cappyboy Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> You might be one of the few. Most people (including most people whose jobs depend on it) aren't willing to give him 3 years in the same system to "see what happens". Their contracts are only 3-5 years long and the axe is always hovering above them. Not everyone has the luxury Aaron Rodgers had and not everyone can come in and be lights out like Cam or Matt Ryan. The problem often arises with rookie/young quarterbacks who wind up on teams that don't have a true #1 receiver. Luck won't have that problem but then again, neither did Kevin Kolb. At the beginning of last season, there were several occasions where Cam Newton, under pressure, just threw the ball in Steve Smith's general direction....and completed the pass. Colt would be a much better quarterback if he had someone to throw it to. But the Browns are so fixated on bringing another doe-eyed kid in to play quarterback that they'll never use a high enough pick to get the kind of receiver ANY quarterback is going to need to succeed in this league nowadays.</p><p> .</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Who said anything about three years? Multiple would be at least two. This year he'll be running the same system he did last year. With all the teachable moments last year provided and this year being a more traditional example of an offseason going forward, Colt had better take a step forward this year. Otherwise the third you assuming I want is a moot point. I'll have had my multiple seasons of him not doing anything in the same system and be looking to Barkley or Jones or whomever else solidifies themselves this college season.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What he says is pretty much correct and remember, I'm a Broncos fan. Look, you have a young quarterback that you want to develop. You just signed pretty much the best quarterback in the business. Who better for that young quarterback to learn from? No one would begrudge them starting Peyton over Tebow. No one with a brain, at least. Seeing how Peyton prepares, how he goes about his business, and how well he plays the quarterback position is bound to HELP the young quarterback you're developing. The young quarterback with experience running a team and winning in the playoffs. In this league, you NEED more than one competent quarterback to be successful. That is especially true when you consider Peyton's precarious physical condition. So now you dump the accomplished young quarterback so you can start from scratch trying to groom a successor to Peyton? They're not drafting a QB in the first three rounds so anyone they get will either be mildly talented or (if they're extremely fortunate) the second coming of Tom Brady (pick #199, remember). Which result is more likely?<p> </p><p> I didn't think it was a good idea to dump Tebow for the reasons they did (he's popular, he's unconventional, he needs work) and God forbid, if Peyton gets hurt, the Broncos' season is over (at least until Peyton returns). We have too many holes on offense (center, guard, receiver depth, quarterback depth, running back) and defense (how old are our corners again? Why do we start two strong safeties? Where's the speed in the front seven aside from Von? Who's replacing Bunkley?) to justify taking one of the top quarterbacks (basically Ryan Tannehill or old ass Brandon Wheeden) unless they drop precipitously. I'm not even going to consider Caleb Hanie since he's third string material, nothing more, nothing less.</p><p> </p><p> I don't wish anything bad on Peyton but I think the organization made a mistake in dealing Tebow for the equivalent of magic beans and pocket lint.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I am not sure how you got that rant out of what was said in that article. To me the article was about a nutbag who is trying to stay relevant in the media by saying that he hopes that God smites Peyton with an injury because he would deserve it because he took the job from someone who is a good Christian.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew222 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 <p>Anyone else think the Colts may select Robert instead of Luck?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I am thinking the Colts may do it</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cappyboy" data-cite="cappyboy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Who said anything about three years? Multiple would be at least two. This year he'll be running the same system he did last year. With all the teachable moments last year provided and this year being a more traditional example of an offseason going forward, Colt had better take a step forward this year. Otherwise the third you assuming I want is a moot point. I'll have had my multiple seasons of him not doing anything in the same system and be looking to Barkley or Jones or whomever else solidifies themselves this college season.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> cappyboy, who's he throwing the ball to? How do you expect a quarterback to perform well when he has no one to throw to? His best bet is bubble screens to Josh Cribbs and those don't work all the time. Who does he have that can gobble up the corner's cushion or win in press man and work across the safety's face? Who does he have that can give a defense pause and slow the blitz and respect play action? Colt McCoy doesn't even have a bonafide #2 receiver, much less a #1. He's throwing to a bunch of #3s and #4s who can't separate from linebackers, much less corners.</p><p> </p><p> Look at TJ Yates' performance. Is he a better QB than Colt? Hard to say since TJ had weapons and Colt....does not. If you give Colt a receiver on par with Dre, Holmgren wouldn't be looking to draft another QB in the first round. Look at the beginning of last season when that kid from the U (Leonard something) was making Rex Grossman look like a legit QB.