|
On October 12 2012 23:02 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:27 Damiani wrote:On October 12 2012 13:24 xDaunt wrote:
The decision to kick that 54 yard field with Nick fucking Suisham was really, really bad. Calling a pass play on third down when the intent was to kick the field goal on fourth down was arguably worse. Tennessee was given way too much time and timeouts to make that final drive for a field goal. Totally agreed. Steelers kicker kicked a 52 yarder earlier. Steelers should of just ran the ball try to pick up a few more yards. On top of that run off some clock or at least force Tenn to use another timeout. Well we're 0-1 so far TL! I'd have to disagree with running the ball. 50 yard field goals aren't gimmes. Even 40 yard field goals aren't gimmes. Teams shouldn't shut down their offense and waste clock the moment they get to the boundary of their kicker's field goal range. The Steelers at that point had a 3rd string running back who just lost yardage on second down. The Steelers were clearly trying to get another first down or two to get in better range. A better argument might be for them to go for it or punt on 4th down if 54 yards is outside Suisham's field goal range. I think going for it might have been the best option under those circumstances.
30 yard field goals aren't gimmes for Suisham. Guy has to be the worst starting kicker in the NFL. Tomlin already took credit for the mistake of kicking the field goal, even he knows he shouldn't put his games on the back of Suisham.
|
So Dez Bryant @ Baltimore or Hartline vs. St. Louis? I'm torn on this one. Obviously Hartline has had a much better season, but the Rams are surprisingly good against the pass and on paper Bryant is better than he has been playing. With Brees and Graham both on bye, I need to make sure I squeeze as many points as possible out of the rest of my positions, and playing the wrong WR this week could lose me the game.
Any thoughts? For what it's worth, my other two starting receivers are Fitz and Torrey Smith.
|
On October 12 2012 13:24 xDaunt wrote:
The decision to kick that 54 yard field with Nick fucking Suisham was really, really bad. Calling a pass play on third down when the intent was to kick the field goal on fourth down was arguably worse. Tennessee was given way too much time and timeouts to make that final drive for a field goal.
The decision not so bad when you have one of the best QB on third down and always seems to get the first down. He almost pulled it off to just out of the reach of Batch. Any day the Steelers lose is a good day
|
On October 13 2012 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:
So Dez Bryant @ Baltimore or Hartline vs. St. Louis? I'm torn on this one. Obviously Hartline has had a much better season, but the Rams are surprisingly good against the pass and on paper Bryant is better than he has been playing. With Brees and Graham both on bye, I need to make sure I squeeze as many points as possible out of the rest of my positions, and playing the wrong WR this week could lose me the game.
Any thoughts? For what it's worth, my other two starting receivers are Fitz and Torrey Smith.
I would say Bryant. He's looking stronger and stronger with each passing game. Pun INtended. If you take out Hartlines fluke game where he caught over 250 yards and a TD, his results are basically the same as Bryant, and Bryant has had his bye week already. Also Romo is a much much better QB than Tannehill. THill has only thrown for 2 TD's and besides that fluke game he has yet to pass for more than 225 yards in a game.
|
Byrant just isn't that great of a real life WR. Drops a ton of balls, fucks up his routes, and can't stay healthy. Guy can be the biggest freak athlete ever, but hasn't shown it for a complete season yet.
|
God, why did anyone have to remind the Cardinals that they were the cardinals! 4-0 and then the goddam rams come to town.
|
Good teams lose to bad teams all the time.
That said the Cardinals Oline is an absolute mess, even if their defense has been putting them in continuous great situations.
|
On October 13 2012 07:17 tonight wrote:
Byrant just isn't that great of a real life WR. Drops a ton of balls, fucks up his routes, and can't stay healthy. Guy can be the biggest freak athlete ever, but hasn't shown it for a complete season yet.
Yeah, this is very true. I was so pissed when the Broncos took Thomas over him, but it's actually looking like the single good move that McDumbiels made while in Denver. Demarius (SP) Thomas is, so far, light years ahead of Bryant in development. He really needs to work on ball security though. But so far, he's a more effective player for the Broncos than Bryant is for the 'Girls.
On October 13 2012 08:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Good teams lose to bad teams all the time.
That said the Cardinals Oline is an absolute mess, even if their defense has been putting them in continuous great situations.
It's a massive stretch to call the Cardinals good. It's also a bit of a stretch to call the Rams "bad." The Rams aren't great, but they're not bad. They're a pretty talented young team, and now that they have one of the better coaches the NFL has ever seen, I really think the sky is the limit for them. There will be growing pains, but I think that once they get their OLine shored up a little bit, and get some more, good targets for Bradford (which can happen in a single off season), then we'll be looking at a legitimate playoff contender. I don't know how long it'll be until they're a Super Bowl quality team (if they ever are), but they aren't far from playoff contention, in my opinion.
|
I wonder how much of Thomas' success this year is due to peyton. I thought he would be really good, but I didn't expect THIS good this soon. But I did draft him late to bet on it :D
|
On October 13 2012 09:24 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 07:17 tonight wrote:
Byrant just isn't that great of a real life WR. Drops a ton of balls, fucks up his routes, and can't stay healthy. Guy can be the biggest freak athlete ever, but hasn't shown it for a complete season yet. Yeah, this is very true. I was so pissed when the Broncos took Thomas over him, but it's actually looking like the single good move that McDumbiels made while in Denver. Demarius (SP) Thomas is, so far, light years ahead of Bryant in development. He really needs to work on ball security though. But so far, he's a more effective player for the Broncos than Bryant is for the 'Girls. Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 08:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Good teams lose to bad teams all the time.
