NFL 2021: The preseasoning

I recently went through a giant box full of baseball and football cards left to me by my uncle when he passed a few years back. All the cards are from the early 70s. Unfortunately, that seems to have been a pretty big black hole for sports cards when it comes to value. The most valuable ones in the lot are some Mean Joe Greene and Terry Bradshaws. But even those aren't too valuable, especially in the condition they are in.

IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/RSC6jHf/20210719-1508202.jpg)

*Legion* wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Genuinely do not understand how sports card collecting has not had a 90s comics crash kind of implosion and left people holding huge piles of almost worthless cards.

I mean, it kinda did. When eBay came along and blew up the myth of scarcity for anything printed beyond a certain year, values of cards cratered. Some of those values have rebounded with time, but it took a couple decades. I remember Emmitt Smith rookie cards that I used to see in display cases for decent money being sold on eBay for single-digits during the late '00s.

Until a couple years ago, I had never even considered some of these cards might have regained any value. But like with the toy industry, everything has become a collectible, and it seems like sports cards have come back from the dead on the back of that (which, in turn, seems to have renewed interest in old cards).

I still have my box of "valuable" cards in my closet, mostly untouched for 25 years. Including the two autographed Joe Montana cards that I now know to have been auto-penned. And the black-and-white Bo Jackson in shoulder pads with a baseball bat.

It is the way of things.

A generation of boys (usually boys) grows up and approaches midlife. As they wrestle with their mortality, they turn to a sports car, or a new partner, or a boat or...Hey! This thing that I loved from my youth!

For Boomers, that was sports cards and comic books (see: 1990's).

For Gen X it was/is Magic: The Gathering.

For Millenials it's the Pokemans.

If it was popular/had some kind of cultural cache at a point in time, expect it to come back when that gen hits 35-50.

Would add that any market that exists for sports cards/collectibles is likely just the same diehards trading among themselves. I cannot believe that industry is growing new customers.

Paleocon wrote:

Perhaps I am too much of a Baltimore homer, but can someone explain to me how the Cowboys and the Chargers rank better than the Ravens at QB?

I swear, people can only underrate or overrate Dak, there's absolutely no placing him in any middle ground.

I'll say this about Dak vs. Lamar though: I would put Dak in more systems than I would put Lamar in. But I would choose to build my system around Lamar over Dak.

Herbert, I get what people are excited about, but we gotta see it for more than one year. Blake Bortles threw for 4000+ and 30+ TDs once too. Granted, Herbert was more accurate, but between Bortles and Wentz, I've become more skeptical about the big-arm big-body QB who has a surprising amount of success early.

For being the big, strong-arm guy, he mostly dwelled in the bottom third of depth of target and other similar metrics, putting him in the Tua, Teddy B, Dalton, Rivers neighborhood of passing depth, just one step above the Goff, Mullens, old man Brees names at the very bottom of those charts.

We'll see how he takes to an offense that asks more of him. Part of the reason his numbers were so impressive last year is because they were racked up on 595 pass attempts. He was 6th in passing yards but that drops to 19th in yards per attempt.

I see no problem with Dak being placed where he is. Or Lamar. It's a passing league, these are passing rankings, despite it saying "QB".

Rat Boy wrote:

Peyton and Eli Manning to do (alternative) MNF broadcasts. Do these Megacasts ESPN does actually get large numbers of people to watch the alternate channels?

Based on the college bowl show Peyton's doing with the untalented brother, this will not go well.

Top_Shelf wrote:

If it was popular/had some kind of cultural cache at a point in time, expect it to come back when that gen hits 35-50.

So did I miss the boat for selling my GI Joe aircraft carrier?

Still sitting in my parents' basement.

Stele wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

If it was popular/had some kind of cultural cache at a point in time, expect it to come back when that gen hits 35-50.

So did I miss the boat for selling my GI Joe aircraft carrier?

Still sitting in my parents' basement.

Only if you're looking to make Mario 64 money with it.

Sorry, back to NFL talk in July.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
Stele wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

If it was popular/had some kind of cultural cache at a point in time, expect it to come back when that gen hits 35-50.

So did I miss the boat for selling my GI Joe aircraft carrier?

Still sitting in my parents' basement.

Only if you're looking to make Mario 64 money with it.

Sorry, back to NFL talk in July.

Actually GI Joes are stupid popular right now and worth a pretty penny. I'd look into selling it.

Frankly, after quarantine/lockdown I'd probably sell everything you have that's old and you want to get rid of as prices jumped on pretty much everything, especially cards and older Pokemon cards in particular.

More argument fodder: Bill Barnwell's ranking of offensive weaponry.