</p><p> </p><p> Point blank, another year is not going to do Colt any good unless the Browns load up on weapons on offense. If I was them, I'd trade down and gather picks and go for value and quantity. But they're not going to do that. They're going to reach for a QB (probably "I've played the position for two years" Ryan Tannehill) and wind up in the same situation they've always been in. There's something to be said about perennial bottom dwelling franchises.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I am not sure how you got that rant out of what was said in that article. To me the article was about a nutbag who is trying to stay relevant in the media by saying that he hopes that God smites Peyton with an injury because he would deserve it because he took the job from someone who is a good Christian.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Odd. The quote I read was:</p><p> </p><p> "And you just ask yourself," Robertson said, "OK, so Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he's been injured. If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback. And in my opinion, it would serve them right."</p><p> </p><p> Which I agree with because it's almost all true.</p><p> </p><p> 1) Peyton Manning has been a tremendous multi-time MVP quarterback</p><p> 2) Peyton Manning has been injured of late</p><p> 3) If Peyton should get hurt ("if that injury comes back"), the Broncos no longer have a proven quarterback (Tebow - Jets)</p><p> 4) Should that happen, it would serve them right.</p><p> </p><p> The first three are facts, the last one is someone stating their opinion. An opinion that I, as a Broncos fan and knowing the NFL like I do (how 'bout dem Texans?), agree with. In this league, you really need to have more than one competent quarterback. The Texans learned the hard way that Matt Leinart is not a competent quarterback. It was fortunate for them that they had the elements in place to allow a rookie to step in and perform well. Most teams don't have that. God forbid Peyton's little brother gets hurt, the Giants are done (until he comes back). Packers with Rodgers, the Saints with Brees, many teams are in the same boat. So they have to hope and pray their starters stay healthy. Now, if you have a starter with a recent major nerve injury, do you dump all the experienced quarterbacks on your roster?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="matthew222" data-cite="matthew222" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Anyone else think the Colts may select Robert instead of Luck?<p> </p><p> </p><p> I am thinking the Colts may do it</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think you need to stop listening to GM-speak. Jim Irsay is pandering for a deal. He wants someone to offer him the sun, moon, and stars for the #1 pick OR he wants to try to get Luck's agents to accept less than the max allowed at that position. Either way, it's a smokescreen. There's no one in the Colts front office who believes RGIII is a better quarterback than Andrew Luck. Not a single person. Andrew Luck has spent the last 2-3 years working in an NFL system (remember, Jim Harbaugh installed that system with the Niners. Did decently with it too). RGIII is going to have to learn how the do the same thing. If nothing else, that separates them.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 But the Browns are so fixated on bringing another doe-eyed kid in to play quarterback that they'll never use a high enough pick to get the kind of receiver ANY quarterback is going to need to succeed in this league nowadays. I was both wrong and right here. The Browns did use a high enough pick to get Colt some help (oh boy, did they ever!). But, they also used a second first round pick to bring in another doe-eyed kid to play quarterback. Wait, that's not exactly true. As a 28 year old rookie, I don't think anyone's going to call Wheeden doe-eyed. But he's never played at this level before and the speed of the game is going to astonish him. Problem with Wheeden is, if Colt beats him out for the starting position, his window of opportunity closes far more swiftly than it would with a traditional rookie. He's a one (contract) and done player, almost guaranteed. When his rookie contract expires, he'll be 32/33 years old. I have to say, I scratched my head when I saw who the Broncos picked. Yes, trading out of the first round was a masterstroke since by that time, the true difference makers were gone. However, using a high 2nd round pick to draft a one-dimensional defensive tackle who can't fight off double teams, is....odd. The only good thing about it is the kid has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks he should've been a first rounder (and was promised such by three teams). But being a QB driven league, I don't see the use/value in defensive tackles who can't put the quarterback on his ass and/or can't stand up to double/triple teams (so 'space eating' is out). Ronnie Hillman is ridiculous though! At 1:30, look at that burst! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GruntMark Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The Browns are becoming a case study on how to become and maintain being a crappy team for over a decade. And the funniest part is, they really strive to be crap. In that division they could finish with losing records for a dozen years without any real effort. But they work at being bad. The Browns may in fact turn out to be a weird piece of performance art titled "Failure." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubernoob Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I was both wrong and right here. The Browns did use a high enough pick to get Colt some help (oh boy, did they ever!). But, they also used a second first round pick to bring in another doe-eyed kid to play quarterback. Wait, that's not exactly true. As a 28 year old rookie, I don't think anyone's going to call Wheeden doe-eyed. But he's never played at this level before and the speed of the game is going to astonish him. Problem with Wheeden is, if Colt beats him out for the starting position, his window of opportunity closes far more swiftly than it would with a traditional rookie. He's a one (contract) and done player, almost guaranteed. When his rookie contract expires, he'll be 32/33 years old. I have to say, I scratched my head when I saw who the Broncos picked. Yes, trading out of the first round was a masterstroke since by that time, the true difference makers were gone. However, using a high 2nd round pick to draft a one-dimensional defensive tackle who can't fight off double teams, is....odd. The only good thing about it is the kid has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks he should've been a first rounder (and was promised such by three teams). But being a QB driven league, I don't see the use/value in defensive tackles who can't put the quarterback on his ass and/or can't stand up to double/triple teams (so 'space eating' is out). Ronnie Hillman is ridiculous though! At 1:30, look at that burst! Call me crazy, and yes it's not always like this... but Warren Moon, Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia. All 28 or older with their first NFL snap/start. Granted, for every one of them there are a million Chris Weinkes. If he pans out for the Browns, he can easily play 6-10 years. Not ideal, but the situation could be worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan93 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 One of the greatest Linebackers in NFL History, Junior Seau, 43, was found dead in his Oceanside, California, home today. He shot himself. RIP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think you need to stop listening to GM-speak. Jim Irsay is pandering for a deal. He wants someone to offer him the sun, moon, and stars for the #1 pick OR he wants to try to get Luck's agents to accept less than the max allowed at that position. Either way, it's a smokescreen. There's no one in the Colts front office who believes RGIII is a better quarterback than Andrew Luck. Not a single person. Andrew Luck has spent the last 2-3 years working in an NFL system (remember, Jim Harbaugh installed that system with the Niners. Did decently with it too). RGIII is going to have to learn how the do the same thing. If nothing else, that separates them. It was actually option C: Jim Irsay is an attention whore. He never had any intention of drafting Griffin or trading out of the first spot or getting Luck to take less money. He just wanted people to talk about the Colts...and, more specifically, the Colts owner. Um, this isn't a serious question, is it? Should I name off all the backs who have had "instant" success and then disappeared from the face of the planet? Look up Steve Slaton. How 'bout Derrick Ward? The reason your Petersons and CJ2ks and Fosters get the big money deals is because they're special. But you don't have to be special to "put the numbers up". Again, go back through Mike (and Kyle) Shanahan's resumes and see how many thousand yard rushers that offensive system has produced. Now, ask yourself how many of those players were 'special'. Shaun Alexander "put the numbers up", but where is he now? This is nitpicking, but Shaun Alexander is in thie Peterson/CJ2K/Foster category, not the Slaton/Ward/McClain one. Alexander put the numbers up for a long time and was the best running back in the league, if not the best player in the league, for more than one season. His downfall was because of injuries and loss of offensive linemen, not because he wasn't special. He was very special. But yeah, most of everything else you said is true. Well yeah, the Colts weren't very good when Peyton got there. That's why they had the #1 overall pick. I'm not saying Luck isn't a good player. But people are anointing him the second coming of, well, the guy he's expected to replace, and I don't think you can do that. The expectations are way too high and he's not likely to be able to meet them. The way they're hyping this kid, if he doesn't win the Super Bowl in his rookie year, people are going to question his makeup. They're going to compare his rookie year to Cam Newton's ("Well, Cam had a worse team and look how well he did"), ignoring the fact that Cam had a potent running game supporting him (unless they hit the lottery in round 2-7, the Colts won't) and a defense that turned out a lot better than expected. Basically, I don't buy the messiah stories people weave around 1st round QBs. More often than not, they're busts (from Akili Smith and Ryan Leaf on down). Go back 10 years and you'll see that's the case. It's worth noting that the Colts were in the AFC Championship Game the year before they got the #1 overall pick and took Peyton Manning. (Ironically, lead by Andrew Luck's college coach, Jim Harbaugh.) So there's a lot of similiarities between the situations the team was in then and the one they're in now. But the thing that people will need to remember as they watch Andrew Luck start his career - and no doubt, they will not, and it'll drive me crazy - is how average Peyton Manning was in his first five seasons. His record was 42-38. He had an even 100 interceptions in those five seasons, which I believe is the record for most interceptions in the first five seasons of a quarterback's career. Of course, he's thrown 98 interceptions in the 8 seasons since, with 7 straight 12-win seasons and 8 straight playoff appearances. But the point is that Peyton struggled, sometimes a lot, as he adjusted to the NFL. There was never much doubt