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 | 8036 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 78 of 81 pages ‹ First  < 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 > 
   7701. jmurph Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4650814)
Matt Ryan is a second tier quarterback at worst. He's Eli Manning without the Strahan led defenses. He's not Brady or Peyton, but then again, not many are.


Man, Matt Ryan is a lot better than Eli Manning. Rickey underselling an Atlanta player is verrrrrrry un-Rickey-like.
   7702. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4650820)
My primary concern with Matt Ryan is that he's 1) immobile and 2) has taken a beating over the last couple of years, and is sort of developing the Troy Aikman thousand yard stare.
   7703. AROM Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4650825)
Manny being Manny...I laughed both times (though I didn't read 7318 until this page). Well done.

For all his merely pretty good talent as a passer/runner, Wilson appears to be the real deal when it comes to being an all-timer of a field general, though; when Seattle drafted him and glowing report after glowing report about his leadership and work ethic kept pouring out during the summer and training camp, I, like many others, figured it was just smoke being blown up our asses.


Tom Brady won 3 Super bowls before he started putting up big passing yards/TD stats. Back then he was a all-timer of a field general, pretty good as a passer, and a non-runner. So you never know where Wilson can go from here. Most of it depends on what kind of team they can keep around him.
   7704. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4650827)
I will say this for Matt Ryan. He handled both Seattle and San Fran's defenses 1000 times better, in last year's NFC playoffs, than Lord Peyton did last night. (Oddly enough, the defense that absolutely DESTROYS Ryan and the Falcons is Arizona's. I think it's because their linemen are so big and tall and Ryan can't see the outlet lanes at all through them.)
   7705. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4650833)
i don't know if my disdain runs as deep and wide as zeth's but Dalton to my eyes is wildly overrated. he is surrounded by b plus/a minus talent and he is generating c minus results.


Huh? I like Andy Dalton and root for him. He's just not very talented. His talent is at the marginal NFL backup level. He plays better than his talent because he has an unusual level of self-confidence and ability to forget his mistakes and move on to the next play.

I think it's because their linemen are so big and tall and Ryan can't see the outlet lanes at all through them.


I'm not sure I understand this criticism, as Ryan is 6'5. What do you mean?
   7706. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4650834)
His talent is at the marginal NFL backup level. He plays better than his talent because


His play is his talent. Ryan Leaf had a big arm.
   7707. jmurph Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4650839)
I'm not suggesting Ryan is among the very best, but yeah, all things being equal and you have your pick of quarterback, you're pretty clearly taking him ahead of Eli and Dalton and some of the other guys mentioned. That's not even close. Romo, Stafford, Newton, those guys are clearly worse in my mind.
   7708. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4650840)
I'm not sure I understand this criticism, as Ryan is 6'5. What do you mean?


I mean that the last two or three times the Falcons and Ryan have played the Cardinals, the Cards have absolutely blown up the offense with their front four. They destroy the pocket. When they don't, the tip balls out of Ryan's hand and generate tons of interceptions by their linebackers. They do that better than any other defense I've ever seen play the Ryan led Falcons, including SEA and SF in last year's NFC playoffs. The only defense that came close to disrupting the Falcons offense to the level that Arizona does was the playoff game against the Giants where Atlanta only scored 2 points on a safety. The thing is, Arizona does that to Matt Ryan *every single time they play.*

I don't know if it's coaching, or personnel, or what. But the Cards front four make Ryan look like Doug Flutie trying to find a lane to throw to.
   7709. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4650843)
I will say this for Matt Ryan. He handled both Seattle and San Fran's defenses 1000 times better, in last year's NFC playoffs, than Lord Peyton did last night.


In fairness, Seattle didn't have Cliff Avril or Michael Bennett last year, and Chris Clemons was out for the Atlanta game.
   7710. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4650845)
Yes, I should have specified that I meant physical talent.

This is not aimed directly at you, but probably the one thing I hate the very most about posting anywhere on the internet is the way people jump on your wording and persistently force you to be preposterously overspecific and attack you every time you generalize about anything by citing exceptions, no matter how unusual those exceptions may be. Scott Adams wrote about that a few years ago on his blog, how on the internet you have to append BOCTAOE (But Of Course There are Obvious Exceptions) to absolutely everything you write, to head off the inevitable attempts to cite exceptions and claim they disprove whatever you just said.

On the other hand, it IS very useful Say Exactly What You Mean training.
   7711. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4650848)
In fairness, Seattle didn't have Cliff Avril or Michael Bennett last year, and Chris Clemons was out for the Atlanta game.


Fair point.
   7712. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4650852)
Yes, I should have specified that I meant physical talent.


I think we both probably agree on Andy Dalton's talent level. I have him below Eli (who is below Ryan) and solidly in the middle of the "third tier" in my internal ranking system. Basically, he's the much maligned "game manager." Granted, I don't watch much AFC football so maybe he has more skills than I see in the occasional flip over to CBS for the late game, but for some reason I assign Dalton to the "overhyped because he's a dopey looking ginger" bucket. (I have odd buckets.)

I think there are your mobile QBs - Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton - who are their own category of player. Then you have your top tier pocket QBs - Peyton, Brady and Brees. Then you have a second tier of players like Ryan and Philip Rivers. I think Eli is sort of the cut between second and third tier. Then after the third tier you have "the guys that were starting in Tampa."
   7713. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4650854)
to my eye ryan and romo are dead even. which means they are both in the 5-10 range of qbs in the nfl. the top 4 are brady/p manning/Rodgers/brees in whatever order you wish. not here to bicker
   7714. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4650861)
I would not classify Dalton as a Game Manager because the term defines a guy who makes safe, smart decisions and doesn't turn the ball over. That's not Andy Dalton at all. He's constantly trying to squeeze passes downfield into tight windows. The guy has brass balls, you have to give him that.

I think Andrew Luck is in the second tier of quarterbacks already and just about to step up into the top tier.

Ben Roethlisberger is also (for now) in the second tier with guys like Rivers, Romo and the NFC Young Mobile Guys. Ryan is below that level, imo.
   7715. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4650864)
I forgot about Aaron Rodgers. He's in the top tier. I think Ryan is better than Tony Romo.
   7716. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4650865)
9/11 was an inside job and should be investigated!
   7717. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4650868)
9/11 was an inside job and should be investigated!


