Talley56

I don't think I'm going to be excited again until we are coming off a playoff season. I'm tired of getting my hopes up over this hire, that hire, this signing, how we finished from a previous season (although I really wasn't as hopeful as most other people were last offseason). I guess the only thing that would maybe make me feel a little better is (and I know this isn't going to happen) if we hired Jim Schwartz back and both Rex and Rob promised they would let him handle the defense 100% and if because of that we decided to keep Mario. Sorry, I'm not buying the excuses about more injuries in 2015 than 2014 or that Rex's defense needs more time before it starts working. We were better off with Schwartz calling the defense.

You could make an argument that the Vikings are the most hexed team in football. Lost 4 Super Bowls, 99 and 10 NFC championship games, and now this.

Agreed. Personally I credit the upgrade in QB and huge upgrade in RB more for our improvements on offense (not to mention the very tiny shoes he had to fill seeing as Hackett was the coordinator before him). However, if he wants to stay on board, he really needs to make these changes.

It shouldn't IMO. If Tyrod is a true competitor he should welcome competition. If he gets upset over it then as far as I'm concerned he's a kitty. I think you need a solid back up plan at QB with the potential of injury. The way Tyrod plays, his likelihood for injury is higher other QBs in the league. If we want to avoid another loss to a team like Jacksonville because Tyrod got hurt we need a better #2 and if that means bringing someone in who is good enough to challenge Tyrod I'm all for it.

Superbowl: Washington vs Houston

I don't think Mario will but other than that, I think they will relish the spoiler roll and play hard. Honestly, if they do win, it will be kind of frustrating IMO because they haven't really played hard over recent weeks and if they find knocking the Jets out of the playoffs more motivating than trying to win when they still have a chance to make the playoffs themselves then something is tremendously wrong with that.

How would he have run out of time to look for another team? They released Brown after him and he had plenty of time to be signed by another team.

What I still don't like about it was the fact that, at the time, they decided to keep Bryce Brown over FJ just because he was younger. Brown was awful and should have been cut long before Jackson.

Maybe I'm missing something but if we are going to get rid of him why not try trading him? I'm thinking a team playing the 4-3 would give us good value for him. Letting him go for a division rival to pick up and hunt down Tyrod twice a year would be one of the more boneheaded moves we've ever made.

If this is true then we've had a number of championship winning coaches.

If he is it's not by much. Bradford is not a good QB.

I can understand either side. What I don't understand is why some seem to have a vendetta against Fitz/Gailey. It's not like they left on bad terms. I like them both and wouldn't mind seeing them in the playoffs.

Correct, but in a three way tie between Sea/Minn/Atl the head to heads are not counted since Seattle didn't play Atlanta. For Seattle, they are just in a position where in all istances, whether a two-way tie with Atlanta or Minnesota or a three way tie with both, they would get the tie-breaker in ever scenario. For Minnesota, they get the head-to-head tie breaker over Atlanta if it's just those two and Seattle has the better record. However, in a three-way tie between the three head-to-head does not apply since Seattle didn't play Atlanta so you then go down to another tie-breaker and apparently in one of the next tie-breakers Seattle and Atlanta get in over Minnesota. Now, Minnesota is whipping the Giants at the moment so barring some epic collapse it looks like they will get in and there will be no three-way tie.

A few things: the only game that really made our schedule significantly tougher IMO is us playing the Bengals while the Jets played the Browns. Chiefs are better than the Raiders but not by a whole lot IMO. As far as beating the Jets head-to-head, today the Ravens finished a sweep of the Steelers and the Rams finished a season sweep of the Seahawks. Anyone want to argue that the Ravens are as good as or better than the Steelers or that the Rams are as good as the Seahawks? Not saying I disagree with the idea that we could be as good as the Jets. Just some things to consider.

Washington vs Houston Superbowl

Yeah, in a three-way tie unless one team beat both of the other two or all three teams play each other, head-to-head is skipped. Since Seattle and Atlanta did not play each other and Minnesota lost to Seattle, if Seattle, Atlanta, and Minnesota end in a three-way tie the head-to-heads between Seattle/Minnesota and Minnesota/Atlanta do not count and they move on to the next tie-breaker. See below: Quote

Arizona looks darn good on both sides of the ball.

We were 4-12 in 2010 and Carolina was 2-14. Would have taken 2 move losses and even then we would have needed a tiebreaker. I'm glad we won today. I'm not concerned about the difference between pick 17 and 14 or even 13.

I still think this is debatable. But I will say I'd rather have youth at QB.

Cousins has gotten better all year. I don't care about the accidental kneel down, he's good. Turns out the Redskins may have found their future QB in the 2012 draft after all.

In my line of work, this is a crazy time of year and that includes the week between Christmas and New Year's (benefits, open enrollment, new plans and new payroll deductions for a new year.) I wish I could take that week off. Unfortunately, going to be losing some PTO this year.

While I agree Rex has been unimpressive this year I can't say I'm as surprised as most. Nothing about his tenure with the Jets suggested he was going to turn this team around, at least not in his first season. Okay, maybe the struggles in New York had more to do with the terrible front office of the Jets. However it could also be that Rex is not a very good HC.

One idea I've thought of is maybe the order should go by a cumulative record of say the past 3 or 4 years. Whoever has the worst record combined dating back to a particular season should get the first pick. That way the team who really truly needs a #1 pick is getting it. This may not necessarily eliminate tanking at the end of a season but IMO it's more fair. Still irks me that while some of us have been searching for a franchise QB for over a decade Indy got to draft Luck after the 1 year Peyton went down. Just doesn't seem like a good system to me.

Seahawks 1st round draft positions in the years before they won the Superbowl: 2007: no 1st round pick 2008: 28th 2009: 4th - picked Aaron Curry who wasn't even part of the Superbowl team 2010: 6th - picked Russell Okung and 14th 2011: 25th 2012: 15th So in the years leading up to the Superbowl the only real pick up they got from tanking was Russell Okung. Most of their biggest contributors didn't necessarily come from tanking picks (which I might define as a top 5 pick).

As someone who didn't buy into the hype nearly as much as everyone else, this hasn't hurt any more than the rest. I think the year I bought into the hype most was 2012. We had a promising offense in 2011 but our defense was just so bad it couldn't keep pace. Then we sign Mario. I thought by signing Mario and making some other moves our defense would be good enough that year to compliment a playoff caliber offense. I bought into that season much more than this one. Then we get smoked week 1 by the Jets and our defense which I truly believed would be much improved was run over...... by Mark Sanchez. That season was the one I felt most disappointed in.