As a Seahawk fan I didn't like when the Rams hired Fisher that guys a good coach.
You going to stick with them when they move to LA???
NFL '14 Season Thread
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
- Status
As a Seahawk fan I didn't like when the Rams hired Fisher that guys a good coach.
You going to stick with them when they move to LA???
The NFL schedule works where YOUR team plays home & home against everyone in your division (6 games), another division in YOUR teams Conference (4 games- DIV rotates annually), another division fron the OTHER conference (4 games, DIV rotates annually), & last 2 games are against teams from your conference that finished in the same place as you did. (1st place teams play each other, 2nd place teams play each other, etc.)
NFL went to this format when they went 4x4 divisions. That way you play every team in the league from the opposite conference at LEAST ONCE every 4 years & at home at LEAST ONCE every 8 years.
NFL went to this format when they went 4x4 divisions. That way you play every team in the league from the opposite conference at LEAST ONCE every 4 years & at home at LEAST ONCE every 8 years.
Golden Tate mentioned he would be willing to play for less money to stay in Seattle; Michael Bennett also wants to stay...
Seattle has some interesting decisions to make with their player salaries. Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond are scheduled for free agency, Doug Baldwin is a (restricted) free agent. They also have big money owed to Harvin ($13.4 million) and Sidney Rice ($9.7 million) for 2014. They don't owe much to Wilson ($817K) but 2014 is the final year of his contract. Also up in 2014 are Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, and apparently Thomas is the higher priority
Seattle has some interesting decisions to make with their player salaries. Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond are scheduled for free agency, Doug Baldwin is a (restricted) free agent. They also have big money owed to Harvin ($13.4 million) and Sidney Rice ($9.7 million) for 2014. They don't owe much to Wilson ($817K) but 2014 is the final year of his contract. Also up in 2014 are Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, and apparently Thomas is the higher priority
Adam Schefter said:
The Dallas Cowboys ($20.9 million) and the Pittsburgh Steelers ($8.9 million) are the last two teams still over the cap. Teams have until March 11th to be in compliance with the league’s cap limits
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I'm betting the TB Bucks at 50-1. Here's why.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/02/21/tampa-bay-bucs-new-helmet-logo-more-intimidating/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/02/21/tampa-bay-bucs-new-helmet-logo-more-intimidating/
I wonder what's going to happen to the Seahawks a couple of years from now if not sooner when they will start having to give all those young players they have their paydays, especially Wilson who is probably only mediocre, but will want elite money. I can see cap casualty country heading the Hawks way soon.
Don't forget to add Steve Young and Brett Favre to that list. Then again in a way Peyton continually being held to a ridiculous (not to mention nonsensical) standard other Hall of Famers and people who are among greatest of all time don't have to be held to shows just how great he is and how he's probably above any other player that has every played. The people that rag on Peyton the most are the ones that don't really know much about football. (or logical deduction for that matter)
I could also point out that advanced statistics tend to show that Peyton is in fact one of the best playoff performing QBs in history in just about everything but wins, which aren't that effective of a stat in performance evaluation. (Ironically they show his brother as maybe the best. Then again that is only over 6 games where Peyton has did it for 22 now.)
Don't forget to add Steve Young and Brett Favre to that list. Then again in a way Peyton continually being held to a ridiculous (not to mention nonsensical) standard other Hall of Famers and people who are among greatest of all time don't have to be held to shows just how great he is and how he's probably above any other player that has every played. The people that rag on Peyton the most are the ones that don't really know much about football. (or logical deduction for that matter)
I could also point out that advanced statistics tend to show that Peyton is in fact one of the best playoff performing QBs in history in just about everything but wins, which aren't that effective of a stat in performance evaluation. (Ironically they show his brother as maybe the best. Then again that is only over 6 games where Peyton has did it for 22 now.)
BCT
Pucker Up Butter Cup.
That's a bunch of BS. You can't give him credit for the wins and then give him a pass for the losses.