Nothing says high quality security like letting kooks on stage at big moments.
   7718. zack Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4650880)

This is not aimed directly at you, but probably the one thing I hate the very most about posting anywhere on the internet is the way people jump on your wording and persistently force you to be preposterously overspecific


This is why I delete at least 75% of the posts I write instead of hitting post. You can pretty much guarantee that the discussion will not be about what you meant, but some side thing you felt too obvious to mention.

And it's not a BBTF thing, it's an entire internet thing. Sucks.
   7719. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4650882)
Definitely. BTF is my favorite place on the internet exactly because it has the lowest saturation of Things That Are Annoying About the Internet.

And I thought I was the only one that deletes most of the stuff I type without posting it!
   7720. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4650886)
Matt Ryan strkes me, visually, as a vaguely above average quarterback. Looking at the statistics, he's solidly above average in terms of moving the ball (NY/A+) and in terms of protecting it (INT%+).

That level of play certainly won't kill you, but Atlanta is probably overpaying for it.
   7721. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4650891)
So the champs usually get to host the season opener. Seattle has San Fran at home of course, but also host Denver. Probably a good bet one of those two games is the opener, which would be fantastic. Green Bay or Dallas is your dark horse.
   7722. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 03, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4650892)
Ryan out of uniform looks like he works for price Waterhouse

Really surprised/impressed he can take nfl hits and play regularly
   7723. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4650896)
Matt Ryan strkes me, visually, as a vaguely above average quarterback. Looking at the statistics, he's solidly above average in terms of moving the ball (NY/A+) and in terms of protecting it (INT%+).


Without looking at stats, he seems to have a difficulty converting TDs in the zone. But then again, Atlanta always seems to drive to the five and come away with 3, well before Ryan became the face of the franchise.
   7724. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 03, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4650900)
persistently force you to be preposterously overspecific and attack you every time you generalize about anything by citing exceptions, no matter how unusual those exceptions may be


The other day in the Pedro Martinez HOM thread, someone posted that at no point during the 1997 or 2000* season did Pedro have an ERA above 2 "not for a game, not for an inning, not for a single pitch." So looked it up, and sure enough, in his opener of the 1997 season, he gave up a solo HR with 1 out in the 5th, putting his ERA just above 2 until he recorded the next out. Never again did his ERA go above 2 that season, but for 3 pitches, not just one, it did. I pointed it out, and I was the one slammed for being pedantic ( not by the original poster, but others).

* and as I typed this I had to go to BBREF and check his stats to be ultra sure it was 2000 and not 1999.
   7725. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4650903)
Without looking at stats, he seems to have a difficulty converting TDs in the zone. But then again, Atlanta always seems to drive to the five and come away with 3, well before Ryan became the face of the franchise.


I was surprised when I looked up his numbers and saw that he managed to have the fourth highest completion percentage in the NFL last year but a below average net yards per passing attempt. The obvious explanation would be a low number of yards per completion and -- voila -- Ryan was dead last in the NFL in yards per completion amongst qualifying passers. Statistically, he profiles as a rich-man's game manager. Atlanta doesn't appear to have the sort of roster that would benefit from that type of QB, though.
   7726. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4650921)
I was surprised when I looked up his numbers and saw that he managed to have the fourth highest completion percentage in the NFL last year but a below average net yards per passing attempt. The obvious explanation would be a low number of yards per completion and -- voila -- Ryan was dead last in the NFL in yards per completion amongst qualifying passers.


2013 is not a good year to sample for Ryan's downfield passing acumen. He started the season without three quarters of his receiving corps, played a couple of games where Drew Davis and Harry Douglas were his #1/2 on the edges, and lost Julio Jones, his only real deep threat, for the season early on. (Roddy White and Tony Gonzalez are possession receivers, and Harry Douglas is most obviously used as a Wes Welker-esque slant guy who can run away from loose defenses occasionally.)

And much like the Broncos last night, the Falcons' line didn't provide much more than a three step and throw option for Ryan all year last year. They were terrible and it was rare that Ryan dropped back to pass deep and didn't get leveled by a defender.
   7727. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4650930)
2013 is not a good year to sample for Ryan's downfield passing acumen.


Yeah, the numbers were unusual enough that I had reason to doubt their predictive validity. I am curious, though, was there a coaching/personnel move made prior to last season in Atlanta? Ryan's completion percentage made a pretty unheard of leap last year, and he sustained it this year. It's odd enough that I'm not sure how to explain it outside of scheme, and I only watch Atlanta maybe twice a year.
   7728. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4650939)
I am curious, though, was there a coaching/personnel move made prior to last season in Atlanta? Ryan's completion percentage made a pretty unheard of leap last year, and he sustained it this year. It's odd enough that I'm not sure how to explain it outside of scheme, and I only watch Atlanta maybe twice a year.


Scheme. Offensive coordinator, specifically. Through 2011, Ryan played for Mike Mularkey's run-first offense. Those were the "Michael Turner up the middle" years. They kept the receiving playbook pretty basic, both due to limited receiver options and due to a franchise desire to baby-step Ryan into the league as a "game manager" first. In 2012 they replaced Mularkey with Dirk Koetter, making a specific and strategic move to exit the run heavy offensive look and replace it with an offense more suited to what they think (or at least thought) they had in Ryan as a passer. That's when they went out and got Tony Gonzalez and traded up to get Julio Jones in the draft. They also targeted Stephen Jackson last off season as much due to his hands out of the backfield as much as for his running game itself. Turner was let go because he was losing a step on the ground and had hands of stone, so if they wanted to run pass first sequences they had to bring in secondary running backs, which tipped the hand for defenses who quickly adjusted to the new personnel on the field.
   7729. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4650945)
Thanks for the info; I figured it had to be a pretty extreme philosophical change. A QB's completion percentage is the NFL-equivalent of a hitter's walk rate in MLB. They usually don't move a whole lot, but Ryan went from threatening to fall into the 50s to threatening to break into the 70s.

