CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   World of Sport (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   The NFL thread (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=137231)

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 26-01-2009 06:41 PM

Texans

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 26-01-2009 06:43 PM

Jaguars, Browns

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 26-01-2009 06:45 PM

.......And I think thats it!! :p

elliott 26-01-2009 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
What did confuse me in my research yesterday is the franchise thing. In that what teams used to be who and the like as I have been caught out before assuming the Baltimore Colts are now the Indy Colts ...

It's an odd one.

Tennessee are the old Houston Oilers. And carry their records.

Yet, the new Cleveland Browns are not the old Cleveland Browns. The old Cleveland Browns are Baltimore Ravens? Who don't assume their records. Do the new Cleveland Browns take on the records of their old franchise?

saxoneagle 26-01-2009 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elliott
It's an odd one.

Tennessee are the old Houston Oilers. And carry their records.

Yet, the new Cleveland Browns are not the old Cleveland Browns. The old Cleveland Browns are Baltimore Ravens? Who don't assume their records. Do the new Cleveland Browns take on the records of their old franchise?

Didn't the new Browns apply to the league to keep the old Browns records?

And the Baltimore Colts did move to Indy, didn't they?

Not forgetting the "LA" Rams and the "LA" Raiders relocating...

Does anyone have a complete list on who has moved where and when, franchise-wise?

saxoneagle 26-01-2009 07:26 PM

From WIKI:Has missed out the Browns, any others missed?

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 09:11 PM

Browns place was taken by the Balitmore Ravens. Balitmore wanted to have the Browns but the NFL said it had too much history in Cleveland so held onto the Browns rights incase a Cleveland based team came in to set up a new team.

Baltimore were offered the Ravens expansion franchise. So Browns ARE the Browns in the sense they have the Franchise history, but not in the sense that the team disappeared and came back again years later.

I'm pretty sure the Colts moved from Baltimore to Indy too!

sLlll 26-01-2009 09:29 PM

Got my Pats ticket :p. 65 pound per ticket (10 for delivery etc - piss take.)

Still, should be good as it's AFC v NFC and I always go for the AFC team if it affects the Cowboys, which it will in October.

Looking forward to seeing the future Hall of Famer, Tom Brady again. Saw him in person at a pre season friendly at Gillettes, but missed him perform due to rush hour Boston traffic. I had a VW Passat leaving behind a Porsche, me weaving through the traffic, for that game. I am the ultimate MassHole. Still missed the first quarter. This will make up for it - as long as Tom isn't injured.

:lux:

RDSdaEAGLE 26-01-2009 09:31 PM

I have to work this ******* Superbowl Sunday weekend :hmph:

jazman 26-01-2009 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edenbridge Eagle In Exile
Saints, Falcons to start with!

Falcons lost to the Broncos in 99

pauldrulez 26-01-2009 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzhiyi
Based on one game?



Fair enough, but you often talk about wanting to broaden your knowledge of the game and I honestly think books like the Feinstein and Lewis ones would help.

Ben, I pm'ed you mate.

I was basing it on the week before hand where he has struggled to adapt to the new training from the coaches.

Possibly why Kiper has dropped him so low in the rankings.

jazman 26-01-2009 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edenbridge Eagle In Exile
Jaguars, Browns

Saints, Jaguars and Browns - agreed

Although with the Texans, you have to think of the franchise history ... whose records do they have?

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
Saints, Jaguars and Browns - agreed

Although with the Texans, you have to think of the franchise history ... whose records do they have?

No ones. The Texans were a totally new Franchise in 2002.

jazman 26-01-2009 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle
From WIKI:Has missed out the Browns, any others missed?

Good work fella. So the Browns are the Browns, the Raiders are the Raiders.

Are the Rams still the Rams?

jazman 26-01-2009 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latvian Eagle
No ones. The Texans were a totally new Franchise in 2002.

Cool. That was during my period away from the game. Thanks.

How do changes happen and do they review the situation every so often?

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 09:50 PM

Why did LA lose two teams in 1995 by the way!?

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 09:51 PM

I guess the changes depend on a lot of things... Funding from Local governments etc seem to be quite major. Rapport with the fans / fan base size. TV market etc.

