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t matter how bad the worst teams were (and I’ll give you that the worst teams were in the AFC). What matters is how good the best teams were- and the simple fact is that the best of the AFC were demonstrably better than the best of the NFC. Moreover, the AFC South didn’t pad its record by playing the crappy teams in the AFC- they did it playing against the NFC (combined in-conference record, 29-19, combined non-conference record, 13-3).

In any case, while your net points argument does make the Eagles a little better, it makes the Giants and Skins look even worse, at +22 and +24, respectively.

Even if we assume that the Texans weren’t as good as the Eagles- which I remain dubious about- the other three teams were certainly better than their counterparts.

I can’t believe you renewed for that, either. But welcome back.

What’s wrong with Crennel? Would you rather have Butch Davis back?

105

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

What’s wrong with Crennel? Would you rather have Butch Davis back?
[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t want Butch Davis back - that’s a false dilemma. Although for what it’s worth, Butch Davis was a far better (which isn’t to say good) game day coach than Crennel.

Crennel’s main objective is not to win games, but to avoid criticism and embarassment. If you gave him the choice between two game plans, one which gave you a 40% chance of winning but the the other 60% of the time would be an embarassing blowout loss, or a different plan with a 25% chance of winning, but the other 75% of the time was a close “respectable” loss, he’d pick the latter every time. He’s cowardly.

The main reasons the 2007 Browns were good were getting rid of the black hole of suck Charlie Frye and the offensive coordinator Rob Chudzinski. Both were done despite Romeo rather than because of him. Romeo had hired and kept Mo Carthon, one of the worst offensive coordinators in the league - and a decent bit of offensive talent resulted in one of the worst offenses in the league. Phil Savage (the GM) had to step in and essentially say “Ok Romeo, you clearly can’t manage your offense or your offensive staff, so I’m hiring Chudzinski to take care of that and you can focus on the defense”. The result? The offense blossomed, freshly freed from the aura of suck of Crennel’s control, and the defense, Crennel’s specialty, faltered. It was also quite obvious that Charlie Frye wasn’t getting the job done, but while Chudzinski wanted to start Anderson, Crennel insisted on Frye.

His game planning abilities, with a few exceptions, are generally poor. His defensive philosophies are boring, uncreative, unaggressive, and just bad for the most part. His clock management, replay challenges, etc. have been atrocious at times. The only positive is that the players seem to like and respect him.

To give an example - Cleveland played Miami pretty early in the year. Within the first 15-20 minutes of the game, Cleveland had built up a pretty substantial lead and the game seemed pretty much decided. Then Crennel starts playing a loose defense to run out the clock WITH 40 MINUTES STILL LEFT IN THE GAME. He coached as if we were up 21 points with 5 minutes left on the clock. Result? Miami with Cleo Fucking Lemon make a comeback nearly unopposed by the defense and came back to tie a game they had no business being in. If it weren’t for Chudzinski essentially stopping Romeo from losing that game, we’d have lost to the worst team in the league in a game where we had a commanding lead.

It’s funny and stupid - essentially, the areas in which Crennel’s control of the team were removed flourished, and the areas he still had control over got worse. And the conclusion people draw from this is - look, Crennel improved the team! he must be a good coach!

He doesn’t have the balls to have what it takes to be a real winner.

106

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
It’s funny and stupid - essentially, the areas in which Crennel’s control of the team were removed flourished, and the areas he still had control over got worse. And the conclusion people draw from this is - look, Crennel improved the team! he must be a good coach!
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Most of the sports talk radio smarks give Phil Savage most, if not all, of the credit for the 2007 turnaround.

That said, I think you’re being a little too harsh on Crennel. He inherited a team almost bereft of talent - witness all those 1st- and 2nd-round draft choices you’ve been packing off to the Broncos and the waiver wire over the last 2-3 years.

Besides, if his main objective was truly just to avoid embarrassment, he’d have started Brady Quinn after dealing Frye last season. Let’s face it- after the shellacking you got from the Steelers in Week 1, just about everyone (except possibly you) thought the Browns would be the worst team in the league by a long chalk. Starting Quinn made perfect sense- everyone knows that the coach who starts a rookie QB gets a one-year pass, and maybe even two or three.

107

Glad I’m not a Packers fan. What a messy camp with the Favre situation and now Ryan Grant?

At least the Cards can hopefully put the Boldin situation to bed for a while. Every Cards fan is waiting for the New Orleans pre season game to at least see the Leinart/Warner battle for themselves.

