The Official 2013 NFL Thread

[yorost]

What he said wasn't really offensive, it was just flat out ignorant. Did you miss the part when he said "All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys SMH..." Not only does he sound like an ignorant 12 year old, but the fact that he had to "tweet" that makes me pretty embarrassed for him.

Sounds like he thinks women should be lesbians, though.

[Perpetual Change]

OK, 'cause I'm bored, here are some predictions about next season. All predictions are on an "as of right now" basis. Obviously some big powerplay during the draft could change things. First, AFC.

AFC
(EAST)New England Patriots- They were dangerous on offense last year, while severely lacking on defense. Ultimately, I think they're a  worse team this year, while the other teams in the division are making slow progress, but regardless they easily take their division again unless Brady goes down. I think Miami is regressing and the Bills and Jets are still one or two seasons away from being real threats.

(NORTH) Cincinatti Bengals--  Hope Ravens fans are enjoying being Champions, because it's not happening again. The team is MUCH worse than it was previously already, thanks to talent ageing out of leaving to pay Flacco. Still, I won't be surprised when the Ravens make the wildcard round. Meanwhile, I think the Bengals take their division. Their solid draft continues to show how they're slowly building themselves out of mediocrity, while the Steelers and Ravens are regressing.

(SOUTH)Houston Texans or Indianapolis Colts- The best division competition in the AFC right now, IMO. I don't think the Texans have regressed, but I expect Luck to have outgrown some of his growing pains, too. I don't see the Titans or the Jags making any serious attempts at improvement.

(WEST) Denver Broncos- Still the team to beat in the AFC West, though their competition is getting better. I suspect they'll thoroughly route their division rivals this year, which will leave them seeming a bit better than they actually are, like last season.  Although I will say that I like what the Raiders are doing, and I won't be surprised if Andy Reid's Chiefs wind up giving the Broncos a run for their money, especially if something happens to Peyton Manning. Enjoy it now, Broncos fans. When Peyton retires, things are gonna get a lot more difficult.

[bosk1]

https://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2013/week/0

What is the point of having power rankings in May? 

[yorost]

Why not? It gets them hits when people like you post it on message boards.

[Perpetual Change]

It gives people who don't like baseball, hockey, or basketball something to BS about.

[yorost]

Yup, and power rankings during the season aren't that much more relevant, anyways. Why do them ever?

[yorost]

Take a fall in the draft? ...fire your agents!

https://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/9228319/geno-smith-new-york-jets-fires-agents

Don't believe him for a second.

[Perpetual Change]

I think Bleacher Report's Power Rankings are much better, btw. ESPN is nothing but drama. BR is too, but the analysis is more intelligent, and less manipulative.

I mean, the Jets are the worst team in the league because they brought in Geno Smith? Uh, OK. I think the Jets are still very, very bad, and a long way from winning, but the addition of Smith, Chris Ivory, and some of the defensive aquisitions, plus a healthy Santonio Holmes, means they are already a much better team than they were by the end of last season. I mean, sheesh. The Jets are currently undergoing the same process that Idzik put Seattle through, and ESPN have that team at a bizarre overall No. 2.

Something tells me that ESPN are being their usual manipulative selves, totally underating a team that is actually taking some solid steps to rebuilding, so if they finish out with a decent year, ESPN have another story waiting in the wings about how the success came out of nowhere. Likewise, when things are much harder for Seattle next year, they can act like there's been some great tragedy and they don't know what's going on.

Other observations:
--The Niners are easily No. 1. That shouldn't even be a question!
--The Raiders should be at least 5-6 points higher. They're doing smart things, for once.
--The Cowboys should not be rated higher than the Eagles.

[Perpetual Change]

Take a fall in the draft? ...fire your agents!

https://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/9228319/geno-smith-new-york-jets-fires-agents

Don't believe him for a second.

lol, I knew someone would mention this. Some thoughts:

Did Geno really fire his agent for not going higher in the draft? Or do agents promise the world to these athletes, without being able to deliver?

I'm curious because I don't know the way sports agency works at all. On one hand, I feel for Geno Smith, 'cause you expect your agent to work hard and make a case for you, and when you get to your senior year, throw 40+ TDs, 6 INTs, 4000+ yards, and complete 75 percent of your passes, and no-one wants you despite multiple teams dealing with QB crisises, you've got to wonder what your agent is doing for you. On the other hand, I'm terrified that this guy is on our roster. If the Jets do get rid of Sanchez and commit to Geno too soon, you know he's gonna have the organization's balls in his hand.

[yorost]

I think agents do sell the world to them when trying to sign them, but other players have said their agents prepared them for possible falls in the draft. ...so much so that they had practiced plans on how to act in front of the camera if it did happen. These guys are money for the agents, they have to be accurate to keep their clients, too. To not prepare them for all the possibilities to make them look good and give them their best chance with teams doesn't make sense business wise. One of the comments from the Packers with Rodgers was that part of their decision to draft him was the composure he showed in the green room. If he was going nuts or breaking down he could have fallen even further, but his agent (I think I recall this being pointed out a few times) had gone over what to do if he fell. I definitely recall that Rodgers' agent told him it would be a long wait once it got close to pick #10.

