|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 6:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:46 am
 |
|
|
|
Practisite I laugh at the notion of "power rankings" in MAY. xd "Power" can't be measured in any meaningful manner until Week 1. This is an article to fill the dead space of this time of year. But then again, that is a good thing; nothing new going on, so we football fans need something to talk about, I guess. In related news, Len Pasquarelli should try filling one of those out while sober. I just think that the NFL Champions deserve to be ranked #1 until the season starts on general principle, and the runners-up deserve to be ranked #2 for the same reason.
It's fun for fans to rate teams during the offseason, even though they aren't real rankings. The season ended a short while ago, free agents were signed, and the draft was completed. It's pretty much a team based ranking based on their roster (and coaching). It usually carries through the season if a team is strong during the offseason, but we'll see.
...And yeah, I was astonished to see Len Pasquarelli rate the Steelers at #9. They are the most deserving team to stay on top, coming off a Super Bowl victory and a fairly solid offseason. I, and all the other analysts in that poll ranked them at #1. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:32 am
|
|
|
 |
Dude-LAP Practisite I laugh at the notion of "power rankings" in MAY. xd "Power" can't be measured in any meaningful manner until Week 1. This is an article to fill the dead space of this time of year. But then again, that is a good thing; nothing new going on, so we football fans need something to talk about, I guess. In related news, Len Pasquarelli should try filling one of those out while sober. I just think that the NFL Champions deserve to be ranked #1 until the season starts on general principle, and the runners-up deserve to be ranked #2 for the same reason. It's fun for fans to rate teams during the offseason, even though they aren't real rankings. The season ended a short while ago, free agents were signed, and the draft was completed. It's pretty much a team based ranking based on their roster (and coaching). It usually carries through the season if a team is strong during the offseason, but we'll see. ...And yeah, I was astonished to see Len Pasquarelli rate the Steelers at #9. They are the most deserving team to stay on top, coming off a Super Bowl victory and a fairly solid offseason. I, and all the other analysts in that poll ranked them at #1.
He then had the nerve to debate one of the other analysts in another ESPN.com story, where he lost his mind and tried to claim the Patriots' DEFENSE was as good as the Steelers'. I think he seems to have forgotten that the Steelers have won two Super Bowls since the last time the Patriots won one. I'm not a Steelers fan, but damn.
Being a Connecticut-based company, there is an awful lot of Boston (and NY to a lesser extent) homerism at ESPN, in all sports. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Practisite Dude-LAP Practisite I laugh at the notion of "power rankings" in MAY. xd "Power" can't be measured in any meaningful manner until Week 1. This is an article to fill the dead space of this time of year. But then again, that is a good thing; nothing new going on, so we football fans need something to talk about, I guess. In related news, Len Pasquarelli should try filling one of those out while sober. I just think that the NFL Champions deserve to be ranked #1 until the season starts on general principle, and the runners-up deserve to be ranked #2 for the same reason. It's fun for fans to rate teams during the offseason, even though they aren't real rankings. The season ended a short while ago, free agents were signed, and the draft was completed. It's pretty much a team based ranking based on their roster (and coaching). It usually carries through the season if a team is strong during the offseason, but we'll see. ...And yeah, I was astonished to see Len Pasquarelli rate the Steelers at #9. They are the most deserving team to stay on top, coming off a Super Bowl victory and a fairly solid offseason. I, and all the other analysts in that poll ranked them at #1. He then had the nerve to debate one of the other analysts in another ESPN.com story, where he lost his mind and tried to claim the Patriots' DEFENSE was as good as the Steelers'. I think he seems to have forgotten that the Steelers have won two Super Bowls since the last time the Patriots won one. I'm not a Steelers fan, but damn. Being a Connecticut-based company, there is an awful lot of Boston (and NY to a lesser extent) homerism at ESPN, in all sports.
I could have told you that. Especially with the fact that they seemingly go out of their way to pick teams that are from the New York, New England area and leave everyone else out to dry unless they can slander or make fun of another team. Look at it here. Philly, by all intents and purposes and all but a very select few "football experts", say that Philly had the best offseason of any team in recent memory. A post on NFL.com even had it stated that Philly does not need another player to make the SB. No other team out there had that stated for them. Yet according to ESPN, Philly is slated behind many teams and most likely will not make the playoffs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:41 pm
|
|
|
|
vegito61283 Practisite Being a Connecticut-based company, there is an awful lot of Boston (and NY to a lesser extent) homerism at ESPN, in all sports. I could have told you that.
