• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MTSuper7

  1. GBP backfield

    Well, when you consider that Green Bay was forced to use Ty Montgomery out of desperation two seasons ago when everyone in front of him got hurt, then they drafted two RBs immediately following the 2016 season, it doesn't exactly tell me that the Packers felt settled at the position. Granted, it's not impossible to think that Ty Montgomery could become the alpha in that backfield, but I have a hard time imagining that his value isn't going to hinge almost completely on his passing game chops or one of the other two RBs getting hurt to give him more opportunity for carries. This will be a very interesting situation to monitor this preseason. I am guessing, though, that Montgomery's role will be solid as more of a pass catcher / occasional runner and that it'll be more about Jones vs. Williams for lead early down back duties.
  2. Browns fans: Read this long rumor!

    I don't think you can assume that both New York teams will draft a QB. The Jets look quite likely to do so, but the Giants maybe not quite as sure. Also, regarding Chubb #1 then QB at #4, aren't all of these QBs a crapshoot? Nobody knows who will pan out and who won't. So how much does it really matter which guy they get of those three?
  3. Browns fans: Read this long rumor!

    Really? There is a difference between what should happen and what will. Mayfield is a proven winner and the most pro-ready guy in the draft. There are enough QB needy teams that someone will look beyond his height.
  4. Browns fans: Read this long rumor!

    I actually think taking Chubb #1 overall, then grabbing a QB with #4 isn't a bad idea. Let the other teams figure out what they want. I also am glad to see Lamar Jackson's name brought up here. I have wondered why he has gotten zero love while Josh Allen gets slobbered over. Josh Allen has the most bust potential of the group IMO. Anyway, the Browns should be happy to get whoever is left of Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold after taking Chubb #1 overall. Drafting two QBs in the top 4 would be silly when they have other needs that could be filled by an elite talent /prospect with one of those picks.
  5. player safety and kickoffs

    For the TL;DR crowd: Go back to the way kickoffs were and fix how players tackle, block, etc. instead (via targeting, fines, etc.). The game is supposed to have 3 phases. Current rules changes threaten to take it from 2.75 phases to 2.5 phases. For everyone else... Not a bad solution, but a few comments: If I understand this solution correctly, the 4th and 15 snap is essentially an offensive snap. Some teams are good enough on offense that giving them an offensive snap seems pretty advantageous. Certainly more advantageous than whatever advantage the team with the best onside kicking kicker/special teams unit would give. I don't like the idea that a team with a stronger offense is at an advantage for what should be a special teams play (or, conversely, that a team with a poor offense should be at a disadvantage). What happens if the team receiving the punt commits a penalty? Is it possible that they could give the kicking team an automatic first down? I don't like the idea of any "automatic first down" penalties being awarded to the kicking team. Is there a reason that a team can't just declare an onside kick and run the onside as it always has been run? Then if a team wants to maintain the element of surprise, they could still elect to fake punt on 4th and 15th. But they shouldn't be allowed to have their starting offense on the field for that 4th and 15 play. Are there statistics to back up the assertion that kickoff returns are notably more dangerous than punt returns (or any other play for that matter)? I'm just wondering how much are these changes legitimate changes in favor of player safety vs. change for appearance's sake. Certainly, not having a kickoff means no risk of injury, but the comparison should be to the "average" play during a game. Color me skeptical, but if you remove kickoffs entirely, at what point do you remove obvious long passing downs (3rd and 20+) because they represent more risk than the average play due to receivers getting hung out to dry by their quarterbacks? What would keep the NFL from just forcing teams who end up in 3rd and 20+ from automatically placing them at 4th and 8 (or whatever the "average" historical gain on 3rd and 20+ amounts to)? I'd rather see them restore kickoffs to the good old days where there were actual returns - simply admit that football is a contact sport and that all players are at risk when they play. But then continue to apply pressure financially on guys who play dirty. For instance, use the new targeting rules to deter guys from making blind side blocks on kick returns. It seems like a lot of the risk on kicks and punts comes from guys who get rocked by a blindside hit by a blocker for the return team. A block can certainly occur without the level of violence that seems inherent in a blindside block. Sorry if this post comes across as ignorant, but I really never understood how kickoffs are so much more dangerous that they had to virtually eliminate kickoffs from game strategy (the touchback percentage is ridiculous). Dudes can get rocked on any play. Fix how guys block, tackle, etc. but don't change the fundamentals of the game. It's supposed to be three phases, but special teams is just not as important anymore with kickoffs so muted (and maybe even going away entirely).
  6. Have we ranked the rookie RB's yet?

