NFL 2010

[Sander]

NFC Offensive Tackles are a real joke this year. Peters, Clifton and Gross? Feh. None of them had a good year. Donald Penn outperformed all of 'em. So did Saffold, though he's on the right side.

As for 3-4 vs 4-3 rushers, that really messes up the OLB rankings more than the DE rankings. OLB selections go to the sack monsters, sadly.

Man I hope Seattle loses.

lulz fake fan.
So, Luck probably not coming out. You guys are screwed at QB.

Peyton being selected isn't that weird. He's still had a good year, and he's still the only reason that team wins games.

Aaron Rodgers not being selected surprises me a lot more. He's easily been better than Brees and Matt Ryan this year.

Don't really know what DE I'd choose over Freeney in the AFC, though.

Also, Deangelo Hall but no Tramon Williams? Bullshit.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The beauty is, he's worth more in trade now.

Well he was already in the pro bowl last year so w'evz.

Still, I'd make the distinction between appearing in the pro-bowl due to absentees and being elected to the pro-bowl. He's been benched repeatedly this year, not even sure he's the best safety on the team. But, in between blown assignments and tackling his own CBs he's good for a Sports Center highlight pick or hit, FWIW, probably why he gets the nod nationally. Not exactly a fan favorite around here. Still leaving the door open for post-season heroics though...

It's pretty apparent that there's not a lot of due diligence and deliberation put into selection overall. Ah, it's just the Pro-Bowl.

Hopefully the Patriots are busy doing other things...

 

[Brother None]

It's pretty apparent that there's not a lot of due diligence and deliberation put into selection overall. Ah, it's just the Pro-Bowl.

Aye. Kid probably gets a bonus for it too but as odd as the pro bowl has always been, moving it ahead of the super bowl just makes it even more farcical. I wonder if we'll repeat last year's joke, with Freeman (6th alternate) throwing long bombs over Earl Thomas (5th alternate). It's well possible, so who cares.

All-Pros are more meaningful but it's still individual awards in a team sport. I think the Bucs players would be fine with them not getting a single pro bowler and the Bwoys getting five as long as they are getting into the playoffs (they're not, though).

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Even though he's an obnoxious Jet (was that redundant?), I don't believe the man's family is fair game. But goddamn, this foot thing is about to get really ugly. I'm boycotting this wholly for my innocence's sake. Somethings do not need to be known.

 

[Sander]

Aye. Kid probably gets a bonus for it too but as odd as the pro bowl has always been, moving it ahead of the super bowl just makes it even more farcical. I wonder if we'll repeat last year's joke, with Freeman (6th alternate) throwing long bombs over Earl Thomas (5th alternate). It's well possible, so who cares.

All-Pros are more meaningful but it's still individual awards in a team sport. I think the Bucs players would be fine with them not getting a single pro bowler and the Bwoys getting five as long as they are getting into the playoffs (they're not, though).

ffffffffff

Ross Tucker (ex NFLguard) explained some things about how players make Pro Bowl choices: they don't really care. It happens at the end of a practice and is rushed through because everyone wants to get to the showers. And, it's done by position group. So all the O-lineman will decide what D-lineman the entire team votes for, all the WRs will vote on DBs etc. Also, some teams have unofficial rules about who you vote for. Redskins never vote for Cowboys, apparently.

At least, that's how he experienced it.

Even though he's an obnoxious Jet (was that redundant?), I don't believe the man's family is fair game. But goddamn, this foot thing is about to get really ugly. I'm boycotting this wholly for my innocence's sake. Somethings do not need to be known.

Wait, hasn't that story died yet? I thought it was a funny anecdote, but is this really being played out anywhere?

 

[UniversalWolf]

NFC Offensive Tackles are a real joke this year. Peters, Clifton and Gross? Feh. None of them had a good year.

Actually Clifton had a really good year this year. Surprised the heck out of me, because I thought he had hit the infamous wall of old age. He'd been injured over and over the past two seasons, but this year he was healthy the whole time, so I suppose that must've been the difference.

