|
On October 23 2012 19:43 TwoToneTerran wrote:Deserves it. The Panthers overpay slightly above average players way too much and it's really weakened the rest of their starters and depth.
Seriously... how is DWill so highly paid for the production he's had the last three years? I recall one really great year from him. And Charles... Something, I can't remember his last name. The guy got crazy money this year for a single game. The only resigning that was good (and I may be dreaming it up) was Jon Beason-that dude is a damn monster.
|
Here are fairly recent Marty Hurney masterpieces:
Stewart: 5 year, 36.5 million contract
Williams: 5 year, 43 million contract (TWO RUNNING BACKS?)
Kalil: 6 year, 49 million contract (Highest paid center in the league, because no center in the league is worth that much)
Beason: 6 year, 51 million (still overpaid, as good as you might think he is)
And the whopper:
Johnson: 6 year, SEVENTY SIX MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT
For a guy with 34 sacks after 5 years of starting.
Marty Hurney, folks.
Now I know, most of these contracts are stretched over long periods of time, but each and everyone of them is absurd. Unless the Panthers can pull off some amazing trades (hint, they won't) they're literally in the hole and stuck with these contracts until 2016.
|
On October 23 2012 12:58 DannyJ wrote:That shot of Stafford after the 4th down was memorable. ![[image loading]](http://phoenixapp.s3.amazonaws.com/medias/c1fcc49638da4bbe9dee9e12c9584ed1@2x.gif)
oh god when they showed this, LOL
|
On October 23 2012 05:05 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 20:00 Ferrose wrote:On October 22 2012 17:33 Souma wrote:
I get the point. I'm just drowning in my own sorrow, alone, in a corner, shrouded in the darkness of my room... Then you see your stud fantasy QB got injured  I know right. F'ing Gabbert.
The preliminary results of the MRI performed on Jacksonville Jaguars quarterback Blaine Gabbert indicate he suffered a torn labrum in his non-throwing shoulder, a source told ESPN NFL Insider Ed Werder.
A determination about his availability for Sunday's game in Green Bay won't be made until after famed specialist Dr. James Andrews offers a second opinion later Tuesday.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8540629/blaine-gabbert-jacksonville-jaguars-qb-torn-labrum-source-says
Speaking of rivalries, I hope Seahawks-Niners turns into a great rivalry for the next few years.
|
Bsing with a person in my league with a dirt 2-5 team that has Harvin, Julio Jones and V. Jackson.
He has garbage for RB (Law Firm, McFadden and Tate) We start 2 and have a WRT Flex, so he is hurting. (He starts one of Kerley/Bennett or Owen Daniels there)
Which combo of CJ2K/F. Jackson/Leshore + Mike Williams should I try and sell him?
Should I just swing for the fences and go CJ2K for Harvin or Jackson straight up or is that giving up too much?
I wouldn't have a use for Williams really if I get either of them. I also wanna stay away from Jones since I already have Ryan and White.
Starters:
QB: Ryan
WR: White, Brown, Williams
RB: Lynch, Matthews
TE: VD
WRTFlex: CJ2K
Bench: Wright, Leshoure, Rivers, F. Jackson.
CJ2K probably gouges Indy's D next week and increases his value more too.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
wha... how'd you manage to get Lynch, Mathews, F. Jackson, CJ2K, and Leshoure?
If you could trade Leshoure or Fred Jackson + Williams for Harvin or VJax, I'd do it. CJ2K has a soft playoff schedule so it would be wise to keep him.
I need assistance too!
Pick 2:
Steven Jackson vs. New England
Josh Gordon vs. San Diego
Desean Jackson vs. Atlanta
Denarius Moore @ KC
|
I don't know what to do with Calvin Johnson right now. 13th overall WR in a PPR league. He has already had his bye so he probably averages to 8th or 9th realistically, but Stafford has been crap and megatrons only big big game was the one when Shaun Hill came in for fat-face.