that he would figure it out eventually, but it didn't happen right away, and people shouldn't expect that from Andrew Luck. Also, I don't have the quote here, but you mentioned that the Broncos shouldn't have traded Tebow and instead let him learn behind Manning. Nah. Manning's a great QB, but you couldn't have two more different QBs than Manning and Tebow. Which means Tebow wouldn't be able to just step into the starting spot if Manning got hurt or in a few years when he retires like you implied, because they require two completely different systems. You're better off drafting a pocket passing QB who can learn behind Manning and pick up right where he left off if he gets hurt or, hopefully, in 3+ years when he retires. Which, of course, they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 One of the greatest Linebackers in NFL History, Junior Seau, 43, was found dead in his Oceanside, California, home today. He shot himself. RIP. What a tragedy. All those people who complain about all the rules changes for player safety in the NFL, I wish they could spend a day going through what Junior Seau likely went through. Physically and emotionally. And the thousands of former players just like him and who are struggling to get through life, with woefully inadequate financial support from NFL. Sometimes it takes a tragedy of this magnitude(no disrespect to other former players who have committed suicide, like Dave Duerson, who also shot himself in the chest so his brain could be examined) to get people's attention. The NFL is trying to change for a reason - to stop stuff like this from happening. (Even if it is just to protect themselves financially.) RIP Junior Seau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The Browns are becoming a case study on how to become and maintain being a crappy team for over a decade. And the funniest part is, they really strive to be crap. In that division they could finish with losing records for a dozen years without any real effort. But they work at being bad. The Browns may in fact turn out to be a weird piece of performance art titled "Failure." And it didn't have to be like this. With the 22nd pick, they had a shot at a bookend tackle to plug in opposite Joe Thomas, a plug & play center, the #1/2 guard in the draft and a slew of defensive players. They could've even picked up a receiver or traded down and gotten more picks. Call me crazy, and yes it's not always like this... but Warren Moon, Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia. All 28 or older with their first NFL snap/start. Granted, for every one of them there are a million Chris Weinkes. If he pans out for the Browns, he can easily play 6-10 years. Not ideal, but the situation could be worse. So, you use a Hall of Famer who had multiple championships at the professional level before coming to the NFL (because the NFL didn't think he was a quarterback), a first ballot shoe-in who won a title as the triggerman for one of the most storied and prolific offenses in NFL history....and a career journeyman who did nothing of note aside from having his sexual preference questioned by his top receiver at the time? Yes, those are examples of people who were older than normal before coming to the NFL. That says nothing about using a first round pick on one when you already have a young QB who, to date, has been decent but not 'good' due to lack of tools at his disposal. I'd really like to see Colt get cut and go somewhere else (Miami? Seattle?) and prove successful. He's not a stupid kid, he's not a bust, he's a kid who has ZERO help and thus, has to hold the ball longer than he should, waiting for receivers to try to separate from coverage. This is nitpicking, but Shaun Alexander is in thie Peterson/CJ2K/Foster category, not the Slaton/Ward/McClain one. Alexander put the numbers up for a long time and was the best running back in the league, if not the best player in the league, for more than one season. His downfall was because of injuries and loss of offensive linemen, not because he wasn't special. He was very special. I'll admit, I just didn't like Alexander so I often forget he had five good years. Also, I don't have the quote here, but you mentioned that the Broncos shouldn't have traded Tebow and instead let him learn behind Manning. Nah. Manning's a great QB, but you couldn't have two more different QBs than Manning and Tebow. Which means Tebow wouldn't be able to just step into the starting spot if Manning got hurt or in a few years when he retires like you implied, because they require two completely different systems. You're better off drafting a pocket passing QB who can learn behind Manning and pick up right where he left off if he gets hurt or, hopefully, in 3+ years when he retires. Which, of course, they did. The Broncos stated goal for this offseason was to develop Tebow into more of a pocket passer. To that end, Tebow was going to spend inordinate amounts of time with Mike McCoy, Adam Gase, and John Elway. Adding Peyton to that mix would've only made it easier to do given the fact that the kid was more than willing to try to develop his game. See, here's the part I don't get about folks. You want a quarterback with the will to win, a refusal to lose. You HAVE that quarterback (as he's proven both in college AND in the pros. Or do you think just anyone could beat a superior Steelers team?) but he has some deficiencies in his game. So what do you do? You throw him away, trading him for, as I said, magic beans and pocket lint (Philip Blake & Danny Trevathan have a lot to live up to)? Brock Osweiler is RAW. His throwing motion has a similar 'hitch' to Tebow's. He's never worked in a true pro-style system, his footwork is wonky, and he's never carried a team to a championship on his back. I'm not saying Tebow is 'better' than Osweiler. I'm saying Tebow is proven