NFL 2009

[Cimmerian Nights]

Yeah, the Pats pulled some real ballsy shit. Like just not covering Devery Henderson, that's so ballsy, I haven't seen that all year anywhere.

Yeah that's because of scheme and not a boneheaded safety huh?

That game made me ill, I had to change the channel and watch Le Grey Cup instead, eh. Pats haven't lost to a team that bad since Brees beat them on the Chargers. He's the real deal.

 

[Brother None]

Yeah that's because of scheme and not a boneheaded safety huh?

Yeah, it was. It was a cornerback blitz with Merriweather in isolation in the middle of the backfield. Sure he bit on the pump-fake, hard, and that's on him, but he looked like he was covering zone, with no one man-to-man on Henderson.

That game made me ill, I had to change the channel and watch Le Grey Cup instead, eh. Pats haven't lost to a team that bad since Brees beat them on the Chargers. He's the real deal.

It was a good game if pretty one-sided.

Pats D's looked terrible against good opponents lately, with a vulturing of a rookie QB in between. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the still-surprisingly-competent Henne and Dolphins wrinkly offense next week.

What's more shocking: the Pats haven't won a road game so far, having lost to Denver, Indianapolis and Nawlins. Yeah, sure, they won against the Bucs, but as the commentators justly said, that game is one ocean and one decent opponent away from counting as a respectable road win.

Brees had his second best game of the year. His best game of the year came on opening day, against the Lions. He was carving up the Pats secondary like it wasn't even there.

lulz. When you can say of a QB that a 158.3 QBRat, 78.3% completion, 16.1 Y/A, 5 TD game is not his best of the year, then you're talking MVP. I also disagree, both because of the opponent and the stats (lower completion percentage and Y/A vs the Lions), unless you're just talking fantasy.

It's a pretty exciting between Brees (who has overtaken Favre in QBRat and TDs), Favre (who - I think - bizarrely leads the league in least turnovers), Manning (yardage leader while heading a less talented offense than usual for him) and Chris Johnson (possibly looking to break Faulk/Dickerson records). I'd have a hard time picking between those guys, though when it comes to "how important is their performance to their team", Manning and CJ get the edge, Manning for having no running game or defense to speak of to surround him, CJ for pretty much being that offense (unless VY's rebirth continues on pace). Brees and Favre both have A-class Ds and running games.

Nice OT game from Pitt/Ravens. What is it with AFC North football - lots of defense, lots of inside rushing, lots of FGs, lots of punts. I have a love/hate relationship with AFC north football. I love the defense and the hitting.

Always loved AFC North football. And this year, when almost every team is winning on finesse, it's even more fun to see grinding, hard tackling and line domination.

In particular the Bengals line looks like the most dominant one in football right now.

 

[Sander]

It was a good game if pretty one-sided.

Pats D's looked terrible against good opponents lately, with a vulturing of a rookie QB in between. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the still-surprisingly-competent Henne and Dolphins wrinkly offense next week.

The Dolphins have been the disappointment of the season in my book, after the Bucs. I love their approach to the game, but they keep losing. And losing Ronnie Brown makes their approach much less dangerous.

lulz. When you can say of a QB that a 158.3 QBRat, 78.3% completion, 16.1 Y/A, 5 TD game is not his best of the year, then you're talking MVP. I also disagree, both because of the opponent and the stats (lower completion percentage and Y/A vs the Lions), unless you're just talking fantasy.

26/34 for 358, 6TDs and an INT vs 18/23 for 371 and 5TDs. Yeah, I think opponent strength and that interception set this as his best game of the year.

It's a pretty exciting between Brees (who has overtaken Favre in QBRat and TDs), Favre (who - I think - bizarrely leads the league in least turnovers), Manning (yardage leader while heading a less talented offense than usual for him) and Chris Johnson (possibly looking to break Faulk/Dickerson records). I'd have a hard time picking between those guys, though when it comes to "how important is their performance to their team", Manning and CJ get the edge, Manning for having no running game or defense to speak of to surround him, CJ for pretty much being that offense (unless VY's rebirth continues on pace). Brees and Favre both have A-class Ds and running games.

