|
On September 29 2010 02:21 Hawk wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/02/15/favre/Whole lot of perspective about favre being a shitstain, and it's coming from King, who'd run over his own mother lap up Brett's two day old semen off of a hooker's stomach. "I foresee getting the impulse to play,'' Favre said. "But as good as Mike Tannenbaum has been to me, I could never bring myself to do it. I know I won't do it. If I did, I'd be putting the Jets in a tough spot, because I know they can't release me.'' This year, he respects the team he's retiring from. Last year ... The reality, Favre knows now, is he not only wanted to play again, but he wanted to show Green Bay -- particularly general manager Ted Thompson -- that it was making a big mistake in going forward without him. "Part of me coming back last year, I have to admit now, was sticking it to Ted,'' he said in a rather startling admission. I know there's definitely more out there about his motivations and his instance on playing for Minnesota (also touched on in here). And don't you even dare tell me that Favre wanted to play for Chills, who a bottom 1/3 coach at best. That team is only good because the GM built some goddamn amazing lines and built outward from there. Nothing at all to do with coaching.
Because I know someone is going to say something about this post and me not having seen it yet. The betrayal, and feeling of the Packers dealing the first blow explains that quite well.
There's no doubt he didn't want to play for Childress, but the best situation for him was undoubtedly Minnesota.
He thought the Jets "couldn't release him," but then they did, and he had an opening. He didn't want to fuck them over, but they opened a door for him, and he went through it.
So, TL;DR on both of my posts. I think Favre is a bit of a douche... but I think the Packers started it, because they should have taken him back. Keep in mind that he would never have wanted to stick it to Ted had he let him come back.
|
On September 29 2010 03:36 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
So, TL;DR on both of my posts. I think Favre is a bit of a douche... but I think the Packers started it, because they should have taken him back. Keep in mind that he would never have wanted to stick it to Ted had he let him come back.
Why do you say they should have taken Favre back? Especially if you're going to argue on one hand that fans are stupid to hate Favre because the NFL is a business, and on the other hand argue that the Packers somehow owed him a starting QB job whenever he wanted it based on his name. He had been holding the team hostage for years, not giving them a firm decisions on his retirement. They spent a first round draft pick on a QB in 05 when he was supposedly done after that year, and he pulled this will I won't shit for a good 3 more seasons, two of which sucked miserably, and the third ended up being decent, with the miserable sucking coming at the end of the season and in the playoffs. Keep in mind he was being a dick back then too. I remember an interview when he was asked if he was concerned about the urgency in giving his retirement decision where he responded by basically saying what are they going to do cut me?
Then in 08 he finally retired for good. The packers moved on, named Rodgers their starter, and drafted and built the team with him in mind. Favre only un-retired after all the things he didn't like about the off season were over, namely OTAs and minicamp. He fully expected to be welcomed back and bitched when he was told if there would be a QB competition if he were to be on the team. He couldn't live with being a back up and made that known to every reporter who would listen. They basically couln't keep him since he was determined to be a distraction, so they traded him to the Jets where he turned in another shit season and pulled the same stunt again.
They should have cut his ass when he pulled this shit back in 06, the only reason they didn't was because of his name anyway. I can't believe people are still blaming Ted Thompson for this. It's fine to want to stay with the team you are known for, and start at QB, but if you're going to do this you need to make your plans known instead of "retiring" every year so you don't have to put in the hard work in the pre-season work outs. It puts the GM in an impossible position each year when he goes into the draft not knowing if he needs to take a QB, add skill position talent around his aging QB and fill OL holes through free agency, or start building a young reliable core around the guy you blew a first round draft pick on 3 years ago. It's a miracle that the Packers drafted somewhat decently at all in those years since they couldn't make solid plans until they knew if their primadonna QB wanted to play.