108

Romeo is slow to start rookies - he’d rather milk mediocre to good performance out of the vets than risk getting bad performance from the rookies. He thinks with the more experienced players he’ll squeeze out a few more wins (or at least some closer games) even if it costs the future to do so. He essentially always takes the most conservative route even when it’s wrong.

It’s also possible it was Phil Savage’s call. I don’t know if he bothered to seek Romeo’s permission when he dealt Frye.

I still think the Browns can win the division, but it’ll be in spite of Romeo more than because of him. He’s not a coach that can win a superbowl. Some men make good lieutenants, and some men make good generals - when he’s implementing someone else’s orders, he has obviously had some success. But he doesn’t have what it takes to be the one giving those orders.

109

[QUOTE=dalej42]
Glad I’m not a Packers fan. What a messy camp with the Favre situation and now Ryan Grant?
[/QUOTE]

I’m a Bucs fan, and Green Bay can keep Favre and all the bullshit that comes with him, thank you very much. I’m not kidding when I say I’ll take a Jeff Garcia-led one-and-done playoff appearance over a Favre-led NFC Championship Game appearance.

Grant, on the other hand, is an actual issue. He was ridiculously productive in a short span (9 games?) last season, but Green Bay’s problem is that he was also productive for a short span. How do you pay a guy like that?

I expect he’ll end up getting a Michael Turner-ish deal, which seems about right, but I can’t help but feel he’s going to end up worth much less or much more. Time will tell.

110

[QUOTE=Jules Andre]
Yeah, not often that you can get so much wrong in a single post. Ouch, indeed.

You can call it luck and demean it however you want, but that doesn’t make ti true. The only thing you said here that was remotely true was about the Giants, but your statement was a little weak. The Skins weren’t “poor,” though I’ll give they were the worst of the playoff teams. The Cowboys were consistently good? What about their last four games (where they went 1-3)?

The Eagles terrible? You did not see a single game of theirs, admit it. It’s okay. Admit it, then admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and you can’t be bothered to look anything up before posting. The Eagles were 8-8, hardly terrible, and they beat the Cowboys on the road. Of their losses, most were just due to bad luck. They lost to the Packers because of two muffed kick returns, to the Giants because of a last second field goal miss (by a top 20 most accurate kicker, all-time), and to the Patriots because of a backup QB’s single mistake (they came as close as any other team to beating the Pats in the regular season). This was nowhere near a terrible team by any measure. +36 PF/PA (6th best in the league), top 10 in yards/game on offense and defense, and top 10 fewest points allowed per game. This is essentially the same team that went to four straight NFC championship games having an unlucky season. Give me a break, terrible.

Oh, the “mediocre” Texans. Nice job with the propaganda adjectives. Are you referring to the Texans that lost to the Falcons?

Are you really sure the AFC is better than the NFC? Maybe. The AFC has better good teams, but the rest of the AFC is much worse than the rest of the NFC (AFC had four of the six teams with a win% of .250 or less, including the worst team in football). So maybe those good teams were artificially boosted by playing against the weakest competition in the league. The Pats got to play in by far the worst division in football, and the AFC West was at the very least just as bad as the worst of the NFC. The NFC East was really competitive from top to bottom, especially against each other. Not so in the AFC South, where two of the teams beat up on the other two (the two beat-upon teams bolstering their records by beating up on the rest of the sorry AFC, going 10-2).

No it isn’t about legacy, but don’t discount the far larger number of bad teams in the AFC either. Both the Eagles and the Texans had the same record, and there is no justifiable, statistical argument that can put the Texans in the same boat as the Eagles. So, maybe, the equivalent record in the NFC IS worth more, since you don’t get to pad it playing against the worst teams in the league.

I can’t believe I renewed for* this*.
[/QUOTE]

The AFC was, and is, a better conference than the NFC. It’s been that way generally since about 1998 or so.

Prior to that the NFC was the dominant conference.

111

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
It doesn’t matter how bad the worst teams were (and I’ll give you that the worst teams were in the AFC). What matters is how good the best teams were- and the simple fact is that the best of the AFC were demonstrably better than the best of the NFC.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t argue that the best team last year was in the AFC, and I don’t argue that the AFC had more of the good teams. But if you start breaking it down, I don’t think the division between the two was as sharp as everyone made it out to be. Who were the best last year? New England, Indianapolis, Dallas, and Green Bay, according to their records. Exactly half of those in the NFC, and that doesn’t even count the team that eventually went on to win it all. That does count for something, even if they weren’t the best team all season.

