Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

OT: NFL/NHL thread

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

steagles Posted: November 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM | 8623 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, nhl

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 41 of 87 pages ‹ First  < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >  Last ›
   4001. stanmvp48 Posted: September 10, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4538255)
I am in one of those pools where you pick one game a week and are out for the year if your team loses. There didn't seem to be any cinches last week so I picked NE which indeed was not a cinch. Again this week, I don't see any good team vs bad team at the home of the good team-unless I go with NE again. Actually thinking about Cincy because the steelers were so lousy sunday. 120 yards until the last drive.

Any thoughts?
   4002. JJ1986 Posted: September 10, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4538263)
I'd probably take Houston, though divisional games are sometimes closer than they should be. Baltimore is also a good team at home against a bad team.
   4003. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4538265)

Amendola is a good replacement for Welker and he'll be excellent for the Patriots as long as he's healthy


Isn't he already hurt?
   4004. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: September 10, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4538287)
Amendola is already hurt and Vereen is out for 10 weeks. The Patriots are still the favorite in that division despite all that.
   4005. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4538292)
I'm also on the 'I didn't think David's hit was 'late',' island, but again I've long acknowledged my tolerance for making sure tightropers are out of bounds by allowing a push like David's of Geno.
   4006. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4538314)

I thought I was on an island there. Everyone is killing David, but what is he supposed to do? If he lets up a little, Smith could tiptoe down the sideline for another 10 yards in 1 or 2 seconds and make a long FG a possiblity. He didn't add any additional shoving motion ... he just ran toward Smith with his arms extended to force him out of bounds. And he made contact right as he was crossing the line. Night and day compared to the Kaepernick/Matthews play. Of course, it's not surprising at all to see it called.


Honestly, he barely touched him. Just enough to make sure he was indeed going out of bounds. This was not a push or a shove or anything like that. And it happened right at the sideline, and it takes a few split seconds for players to act and react in anticipation of contact and where players are headed, anyway.
   4007. Ron J2 Posted: September 10, 2013 at 06:46 PM (#4538317)
#3995 Fran Tarkenton said that scrambling was generally safer than pocket passing. You take more hits when scrambling, but they're rarely clean shots.
   4008. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 06:54 PM (#4538325)
I'm just getting the memo on who Chip Kelly is and what type of new-age offense he is trying to bring to the NFL.

Snipping from Joe Sheehan's newsletter today:

While Yost was hurting the Royals in a key road game against a divisional opponent, the Philadelphia Eagles were completing a 33-27 road win over the reigning champs in their division. The game was the NFL debut of Chip Kelly and the Blur Offense that Kelly used to turn the University of Oregon into a national power. The offense, as executed by Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy and DeSean Jackson, was a wonder, speeding down the field repeatedly and hanging 31 offensive points on a Redskins team that was one of the top surprises of 2012 and is favored to win the division again this year.

I loved seeing it. I'm a sucker for pace, for teams that actually run more plays or get more possessions, because it's more fun to watch the game being played than to watch huddles or clock-winding passes 35 feet from the basket. Beyond that, though, I'm fascinated by Kelly coming into the league and introducing a set of ideas that are, if not foreign, certainly not widespread, and saying, "I'm going to win this way." Kelly is fully committed to the idea that what succeeded in the Pac-12 can succeed in the NFC.

...Where are the MLB Chip Kellys? Forget whether you agree or not that the Blur can work in the NFL and just focus on the fact that he's thinking about how to win with a level of creativity that just doesn't exist in our game. He's borrowing from influences as varied as Paul Westhead and Pop Warner. He's an outlier in his game at the moment, but not by as much as you might think. The NFL has become a league of innovators, with coaches and coordinators aggressively attacking the problem of how to move the 22 pieces around in ways that give their side an advantage. The NBA is actually even more interesting right now, with many teams leveraging statistical research to find the most valuable shots -- ones at the rim and from the deep corners -- and how to move the ball and players around to get them. Erik Spoelstra all but invented a new offense to take advantage of LeBron James' skills.

MLB has nothing like that. The only current area of innovation in MLB is in defensive spacing, with some teams implementing aggressive shifting to put defenders where the ball is most likely to be hit.

   4009. zenbitz Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4538335)
Shanahan looked like he was passing a kidney stone the whole game. But maybe he's always like that.

MLB doesn't have this kind of innovation because baseball doesn't have any strategy.
   4010. zenbitz Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:19 PM (#4538339)
Pats over Jets looks OK, but I think the Jets can still play D. The Pats are by far the biggest point spread favorites.
Hou over Ten looks good.

If the Redskins play anything like they did Monday they are going to get destroyed by the Packers.
Ravens over Browns, Falcons over Rams, and Bears over Vikes seem like good bets too. All of these games (other than Pats -12 over Jets) are around -6.5/-7.
   4011. JJ1986 Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:19 PM (#4538340)
I'm not sure what innovation in MLB would look like. There are already teams that never sacrifice bunt and teams that hit their best hitter 2nd. Shifting has taken over.

Maybe having relievers go longer? Two inning stints as the default instead of an inning or an out. And then keeping fewer relievers on the roster because of that. That's more of a roster-building thing than a gameday thing.

MLB managers just don't have very much to do during a game.
   4012. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:28 PM (#4538342)
The Eagles didn't look all that impressive to me. Put up 31 points against a non-Redskins defense that was handcuffed by a rather rusty RGIII giving the ball right back to Philly for most of the evening and then we'll start to talk about your new fangled offense.
   4013. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4538346)
the worst thing that donovan mcnabb did here in philly was make the decision that he wanted to be a pocket passer, announce to the media that he wanted to be a pocket passer, and then actually commit to being a pocket passer.