EDIT:
Ok I read the post on the other page and you can't possibly compare Favre and Elway's situations. Elway wasn't doing that for the 3rd year in a row, he had just come off a super bowl season where he was actually good, and the Broncos hadn't spent a 1st round pick on his eventual replacement (Griesie was a 3rd rounder, hardly the same investment). Furthermore Favre absolutely did not give the team plenty of notice. He didn't give a decision until after the draft in 06 and 08, which is an unbelievably shitty position to put this team you supposedly care about in . Teams start planning their off season as soon as the Superbowl ends, often before. To know you have a situation where you essentially don't have a QB, but theres the possibility that you might have one come back and drop a huge drama bomb if you've moved on must be absolutely maddening. Especially when you're the GM, and are supposed to be in charge of the football team.
|
They wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, drafted any differently preparing to have Rodgers play instead of Favre. They believed Rodgers would step in and be the guy immediately (correctly so). So they would have drafted identical talent either way (and it turns out, they did), because they thought they knew what they had in Rodgers, had already spent a first rounder on him in '05. That was a smart move regardless of Favre not deciding, because you know that he's only got a few more years in him, so plan for the future now when you have a shot at what you think will be a great QB. They got Rodgers at a good price, and they would have had to spend a lot more on a top 5 talent in later years to actually get him in the top 5. Things fell perfectly into place for Rodgers, it's not like they had to reach for him.
But that isn't the point I'm trying to drive home. Once you have a QB, you build around him, they had a QB already, so the talent they would draft is identical. That's a poor argument. From '05 on, their draft board was not effected at all by the decision of Favre, because they already had their guy. Even if Rodgers had sucked, at most they put them back on a single position, because they would have built the team for a team that had a QB. Your analysis would be correct if Rodgers wasn't sitting in waiting, but he was, so the draft mentality did not change at all.
In the event that I'm not clear, the only reason the draft board would have changed based on Favre's decision, is if they needed a QB, but since they had a QB, they drafted other positions. In '08 they grabbed Matt Flynn in the sixth round or something, because there were questions about Rodgers durability, which turns out isn't a legitimate concern (he had been injured in both preseasons that he played in). They were never worried about his talent.
Favre not telling them until after the draft is a "Show me what you're going to do to help me, and make me come back. If I have to deal with 6-10 talent again next year, I'm not coming back, so make some moves, and get me some fucking weapons." That year, they got him Greg Jennings, amongst other players. Next season they struggled to start, and went on a tear to end the season. Favre has good feelings about it, and says "I'm coming back," and he did so pretty quickly from what I recall. '08 he finally retires, then tries to unretire, and the team wouldn't take him back. Apparently in his mind they dealt the first blow, then he wanted revenge.
The same thing can be said for Marino, and most other legendary QB's. There's only one similar instance to this, and that was Young/Montana (in fact, very similar, except that Montana sat on the bench), and some people were upset about that.
My reasoning behind saying that they owed Favre has nothing to do with HIS relationship to the fans. It has to do with this... Favre = X amount of seats sold per year, Seats sold = money for the owner. Favre made the team more money than he cost the team, probably by several times. Purely from a financial stand, they owed him. It has nothing to do with dumb fans getting overly attached to a persona. In other words, it has nothing to do with his name, but what he had done for the franchise. He put them back on the map. They had all but disappeared from the public eye before Bret Favre. He won them their first Super Bowl win since Bart Starr, and got them to a second. He took them deep into the playoffs several more times (granted, some of those losses are squarely on his shoulders, and maybe a more risk-averse QB gets them wins, but maybe that risk-averse QB never gets to the playoffs, so let's not speculate). They owed him because of the revenue he generated.
|
Should I play Boldin versus the Steelers this weekend?
|
On September 29 2010 05:44 CultureMisfits wrote:
Should I play Boldin versus the Steelers this weekend?
I would not. Flacco hasn't shown he can play against good defenses yet. But, as always, it depends on your alternatives.
I decided to not be lazy and find your WR's.