and Osweiler isn't (not even at the collegiate level). Yes, Tebow needs work becoming more of a traditional passer but in all communications with fans, Elway has stated Tebow has 'it' and that can't be taught but the mechanics can be. Now you add one of the greatest of all time at the position to the roster. Who better for Tebow (who has 'it') to learn from? But this was a regime move. Tebow, for all his success (and how many quarterbacks can say they've won in the playoffs?), was 'Josh McDaniels' guy' so Elway wanted to put his own person in line to take over. I get that. But when Jacksonville offers a better deal, why let the player decide where he wants to go (Tebow preferred the Jets because the Jags OWNER pushed for the trade, not their coaching staff)? I just have a problem picking a developmental quarterback that high when there are glaring holes elsewhere (gee, how old is the secondary again? Who's Champ's heir apparent?). But then, I've been a fan since Craig Morton was taking snaps and I was similarly puzzled when the defense would get blown the freak out in the Super Bowl and they'd draft a receiver in the 1st round (hi Ricky Nattiel, when Nate Odomes, Hardy Nickerson, Greg Lloyd, and Tim McDonald were still on the board!). So I guess this is par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eigan Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I have to say, I scratched my head when I saw who the Broncos picked. Yes, trading out of the first round was a masterstroke since by that time, the true difference makers were gone. However, using a high 2nd round pick to draft a one-dimensional defensive tackle who can't fight off double teams, is....odd. The only good thing about it is the kid has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks he should've been a first rounder (and was promised such by three teams). But being a QB driven league, I don't see the use/value in defensive tackles who can't put the quarterback on his ass and/or can't stand up to double/triple teams (so 'space eating' is out). Ronnie Hillman is ridiculous though! At 1:30, look at that burst! I have an issue with the value that the Broncos got with their earlier picks. Wolfe *also* has a chip on his shoulder because of his experiences growing up: http://www.850koa.com/pages/krieger.html?article=10086174#ixzz1tS4z4IlS It's an interesting read. That kid is hungry. I hope his motor is up to the task. He should provide versatility on the line playing 3-tech, with the ability (if need be) to play 5-tech. Seems that the FO is putting a lot of their faith towards Warren/Bannan as NTs. They were heavily optimistic last year on Vickerson too. Hillman should be nice for Manning's trademark stretch plays in 11 and 12 sets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I have an issue with the value that the Broncos got with their earlier picks. Wolfe *also* has a chip on his shoulder because of his experiences growing up: http://www.850koa.com/pages/krieger.html?article=10086174#ixzz1tS4z4IlS It's an interesting read. That kid is hungry. I hope his motor is up to the task. He should provide versatility on the line playing 3-tech, with the ability (if need be) to play 5-tech. Unless he has an epiphany or turns into a find along the lines of "pick 199" (Tom Brady), I can't see him playing the 5. The skillset and abilities required are exactly what he is deficient in. If you look at him in college, when teams put two bodies on him (or two bodies and a chip), he disappeared. That's what surprised me about him. Consider who went in that general area/round last year: Dalton, Bowers, Rahim, Torrey Smith, Randall Cobb, this kid's got a lot to prove to justify his draft position. He's a zero or 1 tech. He doesn't have the moves or power (remember, gets swallowed by double teams) to be an effective 3 or 5. I sure hope I'm wrong, but he doesn't excite at all on tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 <p>First of all it amazes me no one has picked you up yet remi. With your vast knowledge of football and your football pedigree I would have expect you to by now at least be a scout somewhere. It's a shame when people like bill polian is given a shot, but you are not.</p><p> </p><p> Now onto my program</p><p> </p><p> NFL is looking at maybe giving vilma and others a lesser penalty..... Bad idea. First and formost you do this and I wills question goddell integrity of the game stance. To lessen the penalty would be idiotic honestly. These are not</p><p> Players who fought in a game or did a certain pentaly in a game, they are men who paid each other to hurt people in games. No me personally I don't have a problem with this, in fact I enjoy hard hits, it's why I watch rugby, but for goddell an is standing of a fun, safer, fan friendlier sport this hurts the image of the NFL. To allow this would be like allowing benidict Arnold and his delicious breakfast to continue to betray us with common knowledge that he is doing so. So goddell, I know you dont read this board, but I strongly suggest that if you want to continue this imagine makeover you're on then lessening the suspensions may be a bad P.R move. It is a dream for the players to play in the NFL, they all say, well remind them of that as they bitch, moan, and complain about the suspensions you hand them and tell them. Just because you got to the dream doesn't mean you don't fight to keep the dream</p><p> </p><p> Now on to my next part, I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on tv, I don't actually understand the lawsuit being brought to the NFL, brad clupepper is now involved. Sorry if you knew what he has become you would get the irony of that. First, when I first played pop Warner they made mommy and daddy dearest sign a paper that said this is a contact sport, your kid could suffer, then rattled off about 15 things that could happen to me. Mom and dad signed it and I was off. I had to sign a waiver similar to that every year until I graduated high school. My dad, who mind you graduated in 76 said he had to sign that waiver. So I'm trying to figure out is what happened from graduation until now that made people forget that you knew what could happen by playing this sport, you knew the risk and you pushed them aside for the rewards and glory. Does the NFL need to start having players sign waivers stating, this, this, and this just to protect themselves? When a current NFL player comes out and states he knows he has brain damage but he is okay with it because he put himself in this position makes me think, hm should everyone think this way?