Anyone outside the NY/MA/NJ/CT area can tell you that! biggrin Hell, I grew up there and it was obvious even then (a long time ago smile )
vegito61283 Especially with the fact that they seemingly go out of their way to pick teams that are from the New York, New England area and leave everyone else out to dry unless they can slander or make fun of another team. Look at it here. Philly, by all intents and purposes and all but a very select few "football experts", say that Philly had the best offseason of any team in recent memory. A post on NFL.com even had it stated that Philly does not need another player to make the SB. No other team out there had that stated for them. Yet according to ESPN, Philly is slated behind many teams and most likely will not make the playoffs.
Philadelphia's problem has rarely been talent. Andy Reid is an amazing talent evaluator. He really should be a GM... because his playcalling is ridiculous. The problem is not the talent, it is not McNabb, it is the inability to manage a game on the offensive end.
I think that "best offseason of any team in recent memory" thing is hyperbole. I don't think you lose Brian Dawkins (not a bad move for the long-term, but far from addition-by-subtraction), and then have a big scandal where you fire an employee for having an opinion, and call it the "best offseason of any team in recent memory". Really? Better than the Dolphins, who had gone 1-15, blowing up their team and starting from scratch by WINNING THEIR DIVISION over the Patriots? Better than the Falcons, who were supposed to be in rebuilding for three years minimum, getting Matt Ryan and Michael Turner and suddenly becoming a playoff team with the supposed next great quarterback? I'm interested in hearing how the team that came within a few points of the NFC championship can top that by losing their defensive leader. smile
I must now vomit, because I hate the Dolphins bitterly, and I had to praise them.
*blarg*
Okay, tangent over. I would love to see the Eagles win a title, because I am a huge Donovan McNabb fan... anyone who can handle the pressure of THAT fanbase the way he has and not be institutionalized is amazing. They didn't need much, and yes, ESPN will conveniently overlook them because they are not New York/New England/Dallas. Until Ron Jaworski gets his face time, of course. Just relax and remember: it's good to be in this position. 'Disrespected' players are angry players, and angry players (usually!) play with focus.
They just need a defensive leader to step up and harness that focus now. :-/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:44 pm
|
|
|
|
vegito61283 Practisite Dude-LAP Practisite I laugh at the notion of "power rankings" in MAY. xd "Power" can't be measured in any meaningful manner until Week 1. This is an article to fill the dead space of this time of year. But then again, that is a good thing; nothing new going on, so we football fans need something to talk about, I guess. In related news, Len Pasquarelli should try filling one of those out while sober. I just think that the NFL Champions deserve to be ranked #1 until the season starts on general principle, and the runners-up deserve to be ranked #2 for the same reason. It's fun for fans to rate teams during the offseason, even though they aren't real rankings. The season ended a short while ago, free agents were signed, and the draft was completed. It's pretty much a team based ranking based on their roster (and coaching). It usually carries through the season if a team is strong during the offseason, but we'll see. ...And yeah, I was astonished to see Len Pasquarelli rate the Steelers at #9. They are the most deserving team to stay on top, coming off a Super Bowl victory and a fairly solid offseason. I, and all the other analysts in that poll ranked them at #1. He then had the nerve to debate one of the other analysts in another ESPN.com story, where he lost his mind and tried to claim the Patriots' DEFENSE was as good as the Steelers'. I think he seems to have forgotten that the Steelers have won two Super Bowls since the last time the Patriots won one. I'm not a Steelers fan, but damn. Being a Connecticut-based company, there is an awful lot of Boston (and NY to a lesser extent) homerism at ESPN, in all sports. I could have told you that. Especially with the fact that they seemingly go out of their way to pick teams that are from the New York, New England area and leave everyone else out to dry unless they can slander or make fun of another team. Look at it here. Philly, by all intents and purposes and all but a very select few "football experts", say that Philly had the best offseason of any team in recent memory. A post on NFL.com even had it stated that Philly does not need another player to make the SB. No other team out there had that stated for them. Yet according to ESPN, Philly is slated behind many teams and most likely will not make the playoffs.