McNabb tried to become a pocket passer because he was getting the crap kicked out of him as a scrambling QB.
   4014. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:36 PM (#4538349)
I'm not sure what innovation in MLB would look like. There are already teams that never sacrifice bunt and teams that hit their best hitter 2nd. Shifting has taken over.

Maybe having relievers go longer? Two inning stints as the default instead of an inning or an out. And then keeping fewer relievers on the roster because of that. That's more of a roster-building thing than a gameday thing.


Yeah, innovation in MLB would start with a complete makeover of bullpen usage patterns, including going back to the past in large part. Of course, dealing with pitchers is tricky because changes are fought hard against.

   4015. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4538351)
I've discussed my innovation ideas for the NFL before.

They start with (1) going on virtually all 4th downs, and (2) never kicking a FG until late in the 4th quarter.

And (3) going away from the run and passing on virtually all downs, to spread out the offense and because QBs and receivers are ultra-protected today. And the new technique of slapping the ball away from ball carriers hurts RBs more than WRs.
   4016. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:40 PM (#4538353)
Innovation in the NBA:

Have your players work on free throws 50% of practice, because that's where virtually all close games are decided.
   4017. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2013 at 07:58 PM (#4538373)
And the new technique of slapping the ball away from ball carriers hurts RBs more than WRs.


I said this without evidence to back it up. Are RBs of this generation fumbling the ball more than RBs of years past?
   4018. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4538381)
I said this without evidence to back it up. Are RBs of this generation fumbling the ball more than RBs of years past?

It looked strange to me. Punching/slapping the ball seems to be a much more effective technique against receivers than against RB for numerous reasons.

WR generally aren't as strong as RB, tend to be outnumbered out in the open instead of behind an offensive line, and tend to be in position more conducive to getting the ball knocked loose than a RB.

Football Reference doesn't make it easy but it appears that in 2012 RB and receivers fumbled the ball at about the same rate which doesn't take into consideration how many passes were slapped loose for an incomplete pass.
   4019. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 10, 2013 at 09:18 PM (#4538447)
MLB doesn't have this kind of innovation because baseball doesn't have any strategy.

Jean Segura stealing first was kind of the baseball equivalent of Gary Kubiak's revolutionary "run up the middle for 2 yards on third and 8" approach.
   4020. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4538456)
Nah, Gary simply dusted that off of one of Ditka's old playbooks. The man loved to call for a draw on 3rd and long.
   4021. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: September 10, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4538458)
I am in one of those pools where you pick one game a week and are out for the year if your team loses. There didn't seem to be any cinches last week so I picked NE which indeed was not a cinch. Again this week, I don't see any good team vs bad team at the home of the good team-unless I go with NE again. Actually thinking about Cincy because the steelers were so lousy sunday. 120 yards until the last drive.

Any thoughts?


http://www.vegaswatch.org/

EDIT - Just followed his picks (pretty much) last year. I won my pool.
   4022. Tom Nawrocki Posted: September 10, 2013 at 09:37 PM (#4538460)
Maybe having relievers go longer? Two inning stints as the default instead of an inning or an out.


Walt Weiss this year let his relievers hit for themselves more than any other manager I've seen. The Rockies as a whole have about 25 ABs from their relief corps; Adam Ottavino alone has batted nine times in 44 relief appearances. I bet it's been 20 years since a reliever batted 10 times in a season.

I don't know if this is a sound strategy, and I doubt it made a dime's worth of difference, but it's nice to see him trying something different. Then again, Weiss came straight to the Rockies from managing a high school team, and sometimes it seems like he's still managing a high school team.
   4023. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 11, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4538598)
It's hard to sort pitcher batting stats by whether they were starters or relievers, but by searching for pitchers with >10 PAs in a season, and more than 2 games per PA, I found that in 2003 the legendary T.J. Tucker celebrated the Expos' impending demise by having 10 at-bats in games he entered as a reliever.

It was also done in 2000 by fellow Expo Felipe Lira, and Pat Mahomes of the Mets.
   4024. Howie Menckel Posted: September 11, 2013 at 12:10 AM (#4538599)

I like Chip Kelly's innovative idea, but I don't see how it can work in a league of behemoths, smaller rosters, mega-million dollar talent, and so on.

The Redskins' DE and DLs were not keeping up with the pace, forcing a slowdown. With that huge concussion suit just settled and the value of the players, there's no reason for players not to "be able to get up" very quickly against the offense.

And its dazzle wore off, just a little bit, in the second half - plus Vick still has no common sense on self-preservation.

   4025. Tom Nawrocki Posted: September 11, 2013 at 12:16 AM (#4538600)
Crispix, very impressive work. So not 20 years, but a good ten years.
   4026. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4538608)
It might be 20 or more years since it was done by someone like Ottavino who has no starts at all. My three examples are guys who were in and out of the rotation and used as long relievers a lot.
   4027. Ron J2 Posted: September 11, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4538890)
#4014 I've been toying with this and will probably expand it into a full article. I think a plausible strategy for a team to try and contend on the cheap would be to simply not allow any left-handed relievers on the roster. Joe Thatcher for instance is very much a luxury item and loogies are almost certainly not good value for a roster spot (Yes, Billy Wagner for instance was an excellent reliever who happened to be left-handed. I'd still trade him because the only left-handed reliever will almost certainly become a de facto go get that lefty specialist)

This would allow the team pretty much total access to the "incomplete but useful" player pool. Maybe you use the roster spots to carry Billy Hamilton all year. Maybe you can find a Roenickstein. Doesn't matter, you have options in roster construction not open to other teams.

