|
On December 02 2010 05:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 04:39 Curu wrote:
Something to consider:
Due to Larry Fitzgerald's ridiculously elevated rookie contract (he got an insane amount of money added on from incentives no one thought he would make), Fitz was able to get a new contract that had a lot of clauses favourable for him.
He's able to opt out of the last year of his contract, which means he can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year. He also has a no trade clause so he can go wherever he likes AND a clause that ensures the Cardinals cannot franchise tag him.
In short, Fitzgerald can potentially go to whatever team is interested in him that he wants after this season. And considering just how brutal Arizona's QBs are (NOTHING IS FUNNY TO DEREK ANDERSON) and his comments about not wanting to eat out of the garbage after tasting the caviar, I think it might be pretty likely that he opts out.
I think he'd go for a team with a legit QB and playoff aspirations. Some of these are:
Colts - doubtful, Peyton's already got Reggie but still possible, they have a lot of money tied up in that offense though and would probably be better off with a RB
Patriots - actually pretty doable if Belichick is willing to pay him. "Hey Larry, think you can top 23?"
Chargers - Looks like a real possibility with Vincent Jackson probably walking, Rivers to Fitz oh my
Steelers - a possibility with Holmes gone and Ward getting up there in years
Chiefs - Fitz has mentioned repeatedly that he absolutely loves Todd Haley so this is a real possibility even with Bowe there
Rams - not as good as the other teams but Bradford is looking hella good, plus he gets to go torment the Cardinals twice a year
Packers - They already have a lot tied up into that passing game plus the cold weather might be a turn off, need a running game way more anyways
Falcons - As a Falcons fan, I jizz my pants thinking of the possibility, still we have a lot of money tied long-term in Roddy and Jenkins already plus I don't think Fitz wants to be 1b
Saints - Oh shit
I hate how little respect Chicago gets. There's no reason to not list them there.
Yeah the Bears are a contender but their O is much less of a sure thing. Cutler has been fairly inconsistent and that OLine is atrocious. I don't know if Fitz passes up playing with a safer QB and out of the cold climate.
On December 02 2010 06:12 Souma wrote:
That's true. Chicago could really use Fitzgerald. They need all the help they can get in that offense (o-line, WRs though not as much, and their RBs are also terribly inconsistent).
I'd love to see Fitzgerald in Cleveland, because God knows they need the WR help. Colt McCoy is sick as a rookie.
I'd say Broncos but not sure how the Orton thing is gonna pan out.
Redskins are also very possible. They need as much help as they can get as well, similar to the Bears.
I doubt he chooses the Redskins, they're sketchy as a contender in that division and McNabb isn't looking so hot. They might not even throw a billion dollars at him like they usually do after Snyder got burned AGAIN on Fat Albert. You gotta remember Fitz has a say in this, if it was just up to what teams could use him I'm sure all 32 would be clawing at each other for the chance.
|
I wish Warner would of played one more year. My fantasy wideouts would of been so loaded.
|
Cutlers inconsistency will always have people doubting Chicago, even if he's playing well.
|
On December 02 2010 07:41 DannyJ wrote:
Cutlers inconsistency will always have people doubting Chicago, even if he's playing well.
Cutler's inconsistency this season is a myth. He has 10 picks. 4 of them came in the game against the Redskins in week 7. He had 2 more against Minnesota in week 10. He had 1 INT in 4 other games this season. He has also had 4 games without an INT (not counting the game against Carolina which he missed).
His passer rating has fluctuated more, but he still played pretty well in most of the games in which it was low (like the Miami game where Chicago basically ran the ball the whole game so Cutler couldn't do much to pad his stats) or at the very least it wasn't his fault (like Giants game - I don't care who you are, when your Oline is getting dominated that badly and your coach insists on calling 7 step drops and deep routes you are going to get killed).
Really his only truly "inconsistent" game of the season was against Washington, and maybe Seattle to a lesser extent (but the line did not play well in that one either).
Cutler could really turn into a monster if he had a decent Oline in front of him. I still can't believe he's not on IR after being sacked 39 times this season.
|
On December 02 2010 06:26 Curu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 05:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 04:39 Curu wrote:
Something to consider:
Due to Larry Fitzgerald's ridiculously elevated rookie contract (he got an insane amount of money added on from incentives no one thought he would make), Fitz was able to get a new contract that had a lot of clauses favourable for him.