</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First of all it amazes me no one has picked you up yet remi. With your vast knowledge of football and your football pedigree I would have expect you to by now at least be a scout somewhere. It's a shame when people like bill polian is given a shot, but you are not.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Happen to know any scouts? The job pays crap (less than minimum wage when you consider the hours put in "off the clock") and there's no guarantee you'll wind up like Floyd Reece or Eric DaCosta given the limited number of opportunities available. I love this game to death but I also love gaming and aside from my summer as an intern at NCSoft Austin (which I did voluntarily, unpaid so I could learn how the business actually works), I don't think it's something I'd want to do all the time. Also, when you consider how the professionals only get it right around 50% of the time, you know that this isn't an exact science. But that's why the better scouting organizations rely on tape and not simply measurables. What did the kid do between the whistles, at a lower level of competition?</p><p> </p><p> And there's nothing inherently wrong with being a zero or 1 technique. Ask Vince Wilfork and Casey Hampton to show you their paychecks. As an example, BJ Raji was exactly the same player in college that he's been for the Packers. Aside from the seasoning he's gotten, he's the same high motor, high productivity player he was then. Go back a year. Whatever happened to Derrick Harvey? Or Vernon Gholston? How does a team value Harvey over Carl Nicks (5th round pick in that draft)? Or Ryan Clady (franchise left tackle)? Who takes Vernon Gholston over Sedrick Ellis? Again, inexact science, and I'm sure there were scouts who believed that Gholston was a "monster" and that Clady was "too soft".</p><p> </p><p> I don't think the NFL will reduce Vilma's suspension because of the precedent it would set (Sue the Commissioner, get your suspension reduced). Plus, I don't think they want to have to "show their work" (i.e. submit the proof they have and the testimony from snitches....err, other members of the Saints squad, since they'd have to reveal their identities and I'm sure they promised confidentiality upfront). Remember that not everyone who plays on an NFL squad is a multimillionaire star. Practice squad players get to attend meetings as well. If the Commissioner makes a threat (or a promise) to one of these guys making "average Joe" money, that would tend to convince them to cooperate. What led them to believe that the way they portrayed Vilma is actually true?</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killagy Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Whoo!!! Nfl Kickoff!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 That pass from Gabbert to Cecil Shorts was awesome. I only got to see the last half of the fourth quarter, but that was such a fun finish. Jacksonville Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon_lit_tears Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Okay. I need advice. I have Rodgers and RG3 as my two QBs. I can't say they are the best, but both have put up the numbers. The one spot I'm hurting is RBs. I was offered a trade. McGahee, Ponder & Pierre Thomas for one of my two QBs. Any opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 I don't know if you have completed the trade yet but don't. Rodgers and RGIII are both good for on average 25 points a game. Thomas just scored his first rushing TD what this week or last week and he's on a primary passing team and I haven't looked at his fantasy stats but I'd be shocked if he averaged ten points a game. A quick look he's only got 214 yards and one td this year. Not worth giving up either one of your QB's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon_lit_tears Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Problem is my RBs suck. No trade though. He offered me Spiller and Thomas for Rodgers but the trade was Vetoed by the league saying the del was wrong, yet the SAME two people who are complaining about this wanted me to trade Rodgers for Morris.... Morris has pytup decent RB numbers, but I hate looking at rookies on week 3-4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 So I need to choose between starting Colston and Miles Austin this week. Miles and the Cowboys have had a hit or miss offense all year and this week they play the Giants. Colston has been frustrating as well for me with them taking weeks to figure out the offense this year and giving sub par performances. He's recently starting to break out of it with touchdowns the last three games. He faces Denver this week who overall I don't feel like have a good defense but chances are Colston will be defended by Bailey who is still a top notch shut down corner in the league. So who would you start this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoganRodzen Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 So I need to choose between starting Colston and Miles Austin this week. Miles and the Cowboys have had a