Anquan Boldin v PIT
Marcus Colston v CAR
Malcolm Floyd v ARI
Hines Ward v BAL
Demaryius Thomas v TEN
I'd probably go with Floyd on MU.
Boldin is so risky. I really don't trust Flacco, personally. Colston is so hard to play because there is no clear #1 in NOR. Ward is a waste to me, and Harvin is off if you dropped Ward for Harvin.
Then you're between Boldin and Thomas, and that's a really tough call. I lean toward Thomas, but he had an incredibly disappointing outing vs Indy, in a 476 yd game for Orton (amazing how good that system is that he puts up 476 yards). But Thomas is a MU nightmare for short CB's and safties, plus Tennessee's D doesn't have a great rush this year, and the Denver OLine is pretty damn good. I like Thomas, but I'd understand a Boldin pick.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 29 2010 05:01 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
They wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, drafted any differently preparing to have Rodgers play instead of Favre. They believed Rodgers would step in and be the guy immediately (correctly so). So they would have drafted identical talent either way (and it turns out, they did), because they thought they knew what they had in Rodgers, had already spent a first rounder on him in '05. That was a smart move regardless of Favre not deciding, because you know that he's only got a few more years in him, so plan for the future now when you have a shot at what you think will be a great QB. They got Rodgers at a good price, and they would have had to spend a lot more on a top 5 talent in later years to actually get him in the top 5. Things fell perfectly into place for Rodgers, it's not like they had to reach for him.
But that isn't the point I'm trying to drive home. Once you have a QB, you build around him, they had a QB already, so the talent they would draft is identical. That's a poor argument. From '05 on, their draft board was not effected at all by the decision of Favre, because they already had their guy. Even if Rodgers had sucked, at most they put them back on a single position, because they would have built the team for a team that had a QB. Your analysis would be correct if Rodgers wasn't sitting in waiting, but he was, so the draft mentality did not change at all.
In the event that I'm not clear, the only reason the draft board would have changed based on Favre's decision, is if they needed a QB, but since they had a QB, they drafted other positions. In '08 they grabbed Matt Flynn in the sixth round or something, because there were questions about Rodgers durability, which turns out isn't a legitimate concern (he had been injured in both preseasons that he played in). They were never worried about his talent.
Favre not telling them until after the draft is a "Show me what you're going to do to help me, and make me come back. If I have to deal with 6-10 talent again next year, I'm not coming back, so make some moves, and get me some fucking weapons." That year, they got him Greg Jennings, amongst other players. Next season they struggled to start, and went on a tear to end the season. Favre has good feelings about it, and says "I'm coming back," and he did so pretty quickly from what I recall. '08 he finally retires, then tries to unretire, and the team wouldn't take him back. Apparently in his mind they dealt the first blow, then he wanted revenge.
The same thing can be said for Marino, and most other legendary QB's. There's only one similar instance to this, and that was Young/Montana (in fact, very similar, except that Montana sat on the bench), and some people were upset about that.
My reasoning behind saying that they owed Favre has nothing to do with HIS relationship to the fans. It has to do with this... Favre = X amount of seats sold per year, Seats sold = money for the owner. Favre made the team more money than he cost the team, probably by several times. Purely from a financial stand, they owed him. It has nothing to do with dumb fans getting overly attached to a persona. In other words, it has nothing to do with his name, but what he had done for the franchise. He put them back on the map. They had all but disappeared from the public eye before Bret Favre. He won them their first Super Bowl win since Bart Starr, and got them to a second. He took them deep into the playoffs several more times (granted, some of those losses are squarely on his shoulders, and maybe a more risk-averse QB gets them wins, but maybe that risk-averse QB never gets to the playoffs, so let's not speculate). They owed him because of the revenue he generated.
A few things that I disagree with.
They wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, drafted any differently preparing to have Rodgers play instead of Favre.