My formulas hated the "old" Matt Ryan, but they're more bull-ish on the "new" Matt Ryan. He sort of computes out like a bizzaro Matthew Stafford.
   7730. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4651008)
breaking down the tiers of QBs:
tier 1: tom brady, peyton manning, aaron rodgers, drew brees

tier 2: cam newton, andrew luck, russell wilson

tier 3A: colin kaepernick, RGIII, nick foles
tier 3B: phillip rivers, eli manning, joe flacco, matthew stafford, matt ryan, ben roethlisberger, andy dalton

   7731. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4651014)
I'd have Kaep in Tier 2, or at least 2B. I seem him at the same level as Wilson for sure. Tony Romo should be in tier 3, he's at least as good as Dalton.

tier 4: Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Carson Palmer
tier 5: Sam Bradford, Ryan Tannenhill, Geno Smith, Mike Glennon
tier 6: god awful QBs
   7732. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4651015)
Dude. Seriously? Nick Foles? You're letting the fan flag do too much heavy lifting there.
   7733. Bad Doctor Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4651017)
To paraphrase an excellent observation made by one of the Football Outsiders guys -- Matt Ryan is either the worst good quarterback in the league, or the best middling quarterback in the league.
   7734. JJ1986 Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4651019)
Tier 1: Manning, Rodgers, Brady, Brees
Tier 2: Luck, Wilson, Kaepernick, Rivers and Roethlisberger
Tier 3: Ryan, Newton, Romo, maybe Foles
Tier 4: Manning, Cutler, Stafford, Dalton, Flacco
   7735. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4651023)
I'd have Kaep in Tier 2, or at least 2B. I seem him at the same level as Wilson for sure. Tony Romo should be in tier 3, he's at least as good as Dalton.
kaepernick is on the line. i could go either way on him until i see his next contract.
romo would be at the same level as dalton, except his contract is awful and he's gonna be 34 this coming season.
Dude. Seriously? Nick Foles? You're letting the fan flag do too much heavy lifting there.
maybe. but i was a big believer in nick foles before he was even drafted by the eagles, and i'm just about all-in on him after this season.
   7736. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4651028)
I'm open to actual arguments in support of this theory, but I have no reason right now to think of Foles as anything more than Dalton or Alex Smith.
   7737. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:39 PM (#4651030)
breaking down the tiers of QBs:


Romo in Tier 3B.
   7738. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4651033)
I'm open to actual arguments in support of this theory, but I have no reason right now to think of Foles as anything more than Dalton or Alex Smith.
the three of them were a combined 30-11 as starters this season, so depending on whether you think foles is the high or the low man on that totem pole, i don't think that's as unreasonable as you may have thought i would.

i would also suggest that russell wilson is essentially the same caliber of QB as those 3, except he has a much better defense/special teams/homefield advantage behind him.
   7739. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:43 PM (#4651036)
Romo in Tier 3B.
not at 34 years old.
and not with a 10+MM cap hit in 2014.

romo is what he is. he's too old to change that and his contract is too big for dallas to surround him with the necessary talent to win with him.
   7740. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4651038)
also, roethlisberger is 100% shot. he's completely toasted as an elite QB. he takes too many sacks, too many hits, makes too many mistakes, isn't quick enough a decision maker or an accurate enough passer and he's only getting slower as he gets older.

   7741. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4651040)
romo would be at the same level as dalton, except his contract is awful and he's gonna be 34 this coming season.


By that rationale then, Brady should come down a tier (or be a 1B) as he is 36, his numbers are trending down (albeit with a terrible receiving corps this year) and his cap number is going to be bad next year.

Eli Manning is 33 with a $20 million cap hit next year coming off a much, much worse season than Romo.
   7742. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4651042)
I don't have Roethlisberger in the top 2 tiers. I have him down with Romo and Cutler in tier 3/3b. Old and beat up. Roethlisberger's primary skill as a quarterback in 2014 will be being big and hard to tackle. He can't run, and his passing precision is nothing to write home about. I'd take Eli or Matt Stafford over him at this point. Certainly Ryan.
   7743. steagles Posted: February 03, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4651048)
By that rationale then, Brady should come down a tier (or be a 1B) as he is 36, his numbers are trending down (albeit with a terrible receiving corps this year) and his cap number is going to be bad next year.

Eli Manning is 33 with a $20 million cap hit next year.
i'm not gonna say 'count the rings', but damned if i don't want to.
   7744. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 03, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4651060)
i'm not gonna say 'count the rings', but damned if i don't want to.

Once you're retired and living for the rest of your life off those fat contracts you had, those rings resonate much more loudly than anything most quarterbacks are likely to achieve.

Eli played eight terrific games in two memorable postseasons and led his team to two Super Bowl wins over the allegedly invincible Patriots. There are a lot of quarterbacks with much better career statistics who would trade those stats for Eli's postseasons in a New Jersey minute. Of course those who value individual stats over team accomplishments will never understand or appreciate this point, but I'll bet that Peyton does.
   7745. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 03, 2014 at 07:52 PM (#4651065)
I don't know how I would rank the following 4 QBs: Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Newton. I will say this though: I anticipate that the Kap and Wilson will have more success in the next 2-3 years because they have better supporting casts. Newton has a great defense but there's not a ton of offensive talent. Luck plays in the AFC which might the Colts look like competitors for the next few years when they really aren't.

I was really impressed with Newton in the playoff game against SF. He threw some superb deep passes.
   7746. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 03, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4651081)
I don't think contract status should be relevant, when we are ranking how good a QB is.
   7747. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 03, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4651088)
i'm not gonna say 'count the rings', but damned if i don't want to.


Football is still deeply embedded in the "count the ringz" mindset. People still hawk Phil Simms for Canton. People still undersell Dan Marino. That doesn't mean a saber-friendly site should fall for that sort of thing. Eli Manning has his rings with the Giants, because the Giants built some monster defenses and that one guy made a circus catch on the top of his helmet. No one can take those rings away from him, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give extra credit to Eli because Michael Strahan was a HOFer and that guy caught an overthrown duck ON HIS ####### HELMET!
   7748. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:09 PM (#4651099)
Football is still deeply embedded in the "count the ringz" mindset.

What team sport isn't?

People still hawk Phil Simms for Canton. People still undersell Dan Marino. That doesn't mean a saber-friendly site should fall for that sort of thing. Eli Manning has his rings with the Giants, because the Giants built some monster defenses and that one guy made a circus catch on the top of his helmet. No one can take those rings away from him, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give extra credit to Eli because Michael Strahan was a HOFer and that guy caught an overthrown duck ON HIS ####### HELMET!