Obviously LA is the biggest TV market without a Franchise.

jazman 26-01-2009 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latvian Eagle
Why did LA lose two teams in 1995 by the way!?


Yes, that's bizarre. Although did I read somewhere that the crowds were poor and they simply weren't attracting fans to the games which is why they decided to move them, spread them out a little bit ...not certain.

jazman 26-01-2009 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latvian Eagle
I guess the changes depend on a lot of things... Funding from Local governments etc seem to be quite major. Rapport with the fans / fan base size. TV market etc.

Obviously LA is the biggest TV market without a Franchise.


Fair call. Which is weird why they took two from LA in the same year ...

So it's not reviewed every so often then ... maybe it is and we never know about it ...

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 09:59 PM

I guess the NFL can't just say "We want to move your franchise to another city"... I would think the actual owners have a say in whether the Franchise moves.

Can't imagine the NFL one day just deciding to uproot the NY Jets and putting them in LA or something.

Strathclyde Eagle 26-01-2009 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
Yep, didn't put it well enough in hindsight.

Nothing like that at all. :) I'm knackered today and didn't stop to think about what you could have meant. My bad.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
Falcons lost to the Broncos in 99

Beat me to it. :p
Quote:

Originally Posted by Latvian Eagle
Why did LA lose two teams in 1995 by the way!?

This is off the top of my head, but I think it was to do with stadium issues.

The Rams had a brand new stadium built for them in St. Louis (now known as the Edward Jones Dome), while the Raiders were guaranteed improvements to the Coliseum in Oakland along with (I think) some kind of deal where the city would buy any unsold tickets for any Raiders game.

Now of course Los Angeles is the big stick to threaten cities into building new stadia. My research into the Vikings stadium plans earlier even linked the Vikings with a move there (which I just can't see happening).

jj62255 26-01-2009 10:07 PM

Check out http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/

Tons of history about all the teams

jazman 26-01-2009 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strathclyde Eagle
Nothing like that at all. :) I'm knackered today and didn't stop to think about what you could have meant. My bad.

Beat me to it. :p

This is off the top of my head, but I think it was to do with stadium issues.

The Rams had a brand new stadium built for them in St. Louis (now known as the Edward Jones Dome), while the Raiders were guaranteed improvements to the Coliseum in Oakland along with (I think) some kind of deal where the city would buy any unsold tickets for any Raiders game.

Now of course Los Angeles is the big stick to threaten cities into building new stadia. My research into the Vikings stadium plans earlier even linked the Vikings with a move there (which I just can't see happening).

Good work fella, thanks. Finding all this real interesting... Anyone have any clues as to the next possible change in franchise or could they develop the gme further and add more?
.

jazman 26-01-2009 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jj62255
Check out http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/

Tons of history about all the teams

Nice one. Has a lot of info there, thanks.

elliott 26-01-2009 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
Good work fella, thanks. Finding all this real interesting... Anyone have any clues as to the next possible change in franchise or could they develop the gme further and add more?
.

I'd put money on Buffalo to Toronto within 10 years. Wouldn't get good odds though.

The NFL are reluctant to add franchises, since they have a nice 32 team schedule. But LA surely must get a relocated or new team...

Latvian Eagle 26-01-2009 10:24 PM

Yeah heard quite a bit about Buffalo maybe moving to Toronto. They played a game there this season didn't they (I think it was Miami?), and I'm sure they play a lot of Exhibition / Pre Season games there too.

Who is an unstable Franchise though really, who'd be likely to move? It's hard really to pick one out, and Los Angeles is the obvious place to put a new / relocated Franchise.

jazman 26-01-2009 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elliott
I'd put money on Buffalo to Toronto within 10 years. Wouldn't get good odds though.

The NFL are reluctant to add franchises, since they have a nice 32 team schedule. But LA surely must get a relocated or new team...


Yes, good point. They played in Toronto this year didn't they? Agree with the LA one. Just read that there used to be the LA Chargers before ...

elliott 26-01-2009 10:32 PM

Yeh...

Not sure about unstable franchises. Perhaps Miami aren't looking too hot. St Louis??? New Orleans?

RDSdaEAGLE 26-01-2009 10:33 PM

LA is supposedly the biggest television market for the NFL.

