EPT2016 NFL and CFB Season Discussion - Page 175
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
giftdgecko
United States2126 Posts
On January 17 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: People are trying to give GOAT to Rodgers. It's pretty amusing. He's having an awesome 8 game stretch but comparing him to how others have done in their respective eras he's barely in the top ten. He still has 5+ years left though. I get he's carrying a team with no run game and a mediocre defense. In this era alone Brees, Brady and Manning have done the same thing multiple times. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
giftdgecko
United States2126 Posts
Popcorn's comin' | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 17 2017 02:46 giftdgecko wrote: So with McDaniels pulling out of consideration for the SF coaching spot it should go to Shanahan right? They wouldn't hire Cable right? The guy with abuse allegations from multiple children, 2 ex wives and an ex girlfriend, right? The guy who broke an assistants jaw while coaching the Raiders, right? Not with the NFL's focus on abuse, right? Right? Right? Popcorn's comin' I'm sure that Shanahan is the Niners' guy. I'm really surprised that he wasn't taken by any of the other teams. Is there something wrong with him that the public doesn't know about? Shanahan was arguably the best option available for any team looking for an offense-minded head coach. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 17 2017 05:08 JimmiC wrote: I think whats wrong with him is he is still coaching. Basically what happened to Mcderrmit last year. If I was Shannahan I'm not sure that I would take the SF job, talent is really low there what are your chances at success? I think they would have to give him some big dolalrs and term to lure him in. I think that from a HC candidate's perspective, the bigger concern is front office/ownership interference. The talent situation isn't terrible. The team is better than the 2-14 mark that was put up -- there was a lot of lousy coaching last year. Plus, the team isn't fucked with horrific contracts. It's basically a blank slate. Sign a veteran QB (Cutler) to play while your groom a replacement and have a couple good drafts, and this team will be back in the thick of things. | ||
|
KingofdaHipHop
United States25602 Posts
On January 17 2017 05:44 xDaunt wrote: I think that from a HC candidate's perspective, the bigger concern is front office/ownership interference. The talent situation isn't terrible. The team is better than the 2-14 mark that was put up -- there was a lot of lousy coaching last year. Plus, the team isn't fucked with horrific contracts. It's basically a blank slate. Sign a veteran QB (Cutler) to play while your groom a replacement and have a couple good drafts, and this team will be back in the thick of things. Probably the biggest upside for HC in San Francisco is that it will be their team and they will really be able to start rebuilding the mess that has been left there the past three years. But yeah ownership's track record doesn't speak a lot of confidence. They definitely won't be a winning team next year (I'd be surprised) but there is a certain appeal for a head coach if they want a long term rebuilding process to make it their team. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On January 17 2017 05:44 xDaunt wrote: I think that from a HC candidate's perspective, the bigger concern is front office/ownership interference. The talent situation isn't terrible. The team is better than the 2-14 mark that was put up -- there was a lot of lousy coaching last year. Plus, the team isn't fucked with horrific contracts. It's basically a blank slate. Sign a veteran QB (Cutler) to play while your groom a replacement and have a couple good drafts, and this team will be back in the thick of things. How can you honestly say the talent situation isn't terrible in SF? They are downright awful. 2-14 is absolutely accurate. There are very few players on that roster I would want my team to have | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
HugoBallzak
700 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 17 2017 06:29 jmbthirteen wrote: How can you honestly say the talent situation isn't terrible in SF? They are downright awful. 2-14 is absolutely accurate. There are very few players on that roster I would want my team to have Because they have some pieces to build around. The offensive line is pretty good. They have a decent running game. The receiving corp is solid, though it lacks a true number 1 guy who can command a double team. The big problems on offense were terrible coaching and bad QB play. On the other side of the ball, there's good, young talent in both the DL and the secondary that often gets overlooked due to bad coaching and an abysmal LB corps (the Niners routinely got violated in the middle of the field). When you look at how the Niners played this year, they generally hung in there very well during at least the first half of just about every game on a brutally hard schedule. Where they routinely got pummeled was in the second halves of games, strongly suggesting that the Niners were being badly outcoached. With a new coach and an easier schedule, I can definitely see the Niners improving to somewhere around 6-10 next year. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
