NFL 2011-2012 Off-Season Pre-Draft Catch-All

Paleocon wrote:

It does, however, describe San Francisco where Alex Smith is in the final year of his contract....

Hey! That's Colin Kaepernick's job you're talking about, good sir!

Harbaugh's told him it's an open competition.

IMAGE(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d712c7c49e2aed0482a0000/bart-scott.jpg)

"CAN'T WAIT!"

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

This is why winning Super Bowls is an utterly pointless stat for individual players.

I agree. However, I do strongly judge players based on how they perform individually in the Super Bowl.

The "Tom Brady lost his last two Super Bowls" stat isn't meaningful, but a critique on his level of play, particularly in this latest one, does weigh heavily on how I judge Brady as a player. His personal performance in this game hurts his standing on the all-time QB list, in my eyes. After he heaved off that INT throw, I tweeted something about how making a throw like that in the Super Bowl should put a permanent end to any direct comparison with Joe Montana (which, if you remember, were very commonly made after Brady had won 3 Super Bowls).

A single player can't control his team's fate, but all-time great players should perform at their highest level on the "big stage". That, IMO, is a big part of what makes a player an all-time great. If his team isn't good enough and they lose but he performs like a stud, that's a "win" to me in that player's personal all-time great portfolio.

Brady's personal performance Sunday, while far from horrid, earned a check-minus on his all-time great report card.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Rant about a superbowl wins in terms of player performance... /petpeeve

Agreed. Even though it hurts more a Superbowl loss still makes your season more successful then the 30 other teams out there.

Edit: Also I think the Pats will ride Brady until hes not productive anymore. For the 10 Seasons he has played in the NFL (subtracting Matt Cassel year) he has made it to 5 Superbowls and was a four and two pass from getting into a 6th.

I just chalked it up to they werent cheating...

TheGameguru wrote:

I just chalked it up to they werent cheating...as much as usual.

FTFY

Yeah no super bowls since spygate will continue to hang over Belichick.

*Legion* wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

This is why winning Super Bowls is an utterly pointless stat for individual players.

I agree. However, I do strongly judge players based on how they perform individually in the Super Bowl.

The "Tom Brady lost his last two Super Bowls" stat isn't meaningful ...

To me it's more of a legacy issue. The reason Joe Montana is JOE MONTANA!!1! is because he went 4-and-0 in Super Bowls. Brady's still a darned good QB, but I think losing his last two (and not winning one in seven years -- that's the thing that amazed me) has dented his legacy. As I said, Brady is probably still a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But he's now 3-2 in Super Bowls, and he looks -- dare I say it -- mortal.

My meta point to my earlier post is that this might be the beginning of the end of the Patriots as the dominant team we all know and love (or hate). The most recent example of a team losing its franchise QB is the Colts, who might turn out to be OK in the end assuming Andrew Luck is the Second Coming.

A better example might be the 49ers. They had an amazing run for two decades with Montana and then Steve Young. But when Young got knocked out of the '99 season, the 49ers were pretty much irrelevant until this past year.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

This is why winning Super Bowls is an utterly pointless stat for individual players.

I agree. However, I do strongly judge players based on how they perform individually in the Super Bowl.

The "Tom Brady lost his last two Super Bowls" stat isn't meaningful ...

To me it's more of a legacy issue. The reason Joe Montana is JOE MONTANA!!1! is because he went 4-and-0 in Super Bowls. Brady's still a darned good QB, but I think losing his last two (and not winning one in seven years -- that's the thing that amazed me) has dented his legacy. As I said, Brady is probably still a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But he's now 3-2 in Super Bowls, and he looks -- dare I say it -- mortal.

My meta point to my earlier post is that this might be the beginning of the end of the Patriots as the dominant team we all know and love (or hate). The most recent example of a team losing its franchise QB is the Colts, who might turn out to be OK in the end assuming Andrew Luck is the Second Coming.

A better example might be the 49ers. They had an amazing run for two decades with Montana and then Steve Young. But when Young got knocked out of the '99 season, the 49ers were pretty much irrelevant until this past year.

I think a lot of that had to do with how the 49ers were organizationally AND the changes in the NFL that made it much harder to build dominant dynasty teams more than it had to do with the loss of a franchise QB. The Washington Redskins were a dominating presence in the playoffs for the majority of the first Gibbs era, but the salary cap and rules changes in free agency made purchasing free agents a pretty unattractive way to build a team.