If Smith's agents weren't preparing him for the possibility, they must be poor agents, but it doesn't sound like that's the case.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, it doesn't "sound" like that's the case, but everything ESPN says about the Jets (and most other teams) is absolutely wrong. A few days ago, they ran a story about how Tim Tebow was winning support in the organization and was probably going to stay.

Oops!

[yorost]

This isn't about the Jets, though, he was apparently signed by a prominent sports agency (had #12 pick and in top 10 among number of clients by agency). It's a story because his actions stick out, not one other player from the draft has switched, yet. Other than Smith's words, there's not much reason to doubt the agency.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Hope Ravens fans are enjoying being Champions, because it's not happening again. The team is MUCH worse than it was previously already, thanks to talent ageing out of leaving to pay Flacco. Still, I won't be surprised when the Ravens make the wildcard round. Meanwhile, I think the Bengals take their division. Their solid draft continues to show how they're slowly building themselves out of mediocrity, while the Steelers and Ravens are regressing.

Oh we are! Two Super Bowl victories in under twenty years of existence, when some teams had to wait decades for their first championship, or are still waiting? Last year was incredible. And considering that this team won their division without having a single game where Lewis, Reed & Suggs were all in the lineup during the regular season, we'll be just fine. Cincinnati is definitely on the rise, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the Ravens still aren't one of the best teams in the league. 

[Perpetual Change]

Who knows? Last year they were. This year? Too many changes to tell, really.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Who knows? Last year they were. This year? Too many changes to tell, really.

That line of thinking goes both ways though. I doubt the Ravens will get back to the Super Bowl. I also know that they weren't the best team last season and acknowledge how fortunate they were to win it all. But I'm not prepared to write them off entirely, not in May. I think that AFC North is still the toughest division in football, and still gets two of the six AFC playoff spots. 

[King Postwhore]

I think it is so hard these days for a team to win back to back Super Bowls.  2 years of that kind of focus is very rare.

[yorost]

Hope Ravens fans are enjoying being Champions, because it's not happening again. The team is MUCH worse than it was previously already, thanks to talent ageing out of leaving to pay Flacco. Still, I won't be surprised when the Ravens make the wildcard round. Meanwhile, I think the Bengals take their division. Their solid draft continues to show how they're slowly building themselves out of mediocrity, while the Steelers and Ravens are regressing.

Oh we are! Two Super Bowl victories in under twenty years of existence, when some teams had to wait decades for their first championship, or are still waiting? Last year was incredible. And considering that this team won their division without having a single game where Lewis, Reed & Suggs were all in the lineup during the regular season, we'll be just fine. Cincinnati is definitely on the rise, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the Ravens still aren't one of the best teams in the league. 

Yeah, Ravens fans are incredibly fortunate, since that franchise has showed up they've been on a figurative tear as far as championships are concerned. I've seen two Packers championships, and that's probably about all I'm fairly due for my entire life, one more before I die and they'd be a franchise outdoing their expectations during my life. All things equal, if you franchise wins one every 32 years you they're doing their job. ...Ravens fans have nothing to be upset about with their franchise even if they stink this next year.

[KevShmev]

I think the Ravens will still win 9-11 games and be a legit AFC contender, but barring a miracle run like this past winter, I doubt they will repeat.  But you never know.

[KevShmev]

Titus Young...

[Perpetual Change]

So McNabb is going to have a special retirement ceremony in Philadelphia when the Chiefs play them during a night game this year.

Should be good. Does Donovan McNabb deserve to be considered an all-time great?

I think yes. He's not a top 10 all time guy, but he's certainly among the best overall, and absolutely the best to ever play for the Eagles, even if Philly fans never fully appreciated him, like when they booed and bitched about him on draft day. The absence of a Super Bowl ring is obviously a mark against him, but he and Andy Reid made the Eagles a relevant team, which makes them both among the most relevant members of a traditionally below-average team.

[KevShmev]

  Does Donovan McNabb deserve to be considered an all-time great?

 

In a word....no.

[Perpetual Change]

Eh, why not?

[yorost]

He might not even get in the Hall of Fame, which has a boatload of quarterbacks. He's got nice stats, and if he had 3 Super Bowl victories that would have gotten him in no question, but where's his glamor? With no Super Bowl victories he needs glamorous stats, but he has nice stats in a passing era. He wasn't up there leading the league very often in the show time stats and had zero MVP's. He was really good for awhile, but was he even one of the elite in his best few years? Did he even win one individual award while in the NFL?

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, I see no reason to consider him as an all-time great.

[Rattlehead]

Pretty sure McNabb was the first NFL QB to throw 30+ TDs and less than 10 INTs in one season. He was definitely one of the best QBs in the league during his prime imo.