hit or miss offense all year and this week they play the Giants. Colston has been frustrating as well for me with them taking weeks to figure out the offense this year and giving sub par performances. He's recently starting to break out of it with touchdowns the last three games. He faces Denver this week who overall I don't feel like have a good defense but chances are Colston will be defended by Bailey who is still a top notch shut down corner in the league. So who would you start this week? I have Colston in a league and I suggest starting him. If the Broncos and Saints get in a shootout you'll see Brees finding him often. I always think he has the potential to have a breakout game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 I think I will go with Colston and Peterson just had a big game for me going over his projected amount by about two points and I'm projected to beat my opponent by about 25 points so I think I can take the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'm just going to throw out all of the various NFL stuff I've been talking with other folks about. First, the big story, Ray Lewis is retiring. Some would say he's past his prime but, in my view, those would be people who don't know the game very well from a playing perspective. In football, it's not uncommon to see players go from relying on talent/athletic ability to relying on their knowledge of the game. Ray won a Super Bowl MVP primarily on athletic ability (though he was never a slouch in the film room). He's a first ballot Hall of Famer because of his knowledge of the game. He made everyone around him better because of what he KNEW, not his 40 time. Many of the players he played with (past and present) have related experiences of how he made them better players by showing them things like keys and how to find tendencies, things that made them better not just for a year, but going forward. He's as much of a coach on the field as Peyton Manning. It's a huge loss for the league in general and the Ravens specifically. The Jets. They need a new quarterback if they're not willing to invest in Greg McElroy (and that horrible excuse for an O-line). Mark Sanchez is not a franchise quarterback. The best he could ever hope to be is a game manager in the Trent Dilfer mold. Yes, Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino but nowadays, teams are looking for supreme talents at that position. That's not Sanchez. Even in his "good" years, he was primarily a game manager (since the team was predicated on ground & pound). He thrives in that role. But you don't give Tom Brady/Peyton Manning money to game managers. Joe Flacco. If he thinks he's an elite quarterback, he's got another think coming (or due). The elite quarterbacks in this league right now, all have rings...for a reason. His best bet is going to be taking a one year deal and hoping he can have a breakout year next year (or pray that the Ravens franchise him). Peyton. Where are the naysayers now? I have one friend who swore that the Broncos spent all that money to bring in "a broken down has been". As you might expect, I've given him lots of hell this season. I'm especially going to lay into him every week during the playoffs since his Giants are nowhere to be found (I think my Broncos eked in somehow? ). Russell Wilson. I love this guy. Not just for the way he plays, but where he was taken. Up until now, Tom Brady was the poster child for successful quarterbacks not taken in the first round (and Joe Montana was the poster child before that). To many (ignorant) fans, only quarterbacks taken in the first round are worth investing in. Granted, it's still early but this kid is athletic, smart, and crafty and with Beast Mode behind him, the future looks bright. Coaching/GM carousel. The Eagles firing Andy Reid, while expected, was pretty dumb in my view. Yes, he's made some missteps in recent years (seriously, Juan Castillo as DC? Michael Vick behind that shaky line?) but he's still an excellent coach. The death of Jim Johnson (a genius on a level with Dick LeBeau and Buddy Ryan, though with far fewer disciples. Sean McDermott is a bust) really killed Andy's ability to just focus on developing offensive players. Norv Turner needed to go since he's never figured out how to get a team to play a complete season at a high level. AJ Smith was a good GM most of the time but an awful GM at the wrong times (kinda like Tony Romo at quarterback). Mike Tannenbaum should've been fired when Eric Mangini was sacked. I don't know how you spend a top 5 pick on a quarterback with only one season as a starter on his resumé. In the process, you pass on a host of players who have turned out to be far better (like, oh I dunno, Josh Freeman, Clay Matthews, Cushing, Percy, etc). Heck, taking Brandon Pettigrew would've given the Jets a double tight end attack well before the Patriots did it. 2013 Hall of Fame inductees. In my opinion, if Don Coryell doesn't get in, the league's fanbase is, well, I'll refrain from the ad hominem. The Hall is for the best of the best. For coaches, that means people who have had the most influence over the game during their period and beyond. Right now, the NFL is a quarterback driven league. That is due to Don Coryell. There isn't a single franchise in the NFL that doesn't have a piece of Don Coryell's genius in its offensive playbook. Not one. Coryell never won a Super Bowl himself but his playbook did (it was called 'The Greatest Show on Turf'). Bill Parcells is eligible this year and if he gets in and Coryell doesn't, it will be an indictment on the fans (who have a say) and the writers. Parcells begat Belichick and Payton (among other less successful coaches). Coryell begat Madden, Gibbs, and Bill Walsh and that's just first generation. (Second generation would be first genner Ernie Zampese who taught second gen Norv Turner