Jump to content

PeterHilton

Members
  • Posts

    4,281
  • Joined

Posts posted by PeterHilton

  1. Yeah, Brees missed the first round by a whole pick. :p

     

    I think the scouts do a good (but certainly not flawless) job of grading QBs. Very few starters have been pulled out of rounds 3+ in the last five or six years (Schaub and Cassell?).

     

    Nope. Here...let's just re-post something Bill Simmons wrote on ESPN.com this week:

     

    Hit a draft-day home run with a quarterback and it's a grand slam. Hit a draft-day home run with any other position and it's a home run. I just know that three levels of "franchise quarterbacks" have been taken in the top three picks since 1998:

     

    Level 1 (no way they were missing): Peyton Manning (1), Michael Vick (1).

     

    Level 2 (almost definitely weren't missing): Carson Palmer (1), Eli Manning (1).

    Level 3 (hopefully weren't missing): David Carr (1), Tim Couch (1), Alex Smith (1), JaMarcus Russell (1), Matthew Stafford (1), Ryan Leaf (2), Donovan McNabb (2), Akili Smith (3), Joey Harrington (3), Vince Young (3), Matt Ryan (3).

     

    At the time, you would have bet your life on the Level 1 guys making it (barring injury). You wouldn't have bet your life on the Level 2 guys, but you would have at least asked for odds. You would not have wagered your life on any of the Level 3 guys. Three made it; seven bombed; and Young gets an incomplete. If anything, getting picked that high set those guys up for failure: Expectations skyrocketed; their teams felt obligated to play them before they were ready; and they were asked to do too much too soon. The experts believe Bradford is a Level 2 guy, although it's worth noting that he qualifies -- potentially -- under everything in the previous sentence.

     

    Digging deeper, let's say the NFL pressed the reset button, made every QB a free agent, then held a QB lottery for the 32 teams. The top 12 order of preference would look something like this: Peyton Manning (picked first overall); Tom Brady (sixth round); Drew Brees (second round); Philip Rivers (fourth overall); Aaron Rodgers (24th overall); Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall); Mark Sanchez (fifth overall); Matt Ryan (third overall); Eli Manning (first overall); Tony Romo (undrafted); Joe Flacco (18th overall); Matt Schaub (third round).

     

    Translation: Drafting QBs is a freaking crapshoot. You're throwing dice. If you miss with a top-3 pick, it's a catastrophe because of the financial hit and the seasons squandered trying to make a bad situation work. (See: Russell, JaMarcus.) The six teams that misfired on Carr, Couch, Leaf, Harrington and the Smiths failed to win a playoff game for at least SIX STRAIGHT YEARS after whiffing on those picks; all six picked in the top 3 of another draft within three years of the whiff; and the seventh team (Oakland) has missed three straight postseasons since whiffing on Russell.

     

    So based on the last 12 years of evidence, it's just as likely that Bradford will murder the Rams as save them. Of course, you could have said the same thing about Matthew Stafford last spring … and he made it. That's why St. Louis will take Bradford. Just don't tell me it's a "safe pick" because it's not. The next guy is the safe pick.

     

    There's no way to know for sure what's going to happen with Tebow.

  2. Also, new JETS strategy: collect all the corners. Ever.

     

    The Jets just look loaded.

     

    The same can be said for Bradford (who has no O-line worth mentioning) and Spags (who still doesn't have a defense worth mentioning).

     

     

    It's not the scouting structure. He just doesn't throw like an NFL QB. I honestly just don't believe that he'll ever be anything more than a below average passer, and for all the VY comparisons...Vince was a much better athlete and scrambler.

     

    Timmy looked scattered in the Senior Bowl. I'm going to be stunned (STUNNED!) if he ever pans out.

     

    And McDaniels has turned the roster over and made it his own..under some less than spectacular circumstances...if the Tebow Era doesn't pan out he's never going to be given another headcoaching job.

  3. Liking this draft a lot. :)

     

    I could really care less about people who give credit to a system or a coach. You could do the same with Montana and Young. But three years down the line, Tebow to Royal & Thomas could be akin to Warner to Boldin & Fitzgerald. Well, maybe. So Royal moves to X, insert Thomas at Y, with Stokley in the slot. Now, if they get Aaron Hernandez (or OMG Rob Gronkowski) in the 2nd or 3rd or maybe Clay Harbor or Dennis Pitta in the 4th, and Scheffler's spot will be filled.