You're right to make that distinction. Eli Manning's two rings may mean more to him (and to Giants fans) than the Hall of Fame, but that doesn't mean that the Hall of Fame necessarily goes along with them.
   7749. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:15 PM (#4651106)
Random thoughts:

Roethlisberger had a nicer year than I thought he did. He probably has more left in him.

Foles's numbers this year were stupidly great, but so were the numbers for Chicago's back up. I'm waiting for at least a sixteen game sample.

Contract numbers are THE stat when looking at a QBs value to a team. Wilson, Kaepernick, Newton, and Luck all massively benefitted their teams by being cheap and good. The windows for all of those teams will close almost immediately when their extensions kick in unless they take the next step to elite. I don't think any of them will, including Luck.

   7750. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:50 PM (#4651160)
i'm not gonna say 'count the rings', but damned if i don't want to.


I guess I'm confused as to whether these rankings are a reflection of what the QBs have done, or what they will do. Bringing up old rings suggests "have done". Bringing up contract status, suggests "will do." Eli has two rings and was a big part of both championships, but he had a terrible year, is not young, and costs his team so much money, it will be very difficult for them to put decent pieces around him.


I don't know how I would rank the following 4 QBs: Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Newton. I will say this though: I anticipate that the Kap and Wilson will have more success in the next 2-3 years because they have better supporting casts. Newton has a great defense but there's not a ton of offensive talent. Luck plays in the AFC which might the Colts look like competitors for the next few years when they really aren't.


Carolina's supporting cast ain't chopped liver. Their defense is fantastic. The offensive weapsons aren't that great, but neither were Seattle's or San Fran's 1-2 years ago.

The Colts have a lot more glaring holes in my mind. I agree, a weak AFC could prop them up for awhile. The NFC looks ridiculously deep compared to the AFC right now.
   7751. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:52 PM (#4651161)
Contract numbers are THE stat when looking at a QBs value to a team

But has zero to do with how good they actually are, which was the discussion being had.

When we are deciding who is the MVP, we shouldn't give Trout extra credit (not that he actually needs it) for being cheaper than Cabrera.
   7752. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4651165)
When we are deciding who is the MVP, we shouldn't give Trout extra credit (not that he actually needs it) for being cheaper than Cabrera.


But if baseball had a hard salary cap, I would argue that that's exactly what we should do. In a hard capped league, contract dollars are every bit as important as yards or what have you. Now, people might be loathe to hold a player's salary against him in award voting, but in a hard capped league, I think that's just misplaced sentiment. Peyton Manning is much better than Russell Wilson in a vacuum, but once contracts are figured in? Much closer call.
   7753. zack Posted: February 03, 2014 at 11:08 PM (#4651167)
I think talking about value in a hard capped league absolutely needs to figure in the cap hit, but I would never use it in deciding awards.
   7754. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4651187)
Roethlisberger had a very good year this year; the Steelers' defense was the problem. The astonishing thing about it, the thing I would have bet against ever happening at any odds, was that he took every single snap of all 16 games. This is why Todd Haley isn't going anywhere despite masses of Steelers fans screaming for his head. He got the job because of nepotism the central theme he sold in his interview was "I can keep Roethlisberger on the field and here's how."

Roethlisberger is, ahem, not known for his work ethic, however, so I doubt he will ever again approach how good (and healthy) he was in 2013. Based on last year he's a top ten quarterback, but going forward I would not put him in that class. He's very much 32 going on 40.
   7755. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4651195)
Carolina's supporting cast ain't chopped liver. Their defense is fantastic. The offensive weapsons aren't that great, but neither were Seattle's or San Fran's 1-2 years ago.

I did say that that Carolina had a great defense. Some of those guys are about to get paid though and Newton is going to need an extension. It's not going to be easy for them to get better offensively and keep that defense.

   7756. zenbitz Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:09 AM (#4651204)
I don't know how I would rank the following 4 QBs: Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Newton. I will say this though: I anticipate that the Kap and Wilson will have more success in the next 2-3 years because they have better supporting casts. Newton has a great defense but there's not a ton of offensive talent. Luck plays in the AFC which might the Colts look like competitors for the next few years when they really aren't.

I was really impressed with Newton in the playoff game against SF. He threw some superb deep passes.


This is about where I am - they are all pretty close. Since I am a Niners fan, in my mind Kaepernick has the highest ceiling, but he's also by far the least polished.

All these guys can use their legs so the legend will be the one that deals with it when he can't run like a gazelle/waterbug/charging bull/possessed white man any more. Luck has the worse team by far, so possibly he's really the true stud here. Newton I probably have seen the least of. When he's on he's terrific, but he gets into ruts of atrocity.

Weirdly, I think by the end of the year Kaepernick had the best targets to throw to... and I think by conventional wisdom his OL is the best of these 4. Personally I think their pass blocking is meh at best.
   7757. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2014 at 07:34 AM (#4651229)
zen

staley is outstanding. and the guard from ohio status is a mauler in the best sense of the word. I thought he would be a big stiff in the pros (literally) but he greatly improved his upper body and got a nasty streak that was not in evidence in college.

but your center looks to be on his last legs. saw him lose leverage too many times in the playoffs. heads up on that guy
   7758. jmurph Posted: February 04, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4651246)
Of course those who value individual stats over team accomplishments will never understand or appreciate this point, but I'll bet that Peyton does.


You're probably right about this today, and you'd probably be right in the long term if he never won at all. But he has one, and I think 20 years from now, assuming they still have brain function, Peyton will gladly take his career over Roethlisberger's or Eli's. 1-2 disadvantage in the ring count will be more than made up by being known as the greatest quarterback of all time.
   7759. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4651262)
This is about where I am - they are all pretty close. Since I am a Niners fan, in my mind Kaepernick has the highest ceiling, but he's also by far the least polished.


I would rank them Wilson, Kaepernick, Newton. Wilson is the least physically talented of the three, but that's like being the shortest of three NBA centers, and he's by far the smartest. Newton is the most physically talented but I want nothing to do with his manchild attitude. I think Kaepernick pretty much is what you see. He's never going to make consistently sound decisions, but he's a fringe top ten quarterback and should continue to stay that way for a while (assuming Harbaugh continues to be smart and restrict his running until the must-win games roll along.)