So that means that Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Phil Simms, Jim McMahon, Jim Plunkett, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler and Doug Williams are all better than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning because none of them ever lost a Super Bowl? I guess that also means that Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton were shit QB's because they never won a Super Bowl. Do you judge a RB or a WR or a LB by Super Bowl wins? Why not judge the Center on how the team does? The Center does touch the ball on every offensive play.
BCT
Pucker Up Butter Cup.
That's not what I said in fact it wasn't even relevant to what we're discussing. When did I say Trent Dilfer was better than Tom Brady? This is about Peyton manning being a choke artist not Jim Plunkett/Mark Rypien getting lucky. And its not the SB wins the fucker has a losing record in the post season, he cares more about stats than winning, the media has blinded ya'll, wow.
In other news Denver signs Ward , Talib, and now possibly Ware. All the Chief fans I live by are in full meltdown mode, it's great
Steve Smith will not be Panther next season. Sad day in Carolina.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...t-wr-not-going-to-play-for-panthers-next-year
Thanks for the memories, Smitty.
X-Clown
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...t-wr-not-going-to-play-for-panthers-next-year
Thanks for the memories, Smitty.
X-Clown
BCT
Pucker Up Butter Cup.
He shouldn't have even been brought up in the first place, he had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Plunkett was before my time but it doesn't seem like he's talked about much, sure he was good just not great.
I forgot to add Kurt Warner to the list also. He even should get bonus points to people that think like you guys because he lost two superbowls and one with a historically great team that was beaten by a much inferior team. Then again Tom Brady lost two Superbowls with very historically great teams both against a much inferior one. (He gets massive credit though for winning when he was basically a small step above a game manager QB from stuff a decade ago.) Of course thinking like that is silly, and yet Warner is also somebody else that never has to hear about it like Manning does.
I don't. I go by the what translates to analyzing performance best. It's not so much that I do or do not give him credit for "wins" or "loses" as I recognize rightly that wins and loses are very poor way to judge individual performance in a team sport in the first place and for the most part disregard both when judging the individual, especially when there is other things that do the job much better of analyzing how good the individual performed. If something does a poor job at doing something why use it?
If Manning won five Superbowls by this point and had a 20-0 playoff record, but all the other things about him were crap in those wins I would argue just as vehemently that he wasn't that great or at the very least was highly overrated and benefited from things like great teammates, weaker competition, small sample size of games issues, and just plain old luck going his way (I could point out that Manning has faced better teams the majority of his NFL playoff career and has faced one of the toughest defensive schedules among QBs with any number of playoff games above a handful). Considering the evidence points otherwise, the onus is on people that don't believe that to both prove that "chocking" or "clutchness" actually exist in football (much better people have tried and failed because it's impossible to prove and almost most likely a myth), and to prove why all the useful stats about him that are good in showing how skilled he was are wrong, not the other way around.
Say if somebody wanted to argue that a person like Joe Montana or Terry Bradshaw was the greatest QB of all time or were just greater than what their regular season stats indicate it's on them to prove that those 20ish or so playoff games are somehow their real talent level and not for some reason the hundreds of other games that do a better job of showing their actual skill level, and which shows there is a good handful of QBs better than they were, even in there own era no less. It’s like flipping a coin. If you do it ten times it wouldn’t be unheard of for somebody to get 7 or 8 heads from that even though everybody knows it’s a 50/50 thing. Flip a coin two hundred times and the chances of somebody winning 70 or 80 percent when they have only a 50/50 chance are almost nil because over time things regress to what their actual probability is. What a QB does in hundreds of games is almost certainly a better indicator of what type of QB he was than a small handful of games. With Manning it’s probably the same but he probably got much fewer successes than he rightly should by the way he played even considering he was playing an uphill battle most of those games.
I hate to break it to people, because it’s kind of distasteful to come to a realization like this about a sport people love, including me, but with so few games, and when things are a lose and go home scenario a very gigantic portion of what happens is just dumb ass luck. Now people don’t like that and they like to put narratives to describe things like that because it sounds better than either saying things happen in large measure because of random variance or even worse that they don’t know why things happen the way they do.
