NFL thread 2014 v. Frankford Yellow Jackets Lay the Pipe on the Dayton Triangles

[bosk1]

Also, 81st for Kaep... surprised we haven't seen a rage post from Bosk yet.  I think that ranking is a little harsh.

Feels a bit low, but no rage from me.  Aside from the fact that ranking is NEVER an exact science (and that get even more amplified when you are ranking such different positions against each other), Kaep is difficult to really rank because he has only started his position for 1 1/2 seasons and for most of last season, his receiving corps was decimated.  He's a good QB, but I can't begrudge a ranking that puts him at 81 right now.  There are a couple of QB's ahead of him that do get a raised eyebrow, however.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Gotta love him.

[Cable]

^^^

Awesome, especially in light of all of these baffoons making the wrong choices.

I saw that yesterday.  It goes without saying that Josh Gordon is a total moron.

I like what the Indy WR who was suspended last week said. In the ESPN blurb, he mentioned to reporters that he needed to choose between "money or marijuana" last year.  Guess weed won. 

[KevShmev]

The rest of the NFL top 10:

10 Jimmy Graham
09 AJ Green
08 Jamaal Charles
07 Richard Sherman
06 Drew Brees
05 LeSean McCoy
04 Adrian Peterson
03 Tom Brady
02 Calvin Johnson
01 Peyton Manning

I disagree with McCoy being better than Charles.  Charles was basically the entire Chiefs offense last year.

While I get why Peyton is number 1, I still say that Rodgers is the best QB in the league, but he did miss significant time last year, so it makes sense why he dropped out of the top 10. 

Sherman being the only defensive player in the top 10 doesn't surprise me because a) he is the most high profile player on a defense that just had one of the best seasons a defense has ever had, and b) this was voted on by the players, and I suspect a lot of players around the league love him for saying stuff they'd love to also say.

Brady at 3 after his down season by his standards is laughable, but not surprising. 

[jingle.boy]

I don't even think McCoy should be in the top 10.

It's sad that only on D is in the top 10.  Goes to show D is represented by a team effort, while O is largely a collection of individual efforts.  I'd also take a guy like Watt, Kuechly or Mathis over Sherman.  It's easier to isolate and stay away from CBs than it is the guys in on the line.  I can't help but think that Sherman's drive-stopping deflection is giving him a bit of a halo effect.

[El Barto]

Not sure I see the basis for blasting a ranking decided by the people best equipped to do set it. Bagging on Brady being ranked 3rd might make sense if you basing it on sportswriters and their biases. When it's the people who better understand what he does, from the perspective of both sides of the ball, it's a different matter. Furthermore, It doesn't sound like they were basing it on one year or contribution to the team (MVP). Experience factors into that. Percentage of O a player brings to a week team counts some (focus of the D), but not a huge amount overall.

[bosk1]

Then can we simply blast it on the basis of it not having the top 22 being the 49ers' starting offense and defense?  That seems like a good basis to me. 

[jingle.boy]

Not sure I see the basis for blasting a ranking decided by the people best equipped to do set it. Bagging on Brady being ranked 3rd might make sense if you basing it on sportswriters and their biases. When it's the people who better understand what he does, from the perspective of both sides of the ball, it's a different matter. Furthermore, It doesn't sound like they were basing it on one year or contribution to the team (MVP). Experience factors into that. Percentage of O a player brings to a week team counts some (focus of the D), but not a huge amount overall.

I didn't think I or Kev were blasting the rankings, just offering our viewpoint/opinion.  It *was* labeled "top 100 players of 2014", so I do think it's based solely on current output/talent.  If not, then how can anyone put a 2-year guy like Luke Kuechly ahead of an 11 year guy like Robert Mathis?

[CrimsonSunrise]

Forty whiners suck! 

[El Barto]

Not sure I see the basis for blasting a ranking decided by the people best equipped to do set it. Bagging on Brady being ranked 3rd might make sense if you basing it on sportswriters and their biases. When it's the people who better understand what he does, from the perspective of both sides of the ball, it's a different matter. Furthermore, It doesn't sound like they were basing it on one year or contribution to the team (MVP). Experience factors into that. Percentage of O a player brings to a week team counts some (focus of the D), but not a huge amount overall.

I didn't think I or Kev were blasting the rankings, just offering our viewpoint/opinion.  It *was* labeled "top 100 players of 2014", so I do think it's based solely on current output/talent.  If not, then how can anyone put a 2-year guy like Luke Kuechly ahead of an 11 year guy like Robert Mathis?

Yeah, y'all weren't blasting it. Still, I'd consider their opinions more valid than most. As for experience, the reason Mathis doesn't outrank Kuechly is because the latter is considered a better player; experience is just one component of it. Josh McCown had a better passer rating than Rodgers, Brees and Russel Wilson, but nobody's going to call him the better QB of the lot, simply because he's not. You look at lots of things, and 10 years of being badass help your standing more than one year of being exceptional.

[bosk1]

10 years of being badass help your standing more than one year of being exceptional.

That's pretty much my motto at work.