    I don't want to give out their analysis for free, but I'll throw PFF's top five RBs out to add to the discussion: 1. SAQUON BARKLEY, PENN STATE 2. RONALD JONES II, USC 3. RASHAAD PENNY, SDSU 4. NICK CHUBB, GEORGIA 5. SONY MICHEL, GEORGIA
  7. Fresh league #1 draft in 2018? WWYP?

    In PPR, I agree. Brown is on another planet/tier by himself. Gurley would be my preference after Brown, but I agree that those three RBs are somewhat equal and it's more of a matter of personal preference. Johnson is probably the most likely to slip based purely on the unknowns that come with turnover at QB and coaching (and based on the feeling that he was a bust last year).
  8. I guess the Browns are less likely to draft Barkley after agreeing to terms with Carlos Hyde. No?
  9. Todd Haley was guilty of going pass-happy a lot in Pittsburgh, despite having arguably the best RB in the game in Le"Veon Bell. Pittsburgh was the 11th most pass heavy team in the league last year based on pass to run ratio (Cleveland was 5th most pass-happy). If you look purely at number of pass plays called per game, the Steelers ranked 2nd behind New England. Of course, Haley won't have Ben Roethlisberger at QB in Cleveland, but I wouldn't expect his insertion into offensive play calling or game planning to mean a firmer commitment to running the ball. Let's also not forget how often game situation puts Cleveland into pass mode as they attempt to play catch up.
  10. Is Tom Brady the GOAT of all sports?

    In general, hockey > basketball > baseball > football as it relates to an individual player's opportunity to influence a team's success. The sheer fact that guys like Trent Dilfer have SB rings tells you that, no matter how good a QB can be, it's just not as impressive as superstar athletes in other sports. Gretzky > Jordan > Brady (I'm not sure a baseball player has been discussed, and I don't have a strong feel for who would be considered GOAT) Gretzky really was otherworldly, and his career stats dwarf everyone around him. And hockey has a lot more parity than the other major sports... Also, the influence on game outcomes usually comes more from goaltending than it does other positions, making Gretzky's stats all that much more impressive. Jordan wins 3 straight rings, leaves for 1.5 years, comes back and wins 3 straight rings again. And in his second run, they win 70, then 69 games in back to back years (still the most wins in a 2 year span). Jordan even averaged 20+ in his last (age 39) season with Washington. Brady wins 5 rings in 8 appearances, both records for a QB. Certainly impressive, and certainly makes him an easy guy to argue as the GOAT for football (if you buy the "QB is the most important position in football" argument). But his career stats don't dwarf other QBs. He's not even top ten in completion percentage of active QBs nor is he top 5 in passing yards per game of active QBs (if you include Peyton Manning). He is second to Aaron Rodgers in lowest INT % for career. His postseason stats are amazing though, which is where the GOAT declarations have always originated for Brady anyway. Gretzky has to be the GOAT of all team sports. I won't even try to compare individual sport athletes...
  11. Alex Smith

    You are forgetting Jeremy Sprinkle. Duh.
  12. People actually believe this

    Some people can find out the result of a game, then watch the entire game after the fact on their DVR anyway. Some people won't even bother watching the game if they know the result. I guess the people in the first of these groups would still watch. I also think that since there's no way to know for sure without undisputable evidence, people (non-Pats fans) watch and hope until their dreams die, then forget how that felt when the next season rolls around. Rigged or not, we all can dream...
  13. Alex Smith

    If by "win anything", you mean contend for the NFC, then you might be right. I don't think Washington's issues would be on the QB alone. Plus, aren't the Redskins in way better shape over the course of the next couple of years with Alex Smith than limping through with Colt McCoy and/or some rookie at QB? They have a zero percent change of winning anything with Colt McCoy, and drafting a QB prospect early this year comes with an opportunity cost (can't upgrade elsewhere with that pick). I agree that the trade looks worse for WAS with Kendall Fuller part of it. But that's just a testament to what it takes to get competitive QB play in the NFL.
  14. Alex Smith

