The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

tallaghtoutlaws

Masked Man wrote: »

I don't think I missed your point, I'm just saying not to be results orientated. Just because a decision he makes doesn't pan out doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.

You know I read this a few times and Im failing to make sense of it and I don't mean that in a bad way.

Ok you did miss my point. American Football is a tactical game and the whole purpose of cutting or taking players is make your squad tactically stronger.

The Pats problems over the last few years have been solved with the introduction of Haynesworth and Ocho in that we have created a huge line which will no doubt help the Pass rush and with Ocho he creates a distraction for any defense.

Now to say I shouldn't be result oriented makes absolutely no sense because after all the NFL is all about results. The decisions made by coaches are for one purpose and one purpose only, Build a team that will win a Super bowl.

If at the end of the season the Pats fail to lift the bowl because we were missing that piece again it means the coaches failed. Now the worst part about that is that if you found that piece and then decided to offload it before using it you then failed and made a bad decision. To say the Coach wasn't wrong for dropping the vital pieces would be insane at best.

Let me ask you this if he dropped Tom Brady who is a vital piece would he be a right decision in your eyes if we arent to base it on results?

Now having said all of that I do think the article is nothing but bullsh1t as they are the only ones even hinting at it. But to say we shouldn't base decisions on results is pointless because anything short of a Super Bowl is not a good season in my eyes for a team who has won 3 in the last 10 years. Sure winning the AFC East and the AFC Championship and beating the Jets are bonuses but for me Im an all or nothing kind of guy.

Masked Man

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

You know I read this a few times and Im failing to make sense of it and I don't mean that in a bad way.

Ok you did miss my point. American Football is a tactical game and the whole purpose of cutting or taking players is make your squad tactically stronger.

The Pats problems over the last few years have been solved with the introduction of Haynesworth and Ocho in that we have created a huge line which will no doubt help the Pass rush and with Ocho he creates a distraction for any defense.

Now to say I shouldn't be result oriented makes absolutely no sense because after all the NFL is all about results. The decisions made by coaches are for one purpose and one purpose only, Build a team that will win a Super bowl.

If at the end of the season the Pats fail to lift the bowl because we were missing that piece again it means the coaches failed. Now the worst part about that is that if you found that piece and then decided to offload it before using it you then failed and made a bad decision. To say the Coach wasn't wrong for dropping the vital pieces would be insane at best.

Let me ask you this if he dropped Tom Brady who is a vital piece would he be a right decision in your eyes if we arent to base it on results?

Now having said all of that I do think the article is nothing but bullsh1t as they are the only ones even hinting at it. But to say we shouldn't base decisions on results is pointless because anything short of a Super Bowl is not a good season in my eyes for a team who has won 3 in the last 10 years. Sure winning the AFC East and the AFC Championship and beating the Jets are bonuses but for me Im an all or nothing kind of guy.

I think story is **** as well and will be surprised if either get cut. All I'm saying is that I think it's very harsh to criticize coaches when it comes to cutting people because the decisions are close and there's risk in every decision.

Now the worst part about that is that if you found that piece and then decided to offload it before using it you then failed and made a bad decision.

To say the Coach wasn't wrong for dropping the vital pieces would be insane at best.

But Haynesworth might not be a vital piece.

It would obviously suck to cut Haynesworth only to desperately need him later on, but it'd also be bad to keep him only to find that he's still at the low point of his career like last year.
Or what if it's a decision between Haynesworth and somebody else who would only really be used as cover for another position. It's possible that the other person would never be needed, but what if there's an injury crisis, if that injury crisis hurts the pats badly in the playoffs, unless Haynesworth is vital to the team people would say BB made a mistake.

All a coach can do is make decisions that give his team the highest chance of winning, nothing is guaranteed to come good. If he does this and team still doesn't win, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a mistake. There's always the possibility that they lose.

I think Ocho and Haynesworth will stay, but there is a reason they're not with the Redskins and the Bengals anymore and if they don't do well people will say they were a mistake. Which is kinda my point, if something goes wrong then a lot people instantly call it a mistake (in most cases).

let me ask you this if he dropped Tom Brady who is a vital piece would he be a right decision in your eyes if we arent to base it on results?

Well let's say Brady gets injured and Hoyer (or Mallett) steps in and leads them to the conference championship game or the sb. If Brady is fully recovered for that game and BB has a choice between him and Hoyer, he should obviously pick whoever give them the highest chance of winning.
Hypothetically with Brady the pats have a 60% chance of winning, but with Hoyer that goes up to 70%. BB goes with Hoyer and the pats lose, would you say he made a mistake?