Favre's total of 3 INTs of the year with his number of attempted passes is insane. Yeah, it's a lot of play action and short passes, but 3 interceptions? That's really, really good no matter what kind of throws you're making.

And Yahoo keeps telling me that someone has a higher QBRat for the year than Brees, but I can't figure out who.

 

[Brother None]

The Dolphins have been the disappointment of the season in my book, after the Bucs. I love their approach to the game, but they keep losing. And losing Ronnie Brown makes their approach much less dangerous.

Yeah, the Brown injury somewhat cans 'em. But Henne's looked decent for a first-year starter, though far from great. If he grows and learns, they might still be dangerous down the stretch. But it's hard to grow in such a gimmick offense.

Favre's total of 3 INTs of the year with his number of attempted passes is insane. Yeah, it's a lot of play action and short passes, but 3 interceptions? That's really, really good no matter what kind of throws you're making.

It's insanely good...

...

...Still waiting for the collapse

And Yahoo keeps telling me that someone has a higher QBRat for the year than Brees, but I can't figure out who.

Tarvaris Jackson

 

[Sander]

Yeah, the Brown injury somewhat cans 'em. But Henne's looked decent for a first-year starter, though far from great. If he grows and learns, they might still be dangerous down the stretch. But it's hard to grow in such a gimmick offense.

He'll grow for the system, and he might have a problem once the Dolphins step away from the system. Still, he's not looking too bad.

Tarvaris Jackson

...
.........
Ahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Pats D's looked terrible against good opponents lately, with a vulturing of a rookie QB in between. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the still-surprisingly-competent Henne and Dolphins wrinkly offense next week.

They did look horrible, knuckleheaded rookies/sophomores. And the arm tackling, and I think it's time to say Adalius Thomas was a FA bust. Pats get too wrapped in value sometimes, as if 3 guys that get 5 sacks are equal to 1 guy who can get 15. No impact players, should have paid Assante Samuels what he wanted...
There's really only 3 wins that really matter.

Dolphins will get steamrolled, not unlike they 1st time the two played with Ronnie. Can't see any reason why the shouldn't.

The worst part is now that little prick Mercury Morris and the rest of the '72 Dolphins are going to come out of the woodwork, talking about putting the champagne on ice for when the unbeatens go down.
Is there a more spiteful group of old men than the '72 Dolphins?

What's more shocking: the Pats haven't won a road game so far, having lost to Denver, Indianapolis and Nawlins. Yeah, sure, they won against the Bucs, but as the commentators justly said, that game is one ocean and one decent opponent away from counting as a respectable road win.

Two of those 3 are teams that nobody else has beaten either, the Colts by 1 measly, last minute point. I wouldn't be afraid to go back into Indy in the playoffs. Pats can fly under the radar now, the rest of their schedule is weak. Saints and Indy have to deal with all the hype and expectations now. Not sure what people were expecting from the Pats, it's not 2003 anymore.

edit: Come to think of it, their 4 losses were all to teams that were undefeated at the time.
Besides, they way the AFC is, there's the Colts, and then there's everybody else (although SD is heating up). The other Bye/2 seed is still up for grabs.

I think I'd back Manning for the MVP, because he just doesn't have a complete team like Favre or Brees do. The Colts are a sub .500 team, without Manning's comeback wins week after week. If they care to, they could easily break the Pats streak of 21 consecutive. game.

In particular the Bengals line looks like the most dominant one in football right now.

I'm a closet Carson Palmer fan. They had something going before Kimo Von Olhoffen blew out his knee in that playoff game, and it's taken them so long to get back to that point. Talk about fortune swinging, Palmer goes down in that game and Pitt wins, goes on to win it all that year, Bengals are only now looking as strong as they did then.

 

[Sander]

They did look horrible, knuckleheaded rookies/sophomores. And the arm tackling, and I think it's time to say Adalius Thomas was a FA bust. Pats get too wrapped in value sometimes, as if 3 guys that get 5 sacks are equal to 1 guy who can get 15. No impact players, should have paid Assante Samuels what he wanted...