    Well, they get stability at QB without breaking the bank (Cousins wouldn't have signed an extension anywhere near as cheaply as the Redskins extended Smith). So, to some extent, they get competent, if not above average, QB play for the 2-4 of years. They can spend their money fixing problems elsewhere while looking out for a QB of the future via draft. I don't think this was baffling at all. I think it was a 3rd round pick they gave up which might be a little high but reasonable. I think once people see what Cousins demands they'll realize that Washington's hands were tied. They did well to not get stuck in a situation like Denver last year or Houston prior to last year with a fringe talent at the helm.
  15. AFC Championship Game

    Meh, no guts, no glory. Especially on the road against the defending SB champs. They always come out with adjustments for the 2nd half, so take advantage while you can. Being underdogs, I just think the normal rules have to go out the window to some extent. One of my favorite all time "no guts, no glory" moments in NFL history was Sean Payton's decision to open the second half of the Saints-Colts SB with an onside kick. If you want to be champ, you have to go out and get it.
  16. AFC Championship Game

    I came to this thread for a nice glass of Pats haterade, and it didn't disappoint. I'm on the "anyone but the Pats" bandwagon. The Patriots are essentially the New York Yankees of football. Anyone but them...
  17. The bolded above is the only reason I brought up Marino. I understand Marino doesn't have the career resume that Brady has. But his level of play fall off was notable, yet he remained as a liability. This is probably what you all are going to face in New England. Your best chance of avoiding such a fate would be if Brady gets Wally Pipped by the franchise's QB of the future. Rereading some of my comments, I guess I'm a heartless bastard to some extent. I have been focused solely on what makes business sense. I do think releasing Brady after this season would have been an option if they had kept Garoppolo. However, I'm not even sure what sort of cap relief that would provide. And unceremoniously dumping Brady to the curb is pretty harsh to do to a long-tenured franchise QB (let alone the GOAT). So yeah, I'll concede that fatal flaw in my plan. It seems as if New England just groomed the heir apparent too early and were screwed over by Brady's late-career success (though contending for SBs is hardly getting screwed over).
  18. It's hard not to view you guys as being smug eliteists with comments like this. That being said, I prefer to keep the conversation civil. First, trading Brady would have been brand suicide if they did so during the season. I don't recall saying they had to trade Brady during this season, but maybe I did in a moment of idiocy. Trading him is a pretty big challenge considering he is closer to an AARP card than his days at Michigan (I live in Ann Arbor and have followed this guy's career since he was here). I'd guess that he might have no-trade clause verbiage in his contract, for starters. I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't be surprising if he did. Regardless, I think there is a certain level of emotional nut-huggery of Brady going on here. Nobody seems to care that Brady is certain to begin his descent as soon as next year (heck, maybe even this postseason). I guess it's going to be Marino all over again here... Let the guy play until he throws 6 INTs against the Jaguars in a first round playoff dud. In the short term, it does look crazy to consider trading or cutting Brady, especially if the Pats win the SB again. We will never know how well Garoppolo would have done as the next face of the Patriots. But if I own the team, and my head coach doesn't want to trade the backup QB who has been groomed to take over the reins, I'm not sure it's a savvy business move to side with the almost 41-year-old franchise QB. Come on... NFL franchises are money makers, and the Patriots would easily survive the decision. People go insane over Brady because he's the GOAT and has all the rings. But QB is the single hardest position to find out there, so you're really rolling the dice by hoping to groom someone else to take over. I guess enjoy your run this year, maybe next if Brady stays elite. It's easy to take the sure thing for the next 2 years compared to the "might be great" for the next 10-12. There's certainly a much better chance that Brady falls off a cliff by 2019 than Garoppolo being a bust / lower quality NFL starter. Fun discussion. If I'm insane, I guess I'll embrace it.
  19. What is going on with the Browns?