     

    Or he could be a total bust and Josh McDaniels could be out on his ass.

     

    Both are distinct possibilities.

  4. Well, i dind't mean to imply that he shouldn't be given the position. That Heyman doesn't stand achance remark didn't came out as it should wich lead to incorret interpretations for what i was trying to say. Wich is: He is no messiah and he is overrated. Who should book it? Someone other then russo. Keep russo as a writter and get a skilled head booker. Maybe Heyman could do the trick, but i doubt it. Hope i'm wrong, it would be good if TNA succeeded. It would be great, actually. Answering your question: ME! I should book TNA.

     

    You keep saying that..but his promotion completely changed the way wrestling promotions tried to present themselves and how far they were willing to go with thier characters and storytelling. Every new 'cutting edge' promotion that has come after him is basically doing a spin on his style.

     

    he's like Qunetin Tarantino..yeah his best work was years ago but if his style and approach is still something people are copying, how can he possibly be "overrated?"

  5. Lot's of people actually. While acusing him of the WCW destruction they actually put him in that league. Strange, but true.

     

    You must've misread those rumors. The TNA fans who talked about Bischoff/Heyman wanted the two to come in as a team with EB as the finance /business guy and Heyman as the booker. Playing to their strengths as it were...

     

    and am I the only one who feels WWECW wasn't that bad under heyman?

     

    Possibly. It was pretty bad at times.

     

    Oh i saw ECW as it was, and i don't disagree, but it was still a trash hardcore promotion regardless of it. But i'm not saying you're wrong,that's why i said he ain't bad. He was pretty good, but still overrated, bearing in mind that those acomplishments were years ago, among other things. Everything changes.

     

     

    I still don't understand how the wrestling relates to the stories..and as someone else pointed out he had an extremely successful run on SD.

  6. Heyman doesn't stand a chance. FOr year all i heard from the IWC was: "Hope TNA signs Bischoff and/or Heyman and then WWE will have to wathc it's back!" Seriously? Come on! Bischoff is already there and we can all see how that work out. Heyman is seriously overrated. I mean, i ain't saying he's bad but the only good moment of him came in a trash hardcore promotion back in the 90's, AND,whem he took control of WWE's ECW we all saw how that worked out. Sure, Vince never made his life easy, but still, heyman is no Messias about to save TNA.

     

    You clearly didn't see ECW as it happened. The wrestling was trash a lot of the times, but he took guys that had very little going for them and turned them into frickin stars based on the stories and rivalries he created.

     

    Matches aside, ECW had some of the most inventie, brilliantly executed storylines of any era, past or present.

     

    I have no idea if Paul is still relevant as a writer, but if TNA is trying to find someone to get the most out of their talent and oucnh up the characters that have gone stale, he's not a bad choice.

  7. No. I accept that my preferences and priorities are different to 'most wrestling fans', but I'm not going to ignore my POV because it's different. Opinion is all I give, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

     

    I"m sorry..that's not what I meant. I don't mean to ignore your POV.

     

    Just that it's different enough that when you're giving your opinion that there are times that if a company is doing something to displease you they might actually be hitting the mark with the majority of their fanbase. And vice versa.

  8. Do I want to see one that has under-developed characters and female wrestlers that though pretty can't wrestle a lick?

     

    Or do I want to watch the ones that are not only hot (and has more variety then balloons + broomstick bodies), but can wrestle entertaining matches, AND have well developed personalities?

     

     

    All in all, I agree with TommyDreamerFan. I'd like a Knockouts (or Divas) division filled with hot girls, developed personalities, decent wrestlers and variety. There was a time when TNA seemed to have this, but it's slipped through their fingers as of late. They were a big reason I watched the show. Although the arrival of RVD & Jeff just about makes up the lack of Kong & Gail :D

     

    That's great but you guys are making the wrong comparison.

     

    What would you rather see: a division filed with hot girls that's scarce on actual character and in-rin performance? Or a division with a bunch of great workers and developed characters, but the girls are shaped like pears and they have faces that looks like they were beaten with the proverbial ugly stick?