But that's strategic and what you're really talking about is tactical.
   4028. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 11, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4539146)
I am in one of those pools where you pick one game a week and are out for the year if your team loses. There didn't seem to be any cinches last week so I picked NE which indeed was not a cinch. Again this week, I don't see any good team vs bad team at the home of the good team-unless I go with NE again. Actually thinking about Cincy because the steelers were so lousy sunday. 120 yards until the last drive.

Any thoughts?



http://www.vegaswatch.org/

EDIT - Just followed his picks (pretty much) last year. I won my pool.

VW does really good work, when he can be bothered to update his blog.

Also Survivorgrid is an invaluable resource. For this week, if you are in a small pool, I'd pick Houston. They do have some good future value, but the good games are a fair bit down the line. A small pool might well be over by then. If you are in a deep league, I would lean towards taking Philly right now.
   4029. steagles Posted: September 11, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4539190)
I like Chip Kelly's innovative idea, but I don't see how it can work in a league of behemoths, smaller rosters, mega-million dollar talent, and so on.

The Redskins' DE and DLs were not keeping up with the pace, forcing a slowdown. With that huge concussion suit just settled and the value of the players, there's no reason for players not to "be able to get up" very quickly against the offense.

And its dazzle wore off, just a little bit, in the second half - plus Vick still has no common sense on self-preservation.
it was their first regular season game. the NFL might possibly figure them out at some point, but it didn't happen on monday night. what happened monday night was the eagles got up 33-7 early in the 2nd half, they lost tension on both sides of the ball, and washington took advantage and made a run.


also, the eagles' next two games should be schedule wins. san diego this week is a west coast team playing a 1pm game on the east coast after a short week (they played monday night), and next week the eagles play kansas city at home on thursday.

it's a really tough schedule for the eagles, but in theory it should be a whole lot tougher for their opponents even before considering the eagles' new style of play.
   4030. stanmvp48 Posted: September 16, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4542708)
I picked Green Bay figuring Washington's short week after chasing the Eagles offense would leave them overwhelmed by GB's offense. A bunch of near upsets.

Three teams kicked field goals (two successfully) when they could have wrapped up the game by going for it. All lost. Carolina's was the least defensible.

   4031. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: September 16, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4542816)
The Bears' offense seems to be performing cromulently, whereas the pass rush appears to have been left behind at the practice facility.

Whar pass rush??? WHAR???
   4032. McCoy Posted: September 16, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4542873)
The Bears' offense seems to be performing cromulently, whereas the pass rush appears to have been left behind at the practice facility.

Whar pass rush??? WHAR???


Bears scored 3 TD and a FG in the first game and the offense scored 3 TD and a FG in the second game. Should have scored another 3 to 11 points but Cutler stupidly threw into a goal line defense and the Bears settled for a FG on their last drive of the first half.

The Bears only have two sacks so far this year but they've forced 4 fumbles and have 3 INT. They put pressure on Ponder yesterday which isn't always the easiest thing to do when you have Adrian Peterson in the backfield as well.

The defense is definitely shaky in that if they don't keep on getting these turnovers the Bears are going to be in serious trouble. But for the first time in a long while they won't be in trouble because the offense sucks.
   4033. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: September 16, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4542942)
The defense is definitely shaky in that if they don't keep on getting these turnovers the Bears are going to be in serious trouble. But for the first time in a long while they won't be in trouble because the offense sucks.


Yeah that was pretty much my takeaway.

One of the theories on sports talk radio (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) is that perhaps Peppers isn't 100% yet and that once he is the pass rush will come together. Well, I dunno how much faith I have in that, but something's gotta happen. If you can't get a pass rush going with Christian Ponder back there, what do you do when you face a team with a good offense?
   4034. Eddo Posted: September 16, 2013 at 04:59 PM (#4543015)
Bears settled for a FG on their last drive of the first half.

"Settled" is an odd word choice, here. I was impressed with the clock management on that drive - they actually got three quick pass plays off from the one yard line, and kicked the FG on fourth down.

------

One of the theories on sports talk radio (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) is that perhaps Peppers isn't 100% yet

Trestman essentially confirmed this today.

and that once he is the pass rush will come together.

But yeah, I doubt that Peppers's health is the only reason the pass rush has been weak. I think we're getting proof of just how great a line coach Rod Marinelli is.

   4035. McCoy Posted: September 16, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4543026)
The Bears since they adopted the Tampa-2 have almost never pressured the QB. Usually they'll have a game or two where they'll rack up a ton of sacks but the rest of the time the QB goes rather unmolested. The Bears defense relies heavily on stopping the run and making the offense make a mistake to either force them to punt or to get them to turn the ball over.

You just don't get a lot of sacks when you only have a 4 man rush and your MLB drops back into coverage.
   4036. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: September 16, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4543033)
Damn Eagles. Oh well, can't win every year. At least I can still root, root, root for those Detroit Lions.
   4037. smileyy Posted: September 22, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4547916)
I kind of love the fact that no one on this site apparently gives 2 shits about the NFL.
   4038. JJ1986 Posted: September 29, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4553820)
"When Tom Coughlin challenges a play, he's usually right. 43% of the time."
   4039. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 29, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4553940)
I kind of love the fact that no one on this site apparently gives 2 shits about the NFL.


This. My faith in humanity ... or, at least, uh, Primatery? Primacy? Primatatiousness? ... is restored, almost.
   4040. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 29, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4554028)
Here is my rundown of the current state of the league. I will do it in annoying Larry King elipsis style.

The Giants and Steelers look to be finished. They'd have to go 10-2 to get to... 10 wins. The Steelers have effectively been eliminated before the Pirates are :-) The Giants were almost done before the Yankees were...

The Patsies look vulnerable at 3-0 but maybe they can turn it up a notch from here. Big game for Atlanta tonight. 2-2 is worlds different from 1-3.