Luck is much better than those guys. But, as I've said before and will say again, he has too much Ben Roethlisberger "I'm huge and strong and it's fun shrugging off defensive linemen who helplessly try to sack me" in him and is likely to have a short and frequently interrupted career if he continues to insist on taking so many hits. I'd be trying to coach that out of him if I were running the Colts. Unlike Roethlisberger, Luck actually has short-to-mid-range accuracy and is capable of quickly reading defenses and getting the ball out to the right guy.
   7760. ASmitty Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4651273)
Russell Wilson's numbers the last two seasons have been virtually identical. I like him, but I think he's firmly in the "what you see is what you get" category. The only remaining variable with him -- at least to my eyes -- is how he will deal with an eventual uptick in passing attempts. If he could maintain his rate performance at 500+ attempts instead of 400 attempts, that would be a meaningful step forward. Obviously, however, he isn't going to need to air it out that much if Seattle's modus operandi continues to work as well as it has.
   7761. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4651301)
All these guys can use their legs so the legend will be the one that deals with it when he can't run like a gazelle/waterbug/charging bull/possessed white man any more.

If anyone doubts for a second that this will be by far the most important factor in how they wind up, just think about another quarterback whose name has been entirely absent from this thread.
   7762. steagles Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4651306)
I guess I'm confused as to whether these rankings are a reflection of what the QBs have done, or what they will do. Bringing up old rings suggests "have done". Bringing up contract status, suggests "will do." Eli has two rings and was a big part of both championships, but he had a terrible year, is not young, and costs his team so much money, it will be very difficult for them to put decent pieces around him.
i guess you could think of it this way:
tom brady (and drew brees) has done and still might do
eli manning (and roethlisberger) has done, but likely won't do again
andy dalton (and matthew stafford) has not done, but might do in the future
tony romo (and jay cutler), has neither done in the past, nor is likely to do in the future.

   7763. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4651339)
Can you think of any instances in which a top tier QB in his prime was allowed to leave in free agency, or was traded? Peyton Manning is the only one I can think of, but I'm sure there had to be others. Joe Montana to KC I guess, but he was near the end of the line.
   7764. ASmitty Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4651346)
Can you think of any instances in which a top tier QB in his prime was allowed to leave in free agency, or was traded? Peyton Manning is the only one I can think of, but I'm sure there had to be others. Joe Montana to KC I guess, but he was near the end of the line.


I suppose Drew Brees would qualify for this, though like Manning he was dealing with injury concerns when San Diego let him go to New Orleans.

In all honesty, I think being willing to move on from above-average quarterbacks might be THENEWMARKETINEFFICIENCY in football. NFL teams are not, in the main, looking closely enough at their resturns on investment with roster spaces.
   7765. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4651368)
No I think Brees is a great answer, although he was seen as just average when SD let him go.

Mike Vick might be another one, but there were unique circumstances there.
   7766. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4651372)
The list of teams that have won a Super Bowl with a quarterback on a megacontract in the cap era is remarkably short. 1997-1998 Broncos... 2006 Colts... 2008 Steelers (and that wasn't as big as his current contract so might not really count)... 2009 Saints... 2011 Giants... that's about it.

Teams that have won a Super Bowl with a good/great quarterback playing early in his career before the megacontract comes along: 1996 Packers, 1999 Rams, 2001/2003/2004 Patriots, 2005 Steelers, 2007 Giants, 2010 Packers, 2013 Seahawks. 2011 Ravens, I guess, though Flacco was only a great quarterback in that year's playoffs and hasn't been that before or since.

The only Super Bowls I missed there, I think, were the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers. Lots of luck copying that blueprint.

As always we should remember that quarterbacks aren't the only players on the field, and championship teams pretty much always have at least a couple stars playing on contracts that were signed before they were stars.

Russell Wilson isn't likely going to be worth the megacontract he'll be getting in a couple years, but... what can you do? You can't just let him walk. A Jay Cutler, yes, you can let Jay Cutler walk (and the Bears should have, imo). Russell Wilson, not so much.

I'm also quite convinced that Colin Kaepernick lucked into a good team and extraordinarily good coaching, and in most alternate universes where he gets drafted by someone other than the 49ers, he turns out to have much less of a career.
   7767. jmurph Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4651375)
In all honesty, I think being willing to move on from above-average quarterbacks might be THENEWMARKETINEFFICIENCY in football. NFL teams are not, in the main, looking closely enough at their resturns on investment with roster spaces.


Agree with the sentiment, but I would put the line below "above-average." Average, or even slightly below average, seems to be where everyone is getting into trouble. The new Cutler and Flacco deals are the obvious ones that come to my mind that seem like problems, but I'm sure there are many others. I very much understand the value of stability, especially at quarterback, but how valuable, really, is consistency if it's merely average or below average? Especially at such a high cost?
   7768. dlf Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4651377)
Can you think of any instances in which a top tier QB in his prime was allowed to leave in free agency, or was traded?


Fran Tarkenton from MIN to NYG and back to MIN? Of course if you have to go back 40 years ...
   7769. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4651378)
The Giants did win two championships with Eli Manning, one of them after giving him a cap-hogging megacontract, so it's possible. I wouldn't recommend it as a blueprint.
   7770. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4651383)
I'm also quite convinced that Colin Kaepernick lucked into a good team and extraordinarily good coaching,


Bill Simmons made an interesting point in that the 49ers have now had three pretty crushing end of the season losses in a row now. When we look back at teams that lost in a conference champ or Super Bowl multiple years in a row, we tend to think of them as "losers." The 70s Vikings. The late 80s Broncos. The 90s Bills. The 00s Eagles. I don't think anyone sees the 49ers in that vein, I guess because we assume they'll win one something in the next few years.

But it is kinda interesting you can point to bad coaching decisions by Harbaugh in each of those games, yet he doesn't get the same derisive game management criticism say an Andy Reid gets.
   7771. puck Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4651384)
I wasn't following the thread during the game, so I'll cop to being unoriginal, but not a thief.

I didn't mean you're a thief, but just wanted to recognize Gamingboy for saying that at the time.

It's a good line; the Broncos should have known better than to give Manny that kind of responsibility.
   7772. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4651390)
Bill Simmons made an interesting point in that the 49ers have now had three pretty crushing end of the season losses in a row now. When we look back at teams that lost in a conference champ or Super Bowl multiple years in a row, we tend to think of them as "losers." The 70s Vikings. The late 80s Broncos. The 90s Bills. The 00s Eagles.


