|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 8, 2021 15:29:14 GMT
Looks like McCaffrey could be back in action for the Panthers this week. As much as I want to see him out there, I don't want them rushing him back if he isn't ready.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Oct 8, 2021 15:32:08 GMT
I heard that the Giants AND Jets both won last week? Well, I never!
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 8, 2021 15:49:28 GMT
Wasn't it you that in here judging coaches based on the number of titles they've won? I can't remember who it was but someone in here was talking like this a few months ago.
This whole thing is like judging QBs by the number of titles they win. As if Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino because, you know... he won a SB and Dan didn't.
It's the debate that never ends.
No.
It was FrankSobotka1514. He said it last year.
Exact quote was - "Coaches and GMs are judged by championships"
However I'm almost certain another poster was in here saying the same thing a while back but I can't find it...
Anyhow, it's hard to judge coaches but I think a good way to do it is how far they get with lackluster teams. I don't think anyone would say the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs were two of the best teams of all-time.
Using this way of judging coaches, you might say John Madden was the best coach ever. I don't think he ever had a "great" team but he won a super bowl and finished his career with one of the highest winning percentages ever at 75.9%.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 8, 2021 18:32:09 GMT
Looks like McCaffrey could be back in action for the Panthers this week. As much as I want to see him out there, I don't want them rushing him back if he isn't ready. Now listed as doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 8, 2021 21:02:31 GMT
Gronk out Sunday vs. Dolphins
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 8, 2021 21:19:51 GMT
I heard that the Giants AND Jets both won last week? Well, I never! Daniel Jones: Offensive Player of the Week!
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 8, 2021 21:27:47 GMT
Gronk out Sunday vs. Dolphins *unhappy German noises
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Oct 8, 2021 21:59:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 9, 2021 1:08:05 GMT
Wow, I didn't know Gruden is racist. We'll see how the league handles this one.
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 9, 2021 1:18:14 GMT
Well, after they give Megan Rapinoe a free pass..
|
|
|
Post by Winston Wolfe on Oct 9, 2021 3:29:18 GMT
Russell Wilson could need surgery for his finger and be out for up to a month or more.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 9, 2021 5:39:23 GMT
Russell Wilson could need surgery for his finger and be out for up to a month or more. Seattle's defense is on pace to give up the most yards in NFL history. And it's not just because of a 17th game - - they are on pace to beat it by more than 600 yards.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 9, 2021 6:04:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 9, 2021 8:39:45 GMT
Russell Wilson could need surgery for his finger and be out for up to a month or more. I guess the Seahawkes can tank now for good draft picks and an easy schedule in the next season. Imho the draft needs a lottery system for the upper and lower end. The top 4 and bottom 4 should have their ranks assigned by this lottery (before the rest of the leagues get their ranks). The Super Bowl winners could end up with the first overall pick, the worst team, with the well deserved 32nd pick. Why should get good QB like Lawrence and Wilson get thrown under the bus for dysfunctional franchises like the Jaguars or Jets. Or Burrows who got almost killed by his own inadequate O-line...and why was it inadequate, because the front office died a shitty job. So punish these front offices for their poor performance and(!) care. In average the top 4 would benefit and be rewarded for their performance in the last season, the bottom 4 will get punished. Tanking would no longer be a viable strategy, and reaching the conference finals would receive an extra incentive. Since the schedule of better performing team is in generally harder, it also evens out that aspect a bit. Some will say it should only be the bottom four, but I say it stinks that performance is punished.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 9, 2021 12:10:15 GMT
Russell Wilson could need surgery for his finger and be out for up to a month or more. I guess the Seahawkes can tank now for good draft picks and an easy schedule in the next season. Imho the draft needs a lottery system for the upper and lower end. The top 4 and bottom 4 should have their ranks assigned by this lottery (before the rest of the leagues get their ranks). The Super Bowl winners could end up with the first overall pick, the worst team, with the well deserved 32nd pick. Why should get good QB like Lawrence and Wilson get thrown under the bus for dysfunctional franchises like the Jaguars or Jets. Or Burrows who got almost killed by his own inadequate O-line...and why was it inadequate, because the front office died a shitty job. So punish these front offices for their poor performance and(!) care. In average the top 4 would benefit and be rewarded for their performance in the last season, the bottom 4 will get punished. Tanking would no longer be a viable strategy, and reaching the conference finals would receive an extra incentive. Since the schedule of better performing team is in generally harder, it also evens out that aspect a bit. Some will say it should only be the bottom four, but I say it stinks that performance is punished. Seahawks don't have a first-round pick; no sense in tanking. And doing it your way would result in the same stuff that plagues European soccer - dominant teams winning every year with bad teams falling farther and farther behind. Super Bowl winners already get the greatest reward in the sport - now you want to give them a chance to bring in the best talent? By itself, high picks aren't enough. You need a strong organization to make the most of them (see: Cleveland under Berry and Stefanski). But without those picks, these teams would have almost zero chance to climb. Some teams don't even tank - they just suck. And you want to punish them more by giving them the last first-round pick?