Peyton looks invincible; the Eagles look vincible.

The RG3 hype machine looks to have run its course...

Cutler was supposed to be soft but lowered his shoulder to upend a db last week, and with Lovey out of the way the Bears seem to understand that you need to pass the ball to win in this league. As the Browns understand. The Colts may not understand it, despite having Luck...

Seattle is overhyped. Not as good as everyone thinks they are.

Jeff Fisher is still overrated... Andy Reid is still underrated...

I expect the Jets to have a good year, since Rex has finally stopped interfering with the offense, which is something he knows nothing about. Smith has been throwing downfield this year and looks okay, not great. Sanchez could have done this too, but Rex wouldn't let him.

Romo and Rivers continue to underperform. Except that when it goes on for a career, the reality is that they are not underperforming, just performing.
   4041. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 29, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4554044)
Well, the Steelers can't cover or tackle anybody, but they make up for it by not blocking.
   4042. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 29, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4554145)
If the Eagles were a European soccer team the new coach would already be getting fired immediately after tonight's game.
   4043. Every Inge Counts Posted: September 29, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4554171)
Lions with a huge win today against the Bears in a game that was not as close as the final score.

Do the Jags win a game this season?
   4044. zenbitz Posted: September 29, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4554177)
I care about the NFL, but I am a niners fan so I have been drunk since the Seattle game.
   4045. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:57 AM (#4554339)
Brady goes to 4-0.

I say Brady and not "the Patriots" because Brady goes to show my point that virtually all players in the NFL are essentially interchangeable except for the quarterbacks and a few other truly elite players at other positions; a top quarterback can win with any team around him. Brady has a scrap heap full of receivers who are dropping passes on him but he's good enough to win anyway.
   4046. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4554343)
Ray: Is it your opinion that an offensive line's pass blocking effectiveness is largely a function of the line calls the quarterback makes?
   4047. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:22 AM (#4554346)
It's my opinion that offensive linemen are largely interchangeable.

Think of it this way: I would lose to Rafael Nadal in tennis. I would lose to the 50th ranked player. I would lose to the 100th ranked player. I would lose to the 200th ranked player. Etc. These rankings are important to tell the difference between professional players, but nobody could tell the difference between #1 and #200 if either of those were playing me. If Miguel Cabrera and Vernon Wells each joined my softball league we wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

The same type of thing is at play in the NFL, although in a different form. Once you can play at a certain competency level relative to the league, gains above that level are typically very marginal.

More to the point: Think of long snapper, or holder, or punter... I mean, my grandmother couldn't do those things, and neither could I. But a gazillion college players could do them. Once a punter is competent, there's not much separation between him and other punters. The other positions are kind of like that, but not to that extreme. So there is some separation. But not a ton. That's why you listen to broadcasters sing the praises of Joe Whosybingles, and "oh look at him, he is such a good player" -- but there are never any bad linemen or punters or tight ends in the NFL. The broadcasters rarely flag players as bad unless they're QBs or an RB who has fumbled too much or something. To listen to Dan Dierdorf, you come away thinking that every player in the NFL is above average.
   4048. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:35 AM (#4554348)
Jake Locker was the first serious QB injury of the season. I noticed he got hurt in the pocket. NFL conventional wisdom dies very slowly, if ever. The pocket remains the most dangerous place in sports.

Ironically, all of these no contact rules are resulting in more injuries. See, these no contact rules encourage more passing. Passing plays, by far, are more dangerous than running plays.
   4049. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:37 AM (#4554349)
It's my opinion that offensive linemen are largely interchangeable.


In fact, nearly all NFL football players are interchangeable. Bill Walsh noted this. Other than 2-3 elite players per team, on average, the rest of the league and another 1,000 football players on the street are interchangeable.

The new NFL CBA has been a disaster for veterans. Because the salary cap for rookies was cut so deeply, now they are so absurdly cheap, it makes very little sense to pay a massive premium for a veteran player when the talent difference is nil or close to nil. Younger players = better players in most cases, now when it is close, the edge certainly goes to keeping the younger player over a more expensive vet.

The extra money teams must spend on players per CBA is going to fewer and fewer stars, mostly QBs, or the teams are pocketing the difference instead spending up to the cap max.
   4050. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:40 AM (#4554350)
If that was really the case, then dynasties would last much longer, and teams with two or three elite players wouldn't have down seasons.
   4051. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:46 AM (#4554351)
Think of it this way: I would lose to Rafael Nadal in tennis. I would lose to the 50th ranked player. I would lose to the 100th ranked player. I would lose to the 200th ranked player. Etc. These rankings are important to tell the difference between professional players, but nobody could tell the difference between #1 and #200 if either of those were playing me. If Miguel Cabrera and Vernon Wells each joined my softball league we wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

The same type of thing is at play in the NFL, although in a different form. Once you can play at a certain competency level relative to the league, gains above that level are typically very marginal.


This is the essence of why Bama would have no problem competing with the Jags or the very bottom of the NFL. The Crimson Tide has more elite players than these bottom feeders. The entire Tide starting roster, and perhaps two deep, has been at least NFL replacement level for the past few years. It's the elite players that would make the difference.
   4052. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:47 AM (#4554352)
If that was really the case, then dynasties would last much longer, and teams with two or three elite players wouldn't have down seasons.