Peters and Gross and Penn I agree though, based on what I've seen their homers saying.

 

[Sander]

Bucs beat the Saints, and not with the Saints resting their starters either. Saints played starters until late in the 4th quarter, Bucs were simply better.

Now let's hope the Bears and Redskins do their jobs.

Well that failed epically. Bears lose to Packers. Packers make the playoffs, well deserved, and the Bucs and Giants are out.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Well that failed epically.

It'll give the Bucs a chip on their shoulders for next season. I get to keep Tampa Mike in my fantasy league, so I hope they light it up.

McCarthy and Capers managed to get the Pack into the playoffs even with 15 players on IR. I'm impressed.

Somebody please get Sam Bradford some WRs with hands!

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Watch all the wildcards win this weekend. Weak/faltering division champs at home versus superior wildcards. Saints are getting spotted 10 points on the road already. Jets have the DBs now and Colts don't have the WR depth anymore. Ravens will abuse KC. Eagles/GB should be close.

A sub .500 team in the playoffs, NFC West is the Conference USA of the NFL. Difference being, even the corrupt-ass BCS wouldn't give an automatic bid to a losing team. That's just bad form.
Too many divisions, too few teams in them leads to watered down playoff teams. 4 divisions was a bad idea born of over-expansion. Watch them "enhance" the divisions even more like they want to enhance the schedule to 18 games. Numbnuts.
This could have been avoided if Kurt Warner wasn't such a pussy.

Jets/Colts?
Colts/Jets?
I don't know who to root for/against. It's like Nazis vs. Commies, or Interplay vs. Bethesda, I'll just enjoy watching them both annihilate each other.


Pats are sitting pretty. Not the best playoff team they've ever fielded, but in Foxboro, in Jan., 2 weeks prep with BB. Going to be tough to beat. I don't like their chances against one of those NFC teams (ATL, NO, PHI, GB) indoors though.

Not too shabby for a rebuilding year.

 

[Sander]

A sub .500 team in the playoffs, NFC West is the Conference USA of the NFL. Difference being, even the corrupt-ass BCS wouldn't give an automatic bid to a losing team. That's just bad form.
Too many divisions, too few teams in them leads to watered down playoff teams. 4 divisions was a bad idea born of over-expansion. Watch them "enhance" the divisions even more like they want to enhance the schedule to 18 games. Numbnuts.
This could have been avoided if Kurt Warner wasn't such a pussy.

Whaaa whaaa whwaaaaaaaaa. First time ever a losing team makes the playoffs. That's an incident, not a reason to blow up the system.

You want rivalries and divisions to mean something? This shit is going to happen.

And it's not like there were no failing teams when the NFL was smaller or the schedule was tighter. Bucs, Lions, Saints were terrible then for decades on end.


Colts will beat the Jets by the way, Jets can't get anything done on offense and their defense is nowhere near as good as it was last year. I like the Chiefs to kill the Ravens too, unless Cassel implodes. Chiefs can get beat by teams that jump out to leads as they don't have the explosive offense to get back into games. But if they can keep games close, they win games with their running game and the occasional Bowe catch. And their defense is very solid. I can't see the Ravens jumping out to a lead on them.
I wouldn't be too quick to hand a win to the Saints either. Yeah they're a better team but they're banged up(Malcolm Jenkins, Jimmy Graham and Chris Ivory all suffered injuries yesterday) and QWest Field is nothing to joke about.
Packers-Iggles should be a great game, though. I hope Aaron Rodgers curbstomps the birds.

Eric Mangini just got fired, by the way. Hire more ex-Pats coaches please, shitty teams. Rumour is Holmgren wants to hire Gruden there. That'll be fun. He can go play quarterback roulette again when he realizes Colt McCoy doesn't have the arm he wants.

By the way, Mike Mayock will call the Saints-Seahawks game. Great choice.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Whaaa whaaa whwaaaaaaaaa. First time ever a losing team makes the playoffs. That's an incident, not a reason to blow up the system.