[yorost]

I said elite, not one of the best. He was one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL for many seasons, hence the pro bowls, etc. He threw 30+ td's in only one season and 20+ in only five seasons, he rarely got up into the top of td or passing yards lists. He could run, but he wasn't that productive there outside of his early career, especially not in td's. I don't think he was ever considered one of the elites, just someone that always looked like that could be his next step.

[jingle.boy]

What Kael said (both times)

McNabb played in an era with Warner, Brady, Manning(s), Roethlisberger, Rivers, Favre, and Brees.  All except Rivers have SB titles under their belt.  All have (or will have) better career stats than McNabb.  I'd barely rank him top 10 against his own peer group.  Extend that to 'all-time' and there's no question he's mid-tier at best.

Asking if he should be considered an all time great is like asking if Vick, Culpepper, Gannon, McNair should be as well.  Decent enough stats.  Operative word being "decent". 

The clear answer is no.

[KevShmev]

Pro bowl appearances are pretty meaningless since starters drop out all of the time and alternates then make it in, inflating the number of appearances by the non-greats. 

McNabb won't be a Hall of Famer, nor should he be. 

[Perpetual Change]

Pretty sure McNabb was the first NFL QB to throw 30+ TDs and less than 10 INTs in one season. He was definitely one of the best QBs in the league during his prime imo.

Yup. If he could have ended that season with the SB win, or if he could have just had one or two more like it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Asking if he should be considered an all time great is like asking if Vick, Culpepper, Gannon, McNair should be as well.  Decent enough stats.  Operative word being "decent". 

He's far better than decent. He is, at least, very good. And he is the best ever for the Eagles.

[bosk1]

He's far better than decent. He is, at least, very good. And he is the best ever for the Eagles.

Even if both of those are true, that does not make this true:

Does Donovan McNabb deserve to be considered an all-time great?

I think yes.

Again, neither his stats nor his actual accomplishments put him in the "all-time great" category. 

[yorost]

Pretty sure McNabb was the first NFL QB to throw 30+ TDs and less than 10 INTs in one season. He was definitely one of the best QBs in the league during his prime imo.

Yup. If he could have ended that season with the SB win, or if he could have just had one or two more like it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

He's not that close to being an automatic all time great. The Super Bowl would pay big, but one or two seasons copying his best wouldn't move the needle much unless they were additional years to his career. It's not just a lack of top years, his stats profile could use a small boost in every year.

[Perpetual Change]

He's far better than decent. He is, at least, very good. And he is the best ever for the Eagles.

Even if both of those are true, that does not make this true:

Does Donovan McNabb deserve to be considered an all-time great?

I think yes.

Again, neither his stats nor his actual accomplishments put him in the "all-time great" category. 

Well, yeah, I think McNabb is an all-time great, but I don't see how anyone, even if they disagree about his greatness, could consider him less than "very good".  Does that make sense?

To elaborate, the difference between McNabb and Vick or McNair or Culpepper is that McNabb disaplayed a level of consistency and reliability, while those others did not. Until leaving Philly, McNabb never really had an "awful" season, and was mostly very good or great. You can't say the same about those three other guys. They were all either hot or cold, for seasons at a time occasionally. McNabb's play was way more stable, even if Philly fans were always acting like he was playing way worse.

He's not that close to being an automatic all time great. The Super Bowl would pay big, but one or two seasons copying his best wouldn't move the needle much unless they were additional years to his career. It's not just a lack of top years, his stats profile could use a small boost in every year.

I disagree. There are people with rings and far less impressive stats already in the HoF. I really can't see how anything but a ring or two would keep McNabb out.

Plus, I think there's something to be said for McNabb's style of play. McNabb was one of the first who (among others) really started to bring mobility to the forefront of NFL Quaterbacking.

[bosk1]

Comparing him to Vick or Culpepper is just a straw man argument since nobody made those comparisons, and those comparisons ultimately do nothing to put him into consideration to be an "all-time great."  Compare him to other all-time greats and it is clear that neither his stats nor career accomplishments put him close.  Being a good quarterback on a good team does not make him an all-time great.  Your subjective feelings aside, there is no good reason at all to put him in that category.

[yorost]

Cunningham.

I did say the Super Bowl would go much further for McNabb's case than a couple of his season beefed up. Neither would make him someone we just call a great, it just might tip the balance. His stats are better than some Hall of Fame quarterbacks with 3 Super Bowls, like Aikman, I believe, but 1 Super Bowl doesn't earn as much leeway as 3. Make your case on 1 or 0 Super Bowl victory quarterbacks that played a significant portion of their career in the 90's and 00's and are considered all time greats. I don't know, I'm not going to search, but I'd like to see the comparison you have.

[jingle.boy]

Plus, I think there's something to be said for McNabb's style of play. McNabb was one of the first who (among others) really started to bring mobility to the forefront of NFL Quaterbacking.

Elway, McNair, Vick, Steve Young, and most importantly, Randal Cunningham would like a word with you.  Hardly could say McNabb was one of the first.

Edit ... 'd