You missed "on average". Some teams have 5-6 elite players, some have zero.
   4053. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 30, 2013 at 02:31 AM (#4554356)
That might have been what you meant, I admit. But I still think that at least starters aren't really interchangeable. Teams aren't effective at the same things for the whole time they have a given coach in that area and/or head coach. The units still go up and down in performance. Some of that might be adjustments to schemes by opposing coaches, but some has to be the quality of the players--more than a couple of guys on the whole defense or the whole offense. I'm more willing to believe it for offense than defense, actually (although nowadays much of defense is basically against the rules, as it perhaps should be, which is why I don't really watch football anymore).
   4054. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4554415)
Think of it this way: I would lose to Rafael Nadal in tennis. I would lose to the 50th ranked player. I would lose to the 100th ranked player. I would lose to the 200th ranked player. Etc. These rankings are important to tell the difference between professional players, but nobody could tell the difference between #1 and #200 if either of those were playing me. If Miguel Cabrera and Vernon Wells each joined my softball league we wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

The same type of thing is at play in the NFL, although in a different form. Once you can play at a certain competency level relative to the league, gains above that level are typically very marginal.


I think this is definitely true of running backs and probably true of wide receivers, linebackers and safeties, but not true for defensive linemen and cornerbacks. Offensive linemen, eh... it's kind of conventional wisdom now that interior linemen are fungible but tackles are hugely important. But I admit I don't know there's a lot of evidence to support that theory.

It is obvious that basketball and football are the sports where for a bad team tanking the season makes the most sense, because in those sports one superstar player (almost always a quarterback, in the NFL) is worth a playoff spot's worth of wins by himself and also because in those sports high draft picks are ready to play as soon as you draft them. NBA teams do in fact tank seasons; NFL teams really don't, or at least there's no such pattern. People cried "TANKING!" when the Browns traded Richardson, but I'd prefer to think the Browns' new front office realizes running backs are fungible and jumped on it when Indianapolis made a preposterous offer.
   4055. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 09:04 AM (#4554418)
By the by, the Steelers would be a likely counterpoint to Ray's argument--they are where they are not merely because they got old, but because since about 2008 their drafting has been terrible. Roethlisberger hasn't gotten notably worse since two years ago when they went 12-4. The talent around him, particularly on defense, has vanished, and it turns out Dick LeBeau's #### doesn't work when you don't have three good linemen clogging up the o-line and Troy Polamalu flying around the field at warp speed. It's heresy to suggest this in Pittsburgh but I'm starting to suspect putting LeBeau in the Hall of Fame was a serious mistake. (Well... kind of. His playing career was borderline HOF-worthy and I believe he's technically in as a player, but there's no question his career as the Steelers' d-coordinator is what got him over the line.)

They're going to be bad for a few years at least before they can get the talent in-house to turn it around.

Final addendum: What changed in 2009 for the Steelers was ownership. The longer I pay attention to sports the more convinced I get that in the macro, a team's success hinges almost entirely on (a) the owner and (b) luck.
   4056. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: September 30, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4554453)
The longer I pay attention to sports the more convinced I get that in the macro, a team's success hinges almost entirely on (a) the owner and (b) luck.


Lions fans nod vigorously.
   4057. OsunaSakata Posted: September 30, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4554454)
My family likes Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra on Nickleodeon, so I stumbled onto NFL Rush Zone. From what I could tell, this particular episode was set at the rookie combines at Lucas Oil Stadium. Some aliens were planning to kidnap the entire rookie crop. Their leader said something like,"I will destroy the next generation of the NFL stars!" Wouldn't that be easier with drugs and hookers?
   4058. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 30, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4554458)
Think of it this way: I would lose to Rafael Nadal in tennis. I would lose to the 50th ranked player. I would lose to the 100th ranked player. I would lose to the 200th ranked player. Etc. These rankings are important to tell the difference between professional players, but nobody could tell the difference between #1 and #200 if either of those were playing me. If Miguel Cabrera and Vernon Wells each joined my softball league we wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

The same type of thing is at play in the NFL, although in a different form. Once you can play at a certain competency level relative to the league, gains above that level are typically very marginal.

Ray, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Look, even according to your example, we may not be able to tell the difference between Federer and the 200th ranked tennis player when they are playing you, but when they are playing each other, the result is an absolute chasm. Football is a game of elite professionals played against other professionals, not against amateurs. If you put JJ Watt against the 200th best LT, the QB is going to get sacked a lot more than if you put him against Jake Long.

Based on your assertion there should be basically no difference between NFL defenses in any year, and no correlation from one year to the next. But that's not what we see. Last year the best defense allowed 25 yards per drive, the worst 37. That's 50% more yards allowed every drive. The worst defense allowed 1 whole point more per drive than the best. That's 12-13 points a game. If they were interchangeable, that shouldn't be possible.
   4059. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4554488)
People cried "TANKING!" when the Browns traded Richardson, but I'd prefer to think the Browns' new front office realizes running backs are fungible


This is even more true in today's game, because the rules now are geared towards the passing game via protecting QBs and receivers.
   4060. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4554489)
Fancy Pants said what I was going to -- if linemen were interchangeable, then every OL and DL would be basically the same, which is clearly not the case.

This years' Patriots squad proves the opposite of what is being argued -- that QB play is everything. The Patriots performance over the last 10+ years owes as much to their stellar offensive line play as to their quarterback (see: Matt Cassel 2008). Dante Scarnecchia is owed a lot of the credit for that. The Patriots have a special program for young offensive linemen that coaches them up and improves their talent. Nevertheless, when a key starter goes out, you can see the results immediately (I recommend Ben Muth's columns on Football Outsiders if you want to learn more about OL play). The thing about an OL is that it is only as strong as its weakest link, which makes depth crucial. That's one of the big differences between a college team and the NFL. College teams lack the depth an NFL team has, since you need more than sheer warm bodies.