Who could I realistically target in a trade? I just don't trust that the production will pick up.
|
On October 23 2012 21:36 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 19:31 thuracine wrote:On October 23 2012 19:18 Damiani wrote:On October 23 2012 18:10 thuracine wrote:
After the game I was discussing divisions with a friend and how some are harder or easier than others.We started getting in to the "what if", what if every 4 years the nfl would mix up the divisions. Wont go in to want teams we put in different divisions just want to put it out there and see what other people come up with and where they would put teams. I think it's fine the way it is. I wouldn't change it up. If you change it up every 4 years it would be hard cause u can't really mix things up with teams playing in different time zone. Shoot, remember before 2002 (that's when they changed it from 3 to 4 divisions in each conference) the Atlanta Falcons was in the NFC west? Do you know how much traveling was going on back then? It was crazy. It got a lot of people wondering how a team in Atlanta was in a western division. The NFL set things up where each year a division would play another division. For example the NFC west is playing the AFC east this year. And next year the NFC west would be playing the AFC south. Do you guys remember when : AFC East NFC East New England Patriots Philadelphia Eagles Miami Dolphins Washington Redskins New York Jets New York Giants Indianapolis Colts Dallas Cowboys Buffalo Bills Arizona Cardinals AFC Central NFC Central Pittsburgh Steelers Minnesota Vikings Baltimore Ravens Green Bay Packers Cleveland Browns Tampa Bay Buc Tennessee Titans Detroit Lions Jacksonville Jaguars Chicago Bears Cincinnati Bengals NFC West AFC West San Francisco 49ers Oakland Raiders Atlanta Falcons Seattle Seahawks St.Louis Rams Denver Broncos Carolina Panthers Kansas City Chiefs New Orleans Saints San Diego Chargers **Note the AFC Central had 6 teams everyone else had 5. ***Houston Texans wasn't around yet. Look at the NFC west. Wtf @ Carolina and Atlanta being in the western division. And Arizona was in the NFC east. But to answer your if i was to rearrange every 4 years i would probably rearrange it by alphabetically order. A-Z haha. I don't think changing it up is that hard to do, you know where you are going to be every week. Traveling shouldn't be to much of a issue with 1 game a week. If other sports can play multiple games a week one day of travel shouldn't be a problem. I know not much is going to change just interested in how others would set up there divisions. It's pointless to compare the NFL to other sports in terms of scheduling. None of the other sports are as physically demanding as the NFL (they can't hit each other, except in hockey, where players weigh 100-150lbs less). There's just something different about it. Game times matter in the NFL more than other sports (probably increases/decreases in rest times, largely). But that's not why it's a bad idea. Football is predicated on two things: 1) loving your team, 2) hating every other team in your division. In other words, this would kill rivalries, which is what nfl fans love so much. There's nothing better than rubbing in a Bears victory in a Packers fan's face to most Bears fans (not me, I'm not a shit talker for work I didn't do). If you take divisions away, you lose this, which really hurts the fandom of the sport. That's the biggest reason divisions exist. Otherwise it'd just be two conferences, and the top X teams advance to the playoffs. What the NFL has done for their scheduling is pretty brilliant. Over four years, each team will play each other at least once. And to balance out preseason strength of schedule, and create more opportunities for lesser teams, teams get to play the teams in equal standing from the previous season from the three conference divisions that they don't play in a season.
Lol hockey players only being 100-150 pounds seems far fetched. I wasn't saying the NFL should change division or that any thing was wrong with there system. Two conferences and the best 6 in each go to the playoffs would be just as good as divisions maybe better. Won't have to see a 7-9 or 8-8 team in a playoff spot they might not deserve. The year GB won the superbowl they barely got in the playoffs, one of three 10-6 teams GB, giants, bucs, gb only advanced because they beat the giants and the bucs finished 3rd in there division now a 7-9 seahawks team gets in(at least they knocked out the saints). Division games are important but not any more of a priority than any other game, you can still win your division and not win a single division game.
I am happy with the way NFL schedules the season, and if the lions can manage to win a division game this year i will be even happier
|
I'd wait until after Jax in two weeks to try moving him if you insist on doing so. He'll probably skullfuck them. You wanna sell high, not after a 3 for 30 something game.
I still think it would be irrational... he's still averaging just under 100ypg. TD variance year to year is a bitch.
|
On October 24 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I'd wait until after Jax in two weeks to try moving him if you insist on doing so. He'll probably skullfuck them. You wanna sell high, not after a 3 for 30 something game.
I still think it would be irrational... he's still averaging just under 100ypg. TD variance year to year is a bitch.