That said the Cardinals Oline is an absolute mess, even if their defense has been putting them in continuous great situations. It's a massive stretch to call the Cardinals good. It's also a bit of a stretch to call the Rams "bad." The Rams aren't great, but they're not bad. They're a pretty talented young team, and now that they have one of the better coaches the NFL has ever seen, I really think the sky is the limit for them. There will be growing pains, but I think that once they get their OLine shored up a little bit, and get some more, good targets for Bradford (which can happen in a single off season), then we'll be looking at a legitimate playoff contender. I don't know how long it'll be until they're a Super Bowl quality team (if they ever are), but they aren't far from playoff contention, in my opinion.
Come on are you serious? Massive stretch? Are u aware that the Cardinals are 11-3 in their last 14 regular season games?
I'm no Cardinals fan but i sure do know when a team is good enough to be considered good. I mean they beat a New England team who (minus the zona game) avg 37pts a game to just 18 pts at New England! And if you call that a fluke then holding the Eagles to just two fgs would be a fluke also right? Arizona IS a good team. Just because they were bad before doesn't mean they're bad every season. And beating Seattle is no easy task.
|
No, Arizona has a good defense. Arizona is 1/3 of a team. No offense to speak of, basically. Terrible o-line, less than mediocre QB, one good (great) WR, no run game. Decent ST unit though. Their D is stifling, but this team is not complete enough to be called good.
|
Imo, the Rams game is closer to reality for this team than the Pats game. The Eagles did a wonderful job of beating themselves with careless ball security, more than Arizona beat them. The same way the Eagles have struggled vs everyone, they lost the same way they did vs Pitt.
|
On October 12 2012 22:33 QuanticHawk wrote:
id probably roll with miami. theyre better than people expected and stl's already weak offense is without amendola
I disagree. I think New England has to be the choice. I think Bradford/Jackson can still have a decent outing, while Seattle's offense is just terrible outside of Lynch, and New England has been pretty good against the run this year.
|
On October 13 2012 10:25 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, Arizona has a good defense. Arizona is 1/3 of a team. No offense to speak of, basically. Terrible o-line, less than mediocre QB, one good (great) WR, no run game. Decent ST unit though. Their D is stifling, but this team is not complete enough to be called good.
I would actually call Kevin Kolb perfectly mediocre. He just has the worst pass blocking Oline in the league. His left tackle gets beat more than any other left tackle in the league, for instance.
|
On October 13 2012 11:53 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 10:25 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, Arizona has a good defense. Arizona is 1/3 of a team. No offense to speak of, basically. Terrible o-line, less than mediocre QB, one good (great) WR, no run game. Decent ST unit though. Their D is stifling, but this team is not complete enough to be called good. I would actually call Kevin Kolb perfectly mediocre. He just has the worst pass blocking Oline in the league. His left tackle gets beat more than any other left tackle in the league, for instance.
Not only that but they can't keep a RB healthy to save their lives. Kolb is decent, better this year than last. Heck, I'd rather have him than Ryan Fitzpatrick.
|
The Cardinals are not that good. They went 11-3 in their last 14 regular season games by leading the NFL in pretty much every single statistical category that measures luck. Most of their victories come in close games. They're 5-0 in overtime games during that period. They are recovering a lot of fumbles, including a 6-for-6 against the Dolphins that made them 4-0 this year.
The defense has been great so far, though.
|
On October 13 2012 12:54 BoZiffer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 11:53 TwoToneTerran wrote:On October 13 2012 10:25 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, Arizona has a good defense. Arizona is 1/3 of a team. No offense to speak of, basically. Terrible o-line, less than mediocre QB, one good (great) WR, no run game. Decent ST unit though. Their D is stifling, but this team is not complete enough to be called good. I would actually call Kevin Kolb perfectly mediocre. He just has the worst pass blocking Oline in the league. His left tackle gets beat more than any other left tackle in the league, for instance. Not only that but they can't keep a RB healthy to save their lives. Kolb is decent, better this year than last. Heck, I'd rather have him than Ryan Fitzpatrick.
I would put him in the bottom half of starters. What you want to label that as is up to you, but he's probably in the 22-32 range as far as quality goes. Fitzpatrick is crap too. I couldn't believe the Bills paid him so much for half a damn season's worth of work.
QB's I'd take over Kolb.