This year the Patriots' offense has been a shadow of what it was over the last 5 years. Brady's performance over the first three games was barely replacement level (we'll see the numbers after this week). The Patriots have benefited from an easy schedule, some luck, and a phenomenal coaching job. But they don't have any magic beans.
   4061. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4554492)
Based on your assertion there should be basically no difference between NFL defenses in any year,


Not really. Flipping a coin will yield variant results depending on the sample, but more to the point I never said all offenses were created equal; their quality depends on their QB and the offensive gameplan. So there's no reason we should expect teams who are playing different opponents to all come out the same in yards per drive or whatever defensive stat you want to pick.
   4062. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4554497)
P.S. And Wilfork is out for the season with a torn Achilles. #### #### #### ####.
   4063. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4554516)
P.S. And Wilfork is out for the season with a torn Achilles. #### #### #### ####.


Honestly, it's irrelevant.
   4064. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4554521)
I think Ray's argument is carried too far but generally on the mark. More specifically, I think that mostly the difference between this fourth-round linebacker that four years later is getting a $10 million signing bonus and that fourth-round linebacker that four years later is a bouncer at a strip club is that one was drafted by the Steelers and the other was drafted by the Browns.

Even quarterbacks are greatly dependent on their coaching. Witness: Smith, Alex. Then again, sometimes coaches are greatly dependent on their quarterbacks (see Dungy, Tony, Caldwell, Jim, et. al.)
   4065. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4554538)
How many times does a top, established quarterback go 2-14 or 3-13 or something? It happens at the BEGINNING of a career while the quarterback is figuring out how to read defenses/etc, but it very rarely happens in the middle of a career. Or even really at the end. A Tom Brady does not go 3-13, I don't care who you put around him, and this year is a perfect example of that.
   4066. OsunaSakata Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4554561)
A young QB is allowed to go 3-13 because the excuse is given that he is developing and will get better. So Tom Brady won't go 3-13 because he will be replaced before he gets to 3-13.
   4067. stanmvp48 Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4554565)
Well I guess Chip Kelley has been absorbed into the collective. Not a single 4th down attempt or 2 pt. conversion try in a game where he clearly had no chance of stopping the opposition.

Incidentally, i have the Saints in the survival pool, which I regret since every other pretty good favorite came in yesterday. But take a look at next week
   4068. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4554571)
How many times does a top, established quarterback go 2-14 or 3-13 or something? It happens at the BEGINNING of a career while the quarterback is figuring out how to read defenses/etc, but it very rarely happens in the middle of a career. Or even really at the end. A Tom Brady does not go 3-13, I don't care who you put around him, and this year is a perfect example of that.


Yes, this is correct and demonstrates the obvious fact that quarterback is the single most important position in sports.
   4069. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4554573)
Not really. Flipping a coin will yield variant results depending on the sample,

Doesn't address correlation from one year to the next, which is well beyond random coin-flip territory.

but more to the point I never said all offenses were created equal; their quality depends on their QB and the offensive gameplan. So there's no reason we should expect teams who are playing different opponents to all come out the same in yards per drive or whatever defensive stat you want to pick.

Teams also play vastly different schedules from one year to the next. But more importantly, those drive stats match up well with e.g. defensive DVOA, which adjusts for schedule.
   4070. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4554577)
A young QB is allowed to go 3-13 because the excuse is given that he is developing and will get better. So Tom Brady won't go 3-13 because he will be replaced before he gets to 3-13.


What are you talking about? Tom Brady (or any good QB in mid career with no injury troubles) would never be replaced before he gets to 3-13. Tom Brady doesn't go 3-13, hasn't gone 3-13. Look at his record.
   4071. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4554586)
6-10 is about the worst an elite quarterback can do if the team around him sucks and the schedule is difficult. In Peyton Manning's case I actually think there's pretty good evidence that he went 12-4, 13-3 every year with a team that would probably have gone 4-12 with mediocre quarterbacking.
   4072. McCoy Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4554593)
The quality of the offensive line has a lot to do with the style of the offense and its effectiveness along with that of the quarterback's.
   4073. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4554594)
Yes, this is correct and demonstrates the obvious fact that quarterback is the single most important position in sports.


Who's more important to their respective franchise's success at the actual sport, Peyton Manning or LeBron James? That would be a good poll question, no?
   4074. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4554595)
More specifically, I think that mostly the difference between this fourth-round linebacker that four years later is getting a $10 million signing bonus and that fourth-round linebacker that four years later is a bouncer at a strip club is that one was drafted by the Steelers and the other was drafted by the Browns.


And yet the Patriots don't have a stellar record with their draft picks. Lots of busts over the last 10 years. It's more than coaching, though obviously coaching helps.

How many times does a top, established quarterback go 2-14 or 3-13 or something? It happens at the BEGINNING of a career while the quarterback is figuring out how to read defenses/etc, but it very rarely happens in the middle of a career. Or even really at the end. A Tom Brady does not go 3-13, I don't care who you put around him, and this year is a perfect example of that.


Yes, QBs are important. And if you have a good QB, it becomes easier to build a decent team. And in the modern era, the draft and cap mean that bad teams have an easier path to get good (such as, drafting a quarterback with a high pick). So it's part correlation, part causation.

If you look at the pre-salary-cap era, Archie Manning went 35-101 as a pro. Steve Young went 3-16 for Tampa. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl.
   4075. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4554597)
Damn. Haven't paid much attention to the NFL in decades, but one of the great players form when I did follow the league has died -- L.C. Greenwood. In addition to playing a great players for the Steelers, he's also one of the best players to come out of my home state, in this case what's now the U. of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

RIP.

(The obit I read doesn't mention the HoF. If he's not in ... WTF?)

Edit: Actually, the last graf mentions that he's not in the Hall. Again ... WTF? I know the people who vote for the thing generally make their baseball counteparts look like a bunch of towering genisues, as I suppose befits the respective statuses (statii?) of the mental acuity involved in the respective sports, but still.
   4076. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4554602)
Who's more important to their respective franchise's success at the actual sport, Peyton Manning or LeBron James? That would be a good poll question, no?