I think you have me confused with someone who hasn't been harping on three 5 team divisions ever since they realigned.

3 div winners and 3 wildcards always resulted in better teams in the playoffs, and there were still rivalries.

You want rivalries and divisions to mean something? This shit is going to happen.

What good inter-division rivalries do we have now that we didn't have before?
Was that really a great rivalry last night? Rookie QB vs. Billy Volek's b/u?
If anything we've lost more inter-division rivalries through realignment. Colts/Pats?

And it's not like there were no failing teams when the NFL was smaller or the schedule was tighter. Bucs, Lions, Saints were terrible then for decades on end.

That's a parity issue. Adding a division at the expense of a wildcard has always resulted in this situation, this year it's just more marked.

Colts will beat the Jets by the way, Jets can't get anything done on offense and their defense is nowhere near as good as it was last year.

Colts are only 3 point favorites, and only that because they are at home. This is a push.
Eagles too, only favored by 2.5 at home, not exactly a vote of confidence from our friends in Vegas.
Chiefs aren't even favored at home.
I don't think the Saints are that great, but Seattle isn't in their league. That was the worst run blocking I've ever seen last night, and beating a rookie QB at home, so what?
That's two division leading home teams as underdogs, and the other two division leaders no more than a FG favorite.

 

[Sander]

I think your argument is confused. Half of it is about "these teams are shitty right now so this rivalry is bullshit", which is a ridiculous argument as teams get better and worse each year. Bears-Packers sure didn't look like an actual rivalry for much of the '90s. Pats-Jets was a joke during the '80s. Ravens-Steelers didn't exist before '95. Rivalries come and go to some extent. Some of them won't go unless a team is horrendous for decades because of the history of that rivalry,
In any case, the fact that a couple bad teams happen to be in the same division isn't a reason to blow up the system. At least the Rams look like they'll be good for a while in that division, and Niners have a ton of talent and could be good if they finally sort out that organizational and coaching mess. It all goes back to the quarterback. Except in the case of the Cardinals, that organization looks doomed.

Will fewer divisions result in generally better teams (or at least teams with better records) in the playoffs? Yes. At the same time, you don't want to go too far with that. You don't want to create a European football situation where you have just one 'division' and the top teams in that situation go through.

In a way, these division exist because they set up an elimination tournament in a way where the best team hasn't been determined during the regular season. If you eliminate more divisions, you end up diminishing the importance of the playoffs as the regular season comes to determine who the best teams really are. I'd hate to see that happen.

Basically, your argument comes back to '32 teams is too many whaaaaaa', which is nonsense in my mind. Teams bubble up from the bottom of the pile to the playoffs every year. As long as that's happening consistently, I can't say that there are too many teams.

Colts are only 3 point favorites, and only that because they are at home. This is a push.
Eagles too, only favored by 2.5 at home, not exactly a vote of confidence from our friends in Vegas.
Chiefs aren't even favored at home.
I don't think the Saints are that great, but Seattle isn't in their league. That was the worst run blocking I've ever seen last night, and beating a rookie QB at home, so what?
That's two division leading home teams as underdogs, and the other two division leaders no more than a FG favorite.

Parity's a lovely thing.

 

[Brother None]

It'll give the Bucs a chip on their shoulders for next season. I get to keep Tampa Mike in my fantasy league, so I hope they light it up.

Bucs beat up a bunch of losing teams and the Saints' backups. They had a great year for a team that was rebuilt in two years. Hell, this is a model rebuild. But I'm not sure they're set to take the league by storm even though raw numbers would give that impression. Who knows though, the NFC South has always been a weird division. They should get better next year, obviously, especially if they are more lucky in injuries, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll end up with a better record (but hell, it's not like that's a problem).

I'd be stupid to bet against a young team with that much talent though.

A sub .500 team in the playoffs, NFC West is the Conference USA of the NFL. Difference being, even the corrupt-ass BCS wouldn't give an automatic bid to a losing team. That's just bad form.

OH NOEZ. It's not like we were already warned this is a structural problem by the 2008 Chargers (and yes, I remember you whining back then too). Should've fixed it then. Go ahead and fix it now, who cares, it won't happen again anyway.

NFC West had a unique year, with everyone rebuilding, and the one team that wasn't supposed to be rebuilding (the 49ers)...well...being the 49ers. "Really bad division for a decade" is a platitude that focuses on regular season record and ignores how we sent the most teams to the Superbowl of any division in the decade (tied with the AFC East). The badness always focuses on the regular season, and considering the regular season is just qualifiers for the prize, that's hilarious.

I'm not saying the Seahawks are poised to make a run. But neither would the Rams be. Yet people focus on that one number. Oh no, it's sub-.500! As if the .500 Rams would've been such an infinitely more competent team to send into the playoffs. They're young and thus more charming than the Squawks, but otherwise, what the hell is the difference. It's a bad team or a bad team, and the Seahawks are actually slightly more well-built for the playoffs right now.

I am enjoying pieces like these. How dare the Seahawks celebrate being NFC West champions! At least he qualifies himself a bit at the end of the article but seriously, we're a 7-9 team that's not really 7-9 good, in year 1 or maybe year 0 of rebuilding mode, and we're supposed to be ashamed because the NFL made a system that gets us into the playoffs? Yeah, totally our fault. Fuck it, NFC West champions! No asterisks needed.

It's all fun, I'm enjoying it. Until I glance at the draft order and see we dropped from 7 to 21. All thanks to the 2008 Chargers. That makes me sad. Otherwise, screw the whiners.

Too many divisions, too few teams in them leads to watered down playoff teams.

Eh. There'll always be some watered-down nature unless you reduce and reduce and reduce down to elite teams. But the nature of wildcard weekend is to have some scrubs knocked out. The Chargers, the Seahawks, what's the difference? The draft order has been fixed. They should probably fix the home-field advantage and possibly ban losing teams qualifying (why not? It's not like it'll ever happen again).

You talk about it as if it's the death of pro football. But it's not. Elite teams still get to face one another, but with the added fun of an occasional 9-7 Cards team getting hot and making a run. What's the harm?

Not too shabby for a rebuilding year.

I think I'm going to design a bot to just replace your posts here.
"Manning is a pussy. Choker."
"Man the Patriots are good. Not bad for a rebuilding year."
"We should have less teams."
"We have too few quarterbacks."
"Goddamn pussy rules cheating dome Colts."

Your broken-recordness is astounding.

 

[Sander]

Bucs beat up a bunch of losing teams and the Saints' backups.

Saints played their starters (sitting Shockey, Colston and Thomas) until about the mid of the 4th quarter. The Bucs played better than the Saints throughout the game, against their starters. Even though the Bucs are arguably the most beat-up team in the league right now.
You could argue that the Saints didn't really care, even though I didn't see that on the field, but they weren't playing against the Saints' backups.

They had a great year for a team that was rebuilt in two years. Hell, this is a model rebuild. But I'm not sure they're set to take the league by storm even though raw numbers would give that impression. Who knows though, the NFC South has always been a weird division. They should get better next year, obviously, especially if they are more lucky in injuries, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll end up with a better record (but hell, it's not like that's a problem).

I'd be stupid to bet against a young team with that much talent though.

Schedule should be tougher next year, but in terms of opponents' winning percentage it was a middle of the pack schedule this year. That hides the fact that there were a couple of really really good opponents and a lot of really really weak opponents, though. And there were a lot of close wins against shitty opponents, too, that's a problem.
But there are so many young players that should improve that it's hard not to see the team doing better. Combine that with hopefully fewer injuries, and the team should improve a lot. Perhaps not in terms of W-L, because a 10-win season is pretty good anyway, but certainly in terms of quality of play.

Improving the edge rush and the linebacking corps should be a focus in the offseason for this team.


Seahawks rebuilding effort confuses me, though. Bucs went with youth and potential over experience and production structurally to rebuild. Seahawks go with competition everywhere, but that roster is a lot older than I'd expect a rebuilding roster to be.

The fact that the team looks so bad right now is a testament to the horrible job the previous regime did of building a talent base, though.

I think I'm going to design a bot to just replace your posts here.
"Manning is a pussy. Choker."
"Man the Patriots are good. Not bad for a rebuilding year."
"We should have less teams."
"We have too few quarterbacks."
"Goddamn pussy rules cheating dome Colts."

Your broken-recordness is astounding.

Wasn't last year a rebuilding year for the Pats too?

 

[Brother None]

You could argue that the Saints didn't really care, even though I didn't see that on the field.

You didn't. Most Bucs fans probably didn't. Everyone else did. You might as well argue the Bears were leaving everything on the field. The Saints O couldn't do anything, and I'd be *very* hard-pressed to put that on the Bucs D. It looked like they rested a bunch of key players and never game-planned around that, just calling random plays without real respect for this particular game or their opponent. This is reminiscent of the Saints loss last year, which no one cared about except the Bucs team and fans.
Which is good. You should care, and pat each other on the shoulders, regardless of the fact that it's simply not true. Saints were never playing to win, and then they pulled their starters to add insult to injury.

I did enjoy the commentators trying to talk up the non-existent South rivalries though.

But there are so many young players that should improve that it's hard not to see the team doing better. Combine that with hopefully fewer injuries, and the team should improve a lot. Perhaps not in terms of W-L, because a 10-win season is pretty good anyway, but certainly in terms of quality of play.

That's, uhm, what I said?

Certainly looks tougher.

We have a fun road schedule.

Seahawks rebuilding effort confuses me, though. Bucs went with youth and potential over experience and production structurally to rebuild. Seahawks go with competition everywhere, but that roster is a lot older than I'd expect a rebuilding roster to be.

Different situations. Lots of bodies in the Seahawks roster in a winnable NFC West. Go for the crown, build a core (they did), and just cycle out the bodies next year. It's easy to miss because there are so many eminently replaceable old bodies, but the Hawks worked a lot of players that should be a part of our franchise for years to come (Tate, BMW and Obamanu at WR, Beast Force at RB, Okung and Spencer on the OL, Red Bryant (and maybe Mebane) on DL, Hawthorne and Curry at LB and Earl Thomas at FS). There were too many holes to fill with youth unless you wanted to plug and play UFAs all over the place (even in the NFC West, you'd need a lot of luck to pull that off).

There's a lot of holes left to address, the Hawks are a talent-poor team, but that wouldn't change regardless of what kind of bodies you plug in. The biggest holes being QB, followed by CB and OL (OGs and RT), but this isn't a good year to judge PC/Schneider by, because they cycled out a lot of talent while still looking to win. Not necessarily a horrible decision since it's a valuable experience for players that should be at the core for years to come (like Okung and Thomas).

Next year will tell us if they "get" rebuilding or are simply weird. That's why I said this is kind of a "Year 0" in rebuilding terms. And until we get a franchise QB that won't change. And that's the only drawback of what PC/Schneider did, it harmed our draft spot. MTD has us taking Mallett. Ugh. Still, at least we'll enter Year 1. Sit him being the Charliehorse and see where we go...

...

Locker or bust!
(Locker and bust)
(Locker will bust)

 

[Sander]

You didn't. Most Bucs fans probably didn't. Everyone else did. You might as well argue the Bears were leaving everything on the field. The Saints O couldn't do anything, and I'd be *very* hard-pressed to put that on the Bucs D. It looked like they rested a bunch of key players and never game-planned around that, just calling random plays without real respect for this particular game or their opponent. This is reminiscent of the Saints loss last year, which no one cared about except the Bucs team and fans.
Which is good. You should care, and pat each other on the shoulders, regardless of the fact that it's simply not true. Saints were never playing to win, and then they pulled their starters to add insult to injury.

Fair enough. I doubt the Bucs D could've stopped their passing game if the Saints were playing at full strength. Especially because for a series or two we had only 3 corners who could play, with 2 of them being terrible.

Chris Ivory and Jimmy Graham getting hurt helped as well. That left them without a lot of versatile movement players, or a good running game. Don't even know if those were serious injuries, have to think they would sit those players even if they had just nicked something.

Different situations. Lots of bodies in the Seahawks roster in a winnable NFC West. Go for the crown, build a core (they did), and just cycle out the bodies next year. It's easy to miss because there are so many eminently replaceable old bodies, but the Hawks worked a lot of players that should be a part of our franchise for years to come (Tate, BMW and Obamanu at WR, Beast Force at RB, Okung and Spencer on the OL, Red Bryant (and maybe Mebane) on DL, Hawthorne and Curry at LB and Earl Thomas at FS). There were too many holes to fill with youth unless you wanted to plug and play UFAs all over the place (even in the NFC West, you'd need a lot of luck to pull that off).

There's a lot of holes left to address, the Hawks are a talent-poor team, but that wouldn't change regardless of what kind of bodies you plug in. The biggest holes being QB, followed by CB and OL (OGs and RT), but this isn't a good year to judge PC/Schneider by, because they cycled out a lot of talent while still looking to win. Not necessarily a horrible decision since it's a valuable experience for players that should be at the core for years to come (like Okung and Thomas).

Plus, you did win the NFC West. So basically, that's a success.

The WIN FOREVER attitude shined through, certainly. Still, looking at what the Bucs managed to do with a lot of undrafted free agents I have to question the decision to forgo the available youthful talent in favor of older journeymen. It'll be interesting to see what they do next year, though. You're probably right in saying that that'll be the key year.

Next year will tell us if they "get" rebuilding or are simply weird. That's why I said this is kind of a "Year 0" in rebuilding terms. And until we get a franchise QB that won't change. And that's the only drawback of what PC/Schneider did, it harmed our draft spot. MTD has us taking Mallett. Ugh. Still, at least we'll enter Year 1. Sit him being the Charliehorse and see where we go...

...

Locker or bust!
(Locker and bust)
(Locker will bust)

Time for Ponder. Or Kellen Moore. Or another one of those Colt McCoy-style tier 2 QBs.

I wouldn't be that disappointed with Mallett. Dude has a monster arm and is accurate if he can step into his throws. If you grab him you really, really need to upgrade that O-line though.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I think your argument is confused. Half of it is about "these teams are shitty right now so this rivalry is bullshit", which is a ridiculous argument as teams get better and worse each year.

No, my argument is that larger divisions are less likely to produce a sub .500 champ. And the 4th division that you lose gets replaced by a more qualified wildcard team. It's probably mathematically impossible. The more you have, it's less likely that they will all be in a downswing or whatever apologism is being used for the NFC West.

Ravens-Steelers didn't exist before '95.

Sure it did, it was called Browns-Steelers.

Will fewer divisions result in generally better teams (or at least teams with better records) in the playoffs? Yes.

You don't need to speculate, that's the way it used to be, and the results speak for themselves. Look 'em up.

Teams bubble up from the bottom of the pile to the playoffs every year. As long as that's happening consistently, I can't say that there are too many teams.

By taking a wildcard away and replacing it with a 7-win division champ, aren't you actually decreasing upward mobility?

OH NOEZ. It's not like we were already warned this is a structural problem by the 2008 Chargers (and yes, I remember you whining back then too). Should've fixed it then. Go ahead and fix it now, who cares, it won't happen again anyway.

I don't begrudge the Chargers or the Seahawks. Thems the rules. But the Seahawks can't front like they are in due to merit. I see the Pete Carrol act not traveling well nationally under these circumstances.

Until I glance at the draft order and see we dropped from 7 to 21.

That's brutal, but just.

The draft order has been fixed. They should probably fix the home-field advantage and possibly ban losing teams qualifying (why not? It's not like it'll ever happen again).

Agreed. That's the best you could expect.

You talk about it as if it's the death of pro football.