I know it's impossible to put a figure on stuff like that, and there will always be intangibles, but I think it gets my point across.

Sorry if I come across like a dick in this, I don't mean to, I just really suck at explaining things. Like I said the decisions are so close when it comes to cutting people that I find it hard to criticize a coach because of the variance involved.

By the way if the Pats had tanked after BB chose to keep going with Brady in '01, people would've criticized him and said it was a mistake.

Another good example of this is when the Pats went for it on 4th and 2 in '09 vs the Colts. I remember reading a lot of criticism of BB, people wondering how the best coach in history could do something so horrible, but iirc statistically it was the best decision by a long way.

mikemac

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I do thing the story is BS though

TaosHum wrote: »

Wasn't NFL draft Bible the site that claimed Clay Matthews was tested positive for roids at the the combine?

Be very, very wary of what that site puts out.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Now having said all of that I do think the article is nothing but bullsh1t as they are the only ones even hinting at it

Masked Man wrote: »

I think story is **** as well and will be surprised if either get cut.

Look what I started, sorry folks

I shall never go never NFL Draft Bible again. :pac:

Stev_o

Does anyone know why NFL's facebook page is constantly posting in Irish?

tallaghtoutlaws

Stev_o wrote: »

Does anyone know why NFL's facebook page is constantly posting in Irish?

Yup its this new fan incentive to translate for countries around the world. They ran a campaign to find fans from every country that could post in their home language.

Syferus

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Yup its this new fan incentive to translate for countries around the world. They ran a campaign to find fans from every country that could post in their home language.

Surely someone should have told them 90% of Irish people can barely understand 'I like girls' in Irish?

Peyton Manning

For my fellow Pats fans, this is gonna make the few weeks until the regular season unbearable

http://t.co/ikZcSqt

Masked Man

Connolly returning that kick is probably my favorite moment from last season. Every time I watch a part of me still hopes he makes it to the end zone.

mikemac

In order of sales, one to twenty-five

Troy Polamalu, Steelers
Drew Brees, Saints
Tim Tebow, Broncos
Peyton Manning, Colts
Tom Brady, Patriots
Michael Vick, Eagles
Aaron Rodgers, Packers
Eli Manning, Giants
DeSean Jackson, Eagles
Mark Sanchez, Jets
Tony Romo, Cowboys
Brett Favre, Vikings
Miles Austin, Cowboys
Adrian Peterson, Vikings
Clay Matthews, Packers
Philip Rivers, Chargers
Chris Johnson, Titans
Ray Lewis, Ravens
Wes Walker, Patriots
Donovan McNabb, Redskins
Jason Witten, Cowboys
Peyton Hillis, Browns
LaDainian Tomlinson, Jets
Larry Fitzgerald, Cardinals
Hines Ward, Steelers

Only three defensive players which suprised me though maybe it shouldn't

The QB's getting far too much love

Hazys

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/22/haynesworth-could-be-in-hot-water-with-the-league/

Haynesworth pleads no contest to his sexual assault trial.


It'll be interesting to see how much he gets suspended for. Im guessing between 2 and 4 games.

But the weirdest part of the PFT article is:

Speaking of the Patriots, they possibly will move swiftly to cut him, taking the position that they traded for him only after he insisted privately to the franchise that he wasn’t guilty of the crime.

I cant imagine Haynesworth telling the Patriots he was not guilty of the crime and then a couple of weeks later pleaing no contest in the trail. I still dont see the Pats cutting him, even if he is suspended.

Him being suspended probably works in the Pats favour. He sits out 4 weeks and doesnt count against the 53 and gets fit enough to play and the Pats get to play a younger DL in his absense and if somebody gets injured in the first 4 weeks its not a big deal bcos they've got Albert waiting to come in.

Stev_o

Has he even played a snap yet?

Hazys

Stev_o wrote: »

Has he even played a snap yet?

Not in a game but he did practise the first week and got injured (knees), he's apparently close to getting back to training again.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

Not in a game but he did practise the first week and got injured (knees), he's apparently close to getting back to training again.

Many believe they were never going to risk him to the pre-season either way. I can see him playing week 1 if the NFL don't slap him with a ban for his case.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/22/haynesworth-could-be-in-hot-water-with-the-league/

Haynesworth pleads no contest to his sexual assault trial.


It'll be interesting to see how much he gets suspended for. Im guessing between 2 and 4 games.

But the weirdest part of the PFT article is:



I cant imagine Haynesworth telling the Patriots he was not guilty of the crime and then a couple of weeks later pleaing no contest in the trail. I still dont see the Pats cutting him, even if he is suspended.

