Flip

QB isn't really the Bills problem. Fitzpatrick isn't a great QB, but neither is Alex Smith. The problem has been keeping playmakers healthy, and literally everything about the defense.

One question I was thinking of recently: what's the point of the eligible receivers rule? I get most rules, you need PI in order for there to be a passing game, etc, but what's the point of making it so only some guys can catch the ball?

One question I was thinking of recently: what's the point of the eligible receivers rule? I get most rules, you need PI in order for there to be a passing game, etc, but what's the point of making it so only some guys can catch the ball?

It would be nearly impossible to play defense if anyone on the O-Line could be a receiver. It would be chaos! It would be like when you're a kid at the playground and you have a designated QB and everyone goes out for a pass.

Hmm, would that be so bad? I think instead of a pro bowl game the NFL should give this kind of game a shot. A QB, 5 receivers against 5 DB's, no rushing, and you get 6 seconds to get off the pass. Let's do it!

Six man high school football (still played by a lot of rural schools in Texas, originated in Nebraska where it was first developed during the depression) allows all players to be eligible receivers. They also play on a 40 x 80 yard field and 15 yards is the 1st down mesasure. The player who receives the snap cannot advance the ball across the line of scrimmage, in other words there needs to be some exchange first, handoff, pitch, pass before that can happen, then the player receiving the snap can advance down the field.

It is a novelty to watch. Generally the rosters are about 10-15 kids at most.

A handful of other states still have six man ball, NE, MT, Florida, CO, Alabama even has a few schools that play w/six. I'm guessing I'm forgetting a couple of other states.

Eight Man ball is more well know and still alive and well in many states. Reciever eligibility is a little more complicated at that level, Guards and Tackles are eligible in certain formations if I recall from watching 8 man ball in Nebraska.

Jamarcus Russell preps for comeback


Hey look a Jamarcus sighting!

Jamarcus Russell preps for comeback

Dude, he's been there for years.

Jamarcus Russell preps for comeback

Which teams need a nose tackle?

Which teams need a nose tackle?

however big he is, the eagles could probably find a spot for him in training camp. NT? yeah, they could use one. TE? sure. OL? yep. QB? uh-huh.

The 49ers leverage is that once he's released you're in a war with the other teams that need QBs. Whereas if you make a deal for him he's yours, and at a reasonable contract.

Yes, in fact the only reason they even get a 5th rounder is because >1 team wants him. If it's 3 or 4 teams they might go up a round.

Either way the value of marginal to decent upgrades (which Smith would be for a lot of teams) shouldn't be overlooked in the NFL - there's a lot of value in sneaking into the playoffs, even to just get blown out by the 1st or 2nd seed. Teams on the bubble will make moves to sneak in at 9-7, even while they're developing their young guy.

But this list is actually quite small. It's the Cardinals, Vikings, and Jets. And all the have questions (how much do the Vikes like Ponder, can the Cards rebuild their line-- plus they are in the division, do the Jets have the cap room and the cojones to cut Sanchez loose)

If you expand it to terrible teams, it's the Raiders (who have Palmer), Titans (who have Locker), Jaguars (who have Gabbert), Chiefs. These teams have high draft picks and no short term future. They are not an Alex Smith away from 9-7.

Right between these groups are the Browns. And the (new) Browns do have have long standing 49er ties, and are in the AFC.

Oh, and Philly. My guess is with a new HC, new system, (presumably) a long term plan, and possibly promising guy in Foles, they will stand pat or draft a project.

Remember, Smith was a free agent last year and didn't get a lot of action. He was a little better in 8.5 games this year than last.

I think Smith ends up on the Browns or Bills. They both have new coaches in place and will probably draft QBs, but none of the QBs after Smith (Geno) in this draft class are ready to play. Flynn will probably wind up in KC since he's a perfect fit for Reid's system. The Vikings probably want someone better than any of them if they're going to replace Ponder.

Can't see the Jags keeping Gabbert. He's now on his third coach and second GM, they will walk away from that disaster.

Smith is fortunate that this is a really bad year to need a QB.

"Either way the value of marginal to decent upgrades (which Smith would be for a lot of teams) shouldn't be overlooked in the NFL - there's a lot of value in sneaking into the playoffs, even to just get blown out by the 1st or 2nd seed."

plus the NFL is getting more like the NHL - a decade since the team with the best record won the Super Bowl, too (adding this year to that streak already). The Giants were 9-7 last year and won. They won a few years before that at 10-6. The Packers won at 10-6. The Cardinals were 9-7 and 3-7 outside of the worst division ever - and came within a toenail or two of beating the Steelers in a recent Super Bowl. The Ravens were 10-6 this year and may win it.

just get in, and lots of surprises can happen in the new NFL.

