National Football League 2017-18

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.
May 14, 2017 4:27 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 11636
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.

The fact that it can't be solved definitively is one of the reasons that it's appealing and returned to so often. Some arguments--rings--are dumber than others.
May 14, 2017 4:29 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.

The fact that it can't be solved definitively is one of the reasons that it's appealing and returned to so often. Some arguments--rings--are dumber than others.

But these discussions are never nuanced, even if they are appealing. Not among sports fans, anyway. Here's my hot take: I'll choose Aaron Rodgers over both Manning and Brady. All of you suck it.
May 14, 2017 4:33 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Also, I hate how all the greatest QB discussions simply dismiss 2/3 of football history. Or more. Like, everyone has already forgotten Steve Young and Joe Montana. And older QBs like Roger Staubach and Fran Tarkenton. And forget Sonny Jurgensen, Len Dawson, Otto Graham, etc. Those guys don't even get a mention.
May 14, 2017 4:38 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 13226
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?
May 14, 2017 4:44 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.
May 14, 2017 4:48 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 11636
Bigwig
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.

It would feel weird to me to care about sports in the present but not to want to put the present in context or to keep these memories alive through these sorts of discussions.
May 14, 2017 4:52 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.

It would feel weird to me to care about sports in the present but not to want to put the present in context or to keep these memories alive through these sorts of discussions.

I'm fine with that in certain discussions. The QB one is just impossible. Year after year we are presented with new evidence that shows how important all things around a QB can affect their performance. And that's in one single year. Let alone careers across different eras. I'll take Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young as the best QBs I've ever seen. If you want to claim Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, I can't object. They're fine choices. And that to me is where the conversation dies.
May 14, 2017 4:55 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
I don't see the complaint with Polian's comments. Because the Patriots are so consistently good and have won so many championships, people do talk about them like the have a near invincible aura. But outside of 2007, they've never been that good. They're consistently a very good team. That's partly why all the Super Bowls they've won have been close. His comment is correct and worth being reminded of from time to time.

Of course Boston fans would get all uptight about such an innocuous observation.
May 14, 2017 9:07 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19874
I was reading some mini-camp news recently and was reminded of something we see every year.

Without fail, every year a few late round rookies here and there distinguish themselves in practice where it is clear to the coaching staff that they have special talent. These reports usually leaks out fairly quickly and they're usually right. I remember Lance Briggs being reported as really good within the first few days he joined the team as an example. The same happens with bad players who were drafted high, but we're less apt to hear about it until well after the fact.

What's interesting about this is how shallow it reveals scouting and draft analysis to be. If a few days playing in practice with the coaches can yield better assessments than what goes into draft ordering, it implies they're working off of some very sketchy info in a lot of cases, does it not?
May 14, 2017 9:15 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62731
Esoteric AllusionI was reading some mini-camp news recently and was reminded of something we see every year.

Without fail, every year a few late round rookies here and there distinguish themselves in practice where it is clear to the coaching staff that they have special talent. These reports usually leaks out fairly quickly and they're usually right. I remember Lance Briggs being reported as really good within the first few days he joined the team as an example. The same happens with bad players who were drafted high, but we're less apt to hear about it until well after the fact.

What's interesting about this is how shallow it reveals scouting and draft analysis to be. If a few days playing in practice with the coaches can yield better assessments than what goes into draft ordering, it implies they're working off of some very sketchy info in a lot of cases, does it not?

This is one of the main reasons I do not like the draft. The people who are paid millions to know what's best are far from perfect. That isn't their fault. It's just the nature of sport. But if they don't know, we don't know. And nobody will know until years later. I'd actually be far more interested in a show that airs today that examines the 2012 draft of every team, than the 2017 draft itself.
May 15, 2017 2:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 12419
Esoteric AllusionI was reading some mini-camp news recently and was reminded of something we see every year.

Without fail, every year a few late round rookies here and there distinguish themselves in practice where it is clear to the coaching staff that they have special talent. These reports usually leaks out fairly quickly and they're usually right. I remember Lance Briggs being reported as really good within the first few days he joined the team as an example. The same happens with bad players who were drafted high, but we're less apt to hear about it until well after the fact.


It's really the most exciting part of the whole draft process for me. I feel like it always catches me off guard as a fan because each story can have a very different narrative to it. But it always leaves a lasting impression on me; far more than the draft night itself. Asante Samuel is the first name that comes to mind for me as Patriots fan. I remember Ty Law, almost begrudgingly, saying "yeah, they got an 'A' on draft day" when asked about him in camp. I say it extends to lesser known Free Agents, too (Wes Welker comes to mind).

Esoteric AllusionWhat's interesting about this is how shallow it reveals scouting and draft analysis to be. If a few days playing in practice with the coaches can yield better assessments than what goes into draft ordering, it implies they're working off of some very sketchy info in a lot of cases, does it not?

Scouting is an educated guess. But the throughout the league, the hit-or-miss ratio consistently gets lower-and-lower by each round. So, it's flawed. But, overall, an NFL GM's 1st pick will typically be his best.

I think we all know that combine scouting data - like a 40 yard dash time - can be misleading ans over emphasized (i.e. Asante Samuel at 4.49).

Also, the college game prominently features players in positions/scheme that do not match current NFL scheme. And that influences both sides of the ball; NFL style Outside linebackers and Strong Safeties are said to be getting harder to find in the college game because hybrid/nickelback defenders are taking over that role. College Defenses now have to defend the run-pass-option. The NFL is still just flirting with the zone read. 10-15 years ago it was the "spread offense" taking over college. The NFL somewhat integrated it (i.e. Wes Welker, slot WR). A decade from now it will be something totally new. The NFL will always be slower to adapt; if not inherently different.
Jun 14, 2017 2:11 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 33295
Chiefs extend Andy Reid, but let go of their GM, John Dorsey...who has actually been very good in his tenure. Power struggle?

As a Broncos fan, I'm absolutely okay with giving Reid more power. Yes, do it, KC! Trust in Big Red!
Jun 22, 2017 9:53 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 20126
neumdaddyChiefs extend Andy Reid, but let go of their GM, John Dorsey...who has actually been very good in his tenure. Power struggle?

As a Broncos fan, I'm absolutely okay with giving Reid more power. Yes, do it, KC! Trust in Big Red!

Quiet, you! Worry about how if you combined both Broncos QB's they still are more mediocre than Jay Cutler. The Raiders are going to take the division, anyways.

PS: But yes this is bad if Reid is made the GM.
Jun 24, 2017 5:14 PM
0 0