He's able to opt out of the last year of his contract, which means he can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year. He also has a no trade clause so he can go wherever he likes AND a clause that ensures the Cardinals cannot franchise tag him.
In short, Fitzgerald can potentially go to whatever team is interested in him that he wants after this season. And considering just how brutal Arizona's QBs are (NOTHING IS FUNNY TO DEREK ANDERSON) and his comments about not wanting to eat out of the garbage after tasting the caviar, I think it might be pretty likely that he opts out.
I think he'd go for a team with a legit QB and playoff aspirations. Some of these are:
Colts - doubtful, Peyton's already got Reggie but still possible, they have a lot of money tied up in that offense though and would probably be better off with a RB
Patriots - actually pretty doable if Belichick is willing to pay him. "Hey Larry, think you can top 23?"
Chargers - Looks like a real possibility with Vincent Jackson probably walking, Rivers to Fitz oh my
Steelers - a possibility with Holmes gone and Ward getting up there in years
Chiefs - Fitz has mentioned repeatedly that he absolutely loves Todd Haley so this is a real possibility even with Bowe there
Rams - not as good as the other teams but Bradford is looking hella good, plus he gets to go torment the Cardinals twice a year
Packers - They already have a lot tied up into that passing game plus the cold weather might be a turn off, need a running game way more anyways
Falcons - As a Falcons fan, I jizz my pants thinking of the possibility, still we have a lot of money tied long-term in Roddy and Jenkins already plus I don't think Fitz wants to be 1b
Saints - Oh shit
I hate how little respect Chicago gets. There's no reason to not list them there. Yeah the Bears are a contender but their O is much less of a sure thing. Cutler has been fairly inconsistent and that OLine is atrocious. I don't know if Fitz passes up playing with a safer QB and out of the cold climate.
No, see, it's exactly that ignorant stand point that I hate. The Bears are a couple of good linemen (which can be done in a single draft), and a WR away from being a great offense. They don't need GREAT WR's outside of the #1, they need guys that can catch. If you put Fitz in that line up, take Hester out, make Bennett the #2, and put Knox in the slot (or Hester in the slot, but I think he'd be better as a PR/KR only kind of guy), then you have a pretty nice lineup. Bennett will get open a lot due to nothing more than Fitz being double covered all the time. Knox could be very dangerous in the slot, which is where his body-type and athleticism fits perfectly.
Then they go and get a couple OL that can keep Cutler on his feet, and what do you have? You have Denver's offense again. Think about it. Marshall and Fitz are very close in the body-type, and overall skills. Royal was their #2, call him Knox, and add in Bennett for good measure. Plus you have Forte/Taylor in the backfield, which is a better HB combo than Cutler has ever worked with, and Olsen/Clark at TE (if Clark ever gets played, it's bullshit that he doesn't, he's the best TE on the team, imo), and you have as good a TE set that you had in Denver.
What did Cutler do with the Denver offense? Nothing, other than make them the #2 offense in the league in his third year, and run one of the most dangerous offenses in the league. You add that in with the better decision making that he's shown for most of the year, and you could have one of the best offenses in the league. Add in the fact that Cutler will have a good defense behind him, so he won't press as much as he did in Denver (as he has shown for the majority of this year, save for the Washington game because he was too cocky vs a guy he dismantled before), and you could have the best team in the NFC.
The thing is that people want to focus on the negatives far greater than they do on the positives of what this team brings to the table. The inconsistency Cutler has shown (which was explained well by Qatol) isn't all on him this season. Throw the Giants game away, no QB would do well in the game. He was sacked six times in the Seattle game, which was also his first game off the concussion, but he threw 0 picks. Some people will say "you're making excuses," but most QB's are not great coming off of concussions, so it's a pretty valid reason. I don't say throw it away like I do the Giants game, but it's not that bad. The Bills game didn't have a lot of yards, but he threw 2 TD's/0 INT's, at a decent completion rate. He made smart decisions in that game though, overall. I think it was against the Vikes that he could have had a few picks but they dropped them, so I'll give you that game (assuming I'm remembering the right one).