[jingle.boy]

10 years of being badass help your standing more than one year of being exceptional.

But apparently 2 years of being exceptional (Kuechly) does out rank 10 badass years (Matthis)?  I'm not following your position.  Comparing McCoun to Rodgers/Brees/Wilson is just looking at the stats, and not the total picture to determine "top players".  I get that it's more than just 2013 stats that should be considered.  All things considered, I think Matthis > Kuechly.  Not by much, but by a little.

[KevShmev]

I take players' opinions on who the best players are with the same grain of salt I take when musicians' critique their own work.  Often times, you are too close to be truly objective. 

Personally, not only would JJ Watt be the highest-ranked defensive player, but he'd be in my top 5 along with Rodgers, Megatron, AP and Charles (Peyton would be 6th).

[King Postwhore]

Eh, Lists.  Who gives a flying ****.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

I must be the only one here that was much more impressed with what Brady accomplished in 2013 than what Manning did.

[El Barto]

I must be the only one here that was much more impressed with what Brady accomplished in 2013 than what Manning did.

I don't know about all that, but I do think Brady gets more shit than he should for last season. He did a helluva lot through a ton of adversity.

[KevShmev]

I must be the only one here that was much more impressed with what Brady accomplished in 2013 than what Manning did.

You were more impressed by the guy who threw 30 less touchdowns? Really?  If you want to talk team results, sure, feel free to give Brady all of the credit for 12 wins in a season where he was erratic more often than not.  If anything, I'll give Brady props for playing big at the end of games in which he was otherwise pretty average.  Those 4th Q comebacks are always flashy and glitzy and look good on Sportscenter, but his accuracy and consistency were down last year, as were pretty much all of his individual numbers.  Yes, he was working with lesser talent at WR than he was used to, but the eye test was not kind to him for many spells last year.  Hell, he played poorly in the AFCCG until the 4th quarter when he got hot when the game was all but out of reach and the Broncos were in "let the clock drain" mode. 

Did Peyton Manning benefit by having a great talent of receivers?  Absolutely.  But if it were that easy to throw 55 touchdowns when you have great talent, he wouldn't have been the the first one to do it.  And let's not forget that Peyton did it despite not having his two best offensive lineman for practically the whole season.  Peyton had arguably the best regular season any QB has EVER had, yet you were more impressed with Brady?  Whatever floats your boat, man.

[KevShmev]

Also, let me remind you all that as recently as 2012, I was still saying that I thought Brady was the slightly better all-time QB than Manning, but the last two years have moved Manning back ahead for me.  Yes, the Super Bowl was a disaster, on all team levels, but he's been mostly totally awesome since coming to Denver, while the beginning of Brady's decline last year was more than obvious to anyone who watched him play a lot.

[King Postwhore]

1A/1B and it can flip flop every Sunday, every year.


Even as a Brady nut and something I will never see that up close again in my lifetime, I will always look at Montana as #1.

[KevShmev]

But see, I think they are 2a and 2b now, and even that might be doing a disservice to Drew Brees.  That is that bugs me, this assumption that just because Brady and Manning are the two best quarterbacks of the 21st century all-time that they are automatically the two best quarterbacks.  It doesn't always work that way.  To me, Aaron Rodgers was undoubtedly the best quarterback in the NFL from the start of the 2010 postseason-2012 (and could have been the best again last year if not for getting hurt). 

As for number 1 all-time, you can make strong arguments for Montana, Manning, Brady, Elway, etc., and it is sad that we sometimes have to tear down one of those greatr to prop another up, something I know I am guilty of.

[King Postwhore]

Well, I'm just pointing out of this generation.  Last year Brady was not on his game but when you go into the season with your best receiver having 22 catches as his highest season (and mind you the only receiver on the team to catch a Brady pass at all) you can only think with the style of their passing game, timed patterns, that Brady would take a big hit in #'s.  Seriously all other receivers to start the season had previous highs for receptions at 22, (Julian Endelman) Amendola, 1st year with Brady, 3 rookie recievers (Joyce, Dobson & Thompkins), Gronk on the IR, No murderer on the team anynore, ect, you can see why his #'s took such a big, big hit so to the outside football fans, they will say, "He's lost it) 

No QB would have handled it like he sis and still win that amount of games.  And yes I know their weaknesses in playoff games.  I blame BB the GM.

[Skeever]

Just popping in to say Bleacher Report is the worst site ever.

[jingle.boy]

It's weird ... I'm both unimpressed, and impressed with Brady's results last year. I agree wholeheartedly with both Kev and Joe. What he did to lead THAT offense and team to 12 wins, and the AFCCG was damn impressive. But the games that I did watch, I was just sad to see the decline in what I believe is the greatest QB in the last 15 years. It's painfully obvious his best years are long behind him, and he's rapidly on his was to becoming a middle of the pack QB. I had him in my pool, and started Phillip Rivers more often than I did Brady. Statistically, it was his worst season ever. Lots of factors sure (as explained by Joe), but at the end if the day, he still looked unimpressive, and put up unimpressive numbers... Yet led the team to an impressive season.