The big 4-5, obviously. Brady, Brees, Manning, Manning, Rodgers.
Flacco
Dalton
Ben
Schaub
Luck
Palmer
Rivers
Romo
Vick
RG3
Cutler
Stafford
Ponder (turns it over less)
Matt Ryan
Sam Bradford
Alex Smith
That's 22 QB's that I'd gladly take over Kolb right now. I think guys like Wilson, Gabbert, Locker, Newton, Josh Freeman, and Tannehill all have the potential to be far better than Kolb, so I'd take them too, based on that. That puts him at 28th, at best, in my book. I put him slightly above Fitzpatrick, since that guy just blows. I'd put him on par with Cassel and Sanchez, who are both pathetic starters. I don't think the guy from Cleveland will ever develop into a great starter. I actually don't think most of the names mentioned here will ever be "great" starters, but most will be "good enough" in the way that guys like Ponder are "good enough."
In the right situation, I think Gabbert, Locker, Freeman, Newton, and Tannehill can be on the level of Alex Smith this year. Smith looks fantastic, but that's partially because he doesn't have to put the team on his shoulders. They keep pressure off of him with great D, and a great running game, so the passes are much easier for him to make. In that sort of situation, I think these guys will be successful. I honestly believe that Russel Wilson could be a top-end starter at some point in his career. I wonder if his height will eventually be a limiting factor. I definitely hope that he continues to get a shot in Seattle, because he's extremely talented, imo.
On October 13 2012 13:18 andrewlt wrote:
The Cardinals are not that good. They went 11-3 in their last 14 regular season games by leading the NFL in pretty much every single statistical category that measures luck. Most of their victories come in close games. They're 5-0 in overtime games during that period. They are recovering a lot of fumbles, including a 6-for-6 against the Dolphins that made them 4-0 this year.
The defense has been great so far, though.
Well, their D is admittedly very good. They're opportunistic, and they tackle well. The D keeps the game close, and the offense doesn't turn the ball over. It's hard to turn it over when you're being sacked all the time though. That's once place I'll give Kolb credit this year, he's not just chucking the ball into four DB's like he did in Philly. Like a lot of 4-1 teams (sadly, the Bears spring to mind, but the Falcons are the big ones, imo) the Cardinals are not as good as their record suggests.
The Packers went 15-1 last year, and I never thought they were a great team. Everyone said I was an idiot; I said they were always a mistake, bad bounce, or unlucky break away from being 1-15. While they aren't actually 1-15 bad, I think this year is closer to what the Packers are, and have been, than the 15-1 record the held last year. They got by on absolutely stellar performances every game from Rodgers and co. But the INSTANT that Rodgers is off on a few passes, or they don't get some bad call from the refs in their favor, the Packers started losing. A couple bad calls were against them this year, and they couldn't overcome them, because Rodgers is running for his life, and can't be as accurate as he'd like to be (I think this is mostly on the O-line, and not on Rodgers, and I think the last two years are more than proof enough that this guy is an outstanding QB), or as accurate as he NEEDS to be for this team to win. In essence, without nearly record setting, MVP caliber performances every single week from Rodgers, the Packers just aren't good enough everywhere else to win consistently. I said this last year, and until I see improvements from the D, ST unit, and running game, I will continue to say this. People have either overrated their talent, or it isn't being used correctly.
|
You're rating a lot of guys on potential. Based on the play of QBs so far this year, Kolb's been pretty middle of the pack, even with arguably the worst O-Line in the league.
I mean, say you'd take Vick and Cutler over him all you want, and if you put a gun to my head I probably would, too, but he's playing significantly cleaner games than them. He's basically played as well as Joe Flacco this year, as much as you may want to malign him for not looking impressive.
|
If you're going to give Kolb the excuse of looking like shit because of his o-line, then Cutler and Vick deserve that excuse too. Can't have it both ways. All three QB's are contending with absolute shit protecting them, and all three have dreadful LT's.
I should put Bradford in the potential to be better list, as well as RG3, and Luck... probably Ponder too. But those guys in that list are guys that I would, without question, take over Kolb today. Statistically they may be playing equally, or even worse, but in my opinion, based on their play on the field (from what I've seen, since I can't watch all the games, obviously), they're better than Kolb. I'll tell you what Kolb has that none of them has: Larry Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a bad QB's best friend, because if you chuck it in his direction, you've got a high percentage chance of him coming down with it. The guy is a freak. Furthermore, he opens things up for the other guys on the field. Andre Roberts probably doesn't have 4 TD's without Fitz drawing double coverage.
I guess if I were to rank them on what they've done this season, Kolb would probably rate higher, so my ranking system didn't actually address what we were discussing. I think Flacco sucks too, btw. I pull no punches on how badly I think he's overrated crap.
|
Jay Cutler hasn't been as bad as his stats show. The GB game he was destroyed sacked 7 times and 4 int.
4-1 Cutler is a happy QB right now. If Rodgers wasn't great at escaping pressure he would be sacked 40 times by now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