It's bad enough when every commentator does it, but when an actual Pats fan does it it's just sad. His name is Asante Samuel, no extra 's' there.

Also, I like your change of tone from 'no one gets extra money, it's awesome!' to your tone above:

Most importantly it's an awesome precedent established by BB - players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever. You sign a contract, you honor your contract or you pound fucking sand.
These other teams look like fools letting players bend them over mid-contract. Weak, soft front offices that just embolden these shithead agents and crybaby players, they perpetuate this shit with their desperation moves.

Two of those 3 are teams that nobody else has beaten either, the Colts by 1 measly, last minute point. I wouldn't be afraid to go back into Indy in the playoffs. Pats can fly under the radar now, the rest of their schedule is weak. Saints and Indy have to deal with all the hype and expectations now. Not sure what people were expecting from the Pats, it's not 2003 anymore.

edit: Come to think of it, their 4 losses were all to teams that were undefeated at the time.

The Pats, however, have looked really really bad in several games. Mostly early in the season when Brady was looking like he was bothered by an injury, but also this game against the Saints where he looked more like Romo off his game than Brady.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It's bad enough when every commentator does it, but when an actual Pats fan does it it's just sad. His name is Asante Samuel, no extra 's' there.

Freudian slip? Besides it's not like his name is Jack or something proper. His mother pulled that name out of her aSS. Let's not even go down that road, huh?

BTW I don't always proofread, I use that time to keep my kids from killing themselves/one another.

Also, I like your change of tone from 'no one gets extra money, it's awesome!' to your tone above:

Most importantly it's an awesome precedent established by BB - players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever. You sign a contract, you honor your contract or you pound fucking sand.
These other teams look like fools letting players bend them over mid-contract. Weak, soft front offices that just embolden these shithead agents and crybaby players, they perpetuate this shit with their desperation moves.

Get your shit straight man, Samuels never held out.
Completely different, he fulfilled his contract and was a free agent. He never held out, not for one day, not for one dollar. Pats didn't want to overpay him as much as the Eagles did, amicable split.
I'm just saying sometimes it's worth paying a known commodity a little more, than over-spending it on unknown free agents (Adaliushoweverthefuckyouspellit Thomas and Derek Derik Derrek Da'Rick, Dayreek Burgess) that end up not being worth it. At least we knew what we had in Samuels.

I'm talking about players under a contract who, before that contract (which they agreed to) expires, suddenly decide that they are worth more and want the contract ripped up and renegotiated and are willing to compromise the entire team's success so that they can get 12M instead of 10M.

I wouldn't even throw Crabtree in that lot either. He has the brains and confidence to know he's worth more than Heyward-Bey on his best day. It's not his fault Al Davis is senile.

I stand behind what I say, in fact , I think it bears repeating:
Weak, soft front offices that just embolden these shithead agents and crybaby players, they perpetuate this shit with their desperation moves.
I think that was pretty succinct.

They were right to send Deion Branch and Richard Seymour packing. They're not worth long term deals, especially for what they got back.

Deion Branch wanted Reggie Wayne money! Are you kidding me?
And the Seahawks gave up a 1st rounder for him?
Take a look at what he's done since the Seahawks gave him his pay day.
You cannot possibly defend holdouts like this.

The Pats, however, have looked really really bad in several games. Mostly early in the season when Brady was looking like he was bothered by an injury, but also this game against the Saints where he looked more like Romo off his game than Brady.

Yeah, everybody in the league has had bad games except 3 teams (2 of which they lost to). Look around the league. Cincinnati lost at Oakland. Broncos lost at Washington.
Pats lost to the only two unbeatens, one by a point. The two best teams in the league.

There is a huge gap between the top 3 and the rest of the league. That Pats aren't in that top tier, but they'll still be around come playoffs.