But this list is actually quite small. It's the Cardinals, Vikings, and Jets. And all the have questions (how much do the Vikes like Ponder, can the Cards rebuild their line-- plus they are in the division, do the Jets have the cap room and the cojones to cut Sanchez loose)

If you expand it to terrible teams, it's the Raiders (who have Palmer), Titans (who have Locker), Jaguars (who have Gabbert), Chiefs. These teams have high draft picks and no short term future. They are not an Alex Smith away from 9-7.

This is obviously a completely different subject, but just about every team in the NFL could finish 9-7 next year, even the terrible ones. Scheduling, coaching changes, quantum leaps, and attrition change the entire equation. Teams know that. But yes I agree there aren't a ton of teams that could use Alex Smith, but that's the same as every year for pretty much every available player. You don't need a bunch of teams to be interested though, you need two. In the end we're saying more or less the same thing - I'm saying the 49ers should accept a 4th rounder, you say they'll get a 5th with the potential to go higher depending on teams interested.

The reason there wasn't a ton of interest in Smith last year is because everyone knew it was going to be the 49ers unless if they signed Manning. There was no point in even talking to Smith until after those negotiations were completed - a few teams did as I recall, but everyone knew it was all just waiting until Manning made his choice. Plus there was the fear that Smith was a one-year fluke, even under Harbaugh. He performed very well this year again, so at least we know last year wasn't a fluke - whether he can do it under someone other than Harbaugh is the question that remains.

Alex Smith should be worth a second-rounder at worst, IMO. Someone gave up a second rounder for A.J. Feeley FFS.

I agree with Howie and Squash - a year or two ago the Redskins were as bereft of talent as anyone in the league, and they just went 10-6.

Also, Alex Smith is 28. Why can't he be a reasonable mid-tier quarterback for the next five years? I don't agree that the team that acquires him needs to go at least 9-7 RIGHT NOW to make giving up a 3rd or 4th for Smith worthwhile.

*Also*, it's a business. The Jaguars in particular are hanging by a thread. I disagree with the premise that there's no difference between, say, 7-9 and 2-14.

re Redskins: and even last year they pretty easily handled the eventual Super Bowl champs twice in two regular season, double-digit wins while going 5-11. the talent levels simply aren't that great anymore between teams, thanks in part to the salary cap.

If you expand it to terrible teams, it's the Raiders (who have Palmer),

And Terrelle Pryor.

I think teams are far more interested in trying their luck in the draft as opposed to acquiring mid-tier QBs. It's hard to think of guys who have been full season starters for more than one club. I can think of: Manning, Vick, McNabb, Orton, Cutler and Brees. That's a great QB who missed a season due to injury and his club had first pick with Andrew Luck in the draft, a guy who lost his first job via prison, McNabb is an example of a mid tier guy signed as an FA but he was almost immediately replaced, Orton was traded because Cutler forced Denver to do so - and Denver immediately drafted Tebow, and Brees was let loose because SD already had Rivers under contract and looking promising.

Known commodities who aren't stars don't seem to generate that much interest. On the other hand, good starting QBs basically never hit the market.

EDIT: Matt Cassell is another one. Also Carson Palmer.

I realize the exceptions are piling up but I think it is only exceptional circumstances that made Cassell a starter in NE and the Bengals did almost everything they could to hold on to Palmer.

Cassel was basically a full season starter for two clubs. Ditto Ryan Fitzpatrick. Jason Campebll was supposed to be. Chad Henne probably will end up as one.

Alex Smith should be worth a second-rounder at worst, IMO. Someone gave up a second rounder for A.J. Feeley FFS.

That was 9 years ago and Feeley wasn't making $8M. Contract is a huge part of trade value. It's why Asante Samuel was traded for a 7th rounder instead of a higher pick that he is worth not considering contract.

Let's see, QBs who were starters for more than one team, and got the 2nd (or later) team to a Super Bowl...

Kurt Warner
Drew Brees
Brad Johnson
Rich Gannon
Trent Dilfer
Kerry Collins
Chris Chandler

Maybe you need a less elderly and immobile guy now than in the Chris Chandler era, but adding the equivalent of a 28-year-old Trent Dilfer could still work.

