finknottle
-
Posts
2,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by finknottle
-
-
A freekin' embarrassment to the City. Makes us look like yahoos.
-
Does that make the second from the beginning of the 4th in essense a third round pick? Maybe instead we should get miami's 4th round pick and call it a 3rd...
-
It amazes me that people have forgotten just how anemic our rushing offense looked when TH was in. Admittedly the rest of the team hadn't jelled yet, but the fact is that when other teams look at the bfilm they see a 60 yrds on 20 carries kind of guy...
-
I liked this comment:
"Let's be honest," agent Joel Segal said. "You make your money on all the big contracts you negotiate for well-known players. But you earn your commissions trying to find jobs for guys who are fringe-type players. -
True, but I don't know that anybody flat-out lies. They say stuff like 'we're looking at other options' or 'he is not a priority.' You can't say publically a guy is a reject, sign him, and then tell the fans he's the answer to your problems. That bridge is burnt for marketing purposes.
So I guess it hinges on whether Green actually said that or not.
On this line of thinking, does anybody know of any cases where a coach said firmly that such-and-such a player wasn't good enough to play for them, and then did a 180?
-
Definately DE. Today's best offenses flood the defense with 3+ good receivers instead of one great one. You put your shutdown corner on their best receiver and their dropoff is not that much. That means - as we so painfully saw a few seasons ago - your pass defense is really only as good as your #3 corner.
Better to get a dominant DE and have solid if unspectacular depth in the secondary.
-
Then let's get one instead of throwing money and a roster spot away on Matthews. I have nothing personal against him - it's just that I've seen Matthews play during his Redskin stint. IMO we'd be better off having a NFLE qb come in as #3.
-
there is no "ethical"way to kill something. its simply killing it. if you have a problem with the killing than fight to turn everyone in to a pansy vegetarian.
lets go crazy and compair this to capital punishment.
people want to kill someone. but they have to do it "ethicaly". people find a bigger problem in the method of killing than they do the actual act of killing.Yeah right, I suppose when you go you wouldn't mind dying getting flayed alive in front of your family, or boiled alive... death is death. I bet you would have been real stoic, a real tough guy, in a Bosnian refugee camp.
-
All 55 of them? That's quite a trade! But I don't think we'll have room on the roster.
Ironically, there actually is precedent, and it even involved Arizona! During the eighties the USFL's Chicago Blitz traded their entire active roster and head coach (George Allen) to the Arizona Wranglers for most of their players. The lucky coach of the new-look Blitz? Marv Levy of course!
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again .....Great rivalries could have been built with divisions that looked more like NCAA regional setups.
The realligned divisions should have looked something like this:
Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland (rust belt division)
Jets, Giants, Philadelphia, New England (large atlantic coast cities where everyone drops the "r" at the end of words)
Cincinatti, St Louis, Kansas City, Tennessee (bar-b-que/chili division)
Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Indianapolis (simple: midwest division)
Washington, Baltimore, Carolina, Atlanta (southern plantation division)
Houston, Dallas, Arizona, Denver (gaucho division)
Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, New Orleans (tropical division)
San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Oakland (left coast division)
They could have grouped the demographic population to establish incredible rivalries. Instead, we'll always have Dallas and the NY Giants in the same division.
Too me, that's like having OSU and USC in the same NCAA division. How stupid would that be?
Buffalo in a division with Pittsburgh and Cleveland would have been soooooo much better than the rivalry with the Jets, Patriots, or Dolphins.
The downside of this is that people will become less-inclined to care about rivalries outside their own. We in Buffalo manage to muster a moderate bit of interest in a MNF Dallas-Washington game without truely caring about the teams. In many cases it's because the rivalry offers a symbolic choice about region (like Buffalo-Miami) or culture (Raiders-Chargers). You take that away and there is no reason the watch. I don't care how great the Cleveland-Pittsburgh or Green Bay-Minnesota rivalries are, I can't get excited about one team over another and wouldn't waste a Primetime evening on them. And ultimately the strength of the NFL lies as much with the willingness of people to watch the entire league - think MNF, Thanksgiving games, etc - as the intense support of fans for their own teams.