1.) You absolutely do not build a team the same way around a first year QB as you do around a veteran QB. Especially one who had as much control over the team as Farve (who would have handpicked Mariucci as the next coach if they let him.) Favre wanted weapons, he wanted the team to sell out and trade draft picks to get him some veteran talent to make a run at a championship. Instead they compromised and drafted talent at the skill positions, which sort of worked out in the end, but mostly do to lucking into value picks/trades like Jennings/Grant than to intelligent drafting. I don't know whether the Packers would have drafted this way whether they had ditched Favre or not, but you definitely can't say his constant indecision didn't needlessly complicate their plans. Also consider that the longer they go without truly finding out if Rodgers is the guy, the more QB talent they pass up on while their young first rounder wastes away on the bench. If Favre had stayed for that 4th year the first year Rodgers started would have been his contract year, which is ridiculous when you think about it. This assumes that Favre didn't just up and come back for a 5th year too, in which case that 1st rounder would have completed his entire contract without starting a single game. They are very lucky Rodgers showed his potential right away, because this could have come back to bite them in the ass HARD. Imagine if he sucked in his first year and they couldn't justify resigning him? Good for whoever was looking for a QB, 49ers, Jags, etc, career suicide for Thompson and the Packers.
My reasoning behind saying that they owed Favre has nothing to do with HIS relationship to the fans. It has to do with this... Favre = X amount of seats sold per year, Seats sold = money for the owner.
The problem with this logic is that the Packers have sold out Lambeau field since before Favre was born. Favre does not = more seats sold, they could have kicked him to the curb in the most unceremonious fashion possible and still have people living their whole lives on the wait list for season tickets. They owed him for his services throughout the years sure, but that's what the millions of dollars they paid him were for. You could argue about the minutiae like Jersey sales, but those profits are shared by the league, not kept by the teams. Ted Thompson's job is to please the owner, namely by winning, as that's what the owner demands (Packers are the last team owned by the community if this wasn't clear.) Favre obviously wasn't their best option for that, and their window to find out if the other guy they had invested in could do it was closing fast. I see no reason why Ted Thompson should have to throw his career down the toilet and continue to play puppet GM to Favre's whims. It has been made painfully obvious by his recent antics that Favre was always interested in his own ego, and not the Packers.
|
On September 29 2010 06:44 Aquafresh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 29 2010 05:01 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
They wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, drafted any differently preparing to have Rodgers play instead of Favre. They believed Rodgers would step in and be the guy immediately (correctly so). So they would have drafted identical talent either way (and it turns out, they did), because they thought they knew what they had in Rodgers, had already spent a first rounder on him in '05. That was a smart move regardless of Favre not deciding, because you know that he's only got a few more years in him, so plan for the future now when you have a shot at what you think will be a great QB. They got Rodgers at a good price, and they would have had to spend a lot more on a top 5 talent in later years to actually get him in the top 5. Things fell perfectly into place for Rodgers, it's not like they had to reach for him.
But that isn't the point I'm trying to drive home. Once you have a QB, you build around him, they had a QB already, so the talent they would draft is identical. That's a poor argument. From '05 on, their draft board was not effected at all by the decision of Favre, because they already had their guy. Even if Rodgers had sucked, at most they put them back on a single position, because they would have built the team for a team that had a QB. Your analysis would be correct if Rodgers wasn't sitting in waiting, but he was, so the draft mentality did not change at all.
In the event that I'm not clear, the only reason the draft board would have changed based on Favre's decision, is if they needed a QB, but since they had a QB, they drafted other positions. In '08 they grabbed Matt Flynn in the sixth round or something, because there were questions about Rodgers durability, which turns out isn't a legitimate concern (he had been injured in both preseasons that he played in). They were never worried about his talent.
