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

*Legion* wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

because John Elway is indeed a giant douche and treated Tebow like garbage.

In exactly what way did Elway treat Tebow "like garbage"?

By treating him like a a mediocre QB that they needed to improve on, and not the anointed holy son?

No, because everything Elway does is douchey.

AnimeJ wrote:

Pat Robertson aside, I can't help but think that I'd love to see Manning out another season, just to spite Elway, because John Elway is indeed a giant douche and treated Tebow like garbage. Once that happens, and Elway is eating crow by the wheelbarrow full, Manning can get traded somewhere else and have a miraculous recovery capped with a Super Bowl ring.

So, in other words ... you agree with Pat Robertson.

The Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys have filed a complaint against the NFL and the players union to have salary cap penalties totaling $46 million overturned, reports SI.com.

From the SI Article

The teams are expected to base their claim -- likely to Special Master Stephen Burbank -- on two things: one, the Management Council approved the contracts; and two, how could they be at fault when there was nothing in writing that prohibited them from structuring contracts as they did?

You know, as much as Danny boy is killing the skins, this was a joke of a penalty.

Everyone knew it was an uncapped year. If the poorer teams didn't want this to happen, then they should have made the agreement with the players before this happened. And to slap the two richest teams in NFL for violating a "wink wink nudge nudge" order with nothing in writing AND the NFL approving the contracts that year is a joke.

I'm willing to meet you halfway. Let's forgive the Redskins, but not the Cowboys.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I'm willing to meet you halfway. Let's forgive the Redskins, but not the Cowboys.

As a 49ers fan, that sounds fair.

*Legion* wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

because John Elway is indeed a giant douche and treated Tebow like garbage.

In exactly what way did Elway treat Tebow "like garbage"?

By treating him like a a mediocre QB that they needed to improve on, and not the anointed holy son?

Mediocre or not, the team did better with Tebow at the helm than without; 7-4 vs 1 and 4 is a damn big difference. Despite that, Elway did nothing but sh*t-talk him to the media like the giant douche he is. I'm not saying Tebow is a good QB(he's not) or that he's a football paraiah(he's not), but he deserved a damn sight better from Denver than what Elway gave him.

AnimeJ wrote:

Mediocre or not, the team did better with Tebow at the helm than without; 7-4 vs 1 and 4 is a damn big difference.

You could just as easily attribute that to the defense as much as Tebow. Under Orton, the Denver defense allowed 28.0 pts/game. When Tebow played, they tightened it up to 22 pts/game. Orton got better production from the offense (21.0 pts/game) than Tebow did (18.5 pts/game).

I don't think Elway did anything wrong with Tebow. I would have been just as eager to get rid of him and the circus that he brings as Elway was.

IMO, the biggest mistake was drafting him in the first place.

Jeff-66 wrote:

IMO, the biggest mistake was drafting him in the first place.

Bingo Bango. What a waste of a first round pick.

Leroyog wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

IMO, the biggest mistake was drafting him in the first place.

Bingo Bango. What a waste of a first round pick.

Technically it was a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick.

Jeff-66 wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

Mediocre or not, the team did better with Tebow at the helm than without; 7-4 vs 1 and 4 is a damn big difference.

You could just as easily attribute that to the defense as much as Tebow. Under Orton, the Denver defense allowed 28.0 pts/game. When Tebow played, they tightened it up to 22 pts/game. Orton got better production from the offense (21.0 pts/game) than Tebow did (18.5 pts/game).

This. The offense performed better under Orton. The reason Tebow "won" is that the defense in Denver got significantly better as the season went on, even though the offense was so much poorer that they were on the field for more drives - approximately 1.5 more drives per game.

garion333 wrote:
Leroyog wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

IMO, the biggest mistake was drafting him in the first place.

Bingo Bango. What a waste of a first round pick.

Technically it was a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick.

But none of that was Tebow's fault; if anything, Elway is purely to blame for that screw-up.

As for production, who's to say that Orton's performance wouldn't have suffered against opposing defenses that also improved steadily throughout the year? I don't think anyone will argue against that; defensive numbers went up across the board as the season wore on last year. If there wasn't faith in Tebow to carry the team, then he should have been benched for Orton. But that's not the case; Denver let him go for what was clearly sub-par performance, which looking at the remainder of the season in KC, he didn't improve much there, so *they* let him go.

Overall, Denver may not have had many options. But the option they went with at least got them into the playoffs, which is a damn sight better than Orton would have got them, and they repaid that with a whole metric ton of bullsh*t.

AnimeJ wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Leroyog wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

IMO, the biggest mistake was drafting him in the first place.

Bingo Bango. What a waste of a first round pick.

Technically it was a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick.

But none of that was Tebow's fault; if anything, Elway is purely to blame for that screw-up.