On January 17 2017 06:29 JimmiC wrote: ^ This, I swear a good 80% of my conversations with close friends is about sports and busting their balls about their teams. Most of the time I'd rather there team fail then mine win because its more fodder for me. I think GOAT discussions and ranking players and shit is always fun because there is no "right" answer. One of the biggest off season stories is going to be what happens to Tony Romo. First thing to consider is what would the cowboys get and how does the contract work. http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/2016/11/15/dallas-cowboys-total-2017-salary-cap-impact-if-cowboys-trade-tony-romo-in-offseason/ So basically Tony has a contract the next 3 years that pays him about 25 million a year. The base salary part moves on to the new team and the prorated signing bonus stays with the cowboys. Year Base Salary Prorated SB Cap Hit 2017 14,000,000 10,700,000 24,700,000 2018 19,500,000 5,700,000 25,200,000 2019 20,500,000 3,200,000 23,700,000 So if they trade him they would eat that full 3 years prorated SB next year. almost 20 million. So small savings of 5 mill next year, then in 2018 25.2 mil and 2019 23.7 mill. That alone makes it worth trading him from the Cowboys point of view. But doesn't give them a huge advantage next year. If they don't find a taker I don't see them cutting him to save just 14 million this year.(the other 9 mill would be dead money the next year) Way better to have him as the worlds greatest, overpaid back-up. Especially when they will be expecting to compete next year for the championship. Landing spots: Broncos are the #1 spot for the obvious reason they are a year from the Superbowl and would be instant favorites if their QB play was even decent. They have a championship level defense, some great receivers and so on. Bronos have said they are not interested at this point, who knows if that is true or just bargaining but they also are pretty tight up against the cap even at 14, million Bills: Still undecided about Tyrod, if they cut him they would have the cash, rest of the team is OK. Missed the playoffs for the longest (or one of) longest streaks in the NFL. Fans are not going to want to hear about another rebuild. Jets: Aging roster with 4 qbs and they don't appear to like any of them. Rebuild would probably be smart but I could see the owner going for it again. Texans: Brock was a dumpster fire. They like the broncos have a top defense. And they play in a terribad division. That being said I have no idea how easy it is to get out from under that Anchor of a contract given to Brock. Others: Bears, Niners, Browns All have nothing settled at the QB position. I doubt romo would want to go to any of them and I'm not sure they even think it would be worth it when Tony is a win now type QB (fragile as he may be) Dark Horse. Dem Vikings, they love aging QB's looking for one last shot at glory. Unlike the fragile QB they got last year (who magically stayed healthy) He is good while healthy. If Teddy doesn't heal right who knows what the crazy guys in purple will do. One more all in with AP and that D? Who knows. I like the breakdown. I think you hit everything on the head with what is going on with the league and the QBs. I guess if there is a OC/HC that thinks they can get at least to the playoffs or the Conference game, they'll spring for Romo. Like you said, he'll be an expensive backup, but he's no where near as bad as Brock is and you can probably throw him in immediately and not miss a beat. I think the Broncos will take him. If not them, then the Vikings might do some kind of draft trade. It'll be interesting to watch for sure this off season. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 17 2017 07:26 cLutZ wrote: I disagree with Broncos #1. They have an atrocious O-Line and bad RBs. That is a recipe for broken Romo. Romo is going to get injured wherever he goes. He can't stay healthy, which is why I wouldn't trade significant assets for him if I were a team in need of a QB. I think most teams would better off signing Cutler as a FA. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 17 2017 07:28 xDaunt wrote: Romo is going to get injured wherever he goes. He can't stay healthy, which is why I wouldn't trade significant assets for him if I were a team in need of a QB. I think most teams would better off signing Cutler as a FA. As a Bears fan, they will not be better off. Cutler gets hurt a lot as well, and he is an emotional black hole that has not significantly outperformed his backups in the last 3 seasons. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
| ||