Week 1: if you take away all the fumbles, that game wasn't even close. Cutler and that offense ripped the Lions apart, they just turned it over a lot with bad fumbles. He played GREAT against the Cowgirls. A decent game against the Packers was had with 16/27 1TD/1INT. Week 4 was the Giants; week 5 he was out; week 6 was the 'Hawks, not a good game, but fresh off a concussion; week 7 was the Skins game; off week 8; week 9 vs the Bills was a decent game, yeah, it would have been nice to see more, but it wasn't a bad game by any stretch, imo; week 10 he threw two picks, could have had more against the Vikings, but he also had 3 TD's--that's not a great game, but it's not a terrible game either. He showed some inconsistency in that game though, so I concede that one with no problem. Week 11 was the Dolphins, and the game plan is what mostly inhibited him, and the offense. Week 12 was his best game of the year.
I don't think his play has been terribly inconsistent this year; what I think is that people are remembering last season. But, as the line has improved, and the offense jelled more, Cutler's stats have improved. If you give him a top 3 WR in the league, this could be the start of something incredible.
On December 03 2010 06:09 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:05 Ferrose wrote:
Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division. Of course the NFC West winner should get a playoff spot. It would take a lot out of division rivalries if there wasn't a playoff spot on the line. Then the other teams would just be teams you play twice a season. The competitive element of racing for a guaranteed spot in the playoffs (and not having to race the whole conference for a Wild Card spot) would be gone. Also, it works towards fairness a bit. The other teams in your division have 12 games against the same opponents as you and 2 more against you. At least this way if a division gets matched up against 2 strong divisions while another division gets matched up against 2 crappy divisions, the division with the hard schedule still gets to send a team to the playoffs. Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 05:50 Ferrose wrote:
I think that if the NFC West winner is 7-9, they should get the 6 seed or something. I mean, the Saints might end up being 12-4 and having to play every playoff game on the road. :x Unless they run into the 6 seed in the NFC conference championship game. And with the ridiculous parity we are seeing this season, it could happen. I think it might be better to seed teams based upon record rather than giving the top 4 seeds to the divisional winners. I think the playoff spot is enough compensation for winning your division. An automatic home game is just too much.
I get the point you guys are making, but what do you do when a team has a lower record because of a tougher division? What if there are three potential playoff teams, and the winner ends up being 10-6. But, the winner of another division is 14-2 with home field throughout, and the second place is 12-4, but the other two teams are 2-14, and 4-12? Those teams are almost given four autowins that year (I know there's no such thing, but you get my point, I think)... are they really BETTER than the division winner at 10-6? Think about how competitive the NFC East was for a few years. They put out some very good teams, probably better than most of the NFL. Yeah, they fell short in the playoffs every year, but they had great regular seasons (and you can't base position on previous seasons' playoff success).
The way it is works, and it's better. There have been two teams that finished .500 or lower (none ever lower, actually) that won their division since the merger. It's not a very big deal, because this rarely happens. Maybe you can add an exception into the rules where, should a team finish below .500 and win their division, they get the sixth seed or something, but to do it strictly based on best record isn't necessarily a better way.
|
Westbrook or Ronnie Brown to start? Can't decide.
Edit: lol. Brain fart. Westbrook vs Packers D? nahh
|
The Lions should get Larry Fitzgerald. What do you do when the opposing offense lines up Larry Fitzgerald AND Calvin Johnson?
Also, apparently Shaun Hill is out too. Now Drew Stanton can make a name for himself and Michigan State ^_^
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I'm starting Westbrook vs. Packers. Let's see how well he'll do for me~
|
I need two people to lose with their easiest weeks of the season (e.g. Vick vs Houston) and I have to win by a 46 point margin with most my studs (still) injured and going against tough defenses for almost everyone (pettigrew vs bears, obamanu vs car, etc.)
So raped by injuries this year and if not for two bad decisions this season I'd have clinched my divison, despite it. =(
On December 02 2010 12:40 Dknight wrote:
Westbrook or Ronnie Brown to start? Can't decide.
Brown, obviously.