Remember when Donovan McNabb was a mobile, running QB destined to be a HOF'er with multiple SB rings?
   7773. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4651391)
No I think Brees is a great answer, although he was seen as just average when SD let him go.

Mike Vick might be another one, but there were unique circumstances there.


I think the answers are "Brees, Vick and Peyton." Which comes down to "INJURY RISK, IN PRISON, INJURY RISK."

Does anyone think the Colts would have let Peyton walk if he had not had the neck surgeries?
   7774. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4651394)
Does anyone think the Colts would have let Peyton walk if he had not had the neck surgeries?

Would they still have had the #1 pick and the opportunity to draft Andrew Luck?
   7775. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4651397)
Bill Simmons made an interesting point in that the 49ers have now had three pretty crushing end of the season losses in a row now. When we look back at teams that lost in a conference champ or Super Bowl multiple years in a row, we tend to think of them as "losers." The 70s Vikings. The late 80s Broncos. The 90s Bills. The 00s Eagles.

The difference is that for those first three teams, they won championships in weaker conferences, and with one exception (the 90 Bills) they got blown out or easily beaten in every Super Bowl they played in. By contrast, the Niners play in a strong conference, and lost tight games to teams that in every case wound up winning the Super Bowl.
   7776. zenbitz Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4651398)
Newton is the most physically talented but I want nothing to do with his manchild attitude. I think Kaepernick pretty much is what you see. He's never going to make consistently sound decisions


Other than the attitude I think this is backwards. Probably this is just homerism. Kaep does get away with throwing into tight windows but he has the arm for it. Most of his bad decisions come against Seattle. Possibly a simple explanation for that is that since Seattle is by far the toughest team he has to face, that's when he has to make plays to win and doesn't. His interception rate is the same as Wilsons, both above average. But contrarywise, Seattle's pass defense makes everyone look bad (including all time great Peyton Manning).

I'm also quite convinced that Colin Kaepernick lucked into a good team and extraordinarily good coaching, and in most alternate universes where he gets drafted by someone other than the 49ers, he turns out to have much less of a career.


This is also quite possible. But I watched quite a bit of Alex Smith with the same team, and Kaepernick is significantly better, despite being obviously less experienced. I think when Greg Roman eventually gets the call to be a head coach we will learn a lot about him, Harbaugh, and Kaepernick.

But it is kinda interesting you can point to bad coaching decisions by Harbaugh in each of those games, yet he doesn't get the same derisive game management criticism say an Andy Reid gets.


Probably because everyone is distracted by his childish antics (I WANT CAKE NOW!!) And really, you will take a good HC even if they (like both Reid and Harbaugh) have weaknesses like clock management. Harbaugh is also the WORST challenge-flag throwing decision maker I've ever seen.
   7777. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4651399)
I'm also quite convinced that Colin Kaepernick lucked into a good team and extraordinarily good coaching, and in most alternate universes where he gets drafted by someone other than the 49ers, he turns out to have much less of a career.

True, but that's much more of a mark against those alternative universes than it would be against Kaepernick.
   7778. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4651400)
Can anyone name the NFL team that was in 5 championship games in 6 years--and LOST ALL 5??

(I'm sure Andy knows)
   7779. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4651401)
Does anyone think the Colts would have let Peyton walk if he had not had the neck surgeries?


If he doesn't have the neck surgeries, then he's not injured?
If he's not injured, then they don't go 2-14 that season and get the first overall pick.
If they don't have the first overall pick, they aren't taking Luck.
If they don't take Luck, they probably don't have an heir apparent for Manning.
Without an heir apparent, they keep Manning until he retires (or gets injured in the alternate reality).
   7780. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4651402)
Does anyone think the Colts would have let Peyton walk if he had not had the neck surgeries?



Would they still have had the #1 pick and the opportunity to draft Andrew Luck?


It was the combination of the neck surgery, the cap hit when his future was still uncertain, the fact that they had the No. 1 pick with a pretty safe bet QB at the top of the board and sketchy prospects for success over the rest of Peyton's career (though the present proved less dire than imagined) made it not just possible to let the best quarterback ever walk, but made it the logical choice.

The difference is that for those first three teams, they won championships in weaker conferences, and with one exception (the 90 Bills) they got blown out or easily beaten in every Super Bowl they played in. By contrast, the Niners play in a strong conference, and lost tight games to teams that in every case wound up winning the Super Bowl.


No, it isn't, no matter how much you want to drive this whole weak conference/weak schedule thing into the ground.

It's because the Niners haven't run out of chances yet (and, well, conference championship losses really aren't the same thing as Super Bowl losses. We don't remember them nearly as much).

By the way, one of those conference championship losses was to one of the weakest Super Bowl participants ever, so let's not go overboard on the NFC's greatness.
   7781. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4651404)
Let's say Peyton misses the entire year, but its not a neck injury. Its say, prison time for a dog-fighting ring. But he's ultimately cleared of all charges, and the Colts have the #1 pick.

What do they do then?

Can anyone name the NFL team that was in 5 championship games in 6 years--and LOST ALL 5??


Wasn't it the Raiders in the late 60s and early 70s?

EDIT: Looking at Wiki, no. Also, I forgot the Rams had such a great stretch in the 70s. They made 5 of 6 NFC Championship Games from 1975-1980, but only won one of them (and were then lost to the Steelers in the SB)
   7782. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4651405)
The difference is that for those first three teams, they won championships in weaker conferences, and with one exception (the 90 Bills) they got blown out or easily beaten in every Super Bowl they played in. By contrast, the Niners lost tight games to teams that in every case wound up winning the Super Bowl.

Wide left.
   7783. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4651408)
Let's say Peyton misses the entire year, but its not a neck injury. Its say, prison time for a dog-fighting ring. But he's ultimately cleared of all charges, and the Colts have the #1 pick.

What do they do then?


They let him go. He's tainted goods at that point, and the fan reaction would be minimum.
If he took a year off for something noble (sick wife or child), I think they still cut him and let him "be with his family".

Wide left.


It's "wide right".
Believe me, I know that by heart.
*sigh*

   7784. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4651411)
Wide left.



It's "wide right".
Believe me, I know that by heart.
*sigh*


Well, it's been 25 years and I was drunk at the time.