     

    What do you pick in that situation? What would most fans?

     

    Saying "Id rather have hot women who can do everything" is great. Thanks, Mr Obvious. But the crux of my point is that fans want to see hot women first and foremost, and their relative 'talent' is like the cherry on the sundae; appreciated but unnecessary.

     

    Woody was cool, but I didn't care if he lived or died. I could relate to the kid, so I was emotionally invested in his sotry. I wanted him to win.

     

    Self, I think you are a really, really different cat when it comes to wrestling fans. When we have these discussions about what fans will watch and are interested in, you should maybe excuse your own POV completely.

     

    Because the vast majority of the people watching wrestling aren't as invested in character development and original storytelling as you are.

  9. Listen, this is asinine.

     

    The majority of the fans of pro wrestling are young males. .. if you really and truly believe that you're going to consistently draw ratings for a 'legit' women's division that are higher then one based more so on T&A, then you have a much higher opinion of that demographic then I do.

     

    Hyde: I don't know what to tell you. PWI made stories up on a regular basis. Was Wendi Richter over? Sure. Do I think that she was popular enough to merit being put on a cover of a wrestling magazine? Definitely.

     

    Do I think that a girl that was hot for maybe 2 years in the early 80s was, at her height, almost as over as the single most popular wrestler in the history of the industry at his very peak? No. No, I f***in; don't.

  10. Question! What would happen if you trained the big boobs women? I mean, I know. It's a silly idea, but hypothetically.

     

    Nothing. You'd get the same bang for your buck.

     

    The E gets the same rating for the current crop of "talentless" Divas as they did when they had Molly, Trish, Lita, Ivory, etc...

     

    And TNA is getting the same ratings for their KO segments that heavily feature TBP, Love, and Tara as they did when they had Kong, Hamada, Sarita, etc...

  11. Hell there are PWI's claiming that fact. Its not that I say its true but she was very over given the whole Lauper connection etc. Trish, Chyna and to a lesser extent Lita where pretty over as well in recent times. Hell I will leave this to Remi as he is the expert hehe. Still as it has never been seriously tried there is no evidence either way if serious womens wrestling can be a draw on a major scale.

     

    OK...c'mon...now you're citing Pro Wrestling Illustrated? During the kayfabe era???

     

    It's never been tried seriously because promoters understand their audience. If you had a national company, would you gamble on an arena mostly filled with young males to cheer for a legitimate women's division, or would you show off some chicks with big boobs and hope that they don't hurt themselves out there? What's the safer move there?

  12. I think this discussion came up a while back in the E thread as well. It is because I think a good tag division can draw. Main eventers are the main draw but not the only draw. Evidence would be the highpoints in wrestling in the 80's and 90's, yes there was always a strong ME scene but it was accompanied by a good tag team scene. As far as women's wrestling goes there is little evidence as it has never really been tried. But given Richter's induction in her peak she was near as popular as Hogan.

     

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

     

    c'mon ...

  13. Exactly. We're all nerds, nerds are everywhere. I'd say once you hit early 20's, all of a sudden it doesn't matter any more, unless you're really insecure in yourself I guess. I'm proud of the fact that I'm a geek. I love hitting the comic book store. My Mrs bought me a set of massive Transformers for my birthday last year that I proudly display in my living room...they are *NOT* to be played with though :-p

     

    We a day at the Wolfslair recently to get some footage of Rampage and Bisping hitting the pads, and do a video interview with Rampage. Know what he does literally every second he isn't on the mats? XBox360. He bought one and a big TV for the 'lair. He literally doesn't stop playing. Nerd.

     

    Know why Dan Hardy has the red stripe in his mohawk? Tribute to Raphael of the Ninja Turtles, which he watches religiously, along with collecting the toys and comics. Nerd.

     

    Nerds are everywhere...and we're takin' over....

     

    This. Exactly this.

     

    I love buying comics. I tried to explain TEW to my new gf and eventually she just calls it my "nerdy wrestling game." Anyone who really gets into fantasy sports is nerdy and that's half of sports fans these days...not to get completely off topic but (like brashley said) unless you're an insecure teenager, being called a nerd these days isn't a big deal.