Besides, when the Pats come to town, it's everybody's SB. Jet's loss, Broncos loss, Colts loss, Saints loss. That was the game of the year for each one of those teams.
Except for the Jets game, they are just another game for the Pats. The regular season is dress rehearsal for the Pats, the playoffs is the real show.
Think about how good the 4 conference leaders looked last year. Tennessee, Carolina, Giants, Colts.
Not one of them made it to the conference championships.
A lot of shit can happen in the playoffs.
edit: My fault, Steelers were the 2 seed. Still 3 of 4 teams in conference champ were wildcards. I like the Pats to win in Indy, and NO, shit they probably won't even make it that deep. All you need is some streaky team like Philly to catch fire and they're done.
3 or 4 Game win streak gets you the gold. That's all you need to do.

And Brady, well, he was kind of out of football for exactly a year, probably not even ambulatory for a lot of that time and with the exception of a freakishly outlandish 2007, he's not a gaudy numbers guy. Look at his yearly stats.

 

[Sander]

Get your shit straight man, Samuels never held out.
Completely different, he fulfilled his contract and was a free agent. He never held out, not for one day, not for one dollar. Pats didn't want to overpay him as much as the Eagles did, amicable split.
I'm just saying sometimes it's worth paying a known commodity a little more, than over-spending it on unknown free agents

That's exactly it. Your whole spiel about never changing a contract was one-sided: when a player is worth it, he is worth it, regardless of his current status. The contract gives the Pats a bit more power, but if otherwise the player walks and they need to retain him, they should. That last part is the attitude you take when talking about free agents, but not when talking your own players? Eh, it's just not realistic in a business where contract renegotiations constantly happen, ie sports.
Also note that often the advantage for teams in contract renegotiations is the possibility to get these players to sign for a longer contract.

Also, seriously, you made the same mistake with Samuel again. Unless you're just trying to annoy me.

Yeah, everybody in the league has had bad games except 3 teams (2 of which they lost to). Look around the league. Cincinnati lost at Oakland. Broncos lost at Washington.
Pats lost to the only two unbeatens, one by a point. The two best teams in the league.

The Saints had bad games too - but they won them. That's the difference, really, and that's the difference between a good team and a great team.

There is a huge gap between the top 3 and the rest of the league. That Pats aren't in that top tier, but they'll still be around come playoffs.

Besides, when the Pats come to town, it's everybody's SB. Jet's loss, Broncos loss, Colts loss, Saints loss. That was the game of the year for each one of those teams.
Except for the Jets game, they are just another game for the Pats. The regular season is dress rehearsal for the Pats, the playoffs is the real show.

That's just unfounded arrogance. You really think that teams think a Pats game is bigger than the playoffs when they're playoff contenders? Nonsense.
The reason the Pats game is a big game for each of those teams, is that the Pats are the only team that look great in their schedule. For the Saints there were the Giants, but they've turned out to not be as good either.

And Brady, well, he was kind of out of football for exactly a year, probably not even ambulatory for a lot of that time and with the exception of a freakishly outlandish 2007, he's not a gaudy numbers guy. Look at his yearly stats.

I don't mean stats, I just mean bad throws. He overthrew his receivers badly three straight times on a similar route toward the end of the 1st half, having to settle for a field goal, and he was doing that consistently. The second pick was especially ugly. And I mean no receiver within 10 yards ugly.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

That's exactly it. Your whole spiel about never changing a contract was one-sided when a player is worth it, he is worth it, regardless of his current status.

You can't take a statement I made specifically about holdouts and apply it across the board to unrestricted free agents too. They are two vastly different beasts, and I don't really feel any responsibility if you want to misconstrue what I said and apply it to everyone. That's not the context I said it in.

Nobody wanted to change Assman's contract. He had a contract, he fulfilled his contract, it ended, the two parties split amicably. End of story.
You can't possibly compare this to a player already under contract, who compromises the entire team's success because they refuse to play, practice or even step foot in the team's facilities. Why reward this behaviour? Like I said it emboldens these shithead agents to do it more. It's a bad precedent to set.

What's the point of a contract then, when it can be changed to suit the vicissitudes of the streaky nature of sports? It makes them worthless. Everytime you have a good game you can ask for more?
The Deion Branch situation only confirms this. He's a pretty good receiver that came off the game of a lifetime. He wanted money commensurate to that or specifically to Reggie Wayne. He's never had Reggie Wayne numbers before or after.
Why would you rip up his contract and pay him that money? Especially when you get a 1st rounder for him, then go out and get Randy freakin' Moss for a 4th rounder and Welker for a 2nd rounder.
Explain to me where the Patriots went wrong in handling this?

Or are you suggesting that Teams too can renegotiate when players are in a slump too?
If that's how you want it, then it has to go both ways, otherwise you are proposing a double standard.

Eh, it's just not realistic in a business where contract renegotiations constantly happen, ie sports.

Well, there's that little wrinkle of the salary cap, which by design denies you the ability to re-sign all your free agents to existing levels.
That's how the system works, that's how it's supposed to work. It's part of the attempt at parity.

Also note that often the advantage for teams in contract renegotiations is the possibility to get these players to sign for a longer contract.

Why would you want to sign a guy on the backside of his career (Richard Seymour) to a long term contract? I'm sure they'd love it, but why would you pay more and longer for a guy who's going to give you less? That doesn't make any sense at all.

That's just unfounded arrogance. You really think that teams think a Pats game is bigger than the playoffs when they're playoff contenders? Nonsense.
The reason the Pats game is a big game for each of those teams, is that the Pats are the only team that look great in their schedule. For the Saints there were the Giants, but they've turned out to not be as good either.

No, obviously not playoffs, regular season. Those 4 losses were to undefeated teams, with the Pats coming in.
1) Jets - Rex Ryan called every season ticket holder prior to the game to tell them to bring the noise. The Jets signed the Pats old 2nd string QB to get debriefed by him and made him game captain and then cut him after the game when he was pumped dry. You think the Jets do this every week? Besides Jets/Pats is a huge divisional rivalry and Ryan needed to make a statement on a team that was like 1-8 to the Pats. Easily the Jets biggest win.
2)Broncos were also undefeated heading into the ass end of their schedule, with McDaniels facing off against his old team/mentor. He was doing cartwheels on the field after the game.
3) Indy/Pats, especially with an undefeated Colts on the national stage. It's the biggest game of pretty much every season. It's the highest ranked regular season football game ever. Pretty big, no?
4) Saints. Again undefeated, national game. Steve Young said it was the biggest game in Saints franchise history. They all talked about how you need to beat the best to be the best (Ric Flair again?), emulating and overcoming the model franchise etc. etc. ESPN turned that game into a coronation practically (granted the Saints looked impeccable).

I don't mean stats, I just mean bad throws. He overthrew his receivers badly three straight times on a similar route toward the end of the 1st half, having to settle for a field goal, and he was doing that consistently. The second pick was especially ugly. And I mean no receiver within 10 yards ugly.

I would say his 1st INT ended the game essentially. Pats forced the punt, Welker had a sick return into Saint's territory and then Brady turned it over.
Saints didn't really run it over at all except for that Maroney double fumble play. Pats weren't as explosive, but up to that point that had pounded the rock and eaten lots of clock.
Pats also sucked in the Red Zone (they were moving the ball around fairly well), especially in the 2nd half - but I've been saying that for months?

 

[Sander]

You can't take a statement I made specifically about holdouts and apply it across the board to unrestricted free agents too. They are two vastly different beasts, and I don't really feel any responsibility if you want to misconstrue what I said and apply it to everyone. That's not the context I said it in.

Nobody wanted to change Assman's contract. He had a contract, he fulfilled his contract, it ended, the two parties split amicably. End of story.
You can't possibly compare this to a player already under contract, who compromises the entire team's success because they refuse to play, practice or even step foot in the team's facilities. Why reward this behaviour? Like I said it emboldens these shithead agents to do it more. It's a bad precedent to set.

What's the point of a contract then, when it can be changed to suit the vicissitudes of the streaky nature of sports? It makes them worthless. Everytime you have a good game you can ask for more?
The Deion Branch situation only confirms this. He's a pretty good receiver that came off the game of a lifetime. He wanted money commensurate to that or specifically to Reggie Wayne. He's never had Reggie Wayne numbers before or after.
Why would you rip up his contract and pay him that money? Especially when you get a 1st rounder for him, then go out and get Randy freakin' Moss for a 4th rounder and Welker for a 2nd rounder.
Explain to me where the Patriots went wrong in handling this?

Or are you suggesting that Teams too can renegotiate when players are in a slump too?
If that's how you want it, then it has to go both ways, otherwise you are proposing a double standard.

Get back to me when you can differ between commenting on general policies and specific implementations of that policy.
Yes, in some (maybe a lot) of cases you don't want to sign someone to a larger contract. But this is not always true. Often, you want to sign someone to a new contract to keep him with the team longer - to re-sign him before he turns free agent. That should simply be a business decision, and not one informed by some misguided principle of refusing to change contracts (I'd like to speak to the first employer who never gives raises to his personnel and see how well his business fares).

Well, there's that little wrinkle of the salary cap, which by design denies you the ability to re-sign all your free agents to existing levels.
That's how the system works, that's how it's supposed to work. It's part of the attempt at parity.

That's just something that artificially limits market forces, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a general policy to never ever re-negotiate contracts.

No, obviously not playoffs, regular season. Those 4 losses were to undefeated teams, with the Pats coming in.
1) Jets - Rex Ryan called every season ticket holder prior to the game to tell them to bring the noise. The Jets signed the Pats old 2nd string QB to get debriefed by him and made him game captain and then cut him after the game when he was pumped dry. You think the Jets do this every week? Besides Jets/Pats is a huge divisional rivalry and Ryan needed to make a statement on a team that was like 1-8 to the Pats. Easily the Jets biggest win.
2)Broncos were also undefeated heading into the ass end of their schedule, with McDaniels facing off against his old team/mentor. He was doing cartwheels on the field after the game.
3) Indy/Pats, especially with an undefeated Colts on the national stage. It's the biggest game of pretty much every season. It's the highest ranked regular season football game ever. Pretty big, no?
4) Saints. Again undefeated, national game. Steve Young said it was the biggest game in Saints franchise history. They all talked about how you need to beat the best to be the best (Ric Flair again?), emulating and overcoming the model franchise etc. etc. ESPN turned that game into a coronation practically (granted the Saints looked impeccable).

Some of this is media hype, some of this isn't. Steve Young's comment is asinine. Bigger than playoff games when you've already got the playoffs clinched too? Ridiculous.

My point is: if the Saints had faced the Colts, Vikes, maybe the Broncos or Bengals or, y'know, any other competent opponent, this game would not have been nearly as important to them.

 

[UniversalWolf]

If the Titans beat the Colts this weekend, no one has a better argument for being MVP than Vince Young. When he wasn't playing, his team didn't win a game. Now that he is playing, they haven't lost a game.

Even though they're in the lead for the NFC wildcard at the moment, if the Packers manage to get into the playoffs they'll defintely have earned their spot. To end the season they have Baltimore, @Chicago, @Pitt, Seattle, @Arizona. They probably have to win three of those five. Too bad they lost that stupid game in Tampa.

There are some interesting things about Favre's season this year when you look at his stat line:
http://www.nfl.com/players/brettfavre/profile?id=FAV540222

He's having the best season of his career in almost every category. Still, he's actually taken quite a few sacks this year - 22, to be exact, which is two per game. 32 for the year would be the most he's had since 2000. Despite that, he's only fumbled one time, which is extremely low for eleven games.

 

[Sander]

If the Titans beat the Colts this weekend, no one has a better argument for being MVP than Vince Young. When he wasn't playing, his team didn't win a game. Now that he is playing, they haven't lost a game.