James is, but I was referring to positions--there's no one position on a basketball team that's nearly as important as quarterback to a football team. A superstar is more valuable in basketball than in football or any other sport; in the NBA having one of the four or five best players in the league on your team is practically a prerequisite if you want to win a championship. In the NFL having one of the five best quarterbacks in the league on your team is not quite so vital but pretty close. It's rare for a non-top-five quarterback to win a Super Bowl and usually requires an extremely dominant defense to be involved. (This has been the case since about 1990.)
   4077. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4554609)
It's rare for a non-top-five quarterback to win a Super Bowl and usually requires an extremely dominant defense to be involved.(This has been the case since about 1990.)


Or Eli Manning.
   4078. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4554616)
Here's the entire list of quarterbacks that have won a Super Bowl and aren't in the Hall of Fame or likely to be:

Earl Morrall
Ken Stabler
Jim Plunkett
Joe Theismann
Jim Plunkett
Jim McMahon
Phil Simms
Doug Williams
Phil Simms/Jeff Hostetler
Mark Rypien
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Ben Roethlisberger
Ben Roethlisberger
Joe Flacco

Most of these guys either were supported by a great defense (McMahon, Simms, Dilfer) or were good quarterbacks in good offenses enjoying career years (Stabler, Theismann, Rypien, Johnson) or a lesser combination of both (Roethlisberger) or a guy that just caught absolute fire for a month (Flacco, and though he's probably going to the Hall of Fame Eli Manning in '07 should be mentioned here, as he was honestly pretty bad in the regular season that year). Mostly if you want to win a championship you need either a Hall of Fame quarterback or a superhuman defense, take your pick. The former is the much more common way to do it.

The only quarterback ever to win a Super Bowl that never played in a Pro Bowl is Jim Plunkett (even Dilfer played in one).
   4079. DA Baracus Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4554620)
Most of these guys either were supported by a great defense (McMahon, Simms, Dilfer) or were good quarterbacks in good offenses enjoying career years (Stabler, Theismann, Rypien, Johnson)


Brad Johnson is in the former category, not the latter.
   4080. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4554631)
Who's more important to their respective franchise's success at the actual sport, Peyton Manning or LeBron James? That would be a good poll question, no?


I think a hockey goaltender* is just as important to his team as a QB is to football.
Add in a top-flight hockey goaltender like top-of-his-game Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, or Dominik Hasek.

*You can have a mid-range goaltender and a hell of a defensive system, but when goalies have as many peak seasons as those three (over many years/teams/rosters), you have a lot of evidence it's the goaltender.


   4081. zenbitz Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4554635)
If non qbs are fungible, how do you explain the near total inability of 49ers receivers not named Boldin to get open. And Boldin was unable to get open with TE Vernon Davis out and not soaking up a safety.

This is a team that had 12 draft picks and cut 2-3 guys that looked OK in camp. They had the same problem in previous years until Crabtree got healthy.

I realize Kaepernick is no Brady, but he has shown he can hit open receivers. Smith had the same issues. It could be scheme I suppose.

This is a honest q btw. I am willing to entertain the hypo. But I think if only the QB matters than depth is not relevant, and while I don't think this has been empirically shown, it would certainly be counter intuitive.

The whole analysis is confounded by the inability to separate quantitative the components of an offense (or defense)
   4082. jmurph Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4554640)
Here's the entire list of quarterbacks that have won a Super Bowl and aren't in the Hall of Fame or likely to be


I think at this point the evidence shows that it happens enough to no longer be considered a thing. The match-ups over the last decade plus featured a lot of mediocrities, some of whom won, others who came within a score or two of winning. Barnwell talks about this in his column today on Grantland in reference to Schaub, and references Flacco last year.

If the rule of thump is "to win the Super Bowl you (usually) have to have a quarterback who doesn't play (too) poorly for 3-4 straight games in January," then it's probably not much of a rule.

EDIT: I would certainly agree to the overall truths that QBs are the most important players, and the best way to be good is to have an elite QB. I'm just saying non-elite QBs sure do get to (and win) a lot of Super Bowls.
   4083. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4554641)
Flacco, and though he's probably going to the Hall of Fame Eli Manning in '07 should be mentioned here, as he was honestly pretty bad in the regular season that year


Some of the quarterbacks not on the list are in the Hall of Fame because they won Super Bowls, not because they warranted the Hall of Fame because of their play on the field (Namath*, Griese, Aikman and the aforementioned Eli, if he makes it, are only in Canton because of the rings. There may be others).

* I can see giving him a little bonus credit for his role in the league's history. But he was also the least effective of the bunch.
   4084. jmurph Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4554651)
and the aforementioned Eli


SoSH, the tie that binds Patriots and Colts fans: ESPN is STILL, as recently as last week, running features trying to answer the question: "Who is the better Manning?" Makes me want to smash expensive things.
   4085. Conor Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4554652)
I agree that Ray is probably overstating the point a little (maybe a lot) but is generally correct. (Might also be worth pointing out that New England could fairly easily have lost their first 2 games, but the last 2 they've pretty much controlled). But if you have a super elite QB, it's pretty much impossible to go 3-13 or something like that, unless the rest of the team just totally falls apart around him. (Though the 2008 Pats going 11-5 with Cassell at QB is something of a counterpoint to that) Brady isn't putting up anywhere near the numbers he did in the past when he had Hernandez, Gronk, Welker, etc and he's not going to at least until they get Gronk and Amendola back. So I don't think the rest of the players are totally fungible. He's not going to turn Sudfeld into Gronk or anything like that.