It may be the case that New England's window of opportunity is closing, but I am not sure that is the case. They have a fairly young team and are pretty unsentimental about replacing folks who no longer make the machine run. I think a MUCH stronger case could be made that Pittsburgh is nearing the end of the road with Rapistburgers injuries and so much of their defense getting old.

3-0. Just to be exact

The difference one season makes....

Going into this season it was a fairly non controversial argument to make that Peyton, Brady, Rodgers were 1a\b\c interchangeable bonafide elite quarterbacks.

Then the likes of Brees, Big Ben and Eli looking in on the outside. The latter two being more clutch then consistent you would argue.

now? Peyton may never be the same and Brady will be 35 come the start of next season.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

This is why winning Super Bowls is an utterly pointless stat for individual players.

I agree. However, I do strongly judge players based on how they perform individually in the Super Bowl.

The "Tom Brady lost his last two Super Bowls" stat isn't meaningful ...

To me it's more of a legacy issue. The reason Joe Montana is JOE MONTANA!!1! is because he went 4-and-0 in Super Bowls. Brady's still a darned good QB, but I think losing his last two (and not winning one in seven years -- that's the thing that amazed me) has dented his legacy. As I said, Brady is probably still a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But he's now 3-2 in Super Bowls, and he looks -- dare I say it -- mortal.

My meta point to my earlier post is that this might be the beginning of the end of the Patriots as the dominant team we all know and love (or hate). The most recent example of a team losing its franchise QB is the Colts, who might turn out to be OK in the end assuming Andrew Luck is the Second Coming.

A better example might be the 49ers. They had an amazing run for two decades with Montana and then Steve Young. But when Young got knocked out of the '99 season, the 49ers were pretty much irrelevant until this past year.

It does hurt Brady's "legacy", but the point is the whole idea of that "legacy" is pretty silly. Brady could very easily have zero rings with just a couple changes. Now, I completely agree with Legion that playing big when you have to is what makes you truly great--take Montana's 11 TD/0 INT stat line in the Super Bowl. Brady underthrew Gronkowski badly on that INT and, had he made a better throw, Welker doesn't have to do that jumping, twisting attempt to catch; failures at big moments will haunt him. The odd thing is that if Gronk catches that Hail Mary, Brady's legacy becomes greater, even though it would have had nothing to do with him in that case. The ball bounces right "he" wins, if it doesn't "his legacy" suffers.

Brady looks mortal? He's one year removed from an MVP season where he had a 36/4 TD/INT ratio. THIRTY SIX TO FOUR. This is "slipping"? This year he put up 39/12 with over 5,000 yards and the highest Y/A of his career (8.57). His arm more or less carried a team with an utterly abysmal defense to be within one minute of winning the big game; I don't know how mortal that really is. The Gronk and Welker passes were awful, but, other than that, it was a pretty solid game. Not great, just "solid", and, yes, as Legion said, you do need to be actively great in the big one to be spoken in the same breath as Joe Montana. Brady isn't in that class (nobody is), but he's still on a short list of all-time greats, because he's consistently played at a ludicrously high level for about a decade and has put his team in position time and time again to win.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The Gronk and Welker passes were awful, but, other than that, it was a pretty solid game.

The safety is also on him IMO.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Now, I completely agree with Legion that playing big when you have to is what makes you truly great--take Montana's 11 TD/0 INT stat line in the Super Bowl.

Between that, the catch, and Rice's 11 catches for 215 MVP performance are why I fell in love with the 49ers.

jowner wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The Gronk and Welker passes were awful, but, other than that, it was a pretty solid game.

The safety is also on him IMO.

Oh, God, yeah, how did I brain-fart on that one? Insanely bad play, one of the worst I've seen in a big game.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
jowner wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The Gronk and Welker passes were awful, but, other than that, it was a pretty solid game.

The safety is also on him IMO.