[King Postwhore]

No matter how great a QB is if all the pieces are not their, teams will find the weakness and exploit it.  Last year it was all on Brady's shoulder.  Add the fact the for the 1st year, the offensive line was porous, and Brady's decline of what little mobility adding the lack of trust with all these new receivers added to him holding onto the ball to much, throwing a bit early in these timing passing routes with the new receivers added to a very poor year.  Add that Ridley again fumbled too much again and was benched and only at the end of the season did the running game get on track, left Brady in a bad position.

[KevShmev]

That's not really true, kingshmegland.  Their running game was pretty much great all year.  Their rushing totals for each week were:

158
54
156
132
82
141
90
152
197
bye week
107
116
88
87
96
142
267

234
64

So, while their two best rushing games were in Week 17 and the first playoff game, their rushing game was great all year for the most part. 

[King Postwhore]

That's not true either.  Need to look at the attempts of yards, plus there were so many fumbles last year.  Their running game lacked last year even though they were going to the run game last year.

10 fumbles though 4.4 2013 When Blount took over you see the 200 plus yard games.  that helped get to the 4.4.  Until the end of the season they were strugglinh
6 fumbles and 4.4 2012

The Offensive line was very porous last year and it was documented well here in N.E.

I don't disagree that Brady is not what he was a few years ago but the decline is not what you are portraying. 

[KevShmev]

 

They were 9th in both rushing yards and YPA last year, so fumbles aside (10 fumbles by the RBs, 6 of them lost fumbles)n , they ran it well almost all season, as I showed. 

[King Postwhore]

Kev, their numbers got better at the end of the season.  Most of the fumbles were early on then they benched Ridley.  I know  I follow the team.  The rushing YPC were down until try inserted Blount.  He was a wrecking ball.  Again you're taking it like I'm defending Brady.  Brady has, like any other player at his age will decline, but his level of play is much higher than all his age who played.  He just got stuck with too many young players trying to understand the system.

All I'm saying is that the first 10 games they for the most part were struggling offensively.  Look at the amount of points, 23,13,23,6,, they for the most point couldn't pass since Brady had no confidence in receivers except for Endelman who the year before had a career high of 22 receptions.  The running game struggles with games and when they did rack up #'s they fumbled the ball 6 times in the red zone!

Again, numbers don't tell everything.  I was there and watched ever game I wasn't at.  I know the struggles of this team. 

[KevShmev]

Okay, but fumbles do not always equal fumbles lost.  Big difference. 

I know you follow the team way more than I do, but look at the numbers again.  Sure, they racked up that monster rushing game against Buffalo in Week 1, but they went over 130 rushing yards in six of their nine games before the bye week.  That is not a team struggling to run the ball.  And they were missing Vereen for much of the first half of the season, too! If anything, their offensive struggles early on, despite running the ball well, was because Brady was struggling early on.  Some of that can be contributed to playing with new and young WRs, yes, but not all of it.

Anyway, my main point, again, is that the Patriots had a very good running game last year.  9th in yards and 9th in YPC.  Those are facts which cannot be disputed.

[Jaq]

Eh, Lists.  Who gives a flying ****.

 

[King Postwhore]

  jaq

Kev. I guess the better way of saying it was empty yards on the run.  Forward to the playoffs their running game was poor. The passing. Game needs to produce this year

[Dublagent66]

They're showing Walter Payton A Football Life on NFL Network right now.  What an amazing player he was.  Unbelievable!

[Cable]

jaq

Kev. I guess the better way of saying it was empty yards on the run.  Forward to the playoffs their running game was poor. The passing. Game needs to produce this year

The whole team needs to produce. Sorry Kingshmegland, but I will go with Kev. Brady is declining, and significantly worse than the more gradual come down. Yeah, the WRs and line sucked last year. Gonk playing 7 games and Hernandez in jail hurt more. But I wouldn't put the offensive side much worst than in Brady's early years (01-03), if at all. They still made it to what, #5 in points? That is more telling to me than anything. As usual, the D was streaky and therefore sub-par, which really has been the difference in the second half of his career I feel.

[Big Hath]

They're showing Walter Payton A Football Life on NFL Network right now.  What an amazing player he was.  Unbelievable!

my all-time favorite.    Sweetness

[King Postwhore]

jaq

Kev. I guess the better way of saying it was empty yards on the run.  Forward to the playoffs their running game was poor. The passing. Game needs to produce this year

The whole team needs to produce. Sorry Kingshmegland, but I will go with Kev. Brady is declining, and significantly worse than the more gradual come down. Yeah, the WRs and line sucked last year. Gonk playing 7 games and Hernandez in jail hurt more. But I wouldn't put the offensive side much worst than in Brady's early years (01-03), if at all. They still made it to what, #5 in points? That is more telling to me than anything. As usual, the D was streaky and therefore sub-par, which really has been the difference in the second half of his career I feel.

I'm not saying he's not declining.  Of course he is.  But not at the rate most are suggesting.  No way in hell the pieces hear have helped.  We should look at it another way.  With this bad offensive line up, Brady still got the team to have the 5th most points in the league.