Yea I agree about the Jax game. It certainly isn't because I have no faith in Calvin, I just don't have faith in Stafford. I'm in 2nd in my league so depending on how the Lions adjust over the next few weeks will determine what I do with him.
|
On October 24 2012 04:35 thuracine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 21:36 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 23 2012 19:31 thuracine wrote:On October 23 2012 19:18 Damiani wrote:On October 23 2012 18:10 thuracine wrote:
After the game I was discussing divisions with a friend and how some are harder or easier than others.We started getting in to the "what if", what if every 4 years the nfl would mix up the divisions. Wont go in to want teams we put in different divisions just want to put it out there and see what other people come up with and where they would put teams. I think it's fine the way it is. I wouldn't change it up. If you change it up every 4 years it would be hard cause u can't really mix things up with teams playing in different time zone. Shoot, remember before 2002 (that's when they changed it from 3 to 4 divisions in each conference) the Atlanta Falcons was in the NFC west? Do you know how much traveling was going on back then? It was crazy. It got a lot of people wondering how a team in Atlanta was in a western division. The NFL set things up where each year a division would play another division. For example the NFC west is playing the AFC east this year. And next year the NFC west would be playing the AFC south. Do you guys remember when : AFC East NFC East New England Patriots Philadelphia Eagles Miami Dolphins Washington Redskins New York Jets New York Giants Indianapolis Colts Dallas Cowboys Buffalo Bills Arizona Cardinals AFC Central NFC Central Pittsburgh Steelers Minnesota Vikings Baltimore Ravens Green Bay Packers Cleveland Browns Tampa Bay Buc Tennessee Titans Detroit Lions Jacksonville Jaguars Chicago Bears Cincinnati Bengals NFC West AFC West San Francisco 49ers Oakland Raiders Atlanta Falcons Seattle Seahawks St.Louis Rams Denver Broncos Carolina Panthers Kansas City Chiefs New Orleans Saints San Diego Chargers **Note the AFC Central had 6 teams everyone else had 5. ***Houston Texans wasn't around yet. Look at the NFC west. Wtf @ Carolina and Atlanta being in the western division. And Arizona was in the NFC east. But to answer your if i was to rearrange every 4 years i would probably rearrange it by alphabetically order. A-Z haha. I don't think changing it up is that hard to do, you know where you are going to be every week. Traveling shouldn't be to much of a issue with 1 game a week. If other sports can play multiple games a week one day of travel shouldn't be a problem. I know not much is going to change just interested in how others would set up there divisions. It's pointless to compare the NFL to other sports in terms of scheduling. None of the other sports are as physically demanding as the NFL (they can't hit each other, except in hockey, where players weigh 100-150lbs less). There's just something different about it. Game times matter in the NFL more than other sports (probably increases/decreases in rest times, largely). But that's not why it's a bad idea. Football is predicated on two things: 1) loving your team, 2) hating every other team in your division. In other words, this would kill rivalries, which is what nfl fans love so much. There's nothing better than rubbing in a Bears victory in a Packers fan's face to most Bears fans (not me, I'm not a shit talker for work I didn't do). If you take divisions away, you lose this, which really hurts the fandom of the sport. That's the biggest reason divisions exist. Otherwise it'd just be two conferences, and the top X teams advance to the playoffs. What the NFL has done for their scheduling is pretty brilliant. Over four years, each team will play each other at least once. And to balance out preseason strength of schedule, and create more opportunities for lesser teams, teams get to play the teams in equal standing from the previous season from the three conference divisions that they don't play in a season. Lol hockey players only being 100-150 pounds seems far fetched. I wasn't saying the NFL should change division or that any thing was wrong with there system. Two conferences and the best 6 in each go to the playoffs would be just as good as divisions maybe better. Won't have to see a 7-9 or 8-8 team in a playoff spot they might not deserve. The year GB won the superbowl they barely got in the playoffs, one of three 10-6 teams GB, giants, bucs, gb only advanced because they beat the giants and the bucs finished 3rd in there division now a 7-9 seahawks team gets in(at least they knocked out the saints). Division games are important but not any more of a priority than any other game, you can still win your division and not win a single division game. I am happy with the way NFL schedules the season, and if the lions can manage to win a division game this year i will be even happier
Where did I say that's what hockey players weigh? Football players hit 335+ pretty often, and a large percentage of the players are 260+. The average NHL player is probably 185-205 lbs? So the 100-150 range fits.
Again, your idea destroys rivalries. What do you mean you weren't suggesting that they change divisions? That's precisely what you suggested. Rotating divisions every four years would serve what purpose, exactly? All anyone has been able to give are reasons it shouldn't be done (and it shouldn't, because it's a dumb idea), and the best you give is "I don't think it would be that hard... blah blah" with no reasoning for why it should be changed.