-
Why is it that the spot teams pick in varies from round to round? I understand that it can get thrown off from comp picks but for example, why is our pick (that we traded to Dallas) #20 in the first round, but then #23 in the second rd.?
Does the order change among teams of the same record when a trade is involved? Like because Dallas' record was worse that 9-7, they get to pick before all the other 9-7 teams with our pick regardless of where we would have fallen in that group?
The more I look at it, the more I think you are right. After sorting the teams by record, and using tie breakers to sort the teams with the same records, they cycle through the order of tied teams.
So SF always picks first each round as the only 2-14 team.
Clev and Miami (4-12) pick #2/3, with Miami winning the tiebreaker so it gets #2 first.
The 5-11 teams from worst to least worst are Clev, Chi, TB and Tenn, so they pick in spots 3-6 as
Clev - Chi - TB - Tenn,
Chi - TB - Tenn - Clev,
TB - Tenn - Clev - Chi,
Tenn - Clev - Chi - TB,
and so on.
-
Why is it that the spot teams pick in varies from round to round? I understand that it can get thrown off from comp picks but for example, why is our pick (that we traded to Dallas) #20 in the first round, but then #23 in the second rd.?
Does the order change among teams of the same record when a trade is involved? Like because Dallas' record was worse that 9-7, they get to pick before all the other 9-7 teams with our pick regardless of where we would have fallen in that group?
Wierd - I don't know. I looked at the first 5 in each round (before trades), and noticed the orders cycle - meaning the order in Round 5 is the same as in Round 1, Round 6 as in Round 2, etc. (I didn't look higher than five, so I might be wrong...)
Round 1: SF - Miami - Clev - Chi - TB -...
Round 2: SF - Clev - Miami - TB - Tenn -...
Round 3: SF - Miami - Clev - Tenn - Oak -...
Round 4: SF - Clev - Miami - Oak - Chi -...
Round 5: SF - Miami - Clev - Chi - TB -...
Round 6: SF - Clev - Miami - TB - Tenn -...
Round 7: SF - Miami - Clev - Tenn - Oak -...
-
Something like 9,500 for their opener, according to the story about the Bills players there.
NFLE does not exist to make money. It exists for one reason: so that the NFL can perpetuate the idea in the US that football is going global, that the world thinks football is great, and that rugby - the de facto global 'football' - doesn't exist.
Another example: remember the first exhibition games played in Japan a year or so ago? They made a big deal, frequently repeated in the booth, that they had to play in baseball stadiums because there were no regulation football fields. Funny, but they could have used any of the fields of the professional rugby teams there. But then the announcers would have been talking about rugby in Japan instead of baseball, which is not considered a competing sport.
So why does the NFL do this? Rugby is a big sport internationally, but it's not going to make professional inroads in the US - they've got short-sighted clowns in management/ownership that would make MLB and the NHL blush. However, the NFL didn't get to #1 by being complacent - it thinks very long-term. Part of their strategy against rugby inroads here is discouraging any discussion of rugby. So my theory is that the NFL considers NFLE to be a sort of inexpensive expeditionary force which lets them keep the initiative against world rugby and influence the overseas coverage by american media.
[For what it's worth, Germany is the most successfull country for NFLE. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that in contrast to the UK, France, and Italy, I believe there is no professional rugy played there.]
Riddle me this, bashers...
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yeah, and there is subtle mathematics going on here. A good hire has a much longer tenure than a bad hire. This skews the statistics, so on average most GM hires are 'bad.' No GM, for example, is likely to have two good hires, let alone three.
On another note, IMO some of the hires listed were good but the team struggled for other reasons (like ownership) and the coaches reps took the blame: Shottenheimer / Spurrier for example.