Sorry to bring it up. Just wanted to point out that the Bills didn't get blown out 4 times.

   7785. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4651413)
Yeah. It's "wide right." Every single time.

I don't think an NFL office with a healthy Manning in house takes a chance on Andrew Luck, no matter how good he looks coming out of college. You don't let the bird in hand go.
   7786. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4651418)
The difference is that for those first three teams, they won championships in weaker conferences, and with one exception (the 90 Bills) they got blown out or easily beaten in every Super Bowl they played in. By contrast, the Niners play in a strong conference, and lost tight games to teams that in every case wound up winning the Super Bowl.

No, it isn't, no matter how much you want to drive this whole weak conference/weak schedule thing into the ground.


So you're saying that the NFC in the 70's and the AFC in the 80's weren't significantly weaker conferences? Based on what conjecture?

It's because the Niners haven't run out of chances yet (and, well, conference championship losses really aren't the same thing as Super Bowl losses. We don't remember them nearly as much).

If the Niners never win a Super Bowl, they'll likely be remembered depending on how many times they got there and how well or badly they played. The "loser" reputations of the Vikings, Broncos and Bills came more from the lopsided nature of their losses** as it did from the fact that they lost.

By the way, one of those conference championship losses was to one of the weakest Super Bowl participants ever, so let's not go overboard on the NFC's greatness.

And yet that "weakest team" managed to best the Packers in Lambeau, the Niners in Candlestick, and the anointed Patriots in the Super Bowl. The Giants' mediocre regular season record was largely a function of injuries that healed in time for the playoffs.

**Here are the scores of those Super Bowl losses:

Vikings: 23-7, 24-7, 16-2, 32-14

Broncos: 39-20, 42-10, 55-10 -- and also 27-10 back in 1978

Bills: 20-19 (the one exception), 37-24 (it only got close in garbage time), 52-17, 30-13
   7787. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4651422)
Let's look at the question about high salaried QBs and making the Super Bowl. I think that does a better job of determining the value of truly elite QBs. From 2010-2012, each Super Bowl team had a high-salaried QB.

It's extremely difficult to do what Seattle has done. They have managed to draft extremely well outside the QB position and then find a QB in the later rounds who has played extremely well right away. That's not an easy model to follow.

Give me a truly elite QB and you can pay him and still win Super Bowls. It's paying the guys below that. And honestly, it's really hard to win Super Bowls and any model where a team wins consistently has to be considered a good one.



   7788. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4651430)
I think one thing that has colored the way the Niners are seen is the fact that they kind of come out nowhere. Prior to Harbaugh's first season, they went 6-10. After that first season, most guys expected them to regress significantly. I think this last year was the first one that most people expected them to contend. There's also the feeling that they are going to win a Super Bowl at some point (which you can never really assume).
   7789. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4651433)
So you're saying that the NFC in the 70's and the AFC in the 80's weren't significantly weaker conferences? Based on what conjecture?


I'm saying how we view the current Niners (and the early Bills and Vikes) has nothing to do with the strength of their conferences. The Bills and Vikes are seen as losers because they lost the big one four times (and neither team has ever won it). This version of the Niners isn't seen that way because a) there is still time for them to win one and b) people don't place conference championship losses in the same class as Super Bowl losses.


If the Niners never win a Super Bowl, they'll likely be remembered depending on how many times they got there and how well or badly they played. The "loser" reputations of the Vikings, Broncos and Bills came more from the lopsided nature of their losses** as it did from the fact that they lost.


No, this is wrong. The Bills lost a heartbreaker when they were probably the better team in the first one, and led at half in the last one (two can play at the garbage time thing). None of it matters. They lost four straight - that's the narrative.

This version of the Niners is also helped by the fact that the franchise has five Super Bowl rings already, just as the Broncos are no longer thought of with the Vikes and Bills in the Super Bowl loser club.

And yet that "weakest team" managed to best the Packers in Lambeau, the Niners in Candlestick, and the anointed Patriots in the Super Bowl. The Giants' mediocre regular season record was largely a function of injuries that healed in time for the playoffs.


Oh give me a break. They got outscored by their opposition in the regular season for Christ's sake. That doesn't happen to truly great teams, injuries or not.

They got hot (and absurdly lucky, at least in the SF game) in the playoffs. Good for them. They're still one of the weaker Super Bowl participants we've seen.
   7790. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4651446)
no one's got the correct answer to my question. It was the New York football Giants in 58,59,61,62,63. And yet they were NEVER considered losers. Things were thought of differently in them days. Plus, they had already won the championship in 57
   7791. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4651468)
But it is kinda interesting you can point to bad coaching decisions by Harbaugh in each of those games, yet he doesn't get the same derisive game management criticism say an Andy Reid gets.


Andy Reid didn't really get it, either, back at the time. If the 49ers don't win anything Harbaugh will get to that point too. His work developing and deploying Kaepernick has been very impressive--but then, the same was true of McNabb and Reid.

True, but that's much more of a mark against those alternative universes than it would be against Kaepernick.


Yes, this is certainly true. It has long been my opinion that most NFL head coaches are profoundly incompetent at their jobs.

Let's say Peyton misses the entire year, but its not a neck injury. Its say, prison time for a dog-fighting ring. But he's ultimately cleared of all charges, and the Colts have the #1 pick.

What do they do then?


I think that's a bad hypothetical, but if he'd just blown out an ACL they absolutely would have kept him and traded the #1 pick.

Edit: Well, I shouldn't say "absolutely". The little thing that's easy to forget is that the Colts by 2011 had become a very talent-starved team, a fact Manning was well aware of, and he did not vehemently protest being released.
   7792. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4651469)
So you're saying that the NFC in the 70's and the AFC in the 80's weren't significantly weaker conferences? Based on what conjecture?

I'm saying how we view the current Niners (and the early Bills and Vikes) has nothing to do with the strength of their conferences. The Bills and Vikes are seen as losers because they lost the big one four times (and neither team has ever won it). This version of the Niners isn't seen that way because a) there is still time for them to win one and b) people don't place conference championship losses in the same class as Super Bowl losses.


When the Niners become the butt of standup comedians' jokes and Simpsons episodes, I'll start thinking of them along the same lines as the Vikings, Bronco and Bills. Until then.....