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 9, 2021 13:06:11 GMT
I guess the Seahawkes can tank now for good draft picks and an easy schedule in the next season. Imho the draft needs a lottery system for the upper and lower end. The top 4 and bottom 4 should have their ranks assigned by this lottery (before the rest of the leagues get their ranks). The Super Bowl winners could end up with the first overall pick, the worst team, with the well deserved 32nd pick. Why should get good QB like Lawrence and Wilson get thrown under the bus for dysfunctional franchises like the Jaguars or Jets. Or Burrows who got almost killed by his own inadequate O-line...and why was it inadequate, because the front office died a shitty job. So punish these front offices for their poor performance and(!) care. In average the top 4 would benefit and be rewarded for their performance in the last season, the bottom 4 will get punished. Tanking would no longer be a viable strategy, and reaching the conference finals would receive an extra incentive. Since the schedule of better performing team is in generally harder, it also evens out that aspect a bit. Some will say it should only be the bottom four, but I say it stinks that performance is punished. Seahawks don't have a first-round pick; no sense in tanking. And doing it your way would result in the same stuff that plagues European soccer - dominant teams winning every year with bad teams falling farther and farther behind. Super Bowl winners already get the greatest reward in the sport - now you want to give them a chance to bring in the best talent? By itself, high picks aren't enough. You need a strong organization to make the most of them (see: Cleveland under Berry and Stefanski). But without those picks, these teams would have almost zero chance to climb. Some teams don't even tank - they just suck. And you want to punish them more by giving them the last first-round pick? Who said something about the first overall pick? Where did I said that?! I said good draft picks => single digit. Since they don't need a franchise QB -the first picks are usually used for QBs, they can draft other top players (O-Line, WRs). So it can make sense to tank. Considering their division it is game over. My idea is also limited to the top four teams (I also accepted it if it is even limited to the bottom four teams), and you ignored the fact that the NFL has a space cap, which is far more effective than the draft. Many top drafts turn out to be bust, many second rounder or lower turn out to be great. And in the average the teams would get a 16.5 round picks. So the advantage is not that great overall. The Chiefs could land the first overall pick, but als the 32nd pick, and thus even be a bit worse off then without this lottery, but in the average it would be a 16.5 picks and thus moderately better. The free agency combined with no cap space would provide opportunities like in Europe - what is actually the idea of a free market. You have no problem with Amazon, Facebook, Walmart, Mircosoft and Co. but god beware the Dallas Cowboys operated like any other free business. Big rich teams could simply hire the elites players of the league if it weren't for the cap space. The idea of a limited lottery would not provide this opportunity. And had the Chiefs picked Trevor Lawrence?! And yes. If you suck because you did a bad job, hired the wrong people, drafted the wrong people or just don't care (the owners of the Redskins or the Bengals), then you should be punished. In other leagues such teams get relegated. They have to leave until they have proven that they are competitive again and receive a promotion based on merits. Another idea of the free market: businesses which are not competitive will defunct and clear the market. Zombies-firms (or franchises) do more harm than good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_companyPS: And use once more the S-word when addressing me (and you know that I'm a European - so no there is no excuse), and we are done.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 9, 2021 13:10:49 GMT
Seahawks don't have a first-round pick; no sense in tanking. And doing it your way would result in the same stuff that plagues European soccer - dominant teams winning every year with bad teams falling farther and farther behind. Super Bowl winners already get the greatest reward in the sport - now you want to give them a chance to bring in the best talent? By itself, high picks aren't enough. You need a strong organization to make the most of them (see: Cleveland under Berry and Stefanski). But without those picks, these teams would have almost zero chance to climb. Some teams don't even tank - they just suck. And you want to punish them more by giving them the last first-round pick? Who said something about the first overall pick? Where did I said that?! I said good draft picks => single digit. Since they don't need a franchise QB -the first picks are usually used for QBs, they can draft other top players (O-Line, WRs). So it can make sense to tank. Considering their division it is game over.