On December 02 2010 13:52 Ferrose wrote:
The Lions should get Larry Fitzgerald. What do you do when the opposing offense lines up Larry Fitzgerald AND Calvin Johnson?
Also, apparently Shaun Hill is out too. Now Drew Stanton can make a name for himself and Michigan State ^_^
Well, fuck me. Another nail in the coffin when I've been relying on Pettigrew as my Clark replacement. I don't know if I should expect a inexperienced QB to check down more often and get him more points or if it'll just be overall disaster and I should jump ship to like Heap (who I don't trust to score points, the last few weeks be damned), the always inconsistent olsen, or keller/moeaki. I miss Clark =(.
+ Show Spoiler +
Injuries this season:
Collie (twice)
Clark
Ward
Britt
Nugent
Best
/GG
Also Fitz to Detroit and some defensive draft picks and they'd be a pretty strong team next season. They're already dead with their record (and even more dead with both QBs out), so time to look to next year.
|
On December 02 2010 09:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, see, it's exactly that ignorant stand point that I hate. The Bears are a couple of good linemen (which can be done in a single draft), and a WR away from being a great offense. They don't need GREAT WR's outside of the #1, they need guys that can catch. If you put Fitz in that line up, take Hester out, make Bennett the #2, and put Knox in the slot (or Hester in the slot, but I think he'd be better as a PR/KR only kind of guy), then you have a pretty nice lineup.
God I hope not. I hate the Bears.^^
And it has nothing to do with ignorantly not giving them respect.  I just don't like 'em.
The only thing the Bears have going for them in my eyes is that they aren't the Giants. 
|
The Lions are already an extremely talented team. They just can't finish games/suck for the first three quarters and by then it's way too late, or they get the DUMBEST penalties (Julian Peterson's late hit on LT to give the Jets field goal position to send the game to OT), or, in the case of week 1, absolute BS (Calvin Johnson catching the game wining TD but it being called incomplete, even though he caught the ball, and fell down with it in his hands).
What's with that stupid rule anyway? Why do you have to get back on your feet with the ball in your hands for it to be a catch?
Also, I hope the Lions give Shaun Hill more of a chance (especially if Stafford keeps being made of paper meche). I really like him, and he has at least 227 yards in each full game that he's played. He only has 11 picks because the Lions are always losing and he has to pass the ball 80 times per game (even the best QBs will throw a pick or two when they average over 40 attempts per game).
And this brings me to why I hate talking about sports with a lot of my family members. They just say, "Oh yeah, the Lions are 2-9. They suck just like every year." But they don't know shit. I'm one of those few remaining people who watch all the games and still have faith in the team, because they have so many good players, it's just that they shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe the players aren't trying. Maybe Jim Schwartz isn't that good of a coach. I don't know. It would also help if they got a good running game. I really hope that Jahvid Best can be that guy.
I'm sorry about that guys. I really needed to vent that...
|
On December 02 2010 09:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 06:26 Curu wrote:On December 02 2010 05:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 04:39 Curu wrote:
Something to consider:
Due to Larry Fitzgerald's ridiculously elevated rookie contract (he got an insane amount of money added on from incentives no one thought he would make), Fitz was able to get a new contract that had a lot of clauses favourable for him.
He's able to opt out of the last year of his contract, which means he can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year. He also has a no trade clause so he can go wherever he likes AND a clause that ensures the Cardinals cannot franchise tag him.
In short, Fitzgerald can potentially go to whatever team is interested in him that he wants after this season. And considering just how brutal Arizona's QBs are (NOTHING IS FUNNY TO DEREK ANDERSON) and his comments about not wanting to eat out of the garbage after tasting the caviar, I think it might be pretty likely that he opts out.
I think he'd go for a team with a legit QB and playoff aspirations. Some of these are:
Colts - doubtful, Peyton's already got Reggie but still possible, they have a lot of money tied up in that offense though and would probably be better off with a RB
Patriots - actually pretty doable if Belichick is willing to pay him. "Hey Larry, think you can top 23?"