Oh, God, yeah, how did I brain-fart on that one? Insanely bad play, one of the worst I've seen in a big game.

and............... thats why I honestly didn't consider the game all that entertaining. Call me a stickler but I prefer when players actually make plays and not brain farts. Brady getting sacked in the endzone by Tuck making an amazing move >>>>> Brady throwing a free safety in very uncharacteristic fashion. Same goes for the drops. DB/LB tips the ball at the last second/strips the ball immediately on reception/lays a great hit that jars the ball loose >>>>>> Pro Bowl level receivers pooping their tights in the game that matters.

anyways going back to something relevant to next season. If I'm Manning and had to pick from the potential teams Miami honestly isn't that bad is it? Finished the season strong, some semblance of a defense and a stud receiver. Assuming they don't have to gut the team to get him is it really that far fetched to think that Miami could be a wildcard team assuming Manning can play at a fairly competitive level?

Where will Peyton play? MIA +250, WAS +300, IND +400, NYJ +500, ARI & DEN +2500, SF +4000, TEN & KC +5000 HOU +7500
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Brady looks mortal? He's one year removed from an MVP season where he had a 36/4 TD/INT ratio. THIRTY SIX TO FOUR. This is "slipping"? This year he put up 39/12 with over 5,000 yards and the highest Y/A of his career (8.57). His arm more or less carried a team with an utterly abysmal defense to be within one minute of winning the big game; I don't know how mortal that really is.

Again, I'll say that Brady is almost certainly a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

I'm also not arguing that he's slipping. I'm noting that at 34 he's closer to the end of his career than the beginning. If you're the Pats owner and GM, you need to start thinking about the future sooner than later.

But recall that Brady's legacy (maybe reputation is the better word here) is built in large part on the fact that he (a) has three Super Bowl rings, (b) two of those rings came in come-from-behind games and (c) one of those came in his second season (his first as a starter) against one of the best offenses in NFL history in a game that no one thought the Pats would win. It was also the first time a Super Bowl had come down to the very last play.

When I saw Brady had a minute and 80 yards between him and Ring No. 4 on Sunday, I didn't doubt for a second that he'd put the Pats on his shoulders (even if the left one hurt like hell) and carry them down the field. But he didn't. Not taking anything away from the Giants D, but I was surprised that he wasn't able to do it. I mean, that's who Tom Brady is: The guy who leads his team to victory in the last minute of the Super Bowl. And he had done it twice.

What I meant by Brady being mortal is that he wasn't superhuman like he had been.

The danger that a Brady-less Pats team will implode Indy style is a very remote one.

I think the exact opposite. Brady has been carrying this team on his shoulders for years. No name receivers, crappy defenses. Most years the defense looked statistically good is because Brady made the other team one dimensional because he scored so many points.

Absolutely they will miss Brady and the team will make a similar implosion when he leaves unless his replacement is somehow just as good as him. (then we know Belichek is in league with dark forces!)

Lets also be fair and note the shortened off season.

I am positive the effects on chemistry, and longevity were devastating.

Dammit. The Pats draft before the Ravens again. The stink of them taking Gronkowski and Hernandez the immediate picks before the Ravens got to pick still lingers with me.

karmajay wrote:

I think the exact opposite. Brady has been carrying this team on his shoulders for years. No name receivers, crappy defenses. Most years the defense looked statistically good is because Brady made the other team one dimensional because he scored so many points.

Absolutely they will miss Brady and the team will make a similar implosion when he leaves unless his replacement is somehow just as good as him. (then we know Belichek is in league with dark forces!)

A few years ago, I would have disagreed with you. New England drafted and built some powerful defenses.

Now, they are very much resembling Indianapolis in their sudden inability to build through the draft. The defensive players they've spent high draft picks on in the past few years:

* Ras-I Dowling (2nd, 2011) - IR after 2 games, too early to call
* Devin McCourty (1st, 2010) - Marginal starter
* Patrick Chung (2nd, 2009) - Marginal starter
* Ron Brace (2nd, 2009) - Bottom of the roster - 4 tackles in 2011
* Darius Butler (2nd, 2009) - Off the roster
* Jerod Mayo (1st, 2008) - Quality starter
* Terrence Wheatley (2nd, 2008) - Off the roster
* Brandon Meriweather (1st, 2007) - Off the roster

That's eight 1st and 2nd round picks in the last 5 drafts, which have yielded only one player I would consider a quality starter (and, to be fair, Mayo's probably better than just "quality starter"). McCourty isn't a lost cause yet, and Ras-I Dowling has yet to get his chance, so there still may be hope of salvaging this group a little more. But these represent picks taken in some years where the Patriots had really stockpiled picks, and the hit ratio is just too low for the spots that these players were taken.