When you say that only the best teams count, that’s only taking in half the picture. Is a league where one team goes 16-0 and the other teams end up being 1-15 or 2-14 the best league? That’s not remotely close, you can’t cherry pick your answers like that. The AFC had the worst teams and probably the two worst divisions in football. To say that the best teams didn’t, in some way, pad their wins by playing against inferior competition is disingenuous.

NFC East: In conference record: 29-19. Non-conference record: 11-5. Not that much different. But you don’t dispute what I siad about the AFC South, that two of the teams, Jacksonville and Houston, got beat up on by their division mates and took it out on the rest of the weaker AFC. Jax and Hou combined for an 3-9 AFC South record, and a 10-2 rest-of-AFC record. They padded their win totals against a far larger pool of weaker teams, plain and simple.

It isn’t just the PF/PA, it was the offensive and defensive rankings that make the Eagles a clearly better team than Houston, and a much, much better team than their record indicated. If you’re still dubious, that’s an issue with you. I can’t do much more when someone sticks their fingers in their ears.

I think the NFC East would matchup extremely well with the AFC South. Indy would beat up on everyone but perhaps the Cowboys, that’s a given. But the rest of that division wasn’t as good as they look. The Texans were the worst team out of the eight, and the Cowboys and Eagles would have decisively controlled Jacksonville and Tennessee (both one-trick ponies that rely on the run, which the Eagles were excellent against last year, and neither Jax nor Ten could handle the Eagles or 'Boys air game or defensive pressure). It would come down to how the Giants and Skins handled everyone but the Colts, and I’m inclined to think it would have come out pretty even. It isn’t nearly as one-sided as you think, and the NFC East could actually come out on top.

Thanks! It’s always an interesting discussion with you and the rest of the NFL fans here.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
The AFC was, and is, a better conference than the NFC. It’s been that way generally since about 1998 or so.
[/QUOTE]

No argument there. My argument is in the degree. I don’t think it’s as vast a difference as some make it out to be.

112

[QUOTE=Jules Andre]
I don’t argue that the best team last year was in the AFC, and I don’t argue that the AFC had more of the good teams. But if you start breaking it down, I don’t think the division between the two was as sharp as everyone made it out to be.
No argument there. My argument is in the degree. I don’t think it’s as vast a difference as some make it out to be.
[/QUOTE]

I can get behind that. Especially since we’re talking football, with it’s inherent Any Given Sunday Rule.

I used to be a huge, HUGE fan of NFC East football back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s when the division WAS the best in football. I was a big Skins fan back then, and with the Hogs, Parcells and the Giants and Landry/Johnson and the Boys, it was pretty competitive.

I have a hard time enjoying the Redskins anymore because of Dan Snyder. That guy is nuts with the team’s money.

So I moved to the Nasty Nati in the early 1990’s after a stint in the Army and I inherited the Bengals as my hometown team just in time to watch them be the most unwatchable franchise in the NFL from about 1992-2004, until Chad, Palmer and Marvin Lewis came along and gave us some glimmers of hope.

Still waiting on that defense, though.

113

[QUOTE=Jules Andre]
It would come down to how the Giants and Skins handled everyone but the Colts, and I’m inclined to think it would have come out pretty even. It isn’t nearly as one-sided as you think, and the NFC East could actually come out on top.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t believe it’s one-sided, necessarily- just that the AFC is demonstrably better. Of course, as Foie said, the “any given Sunday” cliche is totally true in the NFL, and 16 games just isn’t enough for an accurate statistical sample.

114

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I have a hard time enjoying the Redskins anymore because of Dan Snyder. That guy is nuts with the team’s money.
[/QUOTE]

He makes some unjustifiable decisions with that money, for sure. I thought his idea of trying to circumvent the limitations on spending (salary cap, etc.) by paying top dollar for coaching (and extra coaches) was a great idea though, visionary, even. I think it ended up not working very well though, even with “The Diplomat” Joe Gibbs put in charge. Gibbs was supposed to be an expert at managing people, why didn’t this work out?

I became an Eagles fan in 1992, near the beginning of third grade. The class decided to nickname ourselves the Eagles, and I saw an episode of SportsCenter that same night. Randall Cunningham was on one of the highlights and I was immediately a fan. I had never seen a player move like he did before. I told the teacher about the team the next day and I’ve been an Eagles fan ever since, despite growing up in Arizona.