As for production, who's to say that Orton's performance wouldn't have suffered against opposing defenses that also improved steadily throughout the year? I don't think anyone will argue against that; defensive numbers went up across the board as the season wore on last year. If there wasn't faith in Tebow to carry the team, then he should have been benched for Orton. But that's not the case; Denver let him go for what was clearly sub-par performance, which looking at the remainder of the season in KC, he didn't improve much there, so *they* let him go.

Overall, Denver may not have had many options. But the option they went with at least got them into the playoffs, which is a damn sight better than Orton would have got them, and they repaid that with a whole metric ton of bullsh*t.

Josh McDoucheface is the one who drafted Tebow, not Elway.

Good teams don't focus on whose fault or even circumstances that lead to wins or losses..they evaluate players on performance and upside. Team chemistry as well as a players intangibles are certainly under consideration as well as the players fit in a team system(s)

Tebow doesn't fit many teams desires..

The Broncos signed Manning and got a 4th (?) rounder for a QB everyone knew they wanted to get rid of. I think Elway did pretty well for the Broncos, which is his job.

Maybe he is a douche, but he certainly didn't lie to or make him think he was the future when Elway as GM had assessed otherwise. Seems like he was upfront with him, if anything.

AnimeJ wrote:

As for production, who's to say that Orton's performance wouldn't have suffered against opposing defenses that also improved steadily throughout the year?

Nobody is pointing to Kyle Orton as having been good. The counterargument to Tebow not being good isn't that Orton is. The point is that Tebow represented a negative change in offensive production, and the thing that made Denver win was a significant improvement in defensive production.

Had Kyle Orton remained under center, maybe his production would have dropped too. The point would remain the same: the defense began holding opposing teams' scoring so low that Denver could win with rather pathetic offensive output.

firesloth wrote:

Maybe he is a douche, but he certainly didn't lie to or make him think he was the future when Elway as GM had assessed otherwise. Seems like he was upfront with him, if anything.

This. Fans pressed Elway to try and commit to Tebow in the long-term, and he resisted that as much as he could. Now that he's traded Tebow away, fans point to the vaguely-committal things they pressured Elway into saying and call him a liar.

It's amazing how much special treatment Tebow gets and yet failing to give him enough special treatment is some sort of slap in the face. He's a guy that most teams see as a backup QB. He should be treated like, well, a Chad Henne. He gets much better than that from everyone, Elway included.

Content with what the Packers have done. Finley meant not much more cap flexibility but still managed to fill Wells spot with Saturday. Got 2 more fourth rounders as compensation i'm assuming for Flynn.

I assume the 2012 game plan is try and draft well and not choke hard come playoffs.

*Legion* wrote:

It's amazing how much special treatment Tebow gets and yet failing to give him enough special treatment is some sort of slap in the face. He's a guy that most teams see as a backup QB. He should be treated like, well, a Chad Henne. He gets much better than that from everyone, Elway included.

I wouldn't even see him as a backup. I see him as an H-back, fullback type, who can sort of throw if you're in a desperate situation and both your #1 and #2 QB's are injured. Kind of like, 'uh-oh, we're down to our 3rd string QB -- well he used to throw the ball in high school, it's better than putting a WR or punter behind center".

John Fox wrote:

You do whatever the hell it takes. I mean, what the hell? You don't get points for style in this league. Let me tell you something: My man is really good in this offense. You know what I mean?

If we were trying to run a regular offense, he [Tebow] would be screwed

See, I think there's a damn good reason Denver created that crazy spread option offense for Tebow. They had no choice.

jowner wrote:

Content with what the Packers have done. Finley meant not much more cap flexibility but still managed to fill Wells spot with Saturday. Got 2 more fourth rounders as compensation i'm assuming for Flynn.

No, compensatory picks are awarded for what teams lost last year. And an individual player lost can only net you one compensatory pick - the number of picks you get is the number of free agents lost minus the number of free agents signed, up to a maximum of 4. The value of the picks is determined by the value of the players lost versus the value of those signed, put into some complicated formula.

The Packers lost 5 free agents and signed 0 last offseason.

One 4th round pick was for losing Cullen Jenkins, the other for Daryn Colledge.

The Packers go into this draft with 12 picks - their regular host of rounds 1 through 7, two additional compensatory selections at the end of round 4, two compensatory selections at the end of round 7, and the Jets' 7th round selection from the Caleb Schlauderaff trade.

*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Content with what the Packers have done. Finley meant not much more cap flexibility but still managed to fill Wells spot with Saturday. Got 2 more fourth rounders as compensation i'm assuming for Flynn.

No, compensatory picks are awarded for what teams lost last year. And an individual player lost can only net you one compensatory pick - the number of picks you get is the number of free agents lost minus the number of free agents signed, up to a maximum of 4. The value of the picks is determined by the value of the players lost versus the value of those signed, put into some complicated formula.

The Packers lost 5 free agents and signed 0 last offseason.

One 4th round pick was for losing Cullen Jenkins, the other for Daryn Colledge.