Alex Smith is better than Trent Dilfer was.

Let's see, QBs who were starters for more than one team, and got the 2nd (or later) team to a Super Bowl...

Add Steve Young, Doug Williams, Craig Morton, Jim Plunkett, Billy Kilmer, Fran Tarkenton, Earl Morrall if you want and if you want to get really technical, Jim Kelly.

Alex Smith is better than Trent Dilfer was.

Alex Smith before Harbaugh was basically Trent Dilfer.

If Smith can't swing a deal to be a starter, he should just stay in SF. Decent chance Kapernick gets his bell rung next year and Smith can return the favor of stealing a job.

*Tons* of quarterbacks from all over the ability spectrum have started for more than one team. Favre, Montana, Bledsoe, Everett, Moon, Young, Krieg, Jeff George, Boomer Esiason, Brunell, Vinny, Jon Kitna, Tony Banks, Erik Kramer...

Grbac, DeBerg, Beuerlein, Lomax, Peete, Frerotte...

... McNair...

Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer, Hebert, Chris Miller, O'Donnell, Hostetler, Stabler...

If Smith can't swing a deal to be a starter, he should just stay in SF. Decent chance Kapernick gets his bell rung next year and Smith can return the favor of stealing a job.

Alex Smith is a *fantastic* backup. Almost certainly the best backup QB in the league.

Their are only 2 reasons why the Niners would trade Alex Smith:
1) They are super nice and want him to start somewhere (ha)
2) They need to clear his cap room

(2) becomes an either/or. Would you rather have the best backup QB in the league or resign Dashon Goldson? Or Issac Sopaoaga? Or sign a star corner or wr? They cannot do all 3, I don't think. But if they think they can replace the 2-3 FAs on defense with draft picks or cheap FAs, then they will probably keep Smith.

Not sure if this is the right place for this (or whether it's already been covered) but I saw a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates called "The Impending Death Of Pro Football"

Somewhat tied to Junior Seau's death. Brain scans of 5 (still living) former players have shown images of the protein that causes football-related brain damage. First time anything like this has been done.

It's not a long piece and here's the wrap up:

There's something more; presumably, if they really learn how to diagnose this, they will be able to say exactly how common it is for football players--and maybe athletes at large--to develop CTE. This is when you start thinking about football and an existential crisis. I don't know what the adults will do. But you tell a parent that their kid has a five percent chance of developing crippling brain damage through playing a sport, and you will see the end of Pop Warner and probably the end of high school football. Colleges would likely follow. (How common are college boxing teams these days?)

After that, I don't know how pro football can stand for long.

I think he's wrong on the last point. In the first place, professional athles are not what you'd call risk adverse. I mean one of the documentable side effects of EPO is death and athletes were still using it. And if it's 5% chance of brain damage a player can tell himself it's 19-1 that it's some other guy.

But the point about parents is a good one I think.

I watch and enjoy football. I have actively discouraged my younger from playing it in school and really did not like watching the kids play and crash into each other (even when he wasn't on the field). Adults doing terrible things to their bodies is one thing, but I really didn't like watching kids do it.

So yeah if pro football dies it will be from the bottom up. So long as my Vikings win at leats one Superbowl first (and my 49ers win a couple more, including this year) then I could see it happening and it not being the end of the world (I think we discussed this a while back in the College FB thread, but I could be wrong).

Seau's family sues NFL

Honestly I don't know how much of a leg that they have to stand on because its not like someone forced him to play football.

Honestly I don't know how much of a leg that they have to stand on because its not like someone forced him to play football.

It might not be about the money. The discovery could be interesting...

But you tell a parent that their kid has a five percent chance of developing crippling brain damage through playing a sport, and you will see the end of Pop Warner and probably the end of high school football.

I don't think this is right. There's a huge difference between getting popped by a 260-pound linebacker who can run a 4.8 40, and getting popped by a 95-pound linebacker who is still getting used to running in pads. It's not so much that playing the game of football that is dangerous, as it is getting repeatedly smacked in the head by incredibly large, well-muscled, heavily armored world-class athletes.

My guess is that the danger increases exponentially as you move up through the football-playing ranks. I really doubt that many nine-year-olds are coming away from Pop Warner with lifelong brain damage.

I really doubt that many nine-year-olds are coming away from Pop Warner with lifelong brain damage.

have you ever taken a high-school level math or science class with football players? it really shouldn't be that difficult to think there's a good amount of brain damage there.