Favre not telling them until after the draft is a "Show me what you're going to do to help me, and make me come back. If I have to deal with 6-10 talent again next year, I'm not coming back, so make some moves, and get me some fucking weapons." That year, they got him Greg Jennings, amongst other players. Next season they struggled to start, and went on a tear to end the season. Favre has good feelings about it, and says "I'm coming back," and he did so pretty quickly from what I recall. '08 he finally retires, then tries to unretire, and the team wouldn't take him back. Apparently in his mind they dealt the first blow, then he wanted revenge.
The same thing can be said for Marino, and most other legendary QB's. There's only one similar instance to this, and that was Young/Montana (in fact, very similar, except that Montana sat on the bench), and some people were upset about that.
My reasoning behind saying that they owed Favre has nothing to do with HIS relationship to the fans. It has to do with this... Favre = X amount of seats sold per year, Seats sold = money for the owner. Favre made the team more money than he cost the team, probably by several times. Purely from a financial stand, they owed him. It has nothing to do with dumb fans getting overly attached to a persona. In other words, it has nothing to do with his name, but what he had done for the franchise. He put them back on the map. They had all but disappeared from the public eye before Bret Favre. He won them their first Super Bowl win since Bart Starr, and got them to a second. He took them deep into the playoffs several more times (granted, some of those losses are squarely on his shoulders, and maybe a more risk-averse QB gets them wins, but maybe that risk-averse QB never gets to the playoffs, so let's not speculate). They owed him because of the revenue he generated. A few things that I disagree with. Show nested quote +They wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, drafted any differently preparing to have Rodgers play instead of Favre. 1.) You absolutely do not build a team the same way around a first year QB as you do around a veteran QB. Especially one who had as much control over the team as Farve (who would have handpicked Mariucci as the next coach if they let him.) Favre wanted weapons, he wanted the team to sell out and trade draft picks to get him some veteran talent to make a run at a championship. Instead they compromised and drafted talent at the skill positions, which sort of worked out in the end, but mostly do to lucking into value picks/trades like Jennings/Grant than to intelligent drafting. I don't know whether the Packers would have drafted this way whether they had ditched Favre or not, but you definitely can't say his constant indecision didn't needlessly complicate their plans. Also consider that the longer they go without truly finding out if Rodgers is the guy, the more QB talent they pass up on while their young first rounder wastes away on the bench. If Favre had stayed for that 4th year the first year Rodgers started would have been his contract year, which is ridiculous when you think about it. This assumes that Favre didn't just up and come back for a 5th year too, in which case that 1st rounder would have completed his entire contract without starting a single game. They are very lucky Rodgers showed his potential right away, because this could have come back to bite them in the ass HARD. Imagine if he sucked in his first year and they couldn't justify resigning him? Good for whoever was looking for a QB, 49ers, Jags, etc, career suicide for Thompson and the Packers. Show nested quote +My reasoning behind saying that they owed Favre has nothing to do with HIS relationship to the fans. It has to do with this... Favre = X amount of seats sold per year, Seats sold = money for the owner. The problem with this logic is that the Packers have sold out Lambeau field since before Favre was born. Favre does not = more seats sold, they could have kicked him to the curb in the most unceremonious fashion possible and still have people living their whole lives on the wait list for season tickets. They owed him for his services throughout the years sure, but that's what the millions of dollars they paid him were for. You could argue about the minutiae like Jersey sales, but those profits are shared by the league, not kept by the teams. Ted Thompson's job is to please the owner, namely by winning, as that's what the owner demands (Packers are the last team owned by the community if this wasn't clear.) Favre obviously wasn't their best option for that, and their window to find out if the other guy they had invested in could do it was closing fast. I see no reason why Ted Thompson should have to throw his career down the toilet and continue to play puppet GM to Favre's whims. It has been made painfully obvious by his recent antics that Favre was always interested in his own ego, and not the Packers.
2008 Stats, Aaron Rodgers. 28 TD 13 INT. Don't feel like adding the yardage, but about 4k. 6-10 record.
Favre 22 TD, 22 INT. 8-8 record, torn biceps muscle, about 4k yards.