Pasquarelli has usually been level headed, but he really lost it. I'm taking away all his credibility now. The defending champions should always be on top for the following season, unless there are extremely drastic changes. This is not the case with the Steelers, and they should have the best odds to win next year.
Yeah, we all love ESPN because of the sports coverage, but there are many little things that disappoint many. They make a lot of stupid decisions. One being that unknown town in the middle of nowhere winning "Title Town USA" over big successful sports cities. Also, there was even a story today about how Mike Tyson's young daughter died, with a lot of baggage about sports and Tyson's past problems (which received tons of hateful responses on the message boards).
Nothing's perfect, and I'll still use ESPN. Pretty good website. Sportscenter, NFL Live, PTI, and Around the Horn are good shows. There is Monday Night Football, and other good sports games. But there are some things that need fixing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:49 am
|
|
|
|
Practisite it is the inability to manage a game on the offensive end. I think that "best offseason of any team in recent memory" thing is hyperbole. I don't think you lose Brian Dawkins (not a bad move for the long-term, but far from addition-by-subtraction), and then have a big scandal where you fire an employee for having an opinion, and call it the "best offseason of any team in recent memory". Really? Better than the Dolphins, who had gone 1-15, blowing up their team and starting from scratch by WINNING THEIR DIVISION over the Patriots? Better than the Falcons, who were supposed to be in rebuilding for three years minimum, getting Matt Ryan and Michael Turner and suddenly becoming a playoff team with the supposed next great quarterback? I'm interested in hearing how the team that came within a few points of the NFC championship can top that by losing their defensive leader. smile They just need a defensive leader to step up and harness that focus now. :-/
Ried did that by handing all Offensive playcalling over to Marty Morniweg(spelling?) after the Baltimore game last year. As long as he keeps that up this year, there will not be an issue with the play calling. Just the players.
Your entire comparison for those teams to Philly is close, but not on the money. Yes Falcons had a great offseason last year. But they did not a. fill in all needs with upgrades or same levelof previous players and b. Miami was extrememly lucky in all of their close games which was half of them. The Dolphins won many of their games in the beginning of the season and needed a lot of luck and other teams to lose for them to still make the playoffs. As for that addition by subtraction, last year Demps (despite his rookie status and rookie mistakes as well) played almost the same amount of time as Dawkins did as well as play just as effective. Dawkins actually gave more yardage and TD's than Demps did last year. (Excuse me a second, have to go and chastise myself for saying that of Dawkins). Dawkins was also only really effective closer to the line where Demps also did just as well. So that addition by subtraction for that postion turns out to be equal. Demps is faster, more effective in coverage and just as good up on the line as well about as good as Dawkins was in terms of reading the offense. The only thing that Demps does not bring is the same emotional leadership as what Dawkins did. That leads to that last point you were trying to make.
The leadership figure will emerge soon. And it seems to be a committee thing which I have found works again far better if there are several guys to fuel the fire and lead than just one. One can fall, but many will pick those others up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:20 am
|
|
|
|
vegito61283 Your entire comparison for those teams to Philly is close, but not on the money. Yes Falcons had a great offseason last year. But they did not a. fill in all needs with upgrades or same levelof previous players
When you are a 4-12 team, you CAN'T fill all your holes. But when you fill enough holes to go 11-5, and suddenly have star players including the best rookie quarterback (in terms of stats and success) since Dan Marino... if the Eagles upgraded that much from 9-6-1, they will go 15-1, plus Jeremy Maclein will have to look like the next Jerry Rice. Because that's what the Falcons did; seven game improvement and apparent future megastar.
vegito61283 and b. Miami was extrememly lucky in all of their close games which was half of them. The Dolphins won many of their games in the beginning of the season and needed a lot of luck and other teams to lose for them to still make the playoffs.
Ridiculous. Luck? Quantify luck. Where does the record show Luck Wins versus Skill Wins? Claiming a team was lucky is a farcical argument. The Dolphins went from 1-15 to 11-5. PERIOD. They went from a laughingstock to a division winner that beat the Patriots twice.