And yet that "weakest team" managed to best the Packers in Lambeau, the Niners in Candlestick, and the anointed Patriots in the Super Bowl. The Giants' mediocre regular season record was largely a function of injuries that healed in time for the playoffs.

Oh give me a break. They got outscored by their opposition in the regular season for Christ's sake. That doesn't happen to truly great teams, injuries or not.


Who said that they were "great"? I sure didn't, and I sure wouldn't.

But if you're talking about "one of the weaker Super Bowl participants we've seen," that's just a function of their injury-plagued regular season record. If you want to talk about really weak SB teams, you should take a look at virtually any AFC team from the mid-80's through the mid-90's. Those repeated Super Bowl victory margins don't lie.

------------------------------------------------

no one's got the correct answer to my question. It was the New York football Giants in 58,59,61,62,63. And yet they were NEVER considered losers. Things were thought of differently in them days.

Are you kidding? By 1963 it was a standing joke that the Giants were like Charlie Brown kicking Lucy's football. They weren't thought of as being jokes like the Broncos of the 80's, but that was because only one of those five losses (1961) was a blowout.

Plus, they had already won the championship in 57

Actually that was in 1956, when they beat the Bears 47 to 7 in what came to be known as the second "sneaker game".
   7793. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4651483)


When the Niners become the butt of standup comedians' jokes and Simpsons episodes, I'll start thinking of them along the same lines as the Vikings, Bronco and Bills. Until then.....


If you're not going to make any effort to respond to the conversation taking place, rather than the one in your head, it's probably time to cut you off.

But if you're talking about "one of the weaker Super Bowl participants we've seen," that's just a function of their injury-plagued regular season record. If you want to talk about really weak SB teams, you should take a look at virtually any AFC team from the mid-80's through the mid-90's. Those repeated Super Bowl victory margins don't lie.


No, it's a product of the Giants allowing more points than they scored, which is the foundation of a weak playoff team, let alone one that reaches the Super Bowl.

   7794. Kurt Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4651499)
No, it's a product of the Giants allowing more points than they scored, which is the foundation of a weak playoff team, let alone one that reaches the Super Bowl.


Whatever the merits of those Giants are, your application of the point is silly. If these Niners never win the Super Bowl, nobody in the world is going to base their legacy in any part on "Oh my God, I can't believe they lost to the *Giants*." Nobody thought that then, nobody thinks it now, nobody's going to think it twenty years from now. I believe San Francisco was favored in that game by 2.5, which means they didn't even get the full three points for HFA.
   7795. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4651505)
The reason Reid got a lot of criticism in Philadelphia and Harbaugh doesn't in San Francisco is because 1) San Francisco fans are more laid-back and happy to just have a winning team (for now), 2) Ripping their team is the main form of entertainment for sports fans in Philadelphia, 3) East coast media bias.
   7796. Joey B. "disrespects the A" Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4651513)
To think that if fat-ass Donovan McNabb hadn't run out of gas and thrown up all over the field, Reid would probably be one of the most revered coaches in Philly history. It's kind of cruel sometimes, the things that can determine a man's fate.
   7797. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4651515)
Whatever the merits of those Giants are, your application of the point is silly. If these Niners never win the Super Bowl, nobody in the world is going to base their legacy in any part on "Oh my God, I can't believe they lost to the *Giants*."


Good, because that's not anything close to what I've claimed.

Andy's original claim was that the Niners won't be viewed the same as the Bills and Vikings because a) they played in a better conference, b) they lost close games to the eventual champions.

My view is that however we view them, the strength of the conference they're playing in will have no bearing on it. Nor will those losses in conference championship games, because those are generally forgotten (except maybe in Cleveland, since they've never gotten past that point and they lost three heartbreakers). The Vikes and the Bills are seen as the Great Losers because they lost four Super Bowls without a victory (as the Broncos generally disappeared from the club when Elway and co. won two straight). The margin of defeat may goose our opinions a little, but it's really all about the 0-4. It's the natural flip side of a CTR mentality.

The point about the Giants was more a tangential one noting that it's not like the NFC has been leaps and bounds better than the AFC the past three years. It really wasn't until this year where we saw a really significant gap between the conferences.
   7798. Kurt Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4651520)
The reason Reid got a lot of criticism in Philadelphia and Harbaugh doesn't in San Francisco is because 1) San Francisco fans are more laid-back and happy to just have a winning team (for now), 2) Ripping their team is the main form of entertainment for sports fans in Philadelphia, 3) East coast media bias.


But Reid also gets a lot more national criticism. I think the original poster is right, a big part of it is that Reid kind of looks like a doofus and Harbaugh has a variation of the Costanza thing down pat.
   7799. Kurt Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4651525)
SoSH, I think your factors are true, and the most important ones. I think Andy's are also true, and lesser factors though they do make a bit of a difference and kind of tie in to your Super Bowl/CGC distinction. By the time the Bills lost #4, people were definitely questioning the AFC.


   7800. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4651529)
I'm pretty sure people knew the AFC was vastly inferior around the time the Broncos lost got the everloving #### kicked out of them #3.

But after the Bills and then the Chargers, yes, definitely. The 1995 Steelers were a long way from chopped liver, probably stronger than any of the Bills teams, and the Cowboys were the Cowboys, yes, but Dallas was favored in that Super Bowl by 13.5 points. By then it was just the assumption that the NFC team would blow out the AFC team.
Page 78 of 81 pages ‹ First  < 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(49 - 4:09pm, Sep 21)
Last: Danny

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(25 - 4:04pm, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogLindbergh: Dellin Betances’s Season & Bullpen Strategy
(6 - 3:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(30 - 3:30pm, Sep 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(345 - 3:17pm, Sep 21)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3412 - 3:16pm, Sep 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogJames Shields is the perfect pitcher at the perfect time
(41 - 3:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(16 - 2:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: Danny

NewsblogEsquire: Martone: The Death of Derek Jeter
(314 - 2:34pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(320 - 2:15pm, Sep 21)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(89 - 1:43pm, Sep 21)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(11 - 1:14pm, Sep 21)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogLindbergh: Where Dellin Betances’s Season Ranks Historically, and What It Teaches Us About Bullpen Strategy
(2 - 12:31pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(295 - 7:40am, Sep 21)
Last: Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-20-2014
(92 - 2:49am, Sep 21)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

Page rendered in 0.9872 seconds
76 querie(s) executed