I don't know about that. Vince Young's value doesn't really come from Vince Young, it comes from what he does to free up Chris Johnson. With Kerry Collins, people apparently found good ways to neutralize both. They can't do the same when it's Vince Young in there, but that's because it frees up Chris Johnson to be the difference maker.

Even though they're in the lead for the NFC wildcard at the moment, if the Packers manage to get into the playoffs they'll defintely have earned their spot. To end the season they have Baltimore, @Chicago, @Pitt, Seattle, @Arizona. They probably have to win three of those five. Too bad they lost that stupid game in Tampa.

Whoooooooo

There are some interesting things about Favre's season this year when you look at his stat line:
http://www.nfl.com/players/brettfavre/profile?id=FAV540222

He's having the best season of his career in almost every category. Still, he's actually taken quite a few sacks this year - 22, to be exact, which is two per game. 32 for the year would be the most he's had since 2000. Despite that, he's only fumbled one time, which is extremely low for eleven games.

Yep. Seriously, the guy is having the most ridiculous year, and if he keeps playing like this we'll get at least one more offseason of Favre waffling between retiring and continuing.

Still, it always seems like he's not really doing all that much special - his main asset for the Vikings seems to be not turning the ball over. I'm probably underestimating how easy it is to go through your reads and consistently hit receivers, even if it is for short gains, but I do wonder how easily other QBs could repeat this.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

(I'd like to speak to the first employer who never gives raises to his personnel and see how well his business fares).
...
That's just something that artificially limits market forces, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a general policy to never ever re-negotiate contracts.

Dude, if you still want to misconstrue 'don't placate holdouts' to mean 'nobody gets raises ever' there's nothing I can tell you.

If the Titans beat the Colts this weekend, no one has a better argument for being MVP than Vince Young. When he wasn't playing, his team didn't win a game. Now that he is playing, they haven't lost a game.

I think it would take more than that, if they make the playoffs, then I'd say Young gets MVP consideration.
As much as I rag on him I think Manning is the front runner, he doesn't have nearly the tools or DEF that Brees and Favre do.

As it is, Young's stating to breathe down Brady's neck for Comeback Player of the Year.

He's having the best season of his career in almost every category. Still, he's actually taken quite a few sacks this year - 22, to be exact, which is two per game. 32 for the year would be the most he's had since 2000. Despite that, he's only fumbled one time, which is extremely low for eleven games.

From what I've seen those were smart sacks, that in years past he would've just blinded heaved up for grabs.
And I know this sounds funny, but Favre used to be a very physical QB. He was a football player's QB. He seems to really be taking it easy on his body now.
It is amazing though, by his standards he should probably have 20 INTs by now. 3 INTs. For a guy who has 36 career 3+INT games. That's a remarkable turnaround.

 

[Sander]

Dude, if you still want to misconstrue 'don't placate holdouts' to mean 'nobody gets raises ever' there's nothing I can tell you.

So what exactly do you think these words mean:
"Most importantly it's an awesome precedent established by BB - players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever. You sign a contract, you honor your contract or you pound fucking sand. "
Those are your words. They say: players get nothing for requesting re-negotiations. Ever.

I think it would take more than that, if they make the playoffs, then I'd say Young gets MVP consideration.
As much as I rag on him I think Manning is the front runner, he doesn't have nearly the tools or DEF that Brees and Favre do.

As it is, Young's stating to breathe down Brady's neck for Comeback Player of the Year.

You guys really feel that Vince Young is more important for his team than CJ?

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

So what exactly do you think these words mean:
"Most importantly it's an awesome precedent established by BB - players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever. You sign a contract, you honor your contract or you pound fucking sand. "
Those are your words. They say: players get nothing for requesting re-negotiations. Ever.

Well, if you're going to ignore the principle condition of the statement, take it out of context, and paraphrase me, it's easy to see how you might have misconstrue what I said.

You guys really feel that Vince Young is more important for his team than CJ?

If a QB takes over an 0-6 team and leads them to the playoffs, he deserves consideration. With a pack led by Manning, Favre and Brees, Young would still be a loooooong shot.

Also:
Disgruntled Raiders fans ask Davis to hire GM
I'm sure this will get a lot of serious consideration.
How sad the Raiders have become, they were the winningest franchise from 70s-90s. They can't even get out of their own way now. Davis' maverick streak is just a liability now. Nothing could be done, if the league said peep, he'd go ballistic. He was a rogue owner from the beginning, but now he's just a stubborn, paranoid old man.

And they don't even populate the team with freaks, cheaters, criminals and scumbags anymore.

 

[Sander]

So what exactly do you think these words mean:
"Most importantly it's an awesome precedent established by BB - players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever. You sign a contract, you honor your contract or you pound fucking sand. "
Those are your words. They say: players get nothing for requesting re-negotiations. Ever.

Well, if you're going to ignore the principle condition of the statement, take it out of context, and paraphrase me, it's easy to see how you might have misconstrue what I said.

Please look up the meaning of the word 'or'.
Your exact phrase: 'players get nothing for holding out or requesting re-negotiations. Ever.'
What you said should be interpreted as follows:
A) Players get nothing for holding out. Ever.
and
B) Players get nothing for requesting re-negotiations. Ever.

Seriously, Cimm, you said what you said. You can say that you disagree with what you earlier stated, or that's not what you meant, but you clearly said it.

If a QB takes over an 0-6 team and leads them to the playoffs, he deserves consideration. With a pack led by Manning, Favre and Brees, Young would still be a loooooong shot.

That's not actually answering my question.
Do you think Vince Young is more important for his team than Chris Johnson? If so, why? 'Cause most of his value comes from opening up opportunities for Chris Johnson. And if not, why do you mention Vince Young for MVP and not Chris Johnson?

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

[What you said should be interpreted as follows:
A) Players get nothing for holding out. Ever.
and
B) Players get nothing for requesting re-negotiations. Ever.

And how does that get construed to mean no one gets raises ever?
My statement says nothing about free agents, nor was that part of the context it was made in, so I don't know why you're trying to insinuate I contradicted myself by wishing they had re-signed Ashanti Samizzle, a free agent. Not a holdout, didn't want an extension. Free agent.

Do we really need to put a finer point on it than that?

You still haven't answered if you think teams should re-negotiate when players are in a slump. Because if I'm a stakeholder (season ticket holder, advertiser, corporate sponsor) in the Panthers or the Bears, and my costs went up this year, I want a rebate, and I want it to come out of Cutler and Delhomme's paychecks.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. If mid-contract renegotiations only benefit the hot player, then you are proposing a double standard.

Also are you saying you'd pay Deion Branch Reggie Wayne money? Bear in mind he was offered a raise and an extension and still held out. Bear in mind what he's done since, how many games he's missed. Bear in mind they got a 1st rounder in return for him. Bear in mind they replaced him with Moss (for a 4th rounder) and Welker (for a 2nd rounder). That's one of the greatest series of GM moves ever.

You loose Deion Branch (and gain the opportunity cost of cap space he never would've justified) and a 2nd and 4th round pick.
You gain Moss, Welker, and a 1st round pick.
Where's the problem?

If you want to take issue with the personnell moves of BB, there is room for criticism, but it comes from letting free agents walk (Asante'ay), for poor substitute free agent replacements (Shawn Springs, Fred Taylor, Galloway) and questionable picks.

That's not actually answering my question.
Do you think Vince Young is more important for his team than Chris Johnson? If so, why? 'Cause most of his value comes from opening up opportunities for Chris Johnson. And if not, why do you mention Vince Young for MVP and not Chris Johnson?

I said consideration only if they make the playoffs, which I don't think they will.
By consideration, I mean in the top 5 (still behind Manning, Brees, Favre)

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

blahblahblah i'll debate anything because i'm mwahmwahmwah...

anyway, one of the coolest things i've ever seen:

respect from 12/21
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTyNejo2TDE[/youtube]

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Fuck that shit, we just found out the winless NY UFL team is relocating to Hartford. Now I can ignore the UFL from closer than ever!