The Packers go into this draft with 12 picks - their regular host of rounds 1 through 7, two additional compensatory selections at the end of round 4, two compensatory selections at the end of round 7, and the Jets' 7th round selection from the Caleb Schlauderaff trade.

ahhh k thx for clearing that up. The 'insiders' are good at reporting on twitter whats going on but lacking serious detail. Means Packers will be due some more picks in next years draft when they do the Flynn + Wells vs Saturday math.

jowner, go read everything that Vic Ketchmann posts to Packers.com, most especially the "Ask Vic" stuff. He does an amazing job of explaining all these details. We're lucky to have him writing for the Pack, and you're honestly doing yourself a disservice by not reading him.

Yea saw his article yesterday... Pops up in my twitter by following the packers feed. Football outsiders had a piece about Indys O line also after one of their guys slagged the Saturday signing.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/wor...

Hopefully there's a diamond in the rough the packers brass like because they definitely have the draft pick currency to make some moves.

Dallas at NY Giants, Wednesday, September 5th. Get EXCITED!!!!!!!!

As a Giants fan, it's always nice to start the year off with a win

IMAGE(http://sportige.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eli-Manning.jpg)

Okay, some quick rule change stuff.

Refs will still do replays under the hood. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed in the booth, and if there's a reason to the ref will take a look.

Overtime rules for all games now match the way playoff games are handled.

Defenseless players now include crackback blocks. I believe this was instituted the day after Hines Ward retired and we're just hearing about it now.

Also, the 49ers picked up Brandon Jacobs. Will he still run his mouth constantly?

garion333 wrote:

Refs will still do replays under the hood. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed in the booth, and if there's a reason to the ref will take a look.

Why are they so stubborn? Just give in and let the booth review like in college. Stop all the challenge flag nonsense. If scoring plays are reviewed, but "almost scoring" plays aren't then coaches still have to waste a flag. It almost begs the refs to call plays a score when they are not for a free replay. Same with turnovers. Let it be a fumble and you can go back and review it. Call it dead and the play is over. Ugh.

garion333 wrote:

Overtime rules for all games now match the way playoff games are handled.

Thank you. Different rules were stupid to start with.

I'm OK with refs calling questionable or close calls as turnovers or scores on the field and then letting the review process confirm or overturn those calls. Those are all big, exciting plays to watch. That policy will probably mean a few close calls will get made that perhaps wouldn't have been otherwise, and more big plays means a bigger audience and we know that's what Goodell wants.
I do think the review needs to be the responsibility of a booth official who's got nothing invested in the call. It also provides a convenient "out" for officials on the field when it comes to the heated discussions that almost always follow a review. They can say "Hey, the guy looked and this is what he saw. I had nothing to do with it." It would also get rid of the ridiculous circus that surrounds the ref heading over to the monitor which always seems to be at the opposite side of the field.

The reason they want to keep the monitor is that they have now started having commercial breaks for monitor reviews. That extra wasted time in a ref walking over and going under the hood is extra $$$ coming in from ads.

Doing it upstairs might be too efficient and not enough time for a break.

Oh, they'd still break for commercial. No doubt about that.

I think the simple answer is that the refs are the experts and in control of the game.

Stele wrote:

The reason they want to keep the monitor is that they have now started having commercial breaks for monitor reviews. That extra wasted time in a ref walking over and going under the hood is extra $$$ coming in from ads.

Doing it upstairs might be too efficient and not enough time for a break.

I don't see how this can coexist with the games needing to have a precise stopping time, which is allegedly why they had such sh*tty overtime rules in the first place. Are they now okay with games going past their time slots? Because otherwise, the amount of time available for commercials is set regardless of reviews.

Now, if you're saying that without reviews the games would end early, and people would tune out before the end of the time slot, I guess I can see that.

Oh man, I can get behind all of these possible rules changes:

1. Moving the trade deadline from Week Six to Week Eight.

2. Increasing the offseason and training camp roster limit from 80 to 90.

3. Allowing one roster exemption per week for a player who’s inactive with a concussion.

4. Allowing a player who’s put on injured reserve early in the season to return to the field after eight weeks, rather than having all players on injured reserve automatically out for the season.

I'm a bit lukewarm with #4, but I'd be okay with all of these.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Stele wrote:

The reason they want to keep the monitor is that they have now started having commercial breaks for monitor reviews. That extra wasted time in a ref walking over and going under the hood is extra $$$ coming in from ads.

Doing it upstairs might be too efficient and not enough time for a break.

I don't see how this can coexist with the games needing to have a precise stopping time, which is allegedly why they had such sh*tty overtime rules in the first place. Are they now okay with games going past their time slots? Because otherwise, the amount of time available for commercials is set regardless of reviews.

Now, if you're saying that without reviews the games would end early, and people would tune out before the end of the time slot, I guess I can see that.

I don't know how it works out. I just know that all this season when watching games they take a commercial break for reviews under the hood now.