Chargers - Looks like a real possibility with Vincent Jackson probably walking, Rivers to Fitz oh my
Steelers - a possibility with Holmes gone and Ward getting up there in years
Chiefs - Fitz has mentioned repeatedly that he absolutely loves Todd Haley so this is a real possibility even with Bowe there
Rams - not as good as the other teams but Bradford is looking hella good, plus he gets to go torment the Cardinals twice a year
Packers - They already have a lot tied up into that passing game plus the cold weather might be a turn off, need a running game way more anyways
Falcons - As a Falcons fan, I jizz my pants thinking of the possibility, still we have a lot of money tied long-term in Roddy and Jenkins already plus I don't think Fitz wants to be 1b
Saints - Oh shit
I hate how little respect Chicago gets. There's no reason to not list them there. Yeah the Bears are a contender but their O is much less of a sure thing. Cutler has been fairly inconsistent and that OLine is atrocious. I don't know if Fitz passes up playing with a safer QB and out of the cold climate. No, see, it's exactly that ignorant stand point that I hate. The Bears are a couple of good linemen (which can be done in a single draft), and a WR away from being a great offense. They don't need GREAT WR's outside of the #1, they need guys that can catch. If you put Fitz in that line up, take Hester out, make Bennett the #2, and put Knox in the slot (or Hester in the slot, but I think he'd be better as a PR/KR only kind of guy), then you have a pretty nice lineup. Bennett will get open a lot due to nothing more than Fitz being double covered all the time. Knox could be very dangerous in the slot, which is where his body-type and athleticism fits perfectly. .
I don't see why anyone would assume Jerry Angelo would be able to draft two solid OLinemen in a single draft when he has failed to do so once in the last 6 years. If the Bears are going to sure up their line they're going to do it the same way they always have, overpaying for free agents. Also, you seem to be a lot more optimistic about Knox than me, the only time he ever seems to shine is during broken plays.
|
On December 02 2010 13:52 Ferrose wrote:
The Lions should get Larry Fitzgerald. What do you do when the opposing offense lines up Larry Fitzgerald AND Calvin Johnson?
Also, apparently Shaun Hill is out too. Now Drew Stanton can make a name for himself and Michigan State ^_^
The same things teams have done all season: take out the Lions QB. In all seriousness, the Lions would be pretty scary with those two, but I think they need another lineman or two to really be frightening.
On December 02 2010 17:18 sixghost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 09:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 06:26 Curu wrote:On December 02 2010 05:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 04:39 Curu wrote:
Something to consider:
Due to Larry Fitzgerald's ridiculously elevated rookie contract (he got an insane amount of money added on from incentives no one thought he would make), Fitz was able to get a new contract that had a lot of clauses favourable for him.
He's able to opt out of the last year of his contract, which means he can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year. He also has a no trade clause so he can go wherever he likes AND a clause that ensures the Cardinals cannot franchise tag him.
In short, Fitzgerald can potentially go to whatever team is interested in him that he wants after this season. And considering just how brutal Arizona's QBs are (NOTHING IS FUNNY TO DEREK ANDERSON) and his comments about not wanting to eat out of the garbage after tasting the caviar, I think it might be pretty likely that he opts out.
I think he'd go for a team with a legit QB and playoff aspirations. Some of these are:
Colts - doubtful, Peyton's already got Reggie but still possible, they have a lot of money tied up in that offense though and would probably be better off with a RB
Patriots - actually pretty doable if Belichick is willing to pay him. "Hey Larry, think you can top 23?"