As for needing other teams to lose? Everyone needs other teams to lose! What good is an 11-5 record if your division rival goes 12-4? The games that matter most for the postseason don't happen in Week Seventeen, they happen all season. The only difference in Week Seventeen is that you have the benefit of hindsight to see whether or not your game will matter. If you are in the playoffs, you won the games you needed to win. If you missed the playoffs, you did not. End of story.
For the Eagles to claim their offseason was better than 1-15 to 11-5, they'll have to go from 9-6-1 to 19-0, and win the Super Bowl.
The point is this: the quality of your offseason is solely measured in improvement during the season. No excuses, no ifs ands or buts. The Falcons and Dolphins had miracle offseasons last year. The Eagles don't even HAVE the room for improvement that those teams made.
vegito61283 As for that addition by subtraction, last year Demps (despite his rookie status and rookie mistakes as well) played almost the same amount of time as Dawkins did as well as play just as effective. Dawkins actually gave more yardage and TD's than Demps did last year. (Excuse me a second, have to go and chastise myself for saying that of Dawkins). Dawkins was also only really effective closer to the line where Demps also did just as well. So that addition by subtraction for that postion turns out to be equal. Demps is faster, more effective in coverage and just as good up on the line as well about as good as Dawkins was in terms of reading the offense. The only thing that Demps does not bring is the same emotional leadership as what Dawkins did. That leads to that last point you were trying to make. The leadership figure will emerge soon. And it seems to be a committee thing which I have found works again far better if there are several guys to fuel the fire and lead than just one. One can fall, but many will pick those others up.
But that doesn't ADD. That just reduces your depth and leaves the possibility of leadership up to hope. Even if Demps is superior to Dawkins in every way, that is not filling a hole, that is upgrading an existing strength.
Okay, I'm done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 5:18 pm
|
|
|
|
Practisite 1. When you are a 4-12 team, you CAN'T fill all your holes. But when you fill enough holes to go 11-5, and suddenly have star players including the best rookie quarterback (in terms of stats and success) since Dan Marino... if the Eagles upgraded that much from 9-6-1, they will go 15-1, plus Jeremy Maclein will have to look like the next Jerry Rice. Because that's what the Falcons did; seven game improvement and apparent future megastar. 2. Ridiculous. Luck? Quantify luck. Where does the record show Luck Wins versus Skill Wins? Claiming a team was lucky is a farcical argument. The Dolphins went from 1-15 to 11-5. PERIOD. They went from a laughingstock to a division winner that beat the Patriots twice. 3. As for needing other teams to lose? Everyone needs other teams to lose! What good is an 11-5 record if your division rival goes 12-4? The games that matter most for the postseason don't happen in Week Seventeen, they happen all season. The only difference in Week Seventeen is that you have the benefit of hindsight to see whether or not your game will matter. If you are in the playoffs, you won the games you needed to win. If you missed the playoffs, you did not. End of story. 4. For the Eagles to claim their offseason was better than 1-15 to 11-5, they'll have to go from 9-6-1 to 19-0, and win the Super Bowl. 5. The point is this: the quality of your offseason is solely measured in improvement during the season. No excuses, no ifs ands or buts. The Falcons and Dolphins had miracle offseasons last year. The Eagles don't even HAVE the room for improvement that those teams made. 6. But that doesn't ADD. That just reduces your depth and leaves the possibility of leadership up to hope. Even if Demps is superior to Dawkins in every way, that is not filling a hole, that is upgrading an existing strength. Okay, I'm done.
1. Your explination of the not being able to fill all your holes is only half way there. Every team is always able to fill all their holes, it is just a matter of finding the right people. Last year Miami did fill all their holes. They got lucky with some people and other playing at the right time in the right game. You do not need a player to play like a all time hof'er. You just need to be good a the right time. And as for the Falcons, why are saying they have an apparent future megastar? Ryan looks like he may have a very long and successful career IF he can continue on with what he has done. But that is a very BIG IF. And then you take a look at last year where they Falcons really started to falter and the fact they really have not done anything to fix it save for picking up TE T. Gonzalez. All they really did was looked to the draft to fix their problems and develope their own players. As for Philly, like I said, they do not need anyone to be a all-time HOF'er. They just need each and every player to play to the best of their abilities at all times. They are one of the few teams in this decade to have filled all their holes. Pittsburgh is the only other team in the NFL at this moment who has no holes to fill. NYG and SD are the only other teams to be that close to not have any holes to fill as well.