This is basically who has the best (and worst) collection of WRs, RBs and TE. QB, O-lines and scheme doesn't count in this exercise. More precisely, it's an attempt to measure how well (or badly) teams have surrounded their QB with talent.

Top 10:
1. Bucs
2. Cowboys
3. Titans
4. Browns
5. Vikings
6. Chiefs
7. Panthers!!
8. Seahawks
9. Bills
10. Rams

Others: Packers at 11, Niners at 12, Ravens at 14, Jags at 25.

Bottom five: Colts, Eagles, Jets, Lions, Texans

As far as the Panthers go, this ranking is about right. CMC is an elite dual-thread RB. DJ Moore is terrific. Robby Anderson is pretty good, too. I think they'll regret giving up Curtis Samuel, but Terrace Marshall has star potential, and Carolina picked up David Moore from Seattle.

Of course, the reasons the Panthers were so bad last year (and probably will be again this year): the QB is bad, the O-line is a collection of guys and the defense is very much a work in progress.

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

garion333 wrote:

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

Is it paywalled? I don't subscribe to ESPN+ (lol) and I can see the whole article.

Either way, try this ESPN Australia link.
For whatever reason, I've found they don't paywall ESPN Aussie.

Cam Akers tore his Achilles. See ya next year, bruiser.

Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

Is it paywalled? I don't subscribe to ESPN+ (lol) and I can see the whole article.

Either way, try this ESPN Australia link.
For whatever reason, I've found they don't paywall ESPN Aussie.

That didn't work either.

My guess is you have a cable subscription? I don't. It's no big deal, Barnwell sucks now

Spoiler:

because I can't read him

garion333 wrote:
Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

Is it paywalled? I don't subscribe to ESPN+ (lol) and I can see the whole article.

Either way, try this ESPN Australia link.
For whatever reason, I've found they don't paywall ESPN Aussie.

That didn't work either.

My guess is you have a cable subscription? I don't. It's no big deal, Barnwell sucks now

Spoiler:

because I can't read him

It probably gets confused by my Canadian ISP.

Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

Is it paywalled? I don't subscribe to ESPN+ (lol) and I can see the whole article.

Either way, try this ESPN Australia link.
For whatever reason, I've found they don't paywall ESPN Aussie.

That didn't work either.

My guess is you have a cable subscription? I don't. It's no big deal, Barnwell sucks now

Spoiler:

because I can't read him

It probably gets confused by my Canadian ISP.

It's not paywalled for me either in Canada. Because we like hockey not football!

Surprised that the ESPN click bait articles are paywalled. I guess related ads are not $$$ enough but ya I wouldn't pay for made up rankings. Don't other analytical sites do a much better job?

Yeah, I'm not worried, I read enough as it is and Barnwell truly isn't terribly interesting anymore. I'm glad he's happy where he is though.

Enix wrote:

More argument fodder: Bill Barnwell's ranking of offensive weaponry.

This is basically who has the best (and worst) collection of WRs, RBs and TE. QB, O-lines and scheme doesn't count in this exercise. More precisely, it's an attempt to measure how well (or badly) teams have surrounded their QB with players who are perceived as good.

Top 10:
1. Bucs
2. Cowboys
3. Titans
4. Browns
5. Vikings
6. Chiefs
7. Panthers!!
8. Seahawks
9. Bills
10. Rams

Others: Packers at 11, Niners at 12, Ravens at 14, Jags at 25.

Was this ranking based on 1/3 for good TE, 1/3 for good WR, 1/3 for good running back? Because Fat Zeke apparently would be what puts the Cowboys as 2 and Stone Hands Slower than a Boulder Henry makes the Titans 3. As a "running backs are immensely talented but don't matter at all" believer I'd punt running backs from the conversation (which conveniently PFF has just release their NFL Receiving Corps ranks):

1. Bucs
2. Cowboys
3. Chiefs
4. Bills
5. Titans
6. Vikings
7. Broncos
8. Niners
9. Rams
10. Dolphins
11. Seahawks
12. Giants
13. Bengals
14. Browns
15. Packers

What I take from this is:

  • Kelce and Hill are underrated (still)
  • Julio Jones is overrated (he leads the league in YPRR each year precisely because he's never on the field)
  • Drew Lock is probably even worse than Sam Darnold. RIP John Elway
  • Niners are underrated and will probably run away with their division
  • Dolphins could be one of the top teams in football IF Tua can get it together
  • DK Metcalf is the perfect marketing tool and probably a bit overrated because he is a physical marvel
  • If OBJ can make a comeback can the Chiefs hang within 10 of the Browns?
Vector wrote:

It probably gets confused by my Canadian ISP.