Him being suspended probably works in the Pats favour. He sits out 4 weeks and doesnt count against the 53 and gets fit enough to play and the Pats get to play a younger DL in his absense and if somebody gets injured in the first 4 weeks its not a big deal bcos they've got Albert waiting to come in.

Sometimes PFT is the best website in the world for football but others its nothing short of the sun and the news of the world type reporting. Have to agree with one of the comments on it

A big difference between Fat Al and Big Ben is the nature of the incidents. Fat Al is accused of being a chauvanist and putting a credit card in a waitresses shirt, Big Ben was twice accused of rape.

I didn’t agree with the Big Ben punishment before the judicial system played out, but calling the crimes themselves similar is a gross miscatigorization.

Fat Al's crime is nothing like Big Ben's crime. I don't condone either but there is a huge difference between sticking your hand down a womans top and allegedly raping her in a bathroom while she is drunk.

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Fat Al's crime is nothing like Big Ben's crime. I don't condone either but there is a huge difference between sticking your hand down a womans top and allegedly raping her in a bathroom while she is drunk.

I was wrong in my orginal post. It wasnt sexual assault, it was considered a simple assault.

So i presume the punishment shouldnt be too severe although he has a history even tho the stamping incident was 5 years ago, and his antics last year wouldnt have won him my friends in the NFL offices.

I'd be suprised if he got more than 4 games.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

I was wrong in my orginal post. It wasnt sexual assault, it was considered a simple assault.

I was taking a stab at PFT for the simple reason they did this "sexual simple assault"

Hazys

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/23/report-no-further-discipline-expected-for-haynesworth/

Haynesworth not expected to be suspended.

OAOB

Would like a few opinions of people here on a theory of mine.
The Chargers have a running back on their roster called Isaac Odim, he went undrafted out of a Div II school. He has some quality highlight videos and won Div II player of the year (same as Danny Woodhead did). He wouldn't make the Chargers roster this year and he's only been used on special teams during the preseason but i think his upside could mean he's worth keeping around.
So i guess my question is if a team had a very promising undrafted rookie on their team that showed a lot of potential but who wouldn't make the roster this year does it make sense not to play them in the preseason and lessen his exposure to other teams in the hope that he'll make it to the practice squad and allow him to develop?

tallaghtoutlaws

OAOB wrote: »

Would like a few opinions of people here on a theory of mine.
The Chargers have a running back on their roster called Isaac Odim, he went undrafted out of a Div II school. He has some quality highlight videos and won Div II player of the year (same as Danny Woodhead did). He wouldn't make the Chargers roster this year and he's only been used on special teams during the preseason but i think his upside could mean he's worth keeping around.
So i guess my question is if a team had a very promising undrafted rookie on their team that showed a lot of potential but who wouldn't make the roster this year does it make sense not to play them in the preseason and lessen his exposure to other teams in the hope that he'll make it to the practice squad and allow him to develop?

Odim is phenominal but like Woodhead they said he was too small. He played in Minnesota Duluth or UMD Bulldogs as they are known. They won the DII Championship this year. They will miss Odim. I throw my eye on them as my buddy is alum and was once their backup QB during his Junior and Senior year.

As for not playing him to keep other teams away from him. I dont think a team would do that. If you really wanted him you would use him on your active roster as a returner or something ye know. Odim is fast as fook easily find a place for him.

Stev_o

Really the idea that small backs are a big risk in the NFL is nonsense imo. If anything the smaller and faster the better they are. Considering Woodhead ran everywhere for Patriots including inbetween the tackles shows that there isn't some sort of physical limitation for that! The league is moving to mis matches and at the moment your best mismatches is going spread or having a very fast RB who operates like a WR. LB's dread having to find small men in motion and then having to cover them in coverage.

tallaghtoutlaws

Stev_o wrote: »

Really the idea that small backs are a big risk in the NFL is nonsense imo. If anything the smaller and faster the better they are. Considering Woodhead ran everywhere for Patriots including inbetween the tackles shows that there isn't some sort of physical limitation for that! The league is moving to mis matches and at the moment your best mismatches is going spread or having a very fast RB who operates like a WR. LB's dread having to find small men in motion and then having to cover them in coverage.

Totally agree. The problem with size is not down to the actual size of the person per say. Its down to the system you run. Danny Woodhead was an amazing addition to the Pats and as a Pats fan I love him but the bad thing about him you have to leave him for more than 1 play at a time to be effective with him.