Despite the two teams moving away, they both seem to still have a bit of a presence here. Rams and Raiders merchandise is still quite easily available in shops here, and I still see people walking around in both their jerseys.

In fact, we still get Oakland Raiders updates on our local news channel.

pauldrulez 26-01-2009 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elliott
I'd put money on Buffalo to Toronto within 10 years. Wouldn't get good odds though.

The NFL are reluctant to add franchises, since they have a nice 32 team schedule. But LA surely must get a relocated or new team...

One of the West coast ones was mentioned recently on a website.

It may have been San Diego, but i'll try and find out if it was another team.

pauldrulez 26-01-2009 11:31 PM

Anyone want to hazard a guess at the game in my avatar :D

(Cue pictures of Tyree/Burress posted by everyone else) ;)

Strathclyde Eagle 26-01-2009 11:48 PM

Every time there is a San Diego/new stadium story then LA gets mentioned. If any city would hate to lose a team to LA then San Diego is it. No way that happens in my view.

I honestly couldn't pick the team to move next, Buffalo aside, and I don't think that will happen quickly.

Strathclyde Eagle 26-01-2009 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
Anyone want to hazard a guess at the game in my avatar :D

(Cue pictures of Tyree/Burress posted by everyone else) ;)

Brady in the snow game?

(Gotta love Firefox > CTRL and ++).

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2008-02/35211092.jpg

(Didn't want to disappoint you, Paul.)

pauldrulez 27-01-2009 12:06 AM

:D

Just how did that stay there. Defies gravity, physics and Rodney.

If only, if only :(

If that picture serves to remind me of something, its the number 91 on the helmet. When I first heard of his death, it made me realise that you have to live life to the full. RIP Marquise.

elliott 27-01-2009 12:24 AM

just a quickie chaps, how are the senior bowl players assigned into north and south. anyone know?

i was very confused. place of birth? home town? college location?

Strathclyde Eagle 27-01-2009 01:07 AM

Didn't Graham Harrell play for the North? Seems very random if that's the case.

jlmatthews 27-01-2009 01:20 AM

EDIT -- better answers to what I wrote above.

jlmatthews 27-01-2009 01:26 AM

Seen the LeBron football commercial?


jazman 27-01-2009 01:26 PM

Thanks for the input on the franchises people ... my learning continues :D

saxoneagle 27-01-2009 05:37 PM

Oh, and the new Browns are not the old Browns but they have the old Browns records :D

Confused yet? :D

jazman 27-01-2009 06:10 PM

Yes, thanks for that ... I will lose my tool tag if it's the last thing I do .. :D

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 27-01-2009 06:21 PM

Whoops, sorry I forgot about Atlanta in '99 (this was during the period I lost interest in the sport (post C4 , pre Sky - for me)

Re the LA situation, I still have this feeling that it will be the Rams who go back there as St Louis is a relatively small city and I believe the other reason they moved there was due to their owner at the time Georgia Frontierie who I believe came from St Louis and who has subsequently passed away.

Maybe this is wishful thinking as I had a big soft spot for the Rams whilst at Anaheim (LA) and the days of Eric Dickerson breaking the all time single season rushing record (84-85?) and I supported them prior to switching to the Eagles in the late eighties.

It would also mean potentially losing one of those souless dome stadiums!!! :p

Strathclyde Eagle 27-01-2009 06:25 PM

And all because Art Modell is a greedy, nasty piece of work.

And the fact he thanked the people of Cleveland after winning Super Bowl XXXV just rubbed salt in the wounds.

jazman 27-01-2009 09:13 PM

i was the same as you exile. when did c4 coverage stop?

Latvian Eagle 27-01-2009 11:09 PM

Having seen that LeBron James thing it made me think actually the other day... Loads of people say a few NBA drafts have been rigged (I'm only talking about it because the clip is featured in here by the way)... But I find it ironic how Cleveland got the number one pick the year a massive Cleveland Cavaliers fan from Ohio was the only real choice to come out of the draft as first pick! :eek:

Benzhiyi 27-01-2009 11:29 PM

Belichick next?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ame-fired.aspx

jlmatthews 28-01-2009 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle
Oh, and the new Browns are not the old Browns but they have the old Browns records :D

Confused yet? :D

No. :hi:

jlmatthews 28-01-2009 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strathclyde Eagle
And all because Art Modell is a greedy, nasty piece of work.