My idea is also limited to the top four teams (I also accepted it if it is even limited to the bottom four teams), and you ignored the fact that the NFL has a space cap, which is far more effective than the draft. Many top drafts turn out to be bust, many second rounder or lower turn out to be great. And in the average the teams would get a 16.5 round picks. So the advantage is not that great overall. The Chiefs could land the first overall pick, but als the 32nd pick, and thus even be a bit worse off then without this lottery, but in the average it would be a 16.5 picks and thus moderately better. The free agency combined with no cap space would provide opportunities like in Europe - what is actually the idea of a free market. You have no problem with Amazon, Facebook, Walmart, Mircosoft and Co. but god beware the Dallas Cowboys operated like any other free business. Big rich teams could simply hire the elites players of the league if it weren't for the cap space. The idea of a limited lottery would not provide this opportunity. And had the Chiefs picked Trevor Lawrence?! And yes. If you suck because you did a bad job, hired the wrong people, drafted the wrong people or just don't care (the owners of the Redskins or the Bengals), then you should be punished. In other leagues such teams get relegated. They have to leave until they have proven that they are competitive again and receive a promotion based on merits. Another idea of the free market: businesses which are not competitive will defunct and clear the market. Zombies-firms (or franchises) do more harm than good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_companyPS: And use once more the S-word when addressing me (and you know that I'm a European - so no there is no excuse), and we are done. Teams don't tank for high second-round picks.
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 9, 2021 15:28:37 GMT
I just wish the NFL would come up with some kind of way to prevent teams from tanking. I'm not sure what they could do. Money incentive for winning maybe? Lottery system for the draft is probably the best way to go. It seems like even with the current system, it still doesn't help bad teams that much. Look at the teams that have made the playoffs over the last 5 or 6 seasons. I don't think draft picks have made that much of an impact on playoff trees.
I would think the biggest factor that made the NFL much more competitive was the salary cap not draft picks. And if a good team already has an above average QB, they're not going to take a QB in the draft anyways. Lottery system might be the best way to do it. Sure, good teams would luck out sometimes and get a high draft pick but so what... less than half the players in the draft are not good enough to play in the NFL anyways. Either way, some of the late season games can be real bore fests when you know some teams might not even be trying to win.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 9, 2021 16:14:13 GMT
Geno Smith played pretty well on Thursday . . . but I'd think that if there was going to be a Cam Newton sighting this year, it might be in Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Oct 9, 2021 19:11:20 GMT
Baker was revealed to be dealing with a torn labrum earlier in the week. Outstanding. Noticed a lot of people in the sports media are talking about him being replaceable. Sure, I get that since he hasn't really been playing the way he did in his rookie season. But which QB could they replace him with that would actually be an upgrade? Ay-ay-ron? Russ? Browns will have to trade for either which would mean dealing both quality players and draft picks. Fuck that noise. While I'd like to see them win a Super Bowl, I'd rather they not resign themselves to having a short window for contention.
While I'm a fan of OBJ (I even have an OBJ jersey, which has never been a good sign as every player I've ever purchased a jersey of ended up leaving), I think trading him would actually solve the Browns' problems. The Baker to OBJ connection has been hugely disappointing through basically two whole seasons and Bake plays a hell of a lot better when he isn't having to force the ball to OBJ. Browns should trade OBJ and a second-rounder or two for... idk... Calvin Ridley or Robert Woods.
|
|