Chargers - Looks like a real possibility with Vincent Jackson probably walking, Rivers to Fitz oh my
Steelers - a possibility with Holmes gone and Ward getting up there in years
Chiefs - Fitz has mentioned repeatedly that he absolutely loves Todd Haley so this is a real possibility even with Bowe there
Rams - not as good as the other teams but Bradford is looking hella good, plus he gets to go torment the Cardinals twice a year
Packers - They already have a lot tied up into that passing game plus the cold weather might be a turn off, need a running game way more anyways
Falcons - As a Falcons fan, I jizz my pants thinking of the possibility, still we have a lot of money tied long-term in Roddy and Jenkins already plus I don't think Fitz wants to be 1b
Saints - Oh shit
I hate how little respect Chicago gets. There's no reason to not list them there. Yeah the Bears are a contender but their O is much less of a sure thing. Cutler has been fairly inconsistent and that OLine is atrocious. I don't know if Fitz passes up playing with a safer QB and out of the cold climate. No, see, it's exactly that ignorant stand point that I hate. The Bears are a couple of good linemen (which can be done in a single draft), and a WR away from being a great offense. They don't need GREAT WR's outside of the #1, they need guys that can catch. If you put Fitz in that line up, take Hester out, make Bennett the #2, and put Knox in the slot (or Hester in the slot, but I think he'd be better as a PR/KR only kind of guy), then you have a pretty nice lineup. Bennett will get open a lot due to nothing more than Fitz being double covered all the time. Knox could be very dangerous in the slot, which is where his body-type and athleticism fits perfectly. . I don't see why anyone would assume Jerry Angelo would be able to draft two solid OLinemen in a single draft when he has failed to do so once in the last 6 years. If the Bears are going to sure up their line they're going to do it the same way they always have, overpaying for free agents. Also, you seem to be a lot more optimistic about Knox than me, the only time he ever seems to shine is during broken plays.
Because Jerry Angelo hasn't ever seriously TRIED to draft two solid Olinemen in a single draft. His only attempts were Williams (first round 2008) and Beekman (fourth round 2007). Chicago hasn't spent 2 picks on linemen (not counting 7th rounders) in a draft since 2002. Maybe that means Angelo should be fired. I wouldn't argue with that. The point still stands that they are a few solid linemen from being a very good offense.
|
On December 02 2010 17:18 sixghost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 09:31 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 06:26 Curu wrote:On December 02 2010 05:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On December 02 2010 04:39 Curu wrote:
Something to consider:
Due to Larry Fitzgerald's ridiculously elevated rookie contract (he got an insane amount of money added on from incentives no one thought he would make), Fitz was able to get a new contract that had a lot of clauses favourable for him.
He's able to opt out of the last year of his contract, which means he can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this year. He also has a no trade clause so he can go wherever he likes AND a clause that ensures the Cardinals cannot franchise tag him.
In short, Fitzgerald can potentially go to whatever team is interested in him that he wants after this season. And considering just how brutal Arizona's QBs are (NOTHING IS FUNNY TO DEREK ANDERSON) and his comments about not wanting to eat out of the garbage after tasting the caviar, I think it might be pretty likely that he opts out.
I think he'd go for a team with a legit QB and playoff aspirations. Some of these are:
Colts - doubtful, Peyton's already got Reggie but still possible, they have a lot of money tied up in that offense though and would probably be better off with a RB
Patriots - actually pretty doable if Belichick is willing to pay him. "Hey Larry, think you can top 23?"
Chargers - Looks like a real possibility with Vincent Jackson probably walking, Rivers to Fitz oh my
Steelers - a possibility with Holmes gone and Ward getting up there in years
Chiefs - Fitz has mentioned repeatedly that he absolutely loves Todd Haley so this is a real possibility even with Bowe there
Rams - not as good as the other teams but Bradford is looking hella good, plus he gets to go torment the Cardinals twice a year
Packers - They already have a lot tied up into that passing game plus the cold weather might be a turn off, need a running game way more anyways
Falcons - As a Falcons fan, I jizz my pants thinking of the possibility, still we have a lot of money tied long-term in Roddy and Jenkins already plus I don't think Fitz wants to be 1b
Saints - Oh shit
I hate how little respect Chicago gets. There's no reason to not list them there. Yeah the Bears are a contender but their O is much less of a sure thing. Cutler has been fairly inconsistent and that OLine is atrocious. I don't know if Fitz passes up playing with a safer QB and out of the cold climate. No, see, it's exactly that ignorant stand point that I hate. The Bears are a couple of good linemen (which can be done in a single draft), and a WR away from being a great offense. They don't need GREAT WR's outside of the #1, they need guys that can catch. If you put Fitz in that line up, take Hester out, make Bennett the #2, and put Knox in the slot (or Hester in the slot, but I think he'd be better as a PR/KR only kind of guy), then you have a pretty nice lineup. Bennett will get open a lot due to nothing more than Fitz being double covered all the time. Knox could be very dangerous in the slot, which is where his body-type and athleticism fits perfectly. . I don't see why anyone would assume Jerry Angelo would be able to draft two solid OLinemen in a single draft when he has failed to do so once in the last 6 years. If the Bears are going to sure up their line they're going to do it the same way they always have, overpaying for free agents. Also, you seem to be a lot more optimistic about Knox than me, the only time he ever seems to shine is during broken plays.