2. Luck always plays a huge part in games. Look at last year, Philadelphia only had to go 1/2 a yard to bust into the endzone. Now there is no team in the history who would be unable to achieve 1/2 a yard. Especially with 6 tries. Now that is quantified as good luck for the Bears to win. Bad luck with Philly. They score they win, the block the line they win. That is luck. Luck whether you want to admit it, plays HUGE in every game. Look at two years ago when the Pats went on to 18-1. You telling me that luck did not play into the Giants beating the Patriots? You are insane to say that does not.
3. So you are saying that Philly's game against the Cowboys last season didnt mean anything for the Playoffs? If you think no, then make sure you give me a warning so I have a change of pants for the fact I will piss myself laughing. All games mean something, even those that are classified meaningless games.
4. No it does not mean that. If you dont believe me, let me know and I will explain it more to you then. Just too dam tired due to cleaning out the garage and my parents garage as well today.
5. Before I respond to this one, please explain what you mean they do not have the room for improvement as the Falcons and Dolphins did last year. Have an idea what you were thinking, but dont want to make a mistake here.
6. Sorry, I had forgotten to include in there the addition of Safety S. Jones. While he was in Cleveland, he posted some of the best numbers a safety could ever want. Just due to being on a crap team, never ever got the exposure other safeties get. And as for your explination of addition/subtraction, you are crossing your wires. If a person is an upgrade, but then would you not consider that an addition? In all consequence, that would be an addition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:37 am
|
|
|
|
vegito61283 1. Your explination of the not being able to fill all your holes is only half way there. Every team is always able to fill all their holes, it is just a matter of finding the right people. Last year Miami did fill all their holes. They got lucky with some people and other playing at the right time in the right game. You do not need a player to play like a all time hof'er. You just need to be good a the right time. And as for the Falcons, why are saying they have an apparent future megastar? Ryan looks like he may have a very long and successful career IF he can continue on with what he has done. But that is a very BIG IF. And then you take a look at last year where they Falcons really started to falter and the fact they really have not done anything to fix it save for picking up TE T. Gonzalez. All they really did was looked to the draft to fix their problems and develope their own players. As for Philly, like I said, they do not need anyone to be a all-time HOF'er. They just need each and every player to play to the best of their abilities at all times. They are one of the few teams in this decade to have filled all their holes. Pittsburgh is the only other team in the NFL at this moment who has no holes to fill. NYG and SD are the only other teams to be that close to not have any holes to fill as well.
I'm not talking about THIS offseason for the Falcons, but LAST offseason.
I don't understand how you can have the statistically best rookie season for a quarterback since Dan Marino and NOT be an apparent future megastar. The word "apparent" and "presumably" that I have used this time reflects the uncertainty, but nonetheless it is significant. It is also to be noted that you have thus far spoken of the Eagles' pickups as definites.
vegito61283 2. Luck always plays a huge part in games. Look at last year, Philadelphia only had to go 1/2 a yard to bust into the endzone. Now there is no team in the history who would be unable to achieve 1/2 a yard. Especially with 6 tries. Now that is quantified as good luck for the Bears to win. Bad luck with Philly. They score they win, the block the line they win. That is luck. Luck whether you want to admit it, plays HUGE in every game. Look at two years ago when the Pats went on to 18-1. You telling me that luck did not play into the Giants beating the Patriots? You are insane to say that does not.
Luck is not a force, not an entity, not a meaningful concept in any way other than an arbitrary descriptor of random phenomena. Random chance happens to all people. It is irrelevant to say "the Giants won because they were lucky". It is irrelevant to say "the Eagles couldn't gain any yardage in six tries because they were unlucky". By that standard, any team that ever wins did so because they were lucky. Lucky their star player didn't break his leg, lucky their team flight didn't crash, lucky in every sense whenever an opponent _almost_ makes a play, lucky whenever a reciever doesn't drop a ball... at what point do you say that someone's success is no longer due to skill, but luck? How do you do so in a quantifiable manner?
vegito61283 3. So you are saying that Philly's game against the Cowboys last season didnt mean anything for the Playoffs? If you think no, then make sure you give me a warning so I have a change of pants for the fact I will piss myself laughing. All games mean something, even those that are classified meaningless games.