No way, I'd say it's just fine tuning, and it's good that situations like the '08 Chargers and Seahawks come up as a catalyst for change.
The playoff picture is complicated for sure, I wouldn't expect them to plan for every remote contingency, but they should certainly adjust as new exceptions arise.

Your broken-recordness is astounding.

You enjoy watching games with Skelton, Max Hall, Rusty (I don't even know what his last name was), these other street, free-agent asm starting QBs? That's not NFL caliber football, and nobody wants to see it.

You want a QB druiven league, that's fine. But if you expanded too big for the pool of competent, NFL starting QBs, you're fucking the product over.

 

[Brother None]

Plus, you did win the NFC West. So basically, that's a success.

Hurray.

Still, looking at what the Bucs managed to do with a lot of undrafted free agents I have to question the decision to forgo the available youthful talent in favor of older journeymen.

What the Bucs did is exceptional. Either exceptionally lucky or exceptionally brilliant. And probably propped up by your schedule. Still, I don't recall any team plug-and-playing UFAs and deep picks like you guys did.

Well, maybe the Pats.

I wouldn't be that disappointed with Mallett. Dude has a monster arm and is accurate if he can step into his throws. If you grab him you really, really need to upgrade that O-line though.

Mallett is a system prospect. Luckily he fits our system. Same for Locker. Both could work out, but neither would have me in fits of excitement.

But the Seahawks can't front like they are in due to merit. I see the Pete Carrol act not traveling well nationally under these circumstances.

It doesn't matter what Pete says or does. Unless we beat the Saints, which is extremely unlikely but possible, we're going to be chewed out by the media as undeserving anyway. Who cares if he shows a little swagger, it won't hurt no one.

I'd like us to beat the Saints just to see the national media go into conniptions.

That's brutal, but just.

's

No way, I'd say it's just fine tuning, and it's good that situations like the '08 Chargers and Seahawks come up as a catalyst for change.
The playoff picture is complicated for sure, I wouldn't expect them to plan for every remote contingency, but they should certainly adjust as new exceptions arise.

I guess. They should've adjusted for this already, though, the '08 Chargers were warning enough.

You enjoy watching games with Skelton, Max Hall, Rusty (I don't even know what his last name was), these other street, free-agent asm starting QBs? That's not NFL caliber football, and nobody wants to see it.

You want a QB druiven league, that's fine. But if you expanded too big for the pool of competent, NFL starting QBs, you're fucking the product over.

Man, why haven't you talked about this insight before. This is such a novel angle, it's amazing.

 

[Sander]

No, my argument is that larger divisions are less likely to produce a sub .500 champ. And the 4th division that you lose gets replaced by a more qualified wildcard team. It's probably mathematically impossible. The more you have, it's less likely that they will all be in a downswing or whatever apologism is being used for the NFC West.

It's a balancing act between getting the best teams to the playoffs (if that's really your goal, eliminate divisions altogether), maintaining and creating rivalries (need a consistent schedule for that) and maintaining parity. I see nothing wrong with the way they've configured it now despite your whining. A team that sneaks in on the back-end and then makes noise in the postseason is a great story and not something to be maligned.

You enjoy watching games with Skelton, Max Hall, Rusty (I don't even know what his last name was), these other street, free-agent asm starting QBs? That's not NFL caliber football, and nobody wants to see it.

You want a QB druiven league, that's fine. But if you expanded too big for the pool of competent, NFL starting QBs, you're fucking the product over.

Yeah these rookies like Bradford and McCoy starting and doing well, that's really fucking the product over.
You'll always have shit teams. You've always had shit teams. Even when the QB wasn't as important as it is now.

What the Bucs did is exceptional. Either exceptionally lucky or exceptionally brilliant. And probably propped up by your schedule. Still, I don't recall any team plug-and-playing UFAs and deep picks like you guys did.

Well, maybe the Pats.

Bucs were the exception with the depth and breadth of their youth, but a lot of teams had rookies contributing and playing well at different positions. Supposedly this was the most productive rookie class ever, or something.

 

[Brother None]

but a lot of teams had rookies contributing and playing well at different positions.

Like the Seahawks?