No, it's just that the slot runs simpler routes, and is probably the easiest of the three wideout positions to play. I think he's garbage, but he may make a decent slot WR. If not him, then Hester would probably make a good one.
And why the FUCK do teams that have no hope at the playoffs still play the WW? That is so ANNOYING! A 5-7 team in my division (note, has no chance at the playoffs since he's bottom 5 in scoring, and I locked my division last week) took Westy this week. WTF is that?! I understand that you want to keep trying when there are even the slimmest of hopes, but when it's over, it's over... just let it go.
|
Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division.
|
On December 03 2010 00:52 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And why the FUCK do teams that have no hope at the playoffs still play the WW? That is so ANNOYING! A 5-7 team in my division (note, has no chance at the playoffs since he's bottom 5 in scoring, and I locked my division last week) took Westy this week. WTF is that?! I understand that you want to keep trying when there are even the slimmest of hopes, but when it's over, it's over... just let it go.
That's such an ignorant post. People play to have fun: winning is fun, spoiling someone else's chances is fun. Don't cry because someone doesn't roll over and die when they can't win the league. If anything, you should complain about people who stop trying and give free wins to their remaining opponents.
Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division.
Green Bay doesn't have the same schedule as an NFC West team. Maybe if the 7-9 team had their schedule they'd be 10-6 and Green bay would be 7-9 because they match up better and GB matches up worse against those teams. Maybe their injuries would've been on different weeks or not happened and they'd be a stronger team right now. Of course the division winner should reach the playoffs. If they suck, then they'll lose week 1.
|
On December 03 2010 04:06 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 00:52 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And why the FUCK do teams that have no hope at the playoffs still play the WW? That is so ANNOYING! A 5-7 team in my division (note, has no chance at the playoffs since he's bottom 5 in scoring, and I locked my division last week) took Westy this week. WTF is that?! I understand that you want to keep trying when there are even the slimmest of hopes, but when it's over, it's over... just let it go. That's such an ignorant post. People play to have fun: winning is fun, spoiling someone else's chances is fun. Don't cry because someone doesn't roll over and die when they can't win the league. If anything, you should complain about people who stop trying and give free wins to their remaining opponents. Show nested quote +Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division. Green Bay doesn't have the same schedule as an NFC West team. Maybe if the 7-9 team had their schedule they'd be 10-6 and Green bay would be 7-9 because they match up better and GB matches up worse against those teams. Maybe their injuries would've been on different weeks or not happened and they'd be a stronger team right now. Of course the division winner should reach the playoffs. If they suck, then they'll lose week 1. I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that a team in a division being won by a 7-9 team has a harder schedule than GB or TB. 6 games again Seattle/SF/Arizona/St Loius...
|
I think that if the NFC West winner is 7-9, they should get the 6 seed or something. I mean, the Saints might end up being 12-4 and having to play every playoff game on the road. :x
|
On December 03 2010 04:05 Ferrose wrote:
Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division.
Of course the NFC West winner should get a playoff spot. It would take a lot out of division rivalries if there wasn't a playoff spot on the line. Then the other teams would just be teams you play twice a season. The competitive element of racing for a guaranteed spot in the playoffs (and not having to race the whole conference for a Wild Card spot) would be gone. Also, it works towards fairness a bit. The other teams in your division have 12 games against the same opponents as you and 2 more against you. At least this way if a division gets matched up against 2 strong divisions while another division gets matched up against 2 crappy divisions, the division with the hard schedule still gets to send a team to the playoffs.
On December 03 2010 05:50 Ferrose wrote:
I think that if the NFC West winner is 7-9, they should get the 6 seed or something. I mean, the Saints might end up being 12-4 and having to play every playoff game on the road. :x
Unless they run into the 6 seed in the NFC conference championship game. And with the ridiculous parity we are seeing this season, it could happen.
