NFL Offseason Thread

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:18 am

brian wrote:Scott Mitchell (366 lbs) and Damian Woody (388) are going to be on the Biggest Loser this fall.

Mitchell will never be a bigger loser than he was on the Lions though.

Biggest Loser? Cool. Finally, with all the crap they put on TV, a show about guys who used to play for the Lions. Mitchell has to be right up there. But he will really have to bring the Fail -- there is Joey Harrington to beat in the QB bracket.

The competition will be intense. Coming out of the receiver bracket, Charles Rogers and Mike Williams are going to be tough to beat. And look our for fast rising Titus Young. Personal favorite: Roy Williams, and his tomahawk chops. A loser with style.

I hear Wayne Fontes will be handling the microphone on this show. He will bring a touch of class.

Post by **brian** » Mon May 04, 2015 2:20 pm

brian wrote:That movie looks just all kinds of bad. I have to imagine (most) football fans are going to be rolling in the aisles at how unrealistic and stupid it is and most non-football fans are just going to ignore it/stay home. That leaves pretty much Kevin Costner completists. I can't wait to start reading reviews though.

I finally watched Draft Day yesterday and it was just as bad as I figured it would be. I'm tempted to waste two hours and watch it again and painstakingly detail every ridiculous thing about it and I'll start with this -- how the hell is Costner's dad so revered as a head coach if the Browns never won a championship for 50 years?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon May 04, 2015 2:30 pm

No idea ...

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon May 04, 2015 2:43 pm

I didn't think it was nearly as bad as I thought it would be but what stood out to me was the crazy frenetic panicky jags GM (come on), the ridiculousness of the trade back to the Seahawks where they suddenly are like yeah we need this qb you're totally right kevin and finally, when the lady days Ryan leaf, he was drafted 2nd overall in 1998 and Kev doesn't says "yeah I know who Ryan leaf is you dumb cunt"

Post by **brian** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:12 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I didn't think it was nearly as bad as I thought it would be but what stood out to me was the crazy frenetic panicky jags GM (come on), the ridiculousness of the trade back to the Seahawks where they suddenly are like yeah we need this qb you're totally right kevin and finally, when the lady days Ryan leaf, he was drafted 2nd overall in 1998 and Kev doesn't says "yeah I know who Ryan leaf is you dumb cunt"

Or let's keep it simple and say why would a GM give up three picks to move up to #1 to draft a kid they've obviously done zero research on (setting aside the insanity that they wouldn't have done any research on the previous year's Heisman Trophy winner).

(To their credit the writers try to touch on that a little, but it still beggars belief so badly you have to wonder if they'd have been better off trying to explain that Costner's character has some kind of neurological deficit.)

Post by **brian** » Mon May 04, 2015 4:44 pm

And if we're going to be really picky, literally one of the first lines in the movie (a Chris Berman voiceover of a fake ad for the draft) references 224 picks, which indicates the writers really don't know much about the draft since yeah that's 7 x 32, but with compensatory picks the number is a minimum of 255.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon May 18, 2015 4:15 pm

Tannehill getting $45MM guaranteed over the next six seasons has to be making Luck and Wilson giggle with glee.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon May 18, 2015 6:52 pm

Justin Smith retired today. Many of Aldon Smith's sacks were greatly aided by Justin Smith tying up two blockers. He was good at engaging more than one at a time.

Earlier this month I bet a co-worker twenty bucks that the 49ers wouldn't win more than 8 games. I'm feeling even better about the bet, now.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon May 18, 2015 9:48 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:Tannehill getting $45MM guaranteed over the next six seasons has to be making Luck and Wilson giggle with glee.

Wow! Tempted to say "he sucks," but I've seen enough of the other QBs in the league to merely say "he kinda sucks."

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Mon May 18, 2015 10:14 pm

sancarlos wrote:Justin Smith retired today. Many of Aldon Smith's sacks were greatly aided by Justin Smith tying up two blockers. He was good at engaging more than one at a time.

Earlier this month I bet a co-worker twenty bucks that the 49ers wouldn't win more than 8 games. I'm feeling even better about the bet, now.

I'd feel pretty bad about the bet. Because it was only for $20.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue May 19, 2015 8:34 am

Pruitt wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:Tannehill getting $45MM guaranteed over the next six seasons has to be making Luck and Wilson giggle with glee.
Wow! Tempted to say "he sucks," but I've seen enough of the other QBs in the league to merely say "he kinda sucks."