And the fact he thanked the people of Cleveland after winning Super Bowl XXXV just rubbed salt in the wounds.

I'll never forget the picture in Sports Illustrated of their "last" game in Cleveland. A guy in the dogpound had a sign that simply said, "Burn in Hell Art Modell".

Conveyed the message very clearly.

Strathclyde Eagle 28-01-2009 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzhiyi

No way, that guy said he treated his opponents with respect.

;)

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 11:39 AM

Without reading the link, if that says about the 100-0 basketball game, the best quote I saw was that "they got a bit carried away"

:D

jazman 28-01-2009 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzhiyi

The fact that he is coach of a girls team? ;) :o

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 02:31 PM

Thank God.

Quote:

Last season's opener knocked Tom Brady out of football. He's hoping next season's launches his comeback.

Brady expects to be ready for the New England Patriots' first game of the 2009 season, the Boston Globe reported on Monday. He suffered a season-ending knee injury in last season's first game and has had multiple procedures and battled infection since then. There was some question whether he would be ready for the opener.

Brady is on pace with his rehabilitation and is even dropping back and throwing passes, a medical source told the Globe. Citing medical and NFL sources, the newspaper reported that no further procedures are scheduled on Brady's left knee.

"Based on anybody else doing an ACL rehab, he's going right along," a source said, according to the Globe. "He had a shaky start, but he's caught up."

The newspaper reported that Brady is throwing, running, doing drills and getting in shape. The source told the Globe that Brady still has some "laxity" in his medial collateral ligament, some stiffnes and has not recovered complete range of motion. None of those issues are unusual, however, considering the severity of his injury.

The Patriots are reportedly still considering using the franchise tag on quarterback Matt Cassel, who led the team to an 11-5 record last season.
Let me just count our first round picks as 2 right now ;)

Benzhiyi 28-01-2009 02:51 PM

No one is giving you a first for Cassel. Sorry.

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 03:02 PM

Not going into this again.

But I am willing to stake that they will. And another pick too.

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 03:04 PM

In fact, i'll go further and say (I'll make it clear unlike the Dallas one):

If the New England Patriots do not receive a pick between Numbers 1 and 32 OR a combination of picks and players worth over a first rounder from a team for Matt Cassel, I will never post in this thread again.

jazman 28-01-2009 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
In fact, i'll go further and say (I'll make it clear unlike the Dallas one):

If the New England Patriots do not receive a pick between Numbers 1 and 32 OR a combination of picks and players worth over a first rounder from a team for Matt Cassel, I will never post in this thread again.

:p

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 05:31 PM

I'm deadly serious on this one as well, not half jokingly like the Dallas one.

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 28-01-2009 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
In fact, i'll go further and say (I'll make it clear unlike the Dallas one):

If the New England Patriots do not receive a pick between Numbers 1 and 32 OR a combination of picks and players worth over a first rounder from a team for Matt Cassel, I will never post in this thread again.

Any insider info Paul?

BTW the Eagles already have two picks in the first! But as usual they probably won't have on Draft night :(

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 28-01-2009 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazman
i was the same as you exile. when did c4 coverage stop?

Not sure, can anyone answer this? :confused:

Benzhiyi 28-01-2009 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edenbridge Eagle In Exile
Any insider info Paul?

ROFL! :lux: :lux: :lux: :o :o :D :D

Benzhiyi 28-01-2009 06:45 PM

Rofl - from boston.com:

"What has Cassel proven aside from the fact that he can't throw accurate crossing patterns or downfield at all, for that matter? He's shown that he can take maybe the best offense in the history of the game and turn it into the 19th best offense of the 2008 season. He's shown that he can lead the league in sacks despite playing behind an offensive line that gave up the fewest sacks in the league a year ago."

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 07:04 PM

Actually, over half of the sacks were in the first couple of weeks without half of the OL and taking the sack rather than avoiding it.

Boston.com = Herald. Also known as the ones not allowed interviews with the team anymore after their lies during Spygate.

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 07:06 PM

And he threw downfield consistently after Moss told him he cant be overthrown.

Last 8 weeks he overthrew Moss 12 times, all landed in bounds.