It doesn't make sense. Over four years, every team plays every team in the NFL at least one time (they'll likely play conference teams more than one time in four years, given the in conference division standing vs division standing portion of scheduling), and they play division rivals twice a year, which makes the games more marketable, and more meaningful to fans. All your idea would do is create a new level of disinterest in the sport (i.e. you'd risk potentially driving away current customers) by destroying current rivalries.
But you suggest they should rotate divisions... for what? For the fuck of it? That's dumb; it's a bad business model.
|
On October 24 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I'd wait until after Jax in two weeks to try moving him if you insist on doing so. He'll probably skullfuck them. You wanna sell high, not after a 3 for 30 something game.
I still think it would be irrational... he's still averaging just under 100ypg. TD variance year to year is a bitch.
Did the Bears game drag him down that badly? He was at 111.X coming into the game. I think this is a major mistake that people make in fantasy. They're always looking for the boom and bust guys over the guys that are producing 10-15 ppg.
The average league is set up like what?
QB
RB
RB
WR
WR
TE
Flex
Kicker
DST
Right? If you get 10-15 points a game from RB1-Flex that 60-75 points per week. If you have a good QB, there's another 20-25, so you're at 80-100 points. Throw in another 8-10 from the kicker, you're at 88-110 points. Another 10 from your DST and you're at 98-120 points.... how many weeks are you going to lose in that range? You'll lose some if your players all end up on the low end, but because they'll probably end up somewhere in the middle range (13 ppg or so), you'll probably win most weeks.
The point being: if you have a guy that's putting up 11ppg on yards alone, you don't fucking trade him.
|
Ahhh! This is like the second double post I think I've ever had in the 11000+ posts I've made here. Crazy.
|
On October 24 2012 10:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 04:35 thuracine wrote:On October 23 2012 21:36 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 23 2012 19:31 thuracine wrote:On October 23 2012 19:18 Damiani wrote:On October 23 2012 18:10 thuracine wrote:
After the game I was discussing divisions with a friend and how some are harder or easier than others.We started getting in to the "what if", what if every 4 years the nfl would mix up the divisions. Wont go in to want teams we put in different divisions just want to put it out there and see what other people come up with and where they would put teams. I think it's fine the way it is. I wouldn't change it up. If you change it up every 4 years it would be hard cause u can't really mix things up with teams playing in different time zone. Shoot, remember before 2002 (that's when they changed it from 3 to 4 divisions in each conference) the Atlanta Falcons was in the NFC west? Do you know how much traveling was going on back then? It was crazy. It got a lot of people wondering how a team in Atlanta was in a western division. The NFL set things up where each year a division would play another division. For example the NFC west is playing the AFC east this year. And next year the NFC west would be playing the AFC south. Do you guys remember when : AFC East NFC East New England Patriots Philadelphia Eagles Miami Dolphins Washington Redskins New York Jets New York Giants Indianapolis Colts Dallas Cowboys Buffalo Bills Arizona Cardinals AFC Central NFC Central Pittsburgh Steelers Minnesota Vikings Baltimore Ravens Green Bay Packers Cleveland Browns Tampa Bay Buc Tennessee Titans Detroit Lions Jacksonville Jaguars Chicago Bears Cincinnati Bengals NFC West AFC West San Francisco 49ers Oakland Raiders Atlanta Falcons Seattle Seahawks St.Louis Rams Denver Broncos Carolina Panthers Kansas City Chiefs New Orleans Saints San Diego Chargers **Note the AFC Central had 6 teams everyone else had 5. ***Houston Texans wasn't around yet. Look at the NFC west. Wtf @ Carolina and Atlanta being in the western division. And Arizona was in the NFC east. But to answer your if i was to rearrange every 4 years i would probably rearrange it by alphabetically order. A-Z haha. I don't think changing it up is that hard to do, you know where you are going to be every week. Traveling shouldn't be to much of a issue with 1 game a week. If other sports can play multiple games a week one day of travel shouldn't be a problem. I know not much is going to change just interested in how others would set up there divisions. It's pointless to compare the NFL to other sports in terms of scheduling. None of the other sports are as physically demanding as the NFL (they can't hit each other, except in hockey, where players weigh 100-150lbs less). There's just something different about it. Game times matter in the NFL more than other sports (probably increases/decreases in rest times, largely). But that's not why it's a bad idea. Football is predicated on two things: 1) loving your team, 2) hating every other team in your division. In other words, this would kill rivalries, which is what nfl fans love so much. There's nothing better than rubbing in a Bears victory in a Packers fan's face to most Bears fans (not me, I'm not a shit talker for work I didn't do). If you take divisions away, you lose this, which really hurts the fandom of the sport. That's the biggest reason divisions exist. Otherwise it'd just be two conferences, and the top X teams