Or, he's simply average to above average and is once again falling victim to the "he's not elite, therefore he's terrible" point of view that plagues many casual football observers.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue May 19, 2015 8:47 am

You can substitute almost any opinion-based internet discussion topic for football in that sentence.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:12 am

mister d wrote:You can substitute almost any opinion-based internet discussion topic for football in that sentence.

Of course.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:15 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
Or, he's simply average to above average and is once again falling victim to the "he's not elite, therefore he's terrible" point of view that plagues many casual football observers.

Sure, but the guy just signed a $96 Million contract extension. Without looking, I have to think that puts him in the elite salary category. He doesn't suck, but there is no fucking way he deserves that kind of money. The increase in importance of the passing game and the lack of talent at QB capable of succeeding in the latest offense style fad is causing teams to pay average QBs insane amounts of money.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:22 am

Heard it on Mike & Mike this morning from some tweeter...it's a simple matter of Supply and Demand. The demand for a decent QB far outstrips the supply, so you have to overpay for middle tier guys.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:23 am

The Sybian wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Or, he's simply average to above average and is once again falling victim to the "he's not elite, therefore he's terrible" point of view that plagues many casual football observers.
Sure, but the guy just signed a $96 Million contract extension. Without looking, I have to think that puts him in the elite salary category. He doesn't suck, but there is no fucking way he deserves that kind of money. The increase in importance of the passing game and the lack of talent at QB capable of succeeding in the latest offense style fad is causing teams to pay average QBs insane amounts of money.

You should look, because you should know that NFL contracts are filled with a shit-ton of fake money.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:51 am

Brontoburglar wrote: You should look, because you should know that NFL contracts are filled with a shit-ton of fake money.

Interesting way to look at it. I concede. I should keep in mind that NFL contracts are always heavily weighed in favor of the owners.

Post by **brian** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:12 am

Yeah, Tannehill's extension is really only $25M guaranteed. It's structured pretty similarly to Stafford's extension a couple of years ago actually. It's a good deal for Tannehill because if he outperforms it he's still really young when the contract comes up. If he shits the bed, the team can get rid of him on the relative cheap.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:23 am

Wait...you guys are 20 million apart. Which is it?

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:50 am

Jerloma wrote:Wait...you guys are 20 million apart. Which is it?

Which guys? Yesterday bronto and Today bronto?

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:55 am

Bronto and Brian?

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue May 19, 2015 11:01 am

Jerloma wrote:Bronto and Brian?

$21.5 fully guaranteed (over the first two years) that kicks up to a total of $25 next spring. $45 in injury guarantees.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue May 19, 2015 11:16 am

It's a lot like Dalton's - the guarantees and the chance for the Dolphins to get out early without too much salary cap ramifications.

Yeah, Syb, remember, only the guarantees matter. The rest of it tends to be hypothetical money.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Wed May 20, 2015 3:51 am

NFL votes 30-2 to change PAT rules. Kicks will now be taken from the 15 yard line, effectively making them 30+ yard field goals. Additionally, the ball will remain live throughout the play, meaning the defense can return it for 1/2 points.

Pretty substantial change, odd that it's not getting the top-story treatment considering how overcovered NFL-related shit usually is. It will add a little more drama to the game, but I'm not sure I like it. I've long thought that the PAT was virtually pointless (no pun intended), but would have preferred they just get rid of it altogether and make a touchdown automatically worth 7 points, with the option to take 6 and go for 2.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed May 20, 2015 9:16 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:I've long thought that the PAT was virtually pointless (no pun intended), but would have preferred they just get rid of it altogether and make a touchdown automatically worth 7 points, with the option to take 6 and go for 2.

The Kicker's Union has a lot of power.

Interesting idea, but I don't like it. I will probably get used to it and learn to like it, but oppose it now because it seems weird. Half a point? That is fucked up. Will they allow the defense to return a fumble or interception on a 2-pt play? Moving back the PATs should increase the number of 2 point plays, which is good.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed May 20, 2015 9:27 am

I think he meant "1 or 2 points."

I advise my students not to use the slash to avoid confusion. Perhaps I should teach an on-line course?

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed May 20, 2015 9:30 am

It's not half a point. That's just how he wrote it as 1 slash 2 points, but I think any return would be 2 points based on how I read that.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Wed May 20, 2015 9:35 am

AB_skin_test wrote:It's not half a point. That's just how he wrote it as 1 slash 2 points, but I think any return would be 2 points based on how I read that.

Right. I missed the part about returns being universally worth 2 points though.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed May 20, 2015 9:45 am

Would have been hilarious to see vegas lines ending in .25 or .75 though!