I was old enough to finally understand the game right about when Rodney Peete and Ray Rhodes came together for a couple really despicable seasons in the mid-late 90s. Nothing near the debacle that was the Bungles though, ouch. I would have jumped ship and pretended I stuck with them all along, sad to say.

115

[QUOTE=Jules Andre]
He makes some unjustifiable decisions with that money, for sure. I thought his idea of trying to circumvent the limitations on spending (salary cap, etc.) by paying top dollar for coaching (and extra coaches) was a great idea though, visionary, even. I think it ended up not working very well though, even with “The Diplomat” Joe Gibbs put in charge. Gibbs was supposed to be an expert at managing people, why didn’t this work out?
[/QUOTE]

Paying top dollar for non-capped personnel is a great idea if you also manage your capped personnel properly. The Redskins just don’t do that; they’ve spent the last 10 years in a permanent version of the salary cap hell that the Titans suffered through to keep their Super Bowl squad together.

For every big splashy signing Snyder makes each offseason, he has to jettison one of his other big splashy signings from two offseasons earlier, with all the associated cap penalties.

If not for generally shrewd drafting (well, relative to the number of picks they don’t trade away every year) filling in those holes, the 'Skins would be a 4-12 team every year.

116

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
A name you might hear more about this year (although maybe not - it takes corners a while to get rep) is Eric Wright. He was the Browns’ second round pick last year and had a pretty good rookie season after the first few games when the secondary was completely clueless as a whole. He was one of the few corners to keep Moss in check early on in the year.

He had very good man coverage skills - he was regularly in the pocket of the guy he was covering - but his ball skills were terrible. He made a lot of plays simply sticking to his man - more than once he racked up a pass defensed because the ball bounced off the back of his helmet which was right in front of the receiver’s hands.

But I’ve seen some video of him out of camp and he’s been getting his head around to find the ball while still sticking right to Braylon Edwards. And if you can cover him, you can cover the best.

It’s scary that a second year second round pick and fifth round pick are going to be starting corners, but they look pretty promising. The depth past that is atrocious though, our 4th corner was probably bagging groceries a few months ago.

Shaun Rogers looks like a beast so far. He showed up to camp at 355 and is apparently in great shape. I saw some video of a pass play where Rogers came up with the interception and then juked on his return in a way that you don’t usually see out of a 355 pound man…

If only this team had a real coach they might be going places.
[/QUOTE]

What’d I tell you aboug Big Baby? Watch. He completely cominates a game from the nose tackle like no other person I’ve seen (well, maybe since Reggie White and a few years of Strahan in recent memory and they didn’t play tackle) and then disappears with a whimper.

117

I told you a while back that I wasn’t enthusiastic about Rogers, but he’s been growing on me.

He may just dissapear, but I have to wonder how much of his apparent sudden lack of motivation was simply getting worn out. He was the centerpiece of the defense and took a huge portion of the snaps. The pit of suck that is Detroit football (sorry) also can be demotivating I guess.

The Browns actually have decent depth at NT - Shaun Smith is a competant run stopper. He won’t get worn down as much hopefully.

Unfortunately I worry that some of his talent will be squandered running the cowardly ass “bend then break then bend some more” defense that Romeo employs. Rogers will be doing too much gap control, not enough going all out to stick his nutsack in an unconcious Roethlisburger’s mouth. With a new defensive coordinator and a better defense all around I hope that changes, but I have my doubts - part of the reason behind the last DC getting fired was apparently that he wanted to be too aggressive. If what we’ve seen for the last 3 years is too aggressive by Crennel’s standards…

He’s been catching balls out of the jugs machine at camp. Maybe he’ll play a vrabel-like tight end role. :stuck_out_tongue:

118

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
If only this team had a real coach they might be going places.
[/QUOTE]

They do have a real coach, Beef: Chud!
Too bad he’ll be going to Carolina or Seattle or somewhere before Savage realizes who actually turned things around last season.

119

I think Savage does realize it - he’s the one that made Romeo a lame duck and hired Chud.

Why Savage seems to like Romeo so much I don’t know.

120

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Unfortunately I worry that some of his talent will be squandered running the cowardly ass “bend then break then bend some more” defense that Romeo employs.
[/QUOTE]

Are you certain that Chuck Bresnahan hasn’t snuck onboard as your new DC?
That philosophy sounds awfully familiar!
:slight_smile: