finknottle

I realize you're kidding, but for those wondering about the going rate of a Reed-type player, the Redskins just dealt their disappointing 4 yr vet and former 1st rounder Rod Gardner to the Panthers for probably a 6th round pick. Like Reed he seemed promising at times but was very inconsistant. They gave him the knickname 50-50, which pretty much say's it all.

You guys "talk" funny...

You start who you think you should start for whatever reason makes sense to you. There have never been terms or rules. Not losing your job to injury is just an adage that sports talk clowns like to repeat. It happens all the time. When it's non-stars, nobody cares. When it's a famous player, they pull that chestnut out to have something to talk about.

For what its worth, the numbers agree. Eddie George was only in that third tier of gainers (the two sample years he was with the Titans), but his team was dominant: 2003 12-4 1031 yrds 2002 11-5 1165 yrds

I am inclined to agree re committee. The conclusion I wanted to draw from this - having seen recent discussions here about paying WM whatever he wants after his deal is up - is that you don't break the salary cap bank for a top 5 RB. You don't even want to dent it. That's why I looked at having a leading rushing rather than team totals.

In the context of the TH "two time 1,300 yard rusher" in another thread, I was going to question the worth to a team of a great rusher. I spent so much time crunching the numbers that I thought I should start a new thread. I looked at the past three years and calculated the average regular season record of teams with a 1500+ rusher, a 1200-1499 rusher, and a 1000-1200 rusher. The years averaged 5, 7 and 6 such rushers respectively, so you're basically looking at over half the league. What I found was 5 1500+ ------> 8.7 - 7.3 7 1200-1499 ------> 8.4 - 7.6 6 1000-1199 ------> 7.9 - 8.1 14 <1000 So basically it looks like the W-L difference between having a top 5 back and a dime-a-dozen back is less then one game. I'm guessing the impact of a top 5 QB or WR is bigger. Comments?

That's because they were seen as wacky individuals and not as a broader movement. Contrast it with the Nightline self-examinations we get when - seemingly about once a year - some high schoolers somewhere try to mow down their classmates.

Hail 'Dear Leader'! Don't take this as knocking your point - I agree. And you raise a very interesting question. But I am worried about the growing McNally worship...

For me it's not a drive, but an entire game: last year, Bills and the Ravens. It haunts me like Freddie Kruger.

Pretty much the highlight of 2004 pt 1; things only got worse before they got better.

Maybe EA is secretly in charge... At this rate who's to say that the NHL isn't better off staking their financial future with the video game companies than the networks anyway?

LOL, it's almost time to start the firing threads!

Better yet, lets take out a church everytime there's violence against an abortion clinic.

Yeah, like when right after the Oklahoma City bombing and the initial fingers were pointed at the Islamic terrorists. Shoulda' nuked Mecca - that would have shown them!

Good question. I would have thought they would give him a modest increase since his contract is pretty cheap.

Jacksonville. One big play against the Colts Oct.3 and they're in. One big play against the Titans Nov.21 and they're in. One big play against the Titans Nov.21 and they're in. One big play against the Steelers Dec.5 and they're in. "If wishes were horses then beggers would ride." Every team gets it's share of ifs and buts...

People have been steadily hyping things up in their own minds to where it's "Teague would be a great LT and would be the answer to our problems but for the fact that he's too valuable as an all-world center." Years ago he was a viable but below-average LT in Denver, and now is turning into a good center here. You keep him at center, end of story.

Exactly! And NFL contracts are structured to allow for early termination, the terminating party getting stiffed on the signing bonus. They also add the wrinkle of in essence a no-compete clause, preventing a self-terminating player from working elsewhere in the NFL until his obligations are fulfilled. Many jobs such as consultanting are fixed contract, particularly when you are contracting to provide a service and the other party (the government or a company say) cannot make financial obligations beyond a certain date. Right, it is rare but not unusual at the higher levels to contractually prohibit leaving for the competition. I have seen it used not just to keep people around as in the examples you've cited, but more pointedly when the work involves sensitive proprietary information. They don't want to give you access to their most competative technology, for example, and then have you reappear in six months doing R&D for the competition. A more common example (though less analogous) is with senior federal government employees, who when they quit are uniformly prohibited for some period of time from representing companies with whom they previously did business.

It's amazing that people simply do not accept these contracts. When you take a job at a certain salary, do you get mad because they can terminate it if they want? Do you think they should be legally obligated to keep you on until retirement? Would you refuse a 200k job offer if they put in a clause that if you quit (versus them firing you), then for one calander year you couldn't work in the same field?

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here: I at least took the thread of 'Gandy vs a 3rd' not to mean that he was worth one because he was drafted a 3rd, but rather implicitely questioning TD's decision not use this years third on the OL.

That's a very common situation and is in fact a catalyst to startups: young dynamic employees look around and figure out that they have a choice - take the safe drone path and submerge your initiative until you're a VP, or start your own business. Thus healthy behometh companies can actually serve to train and (by way of a counter-example) commit young employees to more entrepenural careers.

Am I the only one getting worried about the cult-like worship of McNally that is emerging? He's respected around the league, and did a great job last year, but it's a little early to start calling him 'Dear Leader.' People are talking as if he can take other peoples rejects, sprinkle pixie dust, and get pro-bowlers. As impressed as I was with the O-line turnaround last year, I'd like to see more than one year before I start giving his mere presence the same weight as having talented players. I don't see people pointing to any other teams' units and saying "those guys are mediocre but assistant so-and-so is so good that they'll be first rate."

Yeah, I hear the sunny weather is why Bill Gates and Paul Allen are in Seattle.

Well, that's the point. We can rail against Kodak for being too hidebound to take advantage of the talented workforce, just like people in San Diego railed against General Instruments, people in Boston railed against Wang and Prime computers, etc etc. They went out and started better companies. That's just the arc of business, and I see no reason to blame Kodak - pity maybe, but not blame. We have to fix whatever it is that is prevents people from taking their shots at starting the next generation of businesses rather than stake our economies on successful local businesses always getting it right in the marketplace.

There's a quote I can't quite remember about how in any meeting with four or more persons the average IQ in the room drops in porportion to the number of people participating...