2008 goes to Rodgers. 2009 absolutely goes to Favre, who went 13-3 and made the NFC Championship, while Rodgers was booted from the first round... which is more a total team issue, but Favre's season was, at the very least, equal to Rodgers (Favre had +3 TD's, -200 yards).
This year is going to Rodgers so far, in every category. But "obviously wasn't their best option" is, at the least, and overstatement.
I don't think the draft is that vastly different from one guy to another, unless you're going to commit to a few "rebuilding" years. But that's entirely dependent on what the strong suits of your team are at the time that you bring a new, young QB in. If your OL sucks, that's obviously the first place you try to improve. If you have a good line, which the Packers' line wasn't really bad until last year, and so they've begun addressing that this season (still a bad OLine). Their drafts have been primarily defensive drafts for years, with Favre, and still now with Rodgers. If you look through their draft history, I don't think much would have changed regardless of the QB, andit still hasn't. Despite a massive need for offensive linemen, their last draft was still primarily defense. They've drafted enough defensive players to fill several rosters full of players, most of them have been terrible.
Your point is valid on Rodgers contract, and I hadn't really considered that before. That's probably the best argument I've heard for not taking Favre back. At most he had four-five years left, and they needed to know before Rodgers' contract was up if was definitively their guy.
Still, that doesn't change the way Favre felt about the situation, and, while that gives them a perfectly legitimate reason to not take him back, it doesn't mean that Favre shouldn't have gone to the team that gave him the best opportunity to do what he wanted to do in the first place (get another ring). They needed the split, Favre's time in GB had come to an end, but Favre wasn't ready for it, so he moved on to another team the way the team moved on to another QB. Maybe too much hype was made about it, maybe people are right to be mad at the way Favre handled his exit from GB (keep in mind that they wouldn't simply release him, and he wanted to start in the NFL, so he forced a trade, and they traded him to a mediocre team that didn't fulfill his needs). He was subsequently released by the team that he was traded to, and Favre finally got his way.
So I guess calling him a douchebag is fine, because he kind of is... to me, there was little choice in the way he left the team. They didn't want to trade him, they didn't want to release him, they didn't want him to play for the team, because they NEEDED to move forward (not just wanted to, the contract issue is plenty of reason to need to move forward), so what choice did he have other than to force his way out?
Hopefully we can agree to that. Both sides acted in a self-interested manner, and in the end, both sides got what was best for them. The whole point of my posts were to say that Packers fans being mad at Favre for still wanting to play, and to play with a good team, regardless of who that team is, is just fucking stupid. He doesn't owe them anything, but that's how they act. Maybe some of my reasoning is off, but the main point stands.
|
Former SF OC was "Following Orders."
An interesting take on what's going on there. That team is some mess... but I have to think that him mumbling plays in all the time was at least part of the reason he was fired. Those horribly timed delay of game penalties put them in many bad situations, and stalled what were otherwise productive drives, and that was on him, from the sounds of things. We'll start see how much truth there is to what he says next week, with the new OC in place.
|
On September 29 2010 05:47 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 05:44 CultureMisfits wrote:
Should I play Boldin versus the Steelers this weekend? I would not. Flacco hasn't shown he can play against good defenses yet. But, as always, it depends on your alternatives. I decided to not be lazy and find your WR's. Anquan Boldin v PIT Marcus Colston v CAR Malcolm Floyd v ARI Hines Ward v BAL Demaryius Thomas v TEN I'd probably go with Floyd on MU. Boldin is so risky. I really don't trust Flacco, personally. Colston is so hard to play because there is no clear #1 in NOR. Ward is a waste to me, and Harvin is off if you dropped Ward for Harvin. Then you're between Boldin and Thomas, and that's a really tough call. I lean toward Thomas, but he had an incredibly disappointing outing vs Indy, in a 476 yd game for Orton (amazing how good that system is that he puts up 476 yards). But Thomas is a MU nightmare for short CB's and safties, plus Tennessee's D doesn't have a great rush this year, and the Denver OLine is pretty damn good. I like Thomas, but I'd understand a Boldin pick.