He is no Brady. But he is better than a lot of the QBs in the NFL. Because he is part of the Patriot system. Possibly. Could he fail going somewhere else. tbh I dont care.

saxoneagle 28-01-2009 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
And he threw downfield consistently after Moss told him he cant be overthrown.

Last 8 weeks he overthrew Moss 12 times, all landed in bounds.

Then he can't throw downfield - the idea is to hit the receiver, not under or OVER throw him.

Most QBs can throw a ball a loooooong way, but doing it accurately is what separates the great from the distinctly average. Cassel does not have the accuracy that someone like Peyton has and it's tough to learn that kind of skill.

Assuming Moss was running the correct route and reading the drop, then there is no reason for Cassel to be missing him so badly by over-throwing.

:clown:

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 09:12 PM

Moss said at the start of the year during the media availability section of Practice and I quote:

"Throw it as far as you can, I cannot be overthrown."

Therefore, Cassel threw it as far as he could and Randy couldn't get there.

Yes, he made some stupid mistakes early in the season but he nearly got a team to the playoffs that lost the best QB in the league and future hall of famer after 14 offensive snaps, 11 of which were passes.

saxoneagle 28-01-2009 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
Moss said at the start of the year during the media availability section of Practice and I quote:

"Throw it as far as you can, I cannot be overthrown."

Therefore, Cassel threw it as far as he could and Randy couldn't get there.

Yes, he made some stupid mistakes early in the season but he nearly got a team to the playoffs that lost the best QB in the league and future hall of famer after 14 offensive snaps, 11 of which were passes.

Randy couldn't get there = Cassel over-threw the route.

I don't f*cking care what Moss said - the fact Cassel couldn't hit him is, in the main, Cassel's fault. Like I said, most QBs can throw a ball miles, but throwing it 40+ yards and hitting a receiver is a different skill entirely.

I'll say this in big letters for you:

CASSEL CAN NOT THROW ACCURATELY DOWN FIELD.

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 10:12 PM

Thats funny because his first completion of the season was a 50 yarder to Moss with few yards after catch. That was from his own end zone.

He then had the long bomb TD vs San Fran.

Should have had one to Gaffney who dropped a simple catch and volleyed it into the endzone.

Now i've grabbed my statsheets from the season, there was the pass that went over Dansby's head as he flattened Cassel and went 30-40 to Gaffney as well as the bombs against Seattle as well as the one against the Rams that set up Faulk's TD.

To say he cant throw it is ridiculous.

To say he cannot do it consistently is correct.

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 10:18 PM

Last 8 games stats (when the TE/OL was fit since people like Brady comparisons):
4 Interceptions. (1 in last quarter)
19 sacks (5 against Pittsburgh)
14 TDs
400yds twice
300 against Zona but pulled in 3rd quarter to avoid running up score........

But he is obviously rubbish of course.

saxoneagle 28-01-2009 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
Last 8 games stats (when the TE/OL was fit since people like Brady comparisons):
4 Interceptions. (1 in last quarter)
19 sacks (5 against Pittsburgh)
14 TDs
400yds twice
300 against Zona but pulled in 3rd quarter to avoid running up score........

But he is obviously rubbish of course.


And we also have one of the highest YAC figures in the NFL... :clown:

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 11:53 PM

Lets look at recent trades then since we have to continue this pointless debate.

Although i'm sure most people here are unhappy with Brady's return from injury (since I said he was fine all along), i'll look at the biggest recent trade for a Quarterback that I could find.

Matt Schaub to Houston - swap of 1st round picks and 2 Second Rounders (from Atlanta).

His stats. 84-161, 1033 yards. 6 TDs, 6 INTs.

Now i'm off to find the bits on Cassels trade value which may or may not help my argument and status on this thread. (Please help ;) )

pauldrulez 28-01-2009 11:56 PM

Number One - reknowned analyst and quarterback expert, Steve Mariucci.

Quote:

TAMPA -- Former 49ers and Lions head coach Steve Mariucci, who had a strong reputation for his work with quarterbacks, now serves as an analyst for NFL Network. He was asked today for his thoughts on what Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel might be worth in a trade.