Re-read; that is exactly what I said. That loss for the Cowboys had exactly the same impact as every other loss they had. Had they won any of their earlier games in which they lost, they would have made the playoffs regardless of what happened there. Those earlier games meant just as much.
vegito61283 4. No it does not mean that. If you dont believe me, let me know and I will explain it more to you then. Just too dam tired due to cleaning out the garage and my parents garage as well today. 5. Before I respond to this one, please explain what you mean they do not have the room for improvement as the Falcons and Dolphins did last year. Have an idea what you were thinking, but dont want to make a mistake here.
These kind of go into the same category. The Dolphins improved by ten wins. The Eagles would need to win nineteen games to improve by ten wins. The Dolphins and Falcons went from shitty teams to contenders. The Eagles aren't a shitty team to begin with; they were in the conference championships. So the question is: is the jump from bottom-feeding one-win laughingstock to division-winning contender greater than the jump from contender to champion? That IS an arguable point, actually...
there is one other viable definition of "best offseason": the team that wins the Super Bowl. So yes, by that viable definition, if the Eagles win the Super Bowl, they tie for the best off-season of all time along with fourty-someodd other teams. smile
vegito61283 6. Sorry, I had forgotten to include in there the addition of Safety S. Jones. While he was in Cleveland, he posted some of the best numbers a safety could ever want. Just due to being on a crap team, never ever got the exposure other safeties get. And as for your explination of addition/subtraction, you are crossing your wires. If a person is an upgrade, but then would you not consider that an addition? In all consequence, that would be an addition.
An addition that reduces your depth in the secondary and leaves the defense looking for a leader, so it is an addition AND a subtraction.
Are these the most significant additions of the past several seasons? That was the original argument, that the Eagles had the best offseason of any team in recent memory. John Clayton wrote an article claiming that Seattle had the best offseason this year so far, so there is at least some debate (can't say there's any media bias in picking SEATTLE of all teams smile )
I'm not saying they didn't improve. I'm saying it's not a massive improvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 7:37 pm
|
|
|
|
Practisite I'm not saying they didn't improve. I'm saying it's not a massive improvement.
I would debate more but have a very friggn early morning and also laptop is about to die (left the cord over at my parents house, go figure LOL)
The first part no one can argue, but that last part I can argue. I will give you two very quick examples and probably close to the better ones so this way there is no controversy for you.
The Eagles lose two veteran Pro-Bowl O-Linemen. They bring in two of what by most consider (now remember, this is by them experts and majority of NFL fan base) two of the best in the league for their respective positions. One had an injury last season and had surgery but looks to be back to prime form by the start of TC. The other is a TE converted to LOT. He has been to the Pro-Bowl the last two seasons and not to mention had an average of 3-4 overload on his side since he was never given any help the majority of the time. Basically saying it was 1 guy facing 3-4 on an island with no help. Then the other is the FB. Considered by many to be one of the very elite in the game today. Does everything that is needed; run, recieve, block; and also knows the system due to coming from another system. So out of just those three positions, Philly has replaced two aging veterans who were, clearly from the game tapes the past two years and compared to their replacements, on the downside of their career and their effectiveness and replaced them with two much younger players who are like I said earlier are among the top 2 or 3 if they are not the top of their position. Where for the FB, Philly has not had anything close to a true FB since Jon Ritchie. Now they have someone who knows what they are doing and that along with the more well rounded O-Line will be able to add to the offense by adding something it really did not have for at least 4-5 years. That is true rushing ability.
Oh, and just so you can remember, Miami was not as bad as their record stated two years ago. Just that they really only had maybe 4 or 5 season starting starters available by the third or fourth game and that was all they had throughout the season. Kind of hard to win anything in that division or pretty much anywhere when you go through your PS and still have to bring in players who did not have a job at the beginning of the season. As for Falcons, I am not arguing he has the "potential", I am arguing that the Falcons were nowhere near as bad as you state either. They were left in dire straights the year before and then solidified the proper positions to give success for the season and build off of it along with your very much debated LUCK in many of their games. Sorry, but I dont care who you are, luck does take a very big stance in many things on the field. We could go back and forth and it get very ugly or we can agree to disagree on the point of Luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