It’s sounds much better to say a team was clutch , somebody wanted it more, or somebody turned it on or so and fell apart or chocked than to shrug and admit they might have just drew the long or short straw that time.
Take the last Superbowl. I very much think Seattle was the better team not just that day but in general the whole year, but if they had to play Denver over and over again hundreds of times not only would a blowout of what they did be a very rare occurrence, but they would probably lose a large portion of those games, like maybe even above 40 percent of them. They wouldn’t suddenly become a worse team, even if people would see it that way if they had lost.
I don't. I go by the what translates to analyzing performance best. It's not so much that I do or do not give him credit for "wins" or "loses" as I recognize rightly that wins and loses are very poor way to judge individual performance in a team sport in the first place and for the most part disregard both when judging the individual, especially when there is other things that do the job much better of analyzing how good the individual performed. If something does a poor job at doing something why use it?
If Manning won five Superbowls by this point and had a 20-0 playoff record, but all the other things about him were crap in those wins I would argue just as vehemently that he wasn't that great or at the very least was highly overrated and benefited from things like great teammates, weaker competition, small sample size of games issues, and just plain old luck going his way (I could point out that Manning has faced better teams the majority of his NFL playoff career and has faced one of the toughest defensive schedules among QBs with any number of playoff games above a handful). Considering the evidence points otherwise, the onus is on people that don't believe that to both prove that "chocking" or "clutchness" actually exist in football (much better people have tried and failed because it's impossible to prove and almost most likely a myth), and to prove why all the useful stats about him that are good in showing how skilled he was are wrong, not the other way around.
Say if somebody wanted to argue that a person like Joe Montana or Terry Bradshaw was the greatest QB of all time or were just greater than what their regular season stats indicate it's on them to prove that those 20ish or so playoff games are somehow their real talent level and not for some reason the hundreds of other games that do a better job of showing their actual skill level, and which shows there is a good handful of QBs better than they were, even in there own era no less. It’s like flipping a coin. If you do it ten times it wouldn’t be unheard of for somebody to get 7 or 8 heads from that even though everybody knows it’s a 50/50 thing. Flip a coin two hundred times and the chances of somebody winning 70 or 80 percent when they have only a 50/50 chance are almost nil because over time things regress to what their actual probability is. What a QB does in hundreds of games is almost certainly a better indicator of what type of QB he was than a small handful of games. With Manning it’s probably the same but he probably got much fewer successes than he rightly should by the way he played even considering he was playing an uphill battle most of those games.
I hate to break it to people, because it’s kind of distasteful to come to a realization like this about a sport people love, including me, but with so few games, and when things are a lose and go home scenario a very gigantic portion of what happens is just dumb ass luck. Now people don’t like that and they like to put narratives to describe things like that because it sounds better than either saying things happen in large measure because of random variance or even worse that they don’t know why things happen the way they do.
It’s sounds much better to say a team was clutch , somebody wanted it more, or somebody turned it on or so and fell apart or chocked than to shrug and admit they might have just drew the long or short straw that time.
Take the last Superbowl. I very much think Seattle was the better team not just that day but in general the whole year, but if they had to play Denver over and over again hundreds of times not only would a blowout of what they did be a very rare occurrence, but they would probably lose a large portion of those games, like maybe even above 40 percent of them. They wouldn’t suddenly become a worse team, even if people would see it that way if they had lost.
For the record, I think Peyton is over-rated. He's good, hell, he may be great, but if I am starting a team, I don't want him, never did. Plunkett was the QB of a very good team, and was the Raiders were the first wild Card team to win a SB when they destroyed the Eagles. His other win was when the Raiders annihilated the Redskins. Plunkett was a good "manager of the game" who just happened to lead his team to two SB wins. Was Plunkett better than Manning? Not by a long shot, but he was able to avoid big turnovers and make the big pass when needed.
- Status