How many times did you see the Pats leave Woodhead in when they were not using him. If you only use him for a small amount of plays the defense will quickly read what you are doing and adjust. How many times did Woodhead then get run over by a pass rusher in plays were we kept him at home.

Then getting back to the playbook. Do you really want to adjust or add plays and take a chance on a player like Odim or Woodhead. If you run a 2 back system or non spread system the chances of your small back making an impact would be very low.

Hard one to call really maybe there is other issues with Odim or he just didn't cut it for the Chargers. I for one would like to see him in the Pros. Although he only played D2 he is an amazing back.

OAOB

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Odim is phenominal but like Woodhead they said he was too small. He played in Minnesota Duluth or UMD Bulldogs as they are known. They won the DII Championship this year. They will miss Odim. I throw my eye on them as my buddy is alum and was once their backup QB during his Junior and Senior year.

As for not playing him to keep other teams away from him. I dont think a team would do that. If you really wanted him you would use him on your active roster as a returner or something ye know. Odim is fast as fook easily find a place for him.

From his measurables he doesn't seem that small, 5'11"/6' and about 210lbs so that would be big enough for the NFL and he'd probably be able to put on more muscle with the right training programme.

In regards to the Chargers getting him on to their active roster they already have two second year guys vying for the returner spot and they drafted Jordan Toddman in the 6th round and he's been having a very solid preseason at running back so i really don't think their is a place available for Odim on the roster this year. Maybe he's not impressing in camp but i find it suprising that someone with his potential has not get a proper shot at earning a place on the roster by trying him in the preseason. I've only seen his highlight films but they are ridiculously impressive so i guess i'm just hoping we can hold on to him for the practice squad this year and let him develop his skills against better quality opposition.

He writes a blog and he seems pretty disheartened at the limited opportunities he's been getting in camp

tallaghtoutlaws

OAOB wrote: »

From his measurables he doesn't seem that small, 5'11"/6' and about 210lbs so that would be big enough for the NFL and he'd probably be able to put on more muscle with the right training programme.

Ah sure look at Danny Woohead they reckon he is only 5'6 and the NFL and the Pats have him listed as 5'8 and 5'9 at one point. When they hit the combine a lot of them exaggerate their height. Mad thing is no one ever checks their height.

OAOB

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Ah sure look at Danny Woohead they reckon he is only 5'6 and the NFL and the Pats have him listed as 5'8 and 5'9 at one point. When they hit the combine a lot of them exaggerate their height. Mad thing is no one ever checks their height.

Is it not that they do measure players heights at the combine but if a player isn't invited to the combine then there's no official record of their measurables? I remember hearing during numerous combines of lots of players who were an inch or two smaller than they had previously stated.

In terms of Woodhead i'm presuming he wasn't invited to the combine because he played with a DivII school so we have no official measurements for him. He sure doesn't look 5'8

tallaghtoutlaws

OAOB wrote: »

Is it not that they do measure players heights at the combine but if a player isn't invited to the combine then there's no official record of their measurables? I remember hearing during numerous combines of lots of players who were an inch or two smaller than they had previously stated.

In terms of Woodhead i'm presuming he wasn't invited to the combine because he played with a DivII school so we have no official measurements for him. He sure doesn't look 5'8

You are right about Odim he is 5'11 definitely don't understand why size was an issue with him when he is average height for a NFL RB.

That_Guy

Kerry Collins coming out of retirement to play for the Colts. Jaysus.

Hopefully Manning is back in time.

Reggie Wayne not too happy about it:

"We don't even know him, we ain't vanilla, man, we ain't no simple offense, so for him to come in here and be the starter, I don't see it. I think that's a step back."

Peyton Manning

Rumour has it Manning will not be ready for Week 1, hence the Collins pick up.

ReacherCreature

Wow Wayne only manages to make himself sound like a child.

Give Collins a bit of breathing room to actually try.

That_Guy

Tom_Brady wrote: »

Rumour has it Manning will not be ready for Week 1, hence the Collins pick up.

I'd be really surprised if he's back for Week 1. There was rumours floating about that Irsay was in Favre's hometown looking for him but I think it was a Tweet that was taken up the wrong way.

At least I hope it was. :pac:

Peyton Manning

That_Guy wrote: »

I'd be really surprised if he's back for Week 1. There was rumours floating about that Irsay was in Favre's hometown looking for him but I think it was a Tweet that was taken up the wrong way.

At least I hope it was. :pac:

Manning threw 13 interceptions in the space of 5 games last year. Some might say the spirit of Favre is alive and well in Indy as it is