Thanks for the feedback. I am a little bit wary of keeping Thomas though. I was rather displeased with his performance against indy. Do you think that he will improve throughout the season? If he doesn't when is it a good idea that I drop him for someone else.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I picked up Thomas too. I'm not sure if I should start him or Maroney in my flex pick this week lol.
|
I opened the gates of Hell by starting up Brett drama.
|
51523 Posts
Alright, many questions for this week considering my star AP has a bye....
QB: Schaub (vs OAK) or Sanchez (vs BUF)? Both defenses are pretty bad, and apparently AJ may not play for the Texans. Still leaning towards Schaub despite this.
Flex: Clayton (vs SEA), Walter (vs OAK) or Torain (vs PHI) [I picked up Torain by dropping Taylor... hoping he has some sort of sleeper value). At the moment it's Clayton although I think Walter may be the better choice.
TE: The same dilemma, Gonzalez (vs SF) or Keller (vs BUF). Same as my QB situation, favorable match-ups, but I'm not sure who is more favorable.
D/ST: Packers (vs DET) or Seahawks (vs STL). Again, both terrible teams, but I'm not sure who to lean towards more.
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
I'd go Sanchez. Asomugha is pretty legit corner, and the Oakland secondary has always been somewhat respectable compared to their run game. Coupled with AJ's doubtfulness, and Arian Foster's production thus far, I see a ton of pounding the ball from the Texans.
Go with Clayton. Walter is a hit or miss most games, and Torain is ehh. Not sold on Torain, not valuewise at least. Later on, I still think Portis is gonna get the ball.
Can't go wrong at TE, and I'd go GB vs Detroit over the Seahawks. Seahawks were fortunate to score a ton of points thanks to Leon Washington. You won't be seeing multiple kick returns each week, whereas Green Bay is just disruptive every week in general thanks to a solid D and their ability to rush the passer.
|
I remember last year when Sanchez threw something like 5 interceptions against Buffalo and ended up with negative fantasy points, but that was last year.
If I remember correctly, last year, Sanchez did well in the beginning of the season and started fading away towards the end. (Except in playoff games, he did pretty well)
|
The passing game is only ranked so high because the run D is THAT bad (bottom 5 the last four years I believe) and because of Asomugha totally shutting down whatever #1 the team has. Seriously, Michael Huff, an ok starter at best, is the next best DB. Teams simply run a lot more, but that doesn't mean Schaub can't hit his Walter or Jacoby Jones (#2 or 3) Daniels, a very good TE vs a shit LB core, Foster out of the backfield...
Bottom line is Schaub's right on that line for top 5 QB (figure any combo of Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers being 1-4. Rivers and Schaub are certainly in the discussion for 5-6.... Sanchez isn't even top 2/3. You don't sit your definite starters.
TE, Gonzo is obviously better, but there's much less of a drop than schaub to sanchez here. Keller is good and plays a much shitter D. The niners were stuck on the field constantly because of the offense... and even if the D blew as a whole, Patrick Fuckin Willis will mark up on Gonzo. That's all you need to know.
|
Not sure if I should start Thomas (vs Car) or Tolbert (vs Ari). Matthews is suppoesdly out for Week 4 and I hate playing Saints players since Brees spreads the balls so much..just ask poor Meachem.  Leaning towards Tolbert unless Matthews is coming back then it's obvious.
|
On September 29 2010 23:39 Hawk wrote:
The passing game is only ranked so high because the run D is THAT bad (bottom 5 the last four years I believe) and because of Asomugha totally shutting down whatever #1 the team has. Seriously, Michael Huff, an ok starter at best, is the next best DB. Teams simply run a lot more, but that doesn't mean Schaub can't hit his Walter or Jacoby Jones (#2 or 3) Daniels, a very good TE vs a shit LB core, Foster out of the backfield...