If my son wanted to play football, I would never let him play until at least the high school level just because of the possibility of getting the start of some sort of brain damage.

If my son wanted to play football, I would never let him play until at least the high school level just because of the possibility of getting the start of some sort of brain damage.

And what if 3035 is right about there being no long term effect from dinky Pop Warner, but HS is where kids start hitting hard enough to create that kind of damage? Not trying to be snarky, it's just an incredibly tough decision to make based on the current knowledge.

There already is fallout at the HS level, and not just football. One of my babysitters suffered a concussion in soccer, and she's done, moved on to golf. This stuff is happening.

I played football from 5th grade through HS (at a pretty high level) and the game gets pretty physical by the 7th grade. I'm dabbling with officiating now too and there's a kid a week being escorted off the field as precautionary measures for head injuries.

#3035 I believe that Coates' point is that by letting the kid play Pop Warner you're putting him on the track to eventual serious brain damage, not that it starts there.

Besides, an awful lot of people are going to parse the message as football=brain damage no matter how carefully the researchers speak (and frankly I don't see a lot of care in the way the messages are going out right now)

With the mix of those two factors -- plus probably some incredible insurance costs -- I think youth contact football is in trouble. Flag or touch with no blocking is probably a better game for kids anyhow.

We played plenty of tackle football growing up, and nobody ever rang their bells. Funny how you avoid hitting people with your head when you're not wearing a helmet.

High-stepping runners become a serious problem though.

What about abaltive helmets? If your helmet breaks or you break someones helmet you sit out for X plays (depending on severity and "intent")

We played plenty of tackle football growing up, and nobody ever rang their bells. Funny how you avoid hitting people with your head when you're not wearing a helmet.

Yeah its amazing how make an effort to try to tackle properly when you are wearing no helmet.

Tim Brown softens remarks


You know I really didnt say what I said I said.

With the mix of those two factors -- plus probably some incredible insurance costs -- I think youth contact football is in trouble. Flag or touch with no blocking is probably a better game for kids anyhow.

The counter to this, though (and I'm just acknowledging it; I'm not sure where my prediction comes out), is that there isn't as much of a connection between playing a sport and watching/spending money on a sport.

We might as well be as blunt as possible about how the "football is on its way to dying" narrative proceeds, as it's almost entirely class and race-based. In its most simple form, the logic goes, well-off white people will watch guys from the ghetto play football the way it's played, but only if there remains some cultural tie for whitey to latch onto. If the sport is no longer played by the Archie and Eli Mannings of the world, even though the Archie and Eli Mannings of the world are a small and unrepresentative demographic in 2013, whitey will no longer support the NFL and the NFL will wither away. The game can be ghetto, as it is now, but it can't be completely and thoroughly ghetto.

I don't know ... color me skeptical. The sport is really modern-day gladiator combat and I'm not sure I can see the thirst for that drying up based on something so relatively trivial as demographics.

Of course, it's always possible that the lawsuits will become so overwhelmingly expensive that the game will die in the way that the asbestos industry has.

I don't know ... color me skeptical. The sport is really modern-day gladiator combat and I'm not sure I can see the thirst for that drying up based on something so relatively trivial as demographics.

People used to care about boxing...

People used to care about boxing...

And they still do. It's not as popular with mainstream writers as it was in its heyday, and there's a bigger segment of people who sniff it away as infra dig, but it's still quite popular by any serious measurement.

And, as the UFC nonsense shows, it's becoming more popular in its more extreme guises.

I think the "football is dying" predictions are as accurate as the "baseball is dying" predictions we see from time to time. In a day and age when MMA is blossoming I think the idea that a sport is becoming "too violent" is wrong. I think society will demand changes that try to mitigate the risk (or at least give the appearance of same) but I don't think football is in any sort of trouble.

And they still do. It's not as popular with mainstream writers as it was in its heyday, and there's a bigger segment of people who sniff it away as infra dig, but it's still quite popular by any serious measurement.

Sorry, but no way is it as popular with the mainstream as it used to be. Not even close.

Boxing screwed itself by the complete lack of organization in the sport. The early-80s expansion to add the WBO, IBF, etc...made it impossible to keep track of champions and divisions. Add to that the ridiculous levels of corruption in the sport and the self-scheduling, too much B.S. required just to get a meaningful fight to happen and an overreliance on pay-per-view or pay-cable viewing I think hurt the sport badly.

If the NFL were to break into four independent leagues that sometimes played each other and sometimes didn't and you could only watch games if you had HBO THEN it would be in trouble.