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu May 21, 2015 7:30 am

So there actually is a 1-point safety scenario...on a kick, the kicking team fumbles it back 85 yards and is tackled in the end zone.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dear ... e-stopped/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Fri May 22, 2015 4:00 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:Pretty substantial change, odd that it's not getting the top-story treatment considering how overcovered NFL-related shit usually is. It will add a little more drama to the game, but I'm not sure I like it. I've long thought that the PAT was virtually pointless (no pun intended), but would have preferred they just get rid of it altogether and make a touchdown automatically worth 7 points, with the option to take 6 and go for 2.

I agree that this is a more substantial change than the NFL typically engages in. However, it raises the issue of why they don't do more to de-emphasize the kicking and punting aspects of pro football. It seems obvious that these are the least interesting parts of the game to fans. They are also more dangerous for players. Yet they are now more important than they once were. There seem to me to be obvious ways to significantly reduce (or eliminate) kicking and to modestly reduce the role of punting.

1. Touchdowns are worth 7 points. Period. No PATs and no 2 pointers.
2. No kick-offs. The ball starts at the 30 yard line.
3. FGs are allowed. But the gap between goal posts is narrowed so that 50 yard FGs are hard to make. And FG attempts can be returned by the defensive team. Alternatively, simply eliminate FGs.
4. Punts that go out-of-bounds or into the endzone put the ball on the line of scrimmage for the receiving team. This will make pinning the defensive team near the goal line more risky.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri May 22, 2015 8:13 am

DC47 wrote:
Johnny Carwash wrote:Pretty substantial change, odd that it's not getting the top-story treatment considering how overcovered NFL-related shit usually is. It will add a little more drama to the game, but I'm not sure I like it. I've long thought that the PAT was virtually pointless (no pun intended), but would have preferred they just get rid of it altogether and make a touchdown automatically worth 7 points, with the option to take 6 and go for 2.
I agree that this is a more substantial change than the NFL typically engages in. However, it raises the issue of why they don't do more to de-emphasize the kicking and punting aspects of pro football. It seems obvious that these are the least interesting parts of the game to fans. They are also more dangerous for players. Yet they are now more important than they once were. There seem to me to be obvious ways to significantly reduce (or eliminate) kicking and to modestly reduce the role of punting.

1. Touchdowns are worth 7 points. Period. No PATs and no 2 pointers.
2. No kick-offs. The ball starts at the 30 yard line.
3. FGs are allowed. But the gap between goal posts is narrowed so that 50 yard FGs are hard to make. And FG attempts can be returned by the defensive team. Alternatively, simply eliminate FGs.
4. Punts that go out-of-bounds or into the endzone put the ball on the line of scrimmage for the receiving team. This will make pinning the defensive team near the goal line more risky.

1.) 2 Pt conversions in a key situation can be exciting. I prefer moving PATs back to eliminating them altogether
2.) I could be persuaded. Maybe. Kickoff returns are exciting and can be game breaking. Having a great return man is a huge bonus for teams, and I like the idea of another position that can be a game changing weapon
3.) Field goals can be returned now. I think field goals are fine as is. Watching a kick can be exciting IMO. Again, having a great kicker is another position that can separate teams, so I like it. The loss of field position on missing a long field goal is enough of a risk for me.
4.) So are you saying if a team punts from the 50 and puts the ball in the end zone or out of bounds, the receiving team gets the ball at the 50? That is crazy talk. I actually like the art of pinning a team inside the 10, and don't understand why the coffin corner died out. My perception is that coffin corners had a higher success rate than trying to down the ball inside the 10. And I love watching a team try to get out from their own goal line.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri May 22, 2015 8:24 am

I kind of like it. We'll see what drama can happen.

Though I think the most impactful result is a pay bump for kickers, right?

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Fri May 22, 2015 8:31 am

Johnnie wrote:Though I think the most impactful result is a pay bump for kickers, right?

Probably. Syb's "Kicker's Union" comment above is spot on.

I still don't like it. It's an attempt to force drama into a game by adding "noise" to something that was previously a mundane occurrence. There's almost guaranteed to be at least one game this year when a team has a chance to tie late, then misses the PAT and loses. It's not just that the losing team's fans will lose their shit; as a neutral observer, I'd feel like I got robbed of a good game.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri May 22, 2015 9:15 am

This was a thing earlier this week. All I see is JJ Watt grabbing his junk. Everyone shared the picture, but no one stated the troll job:

(Also, his calves are small from this picture. Probably not in real life.)

