|
CyberPingu posted:I mean the likely scenario is that Dallas' O Line falls apart before that. Enh... maybe. Offensive linemen can play at a high level for much longer than running backs (well into 33-35 range), so they have longer shelf-lives. Plus, the Cowboys' line outside of Doug Free (33) is still pretty young--Smith is 26, Frederick is 25, Martin is 26, Collins is 23, and Ron Leary--who's probably leaving--is 27. The core guys (Smith/Frederick/Martin) should all still be playing at a high level when Zeke hits 30.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Chir, I think you're projecting your own views on the Cowboys. You're arguing that a team that just spent the 4th overall pick on a running back won't invest in the running back position. I don't think you would have made the Zeke pick, and I don't think the Cowboys see eye to eye with you about it. Man you were wrong about this back in 2014 when they let Murray walk and you're still wrong now. The Cowboys took the best player on the board at their pick and that happened to be a Running Back. That doesn't mean they're going to keep him for the next 10 years and pay him $15M per year Yeah, it's not the pick I'd have made, but that also doesn't mean they're aching to pay him big money, especially when Prescott will be due the same year TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:^^--in Volkerball's defense you have been one of the loudest 'don't draft running backs high' guys unless I'm mixing you up with someone else I definitely think it's a mistake to draft a RB that high, but the reason I wouldn't have drafted Zeke has as much to do with "our defense was a mess and we just got a thousand-yard season out of Darren McFadden" as it did "Zeke is a phenomenal player." Our success hinged entirely on Romo (and later Prescott), not our running back situation. e: I wanted Ramsey or Bosa, fwiw (obv Bosa didn't fall to us) JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Oh hai it's me. At the same time, Volk was arguing that it was a massive mistake to let go of a guy that had just won the rushing title and that the Cowboys were going to spend to keep Murray, when they clearly didn't think it was worth more than 4 years/$16M. I see his point in that the Cowboys felt it was OK to invest a draft pick in Running Back, but there's clearly a difference (to them anyways) between draft capital and money/cap space, and while the Cowboys may be fine investing a draft pick in a running back if the player is good enough, they clearly aren't interested in paying market value for a running back when it comes to shelling out cash. And remember, Jerry Jones didn't want to pay Emmitt Smith either until he was forced to after a few bad losses. Chichevache posted:In 2012 a 3rd round rookie QB made the pro-bowl and in 2016 a 4th round rookie QB did, so I guess QB is a fungible position! Really? TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There is no difference. It's all a finite amount of capital you have available to spend to make the team better. And a 4th overall pick costs a fuckload more than a 7 AAV contract. If you gently caress up on a 7 AAV contract, it sucks, but you can still be competitive. You gently caress up the 4th overall pick, and it can set your franchise back years. I didn't say the Cowboys WOULD resign Murray, just that it would serve them well to pay him. And it would've. Demarco would probably still be killing it behind that line, and you could've had Bosa on the cheap. They didn't have the cap space to do that though, so they spent a high draft pick that they did have available instead. Had the roles been reversed, and they had traded the 4th overall pick away and they had a bunch of cap space available, do you honestly believe they still would've let Murray walk? Don't be silly. A team that drafts a player top 5 clearly values that players position. There's a huge difference. You can have a shitload of 4th overall draft picks on your roster, but you run out of cap space real quick paying market value for players. You're overestimating how bad a whiff on the #4 pick actually is--if whiffing on a 4th overall pick was actually that bad for anything but the QB position, then teams that didn't even get a 4th overall pick would be hosed. But the Patriots haven't had a high draft pick in years and have had to forfeit multiple first round picks due to cheating and it hasn't exactly set them back. The damage from a bad contract prevents you from re-signing your good players and picking up free agents you need. Even good teams whiff on draft picks from time to time. And yeah, letting Murray walk was the right deal. Remind me again of how great Murray was on the Eagles? Exactly how much of a difference would he have made after Romo got hurt? He'd have been better than Randle, but how many more yards was he going to put up than say, DMC? He missed games due to injury (a common occurrence in his career)--are we not counting those? I don't get your weird logic here, that they'd have somehow kept Murray by knowing two years in advance that they'd have the #4 pick? Letting Murray walk happened way before they ever got that pick. And letting Murray walk meant having money to re-sign other key players from the 2014 squad. Admittedly some of that money went to noted shitbag Greg Hardy, but from a "is the team better standpoint," I have to begrudgingly admit that it looked like a good move on paper at the time. The defense is the reason the Cowboys couldn't close in 2014--even if Dez's catch had gone for a TD, the Packers probably would have come back and scored a FG on our defense afterward. The Cowboys needed more help on defense than they did in the running game. You keep making the case that we needed Murray and were stupid to let him go and it's hard to take seriously when Darren McFadden ended up 4th in the league in total rushing yards after playing only 10 games of Romo-less football. Murray's a good player, but he's not some special talent--he struggled when he had to play in a different system behind a worse line, and he looked good when he got to play behind a good line again in Tennessee, though again it's not like 1300 yards on 290 attempts and 4.4 ypc is some amazing performance that's going to make me think it was a mistake. Also no I'm pretty sure keeping Murray wouldn't have given us Bosa, given that we picked after he was taken by the Chargers AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont understand how they are still in cap hell. They have money invested in Romo, Dez, Smith, Frederick, Free, Carr, and...? Witten? Lee? Romo's contract is massive right now because they've kicked that can down the road a couple of times. Witten's also got a large contract, but they can restructure that and extend him 2 years to make some extra room and lock him up through retirement. Romo's cap hit is like $25M right now and $25.5M next year. They restructured his contract in 2014 and 2015 to create room. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you but this is really disingenuous Yeah, I agree that the Eagles were completely stupid about using him. But it wasn't just that the Titans used him correctly (though I agree that was a factor); they also have a good line. And while he got a lot of yards, he also had a shitload of carries. He ended up 14th in ypa and tied for 24th in rushes of 20+ yards. The dude's good, but like I said two years ago: He's a Marion Barber, not an Emmitt Smith. Gumbel2Gumbel posted:He has a lot of bad opinions in general, such as disliking the Patriots and the Eagles. no but for reals gently caress both of those teams
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Due to year to year volatility at the position no kicker could ever be worth it. And even then, he'd have to be so astronomically better than even the next best kicker that it'd be worth taking him over another position of need. Kickers in the NFL have improved substantially voer time, and keep getting better. Your hypothetical zen master might just be the first of many, until the NFL changes the rules to make kicking less reliable. troofs posted:A theoretical kicker that was over 90% from 60+ yards out would be well worth a first. If you had a guy who was money from that distance it would be a huge advantage. If your offense was functional at all you would barely punt. The idea that you'd ever be justified taking a kicker in the top 10, or that one would ever actually be "the best player available" is completely loving bonkers, but you've raised an interesting math problem. What kind of 60+ yard accuracy are we talking here? 75%? Would this change your strategy at midfield, where you stop trying to get a first down if you know you can kick a 65-yard field goal? Even if you could kick from 60+ yards out, you're only scoring 3 points on a drive that probably lasted at most, a minute or two, since you probably only got a couple of first downs. NFL teams usually average around 10 drives per game, so if your offense was poo poo (very possible because your team drafted a kicker #4 overall and was bad enough to be drafting 4th) and you just stalled out and kicked a field goal every time, you're looking at 30 points with 100% accuracy, or 21-24 points with 75% accuracy. That's not bad, but it's only league average for 2016 in terms of team points per game (30 is close to the top, though). By comparison though, your opponent only needs to score 3-4 touchdowns on their 10 drives to match that, and about one in four or one in five of those (2-3 per game) will probably be coming from inside your 40, unless your kicker has 100% accuracy from 60+ yards out. So you're going to want to go for touchdowns eventually. So you *might* kick more field goals in the 60-70 yard range, but would it actually be better to kick a field goal on 4th-and-1 from the 50 yard line than to go for it or attempt to bury the opponent with a punt? You're basically talking about increasing the "Field goal" area of this chart, and primarily eating from the "punt" section, where you'd replace more punts at midfield with field goals, and a few "go for it" instances:  My guess is that if you had this dude, overall you'd win a higher percentage of close games, since you'd have the ability to hit more field goals from further out. Between 2002 and 2014, about 23% of games were decided by 3 points or fewer, but a chunk of those already involve the winning team kicking in the final minutes of the game. Charitably, I'd reason that your superkicker may win you about 1 extra game per season over an average kicker. Less, if your team is so poo poo that kicking field goals won't keep you in the game, or if your team is so good that you don't need to kick last-second field goals to win very often. But again, you drafted fourth overall and spent the pick on a kicker, so you're probably the kind of team that loses by 4+ points pretty often.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
troofs posted:Yeah, it's pretty much never going to be worth it. Even if you had a bionic kicker available to draft super high you'd basically always rather draft players to theoretically fix your team's other problems (probably offense since you're kicking from so far out all the time) rather than taking the kicker who'll let you cash in on all your bad drives. It's possible, but you've got to remember that there's a significant number of cases where you are better off pinning your opponent inside the 10 than scoring 3 points
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I'm struggling to think of one CyberPingu posted:I really cant think of any... They all happen late in the game and tend to involve situations where kicking a field goal would put you up by an "odd" score. Kalli mentioned one-when you're up by 9-10, you don't get much out of going up 12-13, since the opponent's game plan doesn't change--you're better off forcing the opponent to go further to score. And although it seems counter-intuitive, there was an analysis done on this a while back that I don't have on hand that made a compelling case that you were better off being up 3 points at the end of a game than 4, 5, or 6 points. In part because when you're up by 3, your opponents tend to play for the field goal (and a tie), but if they're down 4/5/6, they go for the TD, which results in a win on their end no matter what (if they get it), and their likelihood of getting the TD increases because they suddenly start playing 4-down football. So oddly and controversially, teams may better off pinning an opponent at the 1 when they're up by 3 than giving them the ball at the 25+* down 6 points. *although I should point out that teams also try to return kickoffs waaaay too often, which hurts their field position Raku posted:Don't forget that if you have an amazing kicker like that you could call fair catch kicks and instantly score uncontested whenever you want to. Yeah but I'm not sure your defense would appreciate your 0-second offensive drives Volkerball posted:The funny thing about kickers is that the growth at the position has been so limited. All the players in the league are bigger, faster, and stronger, and the game has changed significantly because of it. But the longest field goal in NFL history today is only one yard further than what the longest field goal in NFL history was nearly 50 years ago. Kickers are constantly getting more accurate, but it's possible we may not see a 70 yard field goal in our lifetimes if current trends continue Part of this is also that coaches just don't attempt 70-yard field goals. If it's not something you have to do ever, and you don't practice the poo poo out of it, you're not going to get good at it. And since you aren't good at it (and since there's a lot of upside to trying to get across mid-field), coaches don't want to try it. Also the risk of a short FG getting returned for a score is pretty high, given that you don't have your coverage unit on the field. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I wrote the argument for a punt when you could kick a FG so now I will reveal my hypocritical nature and say coaches are extremely conservative, and will play for the tie when they only need a FG instead of making the riskier plays you need to when you need a touchdown. Yeah I mean, we agree--the only reason it's better to be up by 3 than by 6 (or up 9 instead of 12) is because NFL coaches play as conservatively as they can, so when you're up 3 they're playing for a tie and not nearly as dangerous as when they're playing for a TD/win. Because even if they hit the FG, you still have a 50%+ chance of winning the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Intruder posted:If you can't protect a 2 TD lead with less than two minutes to go why would you expect to protect a TD and FG lead I was writing up an explanation, but I can't tell if you agree or not based on this The argument boils down to how coaches *actually* play when they only need a FG, versus how they *should* play--they don't go HAM until the offense "bogs down" but instead get close to "FG range" (another common misconception), then get real conservative. Jason Garrett is the loving master of this move, btw One thing to remember is that if you give up a FG while you're up 3 at the end of the game, you still have a roughly 50/50 shot at winning, but if you give up a TD down 6, the game is basically over unless you're up against the Bucs This is from an old analysis (2013), but it looked at the likelihood of a drive resulting in a score of each type based on starting position. TDs are actually more likely outcomes than field goals--not FG attempts, mind you--but field goals:  CyberPingu posted:Yeah...I figure if you have points on offer you should take them every time This might be true if coaches attempting to come back at the end of the game called plays to score a TD and only "settled" for a Field Goal to get into OT, but what ends up happening is that they actually just play for the field goal, which isn't guaranteed (65% success at about 50 yards out), and then if they do tie it up, still lose half the time. In the 50-yard FG attempt case, your chances of winning are 0.65 * 0.5, or about 33%. In the case I mentioned, we gotta take field position into things, though: Consider a start from the 5--according to the chart there, your odds of a FG are *theoretically* something like 5%, and your odds of a TD are something like 13%. So 5% of the time, you get that 50/50 shot at winning (2.5%) plus your chances of just getting a TD (13%), so 15.5% chance of winning. Or losing, if you're the team that punted instead of going up 6. On the other hand, if you're up 6 and your opponent has the ball at the 25-yard line, about 18% of those drives end in a TD. Of those, something like 95% have successful extra points, and 5% end in OT, which leads to a 50/50 chance of winning. Crunch the numbers, and your odds of winning if you're the team that's down are 17.55%, or a 17.55% chance that you'll lose if you kick the Field Goal. Admittedly, this doesn't consider every factor--obviously the time will be an issue, and whether your opponent fields the kick, etc. But the odds suggest that in 2-4 minute situations, you could in fact be better off being up 3 than up 6, and that's *before* you consider how it changes how opponents play! TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Are we not talking in hypotheticals here with a kicker with an 80% accuracy from 60+ yds In this example, you're the team with the super-accurate kicker, and the question is whether you kick a FG to go up by 6 points at the end of the game from the 60-yard line, or kick a punt and try to pin an opponent inside their 10. The point is that just because you *can* kick a 60-yard field goal, doesn't mean it's the best play. yeah obviously if your opponent has that kicker, poo poo changes quite a bit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Intruder posted:That's an interesting and surprising chart, but also isn't focused on end game situations where you can't march down the field for 5-6 minutes and have to try to score within a minute or so Ha yeah, I know wh at you mean. The time on the clock makes a difference, but only so much--if you have 30 seconds left, trying to get 70 yards from the 5 to kick a field goal isn't *that* much harder than getting 75 yards for the TD. The net is still "go around 70 yards in 30 seconds," and if you have 0 timeouts left, I'd wager that hurts your FG chances even more, since you need to either spike the ball before the attempt or rush like crazy to line up for the field goal. It also doesn't take into account coaching decisions, though--I will fight to the death to defend the idea that coaches turn into total cowards on the game's final drive when they just need a FG to tie e: gently caress you, Garrett
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
DNS posted:You can EASILY get around this by only having 11 active players on offense, with the other 35 players on your active roster comprising the deepest defense in the league. ha, I'm not sure how easy it would be to actually buy 35 competent defenders for your experimental team. You'd also still need more than 11 active players on offense, since you'd need to account for injuries, and even with your 60-yard leg kicker, you'd a way to reliably get the ball 20 yards downfield
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This was last page, but if you're certain to make a 70 yard field goal, you take it every time over punting the ball deep because you then get to kick off right after anyways. it's easier to down a punt inside the 10 than a kickoff because punts can go out of bounds, and a touchback on a kickoff puts your opponent at the 25
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:How meaningful is the extra 15-20 yards, statistically? I'm not going to rehash this. Just refer to my post which shows the actual probability of a win is higher for downing your opponent at the 5 than kicking the FG and getting a touchback, albeit with caveats on both sides. There's literally two pages of discussion on this. e: you aren't considering that a FG from your opponent doesn't win the game for them, but rather gives them a 50/50 chance of winning in OT. If they score a TD, you're hosed unless they miss the XP, which is much rarer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A kicker that can hit 70 yard field goals should be able to get enough hang time for coverage to make it down the field and drop the ball inside the 10. 50-yard punts are very common. Every starting punter in the NFL had a punt over 55 yards last year, and several averaged punt distances in the 48-50 yard range. You don't need a hell of a punter, you just need a decent one and a coverage unit that isn't rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I did, that is the exact chart I'm looking at. It doesn't say "the actual probability of a win is higher for downing your opponent at the 5 than kicking the FG and getting a touchback". That's still relying on your assumptions about how coaches coach, which is a reasonable argument but you didn't post anything to support it. What I'm saying is that, looking at that chart, the field position bit doesn't seem all that relevant. TheChirurgeon posted:In the case I mentioned, we gotta take field position into things, though: Consider a start from the 5--according to the chart there, your odds of a FG are *theoretically* something like 5%, and your odds of a TD are something like 13%. So 5% of the time, you get that 50/50 shot at winning (2.5%) plus your chances of just getting a TD (13%), so 15.5% chance of winning. Or losing, if you're the team that punted instead of going up 6.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
N: Jerry Jones' daughter Charlotte, who works for the team as Chief Brand Officer, has forbidden her father, Jerry Jones and brother, Stephen Jones, from using Twitter.quote:“Well the others are not on it because I do not trust them to be on it. I am in charge of the brand so I’ve gotta have just a mild bit of control. So it’s a good thing they don’t know how to do it so that I don’t have to worry about what I’m going to wake up to unlike the others that frequent our locker room.” V: NFL Brand Manager of the fuckin year right there, though I have to admit that it probably robs us of a good hundred pages of back-and-forth humor during a given season
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Good luck with that, fellas https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/837500286004514816
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I'm not arguing he's good. I'm just explaining why I think he could command that price in the current QB market. The objectively best thing to do is to draft a franchise QB in the 3rd or 4th round so you only have to pay him a couple million a season. You're empirically wrong. $15M isn't market value for a journeyman QB. The average for high-value franchise players right now is $20-25M, followed by your tier 2 franchise guys at $16-20M, then there's a massive drop off to the journeyman shitheap. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/quarterback/ Take a look at the list. The drop from Dalton to RG3 is more than half of Dalton's average annual salary. Glennon's not getting $15M unless someone deliberately overpays him and if they do it won't "just be the cost of a journeyman QB." The actual cost of a journeyman QB is more like $8-9M, unless you end up having Geno Smith and Christian Hackenberg as your only other options
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
lol if you think a guy with this neck can be successful at anything other than eating leaves off the branches of tall trees
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
hahaha that is loving amazing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:careful, man. The hivemind has spoken. Hey I don't think Glennon is terrible, just that you were wrong about what a journeyman QB costs but also Glennon isn't good enough to be a franchise QB so if you are hiring him to lead your team you are basically admitting that this season is a wash
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:You are right, I was wrong. Other posters seem to think Glennon is a completely known quantity, which I do disagree with. Yeah, he probably sucks, but so does everyone except ~20 guys. I still think he's worth trying if you don't have a franchise guy yet. Yeah that's fair enough. I suspect his benching wasn't some palpably unfair act and more due to his ability to not play his way back into a starting role, but I see where you are coming from. He may be worth trying, but your plan should be that he won't, with the potential to be pleasantly surprised if he does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I don't think he's a completely known quantity, but I also think we've seen enough that these contract numbers and Buccaneers interest in re-signing him sounds like the Rams talking up Casey Keenum at the end of 2015. Yeah that talk came out of nowhere and the most hilarious/baffling bit to me was Kubiak coming out of nowhere talking up a guy he literally refused to start over a pick-6-throwing machine quote:Yeah, the Vikings problem is their offensive line is terrible and also super injured. It takes a lot to make the Cowboys' defensive line look good, but they certainly obliged
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:That was a pretty good game. I enjoyed it. It was certainly the most exciting game of Thursday Night Football played last season, even if it was a sloppy mess. You could clearly see how Minnesota's crowd noise was getting to the Cowboys. People underrate that stadium but from what I've read it easily rivals the Seahawks in terms of noise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/839136358757187584 https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/839153333264924672 https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/839172522948050945
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I'm surprised that it is considered controversial, but every American should accept as fact that there exists a demonstrable history of firewater being bad for Redskins. I appreciate this post
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:What teams would you consider on a short timer for success right now. e.g teams that have an ageing cast of vets that are going to cripple them when they leave in a couple of years as they go into a rebuilding phase You could basically just go off QB age at this point: - Brady 39 - Roethlisberger 34 - Eli 36 - Rivers 35 - Brees 38 Every one of those guys is looking at probably 2-3 more years of good play at the most, and when they retire or drop off, their teams are hosed if they haven't found a successor. New England might not be, but I've always been under the impression that Belichick would retire when Brady does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:It would be the most Belichick thing to not retire and walk to a SB with Brady's replacement to cement that its all him That wouldn't surprise me so much--I 100% believe that BB is the greatest coach of all time--but I'm just not sure he wants to go through all that with a sub-HoF QB. TheChirurgeon posted:You could basically just go off QB age at this point: Also, here are my rankings for "how hosed is this team if its QB retires right now" (1 is 'most hosed'): 1. Giants 2. Chargers* 3. Saints ... a wide gulf 4. Steelers ... a second, wider gulf 5. Patriots that said, I would pay good money to watch the Giants try to play a season with Nassib under center *Note: The Giants have a more talented roster than the Chargers, but if the Chargers lost Rivers they'd just be rebuilding, which they're already kind of doing anyways. The Giants are still built around Eli and would have more work to do, in my opinion. Plus, struggling in Los Angeles where no one gives a gently caress is harder than struggling in New York.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Intruder posted:That's the Astros at their tankiest iirc we opened that offseason with something like $5M in obligations and started the season with a $22M payroll, a full like 15M below the next lowest team
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Sad we couldn't make a trade work, but this will ultimately be better for our cap situation if he's designated a June 1 cut. Godspeed, Tony https://twitter.com/jonmachota/status/839552309248069634
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:lol wow Yeah I just came here to post that. Hilariously nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:gently caress this stupid, bullshit, clownshoes organization. Bruce Allen is a worthless asshat who's better known for managing pants and picnics than running a football organization and he's done absolutely nothing of value for this team. He's the reason we got hit with a bullshit $36M salary cap hit, he's second only to Dan in enabling backstabbing politics, his cronyism is the reason we hired Joe Barry over Wade loving Philips, his most impactful statement is "Winning Off The Field," and now he's running off the only decent football mind in the building. gently caress Bruce Allen. gently caress Dan Snyder. gently caress the Redskins. I mostly agree but Allen isn't the reason for the cap penalty
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Diqnol posted:Can someone link me or explain to me why they think Bortles isn't a decent QB? I've seen that opinion around these parts for a while but statistically he seems pretty good, even if a bunch of it is garbage time. FO did an analysis last year that showed that literally one fourth of all of Bortles' TDs occurred in garbage time, or when his team was trailing by 21+ in the third quarter or 14+ in the 4th quarter* http://www.footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2016/week-8-quick-reads *though realistically the entire game is "garbage time" when one team is the Jags
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Allen was the money guy and while he didn't get the penalty imposed, he took the risk when 30 of the other 32 teams did not. gently caress him, gently caress this team. I agree with "gently caress allen" but I'm not gonna blame a dude for failing to collude with 30 other billionaires to keep player costs down in an uncapped year Also https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/839915288799903744 and in related news https://twitter.com/drewdavison/status/839915663380590592 TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Fair enough. I agree the whole thing is poo poo, but it's not as if he did it for the players or anything. Yeah, that's fair.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
lol @ the Bears making one continuous mistake https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/839837098106630146 word is 3 years, $43M for Glennon e: Chiche looks like we were both right!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/839929080145412096 e: Lol https://twitter.com/SheilKapadia/status/839929756074323968
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
IT'S HAPPENING https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/839937960103530499
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:37
|
|