"He only gets like 3 megabytes a month, just give him the article."

staygold wrote:

Kelce and Hill are underrated (still)

I disagree here since they made it to #3 on the strength of the duo.

staygold wrote:

If OBJ can make a comeback can the Chiefs hang within 10 of the Browns?

OBJ isn't the issue with the Browns, it's the QB. OBJ is an intuitive guy who has good feel for getting open coupled with a QB who looks for folks to be in particular spots. It's one of the worst matchups in the league. Maybe they'll see eye-to-eye this season, but I doubt it.

Enix wrote:

Jags at 25.

I don't think the Jags will be down at 25 come the end of the year. There's a lot of good weapons there, who have just been waiting for quarterback play.

The one year Chark got anything resembling competent QB play - Minshew's season - he landed in the Pro Bowl.

Laviska Shenault is pretty much on every fantasy player's radar. He would have gotten a lot more attention last year in a functional passing offense. Managed 600 yards in the DOA Jags pass attack last year, spread pretty evenly across the whole season. Productive weapon player just waiting for a workload. He would have made a hell of a 49er.

Marvin Jones as a 3rd option is pretty great, well above plenty of other teams' #3 WRs.

James Robinson proved himself a workhorse RB, and now Travis Etienne is there to be the "lightning" RB and slot WR combo.

The one place where the Jags still have a void is TE. And no, don't mention his name.

The group still needs to "prove it" a bit, so you can only rank them so high, but I'd bet good money they rank higher than 25th as long as Trevor Lawrence doesn't completely implode (and assuming the coaching staff doesn't completely implode, which is the bigger "if").

IMAGE(https://media.gq.com/photos/55831a3b3655c24c6c95a831/4:3/w_300,h_225,c_limit/sports-2012-09-tim-tebow-tim-tebow-article-01.jpg)

staygold wrote:

DK Metcalf is the perfect marketing tool and probably a bit overrated because he is a physical marvel

Metcalf is basically a "do one thing and do it well" kind of player. He's not going to beat anyone with quick in-breaking routes. He's going to run the vertical route tree. He's so productive at it, though, that I have a hard time using a word like "overrated".

God damn it Garion.

staygold wrote:
Enix wrote:

More argument fodder: Bill Barnwell's ranking of offensive weaponry.

...

Was this ranking based on 1/3 for good TE, 1/3 for good WR, 1/3 for good running back?

Barnwell didn't make his formula public but said he weighted WRs higher than RBs and TEs. (He didn't say whether RBs and TEs were weighted the same or differently.)

In any case, Barnwell vs PFF makes for some interesting comparisons. Take Carolina, for instance -- 7th in offensive talent, 21st in receiving corps. CMC is the obvious difference here. But I don't know why PFF doesn't account for him in its rankings -- he caught 80 passes his first season and 100+ in his next two.

Anyway, all of these rankings are garbage. It's just something to do until training campus open. Besides, past performance doesn't predict future results except in the case of Sam Darnold, who's terrible.

PFF's receiver rankings put the Jags at 24 but with the first sentence of, "If looking just at the receivers, the Jaguars have the potential to take a big jump up this list."

Then they point out the TE issue, and don't mention him by name OR by shirtless photo, which I appreciate.

They said "the Jaguars would be wise to lean on more three and four wide receiver sets", which I 100% agree with, especially if the plan for Etienne is as slot WR-centric as his rookie camp suggested. Spreading the field with Chark and Jones outside, and Shenault and Etienne inside, should be the team's primary offensive approach. You know, all the kind of offensive looks that would never fly if Tom Coughlin was still in the building.

*Legion* wrote:

Then they point out the TE issue, and don't mention Him by name OR by shirtless photo, which I appreciate.

FTFY

Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Stupid paywall. I refuse to pay ESPN for online content. Sorry, ESPN.

Is it paywalled? I don't subscribe to ESPN+ (lol) and I can see the whole article.

Either way, try this ESPN Australia link.
For whatever reason, I've found they don't paywall ESPN Aussie.

Huh, well look at that. I switched my vpn to australia and I can see the article now, lol.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Then they point out the TE issue, and don't mention Him by name OR by shirtless photo, which I appreciate.

FTFY

It's yet to be disproven to me that the reason Tebow wanted to be a Jaguar so bad is because he thinks Trevor Lawrence is actually Jesus.

Damn. Well-respected coach who came up on the ‘90s 49ers staff, and has coached on many of the Bill Walsh tree branches (particularly in that Shanahan, Kubiak, Alex Gibbs neighborhood). Real easy to see why he was tapped to join the younger LaFleur’s offensive staff.