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Fri May 22, 2015 9:31 am

J.J. Watt seems to really like letting the public know that he isn't concerned with his public image.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Fri May 22, 2015 9:18 pm

That looks like a pulled hamstring but from the other side.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat May 23, 2015 1:09 am

The Sybian wrote:1.) 2 Pt conversions in a key situation can be exciting. I prefer moving PATs back to eliminating them altogether
2.) I could be persuaded. Maybe. Kickoff returns are exciting and can be game breaking. Having a great return man is a huge bonus for teams, and I like the idea of another position that can be a game changing weapon
3.) Field goals can be returned now. I think field goals are fine as is. Watching a kick can be exciting IMO. Again, having a great kicker is another position that can separate teams, so I like it. The loss of field position on missing a long field goal is enough of a risk for me.
4.) So are you saying if a team punts from the 50 and puts the ball in the end zone or out of bounds, the receiving team gets the ball at the 50? That is crazy talk. I actually like the art of pinning a team inside the 10, and don't understand why the coffin corner died out. My perception is that coffin corners had a higher success rate than trying to down the ball inside the 10. And I love watching a team try to get out from their own goal line.

You are more of an afficianodo of the current game than I am. The current form is not sacred.

In the '50s and '60s punting and especially kicking wasn't that important. Teams often employed regular players rather than specialists to do these things. For example, the Lions had Doak Walker and Bobby Layne kicking in the 50s, Wayne Walker (pro bowl LB ) in the 60s, and Lem Barney punted in the 70s (as I recall). The Packers had Jerry Kramer kicking in the early '60s.

The game was more like the one we played in empty lots. We tried to score touchdowns. We didn't kick field goals and have extra-points.

Kicking and punting are intrinsically boring, because they aren't 'like' the rest of the game of football. If you offered a game that was exclusively kicking and punting, no one would attend. Why allow so much of football to be taken up by an activity that, standing alone, would have no more appeal than field hockey? Why allow so many games to be decided by a kicker, who is so unlike the rest of the players in what he does? I'm with Alex Karras on this one. "Keeking touchdowns" does nothing for me.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:41 pm

DC47 wrote:
The Sybian wrote:1.) 2 Pt conversions in a key situation can be exciting. I prefer moving PATs back to eliminating them altogether
2.) I could be persuaded. Maybe. Kickoff returns are exciting and can be game breaking. Having a great return man is a huge bonus for teams, and I like the idea of another position that can be a game changing weapon
3.) Field goals can be returned now. I think field goals are fine as is. Watching a kick can be exciting IMO. Again, having a great kicker is another position that can separate teams, so I like it. The loss of field position on missing a long field goal is enough of a risk for me.
4.) So are you saying if a team punts from the 50 and puts the ball in the end zone or out of bounds, the receiving team gets the ball at the 50? That is crazy talk. I actually like the art of pinning a team inside the 10, and don't understand why the coffin corner died out. My perception is that coffin corners had a higher success rate than trying to down the ball inside the 10. And I love watching a team try to get out from their own goal line.
You are more of an afficianodo of the current game than I am. The current form is not sacred.

In the '50s and '60s punting and especially kicking wasn't that important. Teams often employed regular players rather than specialists to do these things. For example, the Lions had Doak Walker and Bobby Layne kicking in the 50s, Wayne Walker (pro bowl LB ) in the 60s, and Lem Barney punted in the 70s (as I recall). The Packers had Jerry Kramer kicking in the early '60s.

The game was more like the one we played in empty lots. We tried to score touchdowns. We didn't kick field goals and have extra-points.

Kicking and punting are intrinsically boring, because they aren't 'like' the rest of the game of football. If you offered a game that was exclusively kicking and punting, no one would attend. Why allow so much of football to be taken up by an activity that, standing alone, would have no more appeal than field hockey? Why allow so many games to be decided by a kicker, who is so unlike the rest of the players in what he does? I'm with Alex Karras on this one. "Keeking touchdowns" does nothing for me.

I respect that. I'm not excited watching a punter kick the ball, but returns, hoping for a block and watching a close play for downing a ball on the goal line can be exciting.

I grew up playing soccer, as did most of the kids I knew. We used to play horse kicking a nerf ball over my friends garage, or over his soccer goal, so I probably like field goals more than most.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu May 28, 2015 10:50 pm

Denver left tackle Ryan Clady blows an ACL. Fuckity fuck fuck. Ergo, not good news for the Broncs.