     

    Back to wrestling talk..:p

  14. Great question. And since when does discussing wrestling online makes someone a nerd, or a full time basher? As people would say around here: Menos. Bem menos.

     

    I would say that if you play a text based wrestling simulator, hang out on boards to talk about said simulator, go to message boards ot talk about pro wrestling, and visit news site to do the same..you're a wrestling nerd.

     

    it's cool. Just accept it. Nerd run things these days.

  15. Why does wanting to see a good tag team division make someone a nerd?

     

    That's not even close to what I said.

     

    I refer to ALL internet wrestling fans as nerds.

     

    The point I was making is that the lack of a tag division is only really important to net fans (or nerds), it doesn't affect the E in any significant way, so they have no reason to change it.

     

    So wanting a tag division doesn't make you a nerd...hanging out on these boards and checking wrestling news sites does.

  16. Apparently Jim Ross had a meeting with Dixie Carter today, he didn't sign a contract but is interested in joining TNA as possibly an announcer and definitely in a backstage talent relations capacity.

     

    I kinda feel sorry for Jim Ross as he's been relegated to being Vince McMahon's personal lapdog. Using his credibility to wipe Vince McMahon's dirty sanitary napkins on the face of wrestling fans.

     

    His blog:

     

    http://www.jrsbarbq.com/blog/jr-vegas-cac

     

    Expect to hear from WWE regarding my next assignment w/ them in a day or two. Contrary to what is being carelessly reported, WWE is still my top priority as it relates to wrestling gigs.

     

    Amazed at the amount of inaccurate info regarding my future. Can only say that my future is bright, that I'm very happy, and looking forward to an interesting next few days.

     

    When something is finalized I will accurately report it. Until then, be leery of all the nonsense that you read on line. Many interesting, high road projects are being presented to me of which I've previously discussed. Nothing is a done deal. I'm merely listening to some of them. Many projects that the internet are reporting are completely false. You can believe that or not. Whatever I decide to do will be things that are classy, fun and things that I have been wanting to become involved with.

     

    Right now I'm enjoying a special week for my wife and me and hoping to sell some JR's products to you here on line.

     

    Now the conspiracy theorists can go back to work. Have a great day because we certainly are. Thanks

     

    I don't know where the Carter meeting is being reported, but I kinda tend to tak e JR at his word on this kind of stuff. I don't agree with his views on the business but he tends to be pretty straightforward on his blog.

     

    And yeah TNA bashing goes way to far sometimes and is kind of a hobby on the net. So is E bashing though but to a lesser extent. They get away with a lot more stuff because they are no1 and do the same bad stuff all the time that its kind of a moot point. Like their non existent tag division and their excuse for a women's division.

     

    Unless you can show that a tag division or a legit woman's division would somehow generate more revenue than normal for the E, it's only a 'mistake' in the minds of internet wrestling nerds.

     

    Well the AJ vs RVD match not being epic kind of left you wanting more and I think that is what they where going for plus commercials always screw with it.

     

    AJ vs RVD in a ladder match would beb a perfect PPV headliner, so yeah..leaving us wanting for more is a great strategy.

  17. Money for pay per view buys. RvD vs Hardy and RvD vs AJ are two of the bigger matches they can put on at this point. TV doesn't make a promotion much money. PPV does.

     

     

    To be fair, PPV doesn't make TNA the majority of their money. Their buys are garbage. TV is their money maker.

     

    So this approach of trying to boost ratings first does actually make sense.

  18. Matt Morgan does everything Rob Terry does, only better. And how many of that type do you really need?

     

    This. Absolutely this. Terry is a giant waste of time when you have far more talented guys with similar looks on the roster.

     

    I haven't seen alot of Rob Terry, but I kinda picture him as a Lex Luger, pushed and pushed but the fans never really taking to him.

     

    To be fair, Luger was monstrously over both as a heel with the Horseman and as a face chasing Flair in hos first WCW run.

  19. And he needs your help…

     

    - Kevin Nash recently posted on Twitter, looking for help renaming "The Band," help Big Kev out…

     

    band ? or does anyone have anything better? wolfpac is out . best name I'll fly you to Impact and put you on TV no s*** . thinking caps on!!

     

    The Cliq? With HBK retired, they have most of the members of that little group.

×
×
  • Create New...