who directed an offense that was moderately successful in Dallas, no?) I don't care who else gets in (Larry Allen, Jonathan Ogden, etc) and who doesn't get in (booo, Steve Atwater & Karl Mecklenburg have got no shot!) but Coryell must get in or there is no justice in the world. This here, this is a Don Coryell invention. Every team on every level uses that in their offense. How many of Bill Parcells' inventions are used from Pee Wee to the NFL (and CFL)? Then again, most people have no idea about that. Heck, I even had to point it out to former teammates ("I didn't know that. All I knew is coach said to study this one book, so I studied the book. Didn't think to figure out where coach got it from!"). The NFL draft. If they're smart, the Chiefs will trade down out of the #1 spot. They can hope that the Rams are interested and willing to part with their two first rounders. This year, with the rookie salary cap having a year's track record, the top 5 picks should be a bit more valuable (since they're no longer a possible albatross, financially). Slotting should be easier which could make for more trade activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 <p>First week of playoffs in the bag. Kind of the rare week where everything that was supposed to happen, did happen. I kind of thought the Redskins would be the team to pull the mild upset due to home field advantage and the running game, but RGIII struggled and the Redskins lack of offense really kept them from being as close as they could have been. The Colts reminded everyone why they're probably the worst 11-5 team of all time, as their o-line and defense are just not playoff caliber. Next year we'll have to hear about how this team has "regressed" when they put up an 8-8 record and Luck's turnovers start being more of an issue.</p><p> </p><p> The Texans are really going to have to lean on their defense and ball control next week, because if they get in an early hole in the first half, it's game over if Matt Schaub keeps playing the way he has been.</p><p> </p><p> We'll have to see how the 49ers do with their young QB next week- pretty much every other "running" QB had some regression when dealing with teams that had them well-scouted. Of course, unlike Joe Webb, CK can run <em>and</em> throw the ball, so the Packers likely won't have it so easy.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> The Jets. They need a new quarterback if they're not willing to invest in Greg McElroy (and that horrible excuse for an O-line). Mark Sanchez is not a franchise quarterback. The best he could ever hope to be is a game manager in the Trent Dilfer mold. Yes, Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino but nowadays, teams are looking for supreme talents at that position. That's not Sanchez. Even in his "good" years, he was primarily a game manager (since the team was predicated on ground & pound). He thrives in that role. But you don't give Tom Brady/Peyton Manning money to game managers.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The problem with Sanchez is he hasn't even proved to be a very effective "game manager." His 18 picks the last two years have been way too high, and his completion percentage (54 this year, 56 last year, 55 two years ago), is consistently among the worst in the league. I mean his numbers match up with Rex Grossman, who is not exactly the picture of "game manager." The Jets definitely need to move on, whether that's trading for Alex Smith or Matt Flynn, or signing some other mediocre QB (because at this point mediocre is an improvement).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Joe Flacco. If he thinks he's an elite quarterback, he's got another think coming (or due). The elite quarterbacks in this league right now, all have rings...for a reason. His best bet is going to be taking a one year deal and hoping he can have a breakout year next year (or pray that the Ravens franchise him).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Flacco actually is a pretty good game manager, but he's definitely not a top 5 QB, and probably not even a top 10. He's barely top 15... cue the sign and trade with the Cardinals, Jets, Jaguars, Titans, or Chiefs. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Coaching/GM carousel. The Eagles firing Andy Reid, while expected, was pretty dumb in my view. Yes, he's made some missteps in recent years (seriously, Juan Castillo as DC? Michael Vick behind that shaky line?) but he's still an excellent coach. The death of Jim Johnson (a genius on a level with Dick LeBeau and Buddy Ryan, though with far fewer disciples. Sean McDermott is a bust) really killed Andy's ability to just focus on developing offensive players. Norv Turner needed to go since he's never figured out how to get a team to play a complete season at a high level. AJ Smith was a good GM most of the time but an awful GM at the wrong times (kinda like Tony Romo at quarterback). Mike Tannenbaum should've been fired when Eric Mangini was sacked. I don't know how you spend a top 5 pick on a quarterback with only one season as a starter on his resumé. In the process, you pass on a host of players who have turned out to be far better (like, oh I dunno, Josh Freeman, Clay Matthews, Cushing, Percy, etc). Heck, taking Brandon Pettigrew would've given the Jets a double tight end attack well before the Patriots did it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Andy Reid is the greatest coach in Eagles history, but it was time to go. The fans turned on him and the players gave up on him. Now the Eagles fans will be waxing nostalgic about 2005 for the next three years as they bottom out with this team that is both overpaid and terrible. Turner is a better coordinator than coach; I wonder if San Francisco would take him back.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.