Who's more important to their respective franchise's success at the actual sport, Peyton Manning or LeBron James? That would be a good poll question, no?


Yeah. Considering that Miami has Wade and Bosh, it has to be Manning, right? Take Lebron off the Heat and they won't win the title, but they would still be a playoff team at the least.
   4086. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4554657)
SoSH, the tie that binds Patriots and Colts fans: ESPN is STILL, as recently as last week, running features trying to answer the question: "Who is the better Manning?" Makes me want to smash expensive things.


My dad was a lifelong Giants fan, so I generally had warm feelings for them growing up.

The Patriots, on the other hand, were the Yankees to my Colts/Red Sox (until we hard our own 2004 during that one glorious second half at the dome).

And yet, I was so goddamned outraged by the "Is Eli better" blasphemy in 2012 that I was actually rooting for that evil bastard Belichick and his minions. Fat lot of good it did me. ####### Patriots can't do anything right.

   4087. Conor Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM (#4554658)
I'm a Giants fan, I can't believe anyone would entertain the notion for a second that he's anywhere close to his brother.
   4088. jmurph Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4554660)
Patriots can't do anything right


Come on, they're very good at whittling away what is left of Brady's years as an elite quarterback.
   4089. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4554665)
He's not going to turn Sudfeld into Gronk or anything like that.


I think he will turn some of the receivers/TEs he has into stars, yes. Gronkowski and Welker were made, not born.

(Except that Gronkowski plays with much more reckless abandon than he should - he basically plays stupidly - which is why he's always hurt.)
   4090. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4554667)
the rule of thump


A reference to the primacy of defensive play, of course.
   4091. Conor Posted: September 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4554669)
I think he will turn some of the receivers/TEs he has into stars, yes. Gronkowski and Welker were made, not born.

(Except that Gronkowski plays with much more reckless abandon than he should, which is why he's always hurt.)


Gronk is more than a star though. He's got 38 TD in 43 career games. Of course Brady is going to make some guys look good, he's goign to throw for 4,000 yards and 28-30 TD at least, and somebody has to catch them. But no one is going to put up Gronk numbers.

Brady is on pace for 4,000 yards and 28 TD with a 59% completion. Which is a fine season. Last year he was at 63%, 4800 yards and 34 TD; you don't think Gronk/Welker/Hernandez being gone is part of the reason he's not putting up the same numbers as he did last year? (just to make me look bad he'll probably throw for 300 and 4 TD next week)
   4092. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4554690)
Brady is on pace for 4,000 yards and 28 TD with a 59% completion. Which is a fine season. Last year he was at 63%, 4800 yards and 34 TD; you don't think Gronk/Welker/Hernandez being gone is part of the reason he's not putting up the same numbers as he did last year?

Nah, it's a total coincidence that his worst full season as a starter* (3500 yards / 24 TD) his best receivers were Reche Caldwell and Ben Watson, while in his best season (4800 yards / 50 TD) he was throwing to Moss/Welker.

*not counting the ACL year obviously
   4093. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4554702)

(The obit I read doesn't mention the HoF. If he's not in ... WTF?)


It seems that every other member of those 70s Steeler teams got into the Hall of Fame, up to and including the third-string quarterback and the peanut vendor, so I'm not sure Steeler fans have much standing to complain.
   4094. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4554706)
NHL goaltenders are as fungible as NFL running backs. As with running backs, investing any significant amount of cap space in a goaltender is a serious blunder, and the identity of your goaltender has little to do with winning the Cup. This may be a relatively new development going back only ten years or so, but the recent evidence is pretty strong in that direction.
   4095. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4554708)
It seems that every other member of those 70s Steeler teams got into the Hall of Fame, up to and including the third-string quarterback and the peanut vendor, so I'm not sure Steeler fans have much standing to complain.


Did the third-string QB & the peanut vendor make the Pro Bowl 6 times?
   4096. DA Baracus Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4554711)
NHL goaltenders are as fungible as NFL running backs. As with running backs, investing any significant amount of cap space in a goaltender is a serious blunder, and the identity of your goaltender has little to do with winning the Cup. This may be a relatively new development going back only ten years or so, but the recent evidence is pretty strong in that direction.


You must not have watched Hasek carry mediocre Sabres offenses deep in the playoffs.
   4097. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4554723)
You must not have read the last sentence in my post.
   4098. DA Baracus Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4554730)
You must not have read the last sentence in my post.


I did. Good but not great goalies win Cups. Mike Vernon, Chris Osgood, Ed Belfour won three straight. It happens. But like QBs, great ones don't have bad seasons.
   4099. Howie Menckel Posted: September 30, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4554753)

Giants are now 21-23 in their last 44 regular season games since mid-2010. Seems like that would be hard to do with a Hall of Fame coach and Hall of Fame quarterback in his prime. I can't imagine it has come close to happening before, has it?

Or.....
   4100. jmurph Posted: September 30, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4554762)
Giants are now 21-23 in their last 44 regular season games since mid-2010. Seems like that would be hard to do with a Hall of Fame coach and Hall of Fame quarterback in his prime. I can't imagine it has come close to happening before, has it?


Exactly. This is why "count the rings" is worse in the NFL than in other sports.
Page 41 of 87 pages ‹ First  < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(25 - 9:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(4 - 8:59pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(958 - 8:53pm, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4164 - 8:44pm, Nov 22)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(543 - 8:41pm, Nov 22)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(14 - 8:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(3 - 8:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(91 - 7:56pm, Nov 22)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(17 - 7:43pm, Nov 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(9 - 7:33pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bruce Markusen

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(23 - 5:40pm, Nov 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(20 - 5:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(407 - 4:51pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howling John Shade

Page rendered in 1.0090 seconds
55 querie(s) executed