advance to the playoffs. What the NFL has done for their scheduling is pretty brilliant. Over four years, each team will play each other at least once. And to balance out preseason strength of schedule, and create more opportunities for lesser teams, teams get to play the teams in equal standing from the previous season from the three conference divisions that they don't play in a season. Lol hockey players only being 100-150 pounds seems far fetched. I wasn't saying the NFL should change division or that any thing was wrong with there system. Two conferences and the best 6 in each go to the playoffs would be just as good as divisions maybe better. Won't have to see a 7-9 or 8-8 team in a playoff spot they might not deserve. The year GB won the superbowl they barely got in the playoffs, one of three 10-6 teams GB, giants, bucs, gb only advanced because they beat the giants and the bucs finished 3rd in there division now a 7-9 seahawks team gets in(at least they knocked out the saints). Division games are important but not any more of a priority than any other game, you can still win your division and not win a single division game. I am happy with the way NFL schedules the season, and if the lions can manage to win a division game this year i will be even happier Where did I say that's what hockey players weigh? Football players hit 335+ pretty often, and a large percentage of the players are 260+. The average NHL player is probably 185-205 lbs? So the 100-150 range fits. Again, your idea destroys rivalries. What do you mean you weren't suggesting that they change divisions? That's precisely what you suggested. Rotating divisions every four years would serve what purpose, exactly? All anyone has been able to give are reasons it shouldn't be done (and it shouldn't, because it's a dumb idea), and the best you give is "I don't think it would be that hard... blah blah" with no reasoning for why it should be changed. It doesn't make sense. Over four years, every team plays every team in the NFL at least one time (they'll likely play conference teams more than one time in four years, given the in conference division standing vs division standing portion of scheduling), and they play division rivals twice a year, which makes the games more marketable, and more meaningful to fans. All your idea would do is create a new level of disinterest in the sport (i.e. you'd risk potentially driving away current customers) by destroying current rivalries. But you suggest they should rotate divisions... for what? For the fuck of it? That's dumb; it's a bad business model.
I didn't say the NFL should change the way they schedule. Not trying to start a campaign to change the divisions. Just wanted other people opinions on how they would set up there divisions. I am a Lions fan and so is my friend, were talking about how bad the lions are and how tough the nfc north is. Started talking about teams that could play in nfc north, ind, cle, cin. To help the terrible lions get back to the playoffs. Ideas where going back and forth (no one said they had to be good ideas) and wanted TL input probably not a good idea.
|
I don't really see what discussion or input could be had with such a concept.
|
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?"
|
On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?"
Whoa relax there cowboy. I think you're going a little overboard here. I think he was just interested in what other people's idea if they had a chance to realign the whole conference. I'm sure he doesn't care about the technicality of the whole NFL schedule.
i'll be the first to offer you what i think:
If i had a magic wand i would do this:
The 4 teams with the most Super Bowl rings in one division. So that would be Pittsburgh Dallas 49ers and Green Bay
then i would put 4 who never made it to the SuperBowl. That would be :Jags Detroit Cleveland Houston. then i would put 4 teams who been to the most super bowl but never won. That would be : Minnesota Buffalo Cincinnati Eagles and the rest i'll just split them up by different time zone just to make it difficult for them. For exaample: Seattle New England San Diego and Miami. Ha that was be funny.
|
I'd put the Giants in with the Patriots just to piss off Brady.
|
On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?"
You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries.
Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all.
|
Having the same teams in the playoffs every year isn't because of poor division alignment, it's because some organizations are better than others. It's setup so that you DON'T get the same teams in the playoffs every year, actually. Hard salary cap, lesser teams get earlier draft picks, and a (usually) easier schedule. Better than in college where the deck is eternally stacked in favor of the powerhouse teams.
The teams you see in the playoffs every year draft well, sign free agents to plug up holes in their team, and have great coaches. The teams that are in the gutter every year typically have terrible ownership and front office management (not knowing how to draft, giving players ludicrous contracts, lack of coaching/discipline on the field, etc.).
And with the way the scheduling works, you don't even need to realign the divisions to get great matchups every year. Like how the Pats always got to play the Steelers and Colts every year since they always won their divisions. The NFL's method of scheduling basically creates the primetime games for the networks itself lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