    Wasn't there discussion that Green Bay's misuse of the IR rule for Aaron Rodgers might call for them to release Rodgers? I wonder what team would have top priority for a waiver claim for Aaron Rodgers?
  20. Nobody compares to Brady, and I'm not saying Jimmy G is the next Brady. But he would have been the next face of the franchise if he stayed. Brady is going to be 41 next year, dude. Do you really buy into this "play until I'm 45" nonsense? He is going to fall off a cliff sooner than later. It's not unreasonable to consider moving on before that happens. And if Belichick really, truly thought Jimmy G had the "it" factor to be a really good, if not great, QB, then it's not out of the question to keep him and move on from Brady. If anything, Belichick might have the ego to want to prove that Brady isn't the primary reason for the long-term success of the franchise, and Jimmy G might have been his best opportunity to prove it. The fact that a mediocre QB like Matt Cassel went 11-5 in Brady's stead is reason to suspect that a truly good QB could duplicate the success that the team has had (note, I am not saying Brady's personal successes like his otherworldly TD:INT ratio, PFF rating, etc.). The fact that Brady has performed at this level for so long is unprecedented for a QB. So yeah, I don't think it is unreasonable to consider Brady the present of the franchise but not the future. I guess this stance is laughable?
  21. I did read the article. A couple of thoughts ... First, there aren't ways to reduce your cap number? I haven't studied New England's payroll situation in my free time or anything, but we are talking about the future of your franchise here. If you think the guy has the goods, don't you try to keep him for one more year and figure out where to clear money from the books? Second, franchising Garoppolo wasn't their only option. It was pretty clear that Garoppolo wasn't interested in making backup money or waiting around for Brady to decide to hang 'em up. They could have decided that Garoppolo was actually a better investment over the next 3-5 years than whatever they could get out of Brady plus an unknown drafted QB after Brady retires. It would have been unpopular to release Brady after this season, regardless of whether or not NE makes it to or wins the SB. And in the end, protecting the brand won out. I can't blame the Patriots for siding with the short term sure thing in Brady over the long term could be in Garoppolo. But I get the feeling that Belichick, if given complete authority, would have found a way to hang onto Garoppolo. I mean, Belichick has been around professional football for a long, long time. I'm guessing he has a pretty good sense for when a player has "it". Like I said before, only time will tell if this was a long term mistake by New England.
  22. I've never. I still say that if you don't trust your football guys or your gut, you are in trouble long-term. From all accounts (granted, it's hard to know what's real vs. fake news), Belichick thought that Garoppolo was the future at QB and offered continuity for the offense (as much as could be possible moving on from Brady). I get why they traded Garoppolo - how do you voluntarily end Brady's career in NE when he is still performing at a high level? It doesn't make it the best move for the business long-term, but only time will tell. So I guess the Patriots draft a QB, spend the next year or two developing him, and hope he pans out once Brady steps down. In the meantime, it'll be fun to see how successful Garoppolo is in SF. The 2nd round price tag is still puzzling...
  23. I still disagree with the assertion that the Patriots "had to trade Jimmy G". It's certainly a difficult situation, knowing Brady has been the face of the franchise for 17 years now. But committing to him for another few years because he says he can play until he's 45? The Patriots were more or less in a no-win situation here because Garoppolo wouldn't sign an extension and Brady's ego couldn't handle the heir apparent anyway. It was clear the two wouldn't coexist beyond this year, and it's easier to sell out your future because you can't see it yet. So you keep Brady for 2018, maybe 2019 (depending on how well he is performing). But the Patriots certainly could have told Brady "thanks for everything, but we are moving on". Sometimes in a business, you have to make a difficult and unpopular decision in order to keep the business moving forward. I just don't think Kraft had the cojones to force Brady out, not did he likely have the confidence that Garoppolo would be the answer. But Kraft, as an owner, should be trusting football people here which is probably what Belichick takes issue with. I guess all you can do is revisit this in 2020 and see how happy you are with the decision (if you are a Pats fan).
  24. The NE fanbase would cry foul initially if the Pats moved on from Brady after this season, regardless of how the Pats finish. But logically speaking, could you blame the franchise from moving on from a guy who will be 41 next year? I mean seriously... What loyal fanbase is going to turn its back on its team over that? Take the name Brady out of the discussion and just say 41 year old still playing at a high level. We don't obviously know the long term implications, but I'd be mighty surprised if the Pats didn't land an early QB in the draft. And hopefully Brady doesn't get sand in his vag over it.
  25. I agree, though Montana had the more storied career with 4 SB wins so, therefore, was in more of a "GOAT" situation than Favre (even though Favre was a lock 1st ballot HOFer). And Montana made the playoffs as a Chief (as did Favre with Minny). But SF and GB weren't afraid of losing out on that short term success that continuity would bring because they were sold on the guy behind them on the depth chart (which was, again, easier for SF since they knew much more about Steve Young when they let Montana walk). From all accounts, Belichick was sold on Garoppolo. If that's true, and with Brady clearly at the end of the line within the next 2, maybe 3 years, why take a chance on your future? And why sell your future at QB for peanuts?