The NFL Kickoff game is bound to be a good one for 2012, the NFL has a 5 in 8 chance of starting the year with a good matchup:

Giants 2012 Home Opponents: Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins, Packers, Saints, Buccaneers, Steelers, Browns

My guess is going to be Giants/Dallas, only time will tell.

I'd bet Packers or Saints, as they actually typically want to feature good teams on opening night.

*Legion* wrote:
karmajay wrote:

I think the exact opposite. Brady has been carrying this team on his shoulders for years. No name receivers, crappy defenses. Most years the defense looked statistically good is because Brady made the other team one dimensional because he scored so many points.

Absolutely they will miss Brady and the team will make a similar implosion when he leaves unless his replacement is somehow just as good as him. (then we know Belichek is in league with dark forces!)

A few years ago, I would have disagreed with you. New England drafted and built some powerful defenses.

Now, they are very much resembling Indianapolis in their sudden inability to build through the draft. The defensive players they've spent high draft picks on in the past few years:

* Ras-I Dowling (2nd, 2011) - IR after 2 games, too early to call
* Devin McCourty (1st, 2010) - Marginal starter
* Patrick Chung (2nd, 2009) - Marginal starter
* Ron Brace (2nd, 2009) - Bottom of the roster - 4 tackles in 2011
* Darius Butler (2nd, 2009) - Off the roster
* Jerod Mayo (1st, 2008) - Quality starter
* Terrence Wheatley (2nd, 2008) - Off the roster
* Brandon Meriweather (1st, 2007) - Off the roster

That's eight 1st and 2nd round picks in the last 5 drafts, which have yielded only one player I would consider a quality starter (and, to be fair, Mayo's probably better than just "quality starter"). McCourty isn't a lost cause yet, and Ras-I Dowling has yet to get his chance, so there still may be hope of salvaging this group a little more. But these represent picks taken in some years where the Patriots had really stockpiled picks, and the hit ratio is just too low for the spots that these players were taken.

Perhaps they miss Pioli. The Pats have bled talent from the management side for years and that's got to hurt. I don't even know who their OC was last year. Hell, I can't think of their GM off the top of my head. Perhaps they need a DC again.

The forehead ... lol

Jumping back... I think Chung is a better than marginal starter. It's no coincidence that the D got a bit better in the last week of the season when he came back.

McCourty is a a weird case. He was lights out last year and awful this year. Not sure what the difference is.

I think that if you had watched the first Pats/Giants (or the Pats/Steelers) game back in the fall and then someone told you that the Pats would be one or two plays away from beating the Giants in the Super Bowl you would tell the person who told you that that he was nuts and should be locked up.

And yet they came close enough for people to feel like they threw the game away.

I think they need some pieces, especially on the defense, but the team has been ludicrously good for more than 10 years in the salary-cap era, and they are not losing too much this year. So I don't think there is much to complain about.

NFL Network’s Michael Lombardi, who reiterated Thursday during an interview on “The B.S. Report” what he has previously reported: Manning can’t effectively throw.

“I think it’s unrealistic to assume (he can return). He can’t throw the ball,” Lombardi said. “I’ve talked to people who’ve caught the ball for him. He can’t throw the ball to his left. He can’t throw the ball across his body, because he doesn’t feel it. People who catch the ball for him say he doesn’t really have velocity on the ball yet.”

Miami dropped from 51:1 to 41:1 just on pure speculation that they are the Vegas front runners to get Manning.... who apparently cant throw to one side of the field.

Nerves are tricky.. its almost 2 years and my ex-wife who suffered nerve damage and had drop foot still isnt 100%... she has been rehabing for almost 15 months and she just now a few weeks ago was able to do a slow jog in sneakers.

psu_13 wrote:

Jumping back... I think Chung is a better than marginal starter. It's no coincidence that the D got a bit better in the last week of the season when he came back.

Just in response to the logic of that, I would say, sure, a marginal starter would improve a defense when the guys playing in his absence have been an undrafted rookie playing out of position, a special teams player, and a second-year undrafted player who was so bad that he got beat out by those other two guys who don't even play the position.

Think the current blackout policy is unfair? The one they had back in the 70s was so bad that it pissed off Richard Nixon. ARRROOOO!