I think it might be better to seed teams based upon record rather than giving the top 4 seeds to the divisional winners. I think the playoff spot is enough compensation for winning your division. An automatic home game is just too much.
|
On December 03 2010 04:06 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 00:52 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And why the FUCK do teams that have no hope at the playoffs still play the WW? That is so ANNOYING! A 5-7 team in my division (note, has no chance at the playoffs since he's bottom 5 in scoring, and I locked my division last week) took Westy this week. WTF is that?! I understand that you want to keep trying when there are even the slimmest of hopes, but when it's over, it's over... just let it go. That's such an ignorant post. People play to have fun: winning is fun, spoiling someone else's chances is fun. Don't cry because someone doesn't roll over and die when they can't win the league. If anything, you should complain about people who stop trying and give free wins to their remaining opponents. Show nested quote +Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division. Green Bay doesn't have the same schedule as an NFC West team. Maybe if the 7-9 team had their schedule they'd be 10-6 and Green bay would be 7-9 because they match up better and GB matches up worse against those teams. Maybe their injuries would've been on different weeks or not happened and they'd be a stronger team right now. Of course the division winner should reach the playoffs. If they suck, then they'll lose week 1.
I read "this is ignorant," and stopped reading there because you clearly don't know what ignorant means. Then I read your second paragraph and thought "now THAT is ignorance."
Why? Because if anyone of the better teams in the league got to play the NFC West six times, they'd probably go 4-2 at worst. Any team can get a lucky week (See: Seattle vs Chicago), but luck doesn't last forever. Aside from that, it's rather easy to evaluate a team's overall skill by the way they play against other teams. See: Panthers. You can't even make the "they're beating up on each other" argument, because they're losing the majority of their non-divisional games. That argument only holds true when they win non-divisional games, but still have a garbage record, and there's a three way race for first. Then you say "They aren't bad teams, they just have to play each other six times." That's why the SEC always gets a Championship Bowl bid in college, because it's considered the toughest conference in all of college football. Much like the NFC East has been considered the hardest division in the NFL for the past five years.
There are arguments to be made against a division winner missing the playoffs, like, "what's the point of divisions if their winners don't get a playoff bid? Why not just make it conferences, and the top six teams go?" Your argument, however, is not one of the valid arguments.
On December 03 2010 06:09 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:05 Ferrose wrote:
Okay, I keep hearing this on TV a lot, so I want to know what you guys think:
If the NFC West winner is 7-9, should they get a playoff spot over a potentially 10-6 Green Bay/Tampa/etc.?
I think they should, just because they won their division. Of course the NFC West winner should get a playoff spot. It would take a lot out of division rivalries if there wasn't a playoff spot on the line. Then the other teams would just be teams you play twice a season. The competitive element of racing for a guaranteed spot in the playoffs (and not having to race the whole conference for a Wild Card spot) would be gone. Also, it works towards fairness a bit. The other teams in your division have 12 games against the same opponents as you and 2 more against you. At least this way if a division gets matched up against 2 strong divisions while another division gets matched up against 2 crappy divisions, the division with the hard schedule still gets to send a team to the playoffs. Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 05:50 Ferrose wrote:
I think that if the NFC West winner is 7-9, they should get the 6 seed or something. I mean, the Saints might end up being 12-4 and having to play every playoff game on the road. :x Unless they run into the 6 seed in the NFC conference championship game. And with the ridiculous parity we are seeing this season, it could happen. I think it might be better to seed teams based upon record rather than giving the top 4 seeds to the divisional winners. I think the playoff spot is enough compensation for winning your division. An automatic home game is just too much.
(Note, I wrote out a long response that appears to have not saved. wtf) The general point is that this isn't necessarily better.
Suppose you have a 10-6 or 11-5 division winner in div A. And a 14-2 that locked homefield, with a 12-4 second place in div B. The rest of Div A has 9-7, 8-8, 7-9 records. Div B has 2-14, and 4-12 records, and both of Div B's teams beat the two bad teams all four times combined. Is Div B's second place team really better than Div A's winner? Probably not, Div A had a much harder group to fight through, so of course they'll have more losses. The NFC East was considered the best division in the league for many years, and a couple of times had 11-5 winners. They weren't worse than the 13-3 team in the other division, necessarily, but their record would suggest that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