Bottom line is Schaub's right on that line for top 5 QB (figure any combo of Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers being 1-4. Rivers and Schaub are certainly in the discussion for 5-6.... Sanchez isn't even top 2/3. You don't sit your definite starters.
TE, Gonzo is obviously better, but there's much less of a drop than schaub to sanchez here. Keller is good and plays a much shitter D. The niners were stuck on the field constantly because of the offense... and even if the D blew as a whole, Patrick Fuckin Willis will mark up on Gonzo. That's all you need to know.
I pretty much agree with this. I was going to suggest Keller for the exact same reason. Willis is too much of a beast to play a TE against, imo.
On September 29 2010 23:47 Dknight wrote:Not sure if I should start Thomas (vs Car) or Tolbert (vs Ari). Matthews is suppoesdly out for Week 4 and I hate playing Saints players since Brees spreads the balls so much..just ask poor Meachem. Leaning towards Tolbert unless Matthews is coming back then it's obvious.
PT will continue to net around 10 points until Bush gets back. They don't really have much of an option at HB right now. He'll get nearly all the carries, plus 4-5 passes. SD can't run at all, so...
|
Pft. Forgot that Bush is out for the next 5-6 weeks. Easy decision -_-;
|
+ Show Spoiler +NFL gets 'A' for racial hiring; slow hiring women
By ANTONIO GONZALEZ - Associated Press Writer
2010-09-29 10:07
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - The NFL received its highest grade ever for racial diversity hiring practices but is still behind on hiring women.
The annual report card by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida on Wednesday gave the NFL its first 'A' on racial hiring practices in 18 years. The high mark was in large part because of sustained progress hiring black coaches, the effectiveness of the ``Rooney Rule'' requiring a minority to be interviewed and the recent creation of a vice president and chief diversity officer in the league office.
The NFL earned a 'C' for gender hiring and an overall grade of 'B.' Those were the same marks as last year, tying the best the league has received.
Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute, said the upsurge in minority hiring shows the Rooney Rule, approved in 2002, has been a successful measure in racial hiring practices.
``The criticism of the rule is that there will be bogus interviews just to satisfy the rule. But over and over you see that minority coaches are getting jobs,'' Lapchick said. ``Even if they don't get the job the first time, the interview gives owners a chance to meet coaches they might not have and hire them the next time.''
The study, based on information provided by the NFL, also shows the league has been slow hiring women.
The percentage of women in management positions in the league office decreased from 27.6 to 27.5, women in team professional administrator positions went down by 1 percent and there was a 2 percent decrease for women in senior administrator positions, according to the study. The number of women vice presidents increased by five, the only major stride in gender hiring.
``A very slight decline overall,'' Lapchick said, ``but in an area already needing improvement.''
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, ``We appreciate Richard Lapchick's work. His report and comments speak for themselves. We will continue to emphasize the importance of diversity in our hiring practices.''
The NFL has six black head coaches and five black general managers among 32 teams entering this season, the same as last year. The study also notes that the first minority head coaches in the Super Bowl the last four seasons has had a major influence in racial hiring practices.
Former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago's Lovie Smith were the first black head coaches to reach the Super Bowl in 2007. Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin followed with a Super Bowl win in 2009, and Jim Caldwell led the Colts back to the Super Bowl last season.
``The upsurge in minority head coaches in the Super Bowl has been probably as much important if not more important than the Rooney Rule,'' Lapchick said. ``They have eliminated false perceptions and created more opportunities for minorities.''
That spoiler is about the NFL getting an "A" in black hirings, but a low grade for hiring women. Wtf? Firstly, women don't know shit about football. Secondly, just wtf? That's so fucking stupid and annoying I don't even know what to say...
|
Austin10833 Posts
Shh, no one tell Jemele Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