“Would you take a Mark Sanchez or a [Matthew] Stafford out of college in the first round, or would you take a Matt Cassel, who has won big games, is 11-5 already, and has experience under his belt for a first-rounder? You’d take Matt Cassel, I would think,” Mariucci said.

“He’s a healthy young guy who has experience. So yeah, he’s a first-round [pick] easy. More than a first round. First and something else.”

Mariucci elaborated on Cassel.

“I would put a high value on him, but keep in mind that he’s a young quarterback playing on a very good team,” he said. “Ben Roethlisberger was 15-1 as a rookie playing on a very good team. Not often does a youngster at quarterback have that advantage. [Cassel] was fortunate to play on a championship, dynasty type team and be 11-5, a terrific job. You put him on a bad team, and obviously he’s not going to be as productive. But he showed some physical skills that were very encouraging. He showed some savvy. Maturity. He did a good job handling the media and handling the situation there with Tom Brady. Those type of things add up, they’re all positives.”

Mariucci believes the Patriots will end up keeping Cassel, even given the salary cap considerations.

“I would be shocked if he’s playing for somebody else, because you have to have – in this day and age – two good quarterbacks,” he said. “And sometimes that’s not enough.”
The second bold bit is odd, the only other teams with 2 good QBs in my opinion are Cleveland, Miami, Pittsburgh and Arizona. And that depends on the definition of good.

Some teams don't even have one.

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 12:07 AM

Quote:

Rick-Lowell, MA: In your opinion, what is Cassel worth? Some have said the market is a mid first rounder, but adam schefter said on the radio this morning that it's more likely something like a 2nd and a 5th. What does your gut say?

Tim Graham: I answered that one already ... high to mid first-rounder to start. More picks to get the deal done.
From ESPN

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 12:16 AM

They are the 3 official ones i've found:

NFLN Mariucci - at least a 1st.

NFLN Schefter - 2nd and 5th (Never liked him)

ESPN - high - mid first plus more.

There are a lot of teams that need a QB in this league. I fancy SanFrans pick at 10.

Let's face it, it isn't fair if the Patriots have 2 first rounders, 2 second rounders a third, a third compensatory pick and any other picks for Cassel. All we need is defense. Too easy. ;)

Benzhiyi 29-01-2009 12:37 AM

Hahahaha quoting Mariucci, a man living off what he achieved nearly a decade ago. Well done.

Derek Anderson was as hot, if not hotter, property last season. Cleveland wanted a first and a third. No-one went near him.

jazman 29-01-2009 01:15 PM

I'm in my element this week with Americas Game appearing on my Sky+ at such a rate ... also Total Access showing the mood down in Tampa, boy, I love this time of year, the build up is great ... I'm in training for Sunday as well, getting some late nights in .. :)

saxoneagle 29-01-2009 01:39 PM

Paul - I'm not saying we might not get a first rounder for him. I am however pointing out that he's not that good and was made to look better by a scheme, a bunch of coaches and a team of backs and receivers who made him look good.

jazman 29-01-2009 01:48 PM

All this draft talk, you may as well be all talking another language for all I know ...

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 02:31 PM

I'll teach you in my remaining time on the thread Jaz ;)

Saxon, obviously the system has a lot to do with it, but he showed a lot of composure in and out of the pocket to end the year.

There are teams that all they need a Quarterback and you only need 2 to create a bidding war.

elliott 29-01-2009 02:48 PM

Just off topic slightly, going back to those scatty Pats jerseys (with the silly slanty futuristic writing), I just used that font in my Steelbowl X t-shirts and flyers...It was probably the best one I found...

Bad times...

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 03:03 PM

I like that font, can't find it when I look though.

Pro-bowl News - Owen Daniels replacing Antonio Gates deservedly at Tightend. Daniels had a great season. Gates, like Rivers pulling out.

Talking of Rivers, I cant get over Favre being chosen. Not just that, 5th best QB last season... Kerry freakin Collins. Not Roethlisberger? Not Pennington? Not Cassel? or Schaub. Hell even Flacco and Garrard couldn't have been that far off ;)

elliott 29-01-2009 05:06 PM

There's a set of every NFL jersey fonts in one zip file.

That is included.


I think I've already had my contribution about Kerry Collins. It's disgusting. Chad was selected above KC but from what I've heard (a few media sources have discussed it), he wasn't invited.

nookiebear 29-01-2009 06:09 PM

Wouldn't listen to what Mooch has to say

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 06:17 PM

I think I read somewhere about all the reserve players for the ProBowl who may pull out.

I'm hoping Ray Lewis pulls out because I believe Jerod Mayo is first reserve although i'd need to check it again.

davematt 29-01-2009 07:36 PM

Doesnt seem to be much talk on here in regards to Sundays Big One.

How are we seeing it? I am going to back the Cardinals for the first team in this post season. Have written them off in every game and they have come through them in remarkable fashion. Their offence is geared up to really cause that Steelers D lots of problems.

Will be a great game and I cant wait; if its half as good as last years we are in for some great football.

peagle 29-01-2009 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davematt
Doesnt seem to be much talk on here in regards to Sundays Big One.

How are we seeing it? I am going to back the Cardinals for the first team in this post season. Have written them off in every game and they have come through them in remarkable fashion. Their offence is geared up to really cause that Steelers D lots of problems.

Will be a great game and I cant wait; if its half as good as last years we are in for some great football.

Will go down to the wire imo. Was getting fully clued up yesterday on Total access on Sky Sports and they seemed sceptical of the Cardinals chances. But I could see them doing it as they have looked brilliant the last couple games and post-season. So I'm looking forward to a good close match on Sunday, planning on staying up again this year so Monday should be fun!

jazman 29-01-2009 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davematt
Doesnt seem to be much talk on here in regards to Sundays Big One.

How are we seeing it? I am going to back the Cardinals for the first team in this post season. Have written them off in every game and they have come through them in remarkable fashion. Their offence is geared up to really cause that Steelers D lots of problems.

Will be a great game and I cant wait; if its half as good as last years we are in for some great football.


Yes, I agree. Too much draft talk when th ebig one is first up ...

Interesting interview with John Madden who is calling the Superbowl this year. His summary was that you have to think about the teams in terms of their offence and defence and kinda rate them. He said he'd put the Steelers defence 1st, Cards offense 2nd, Steelers offence 3rd and the the Cards Defence ... but he went on to say it's all guesswork anyway ...

I'm rooting for the Cards. No other reason that the fact that they have never won a Superbowl and I like an underdog. But I did tip the Steelers early in the season so it's not all bad ....

jazman 29-01-2009 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
I'll teach you in my remaining time on the thread Jaz ;)

Does that mean I'll end up preaching about the Pats all the time???
:eek: :sob: :clown: ;)

peagle 29-01-2009 09:01 PM

The problem in rating them like that is that its naturally not representative of them compared to the other. I.e. the Cards offence is being rated on its own as opposed to how it will fare against the Steelers Defence. Could be interesting to see what happens therefore as diferent match ups occur.

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 09:04 PM

Welcome peagle my fellow Patriot :hi:

I am backing the Cardinals as I have the whole post-season.

If they establish the run, the game is over for the Steelers IMHO.

Just because of the Play Action Passing as well as the ability of the Cards defense.

saxoneagle 29-01-2009 09:12 PM

Want: Steelers to win. Big.

Think: Cards to win by 4.

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 09:17 PM

Really?

I'm the other way.

Think: Steelers to win big.

Want: Cardinals to destroy the tossers. For Brady.

saxoneagle 29-01-2009 09:20 PM

How about at least one post without a f*cking Pats mention? I manage it.

peagle 29-01-2009 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle
How about at least one post without a f*cking Pats mention? I manage it.

So far I haven't mentioned them once in three posts! Impressive eh! lol this obviously doesn't count. I think steelers could win it but it won't be big.

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 09:23 PM

I done that one deliberately to wind you up.

Whenever I didn't mention the Pats I got nothing back at all whether about Superbowl, Draft, Pro Bowl, Dolphins or whatever.

I hate the Steelers. I hate Joey Porter and I loved it when we ruined 15-1 for them.

Go Cardinals.

jj62255 29-01-2009 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
If they establish the run, the game is over for the Steelers IMHO.

Just because of the Play Action Passing as well as the ability of the Cards defense.

I have a really hard time seeing them do that with James and Hightower. I'm sure they'll be throwing it most of the game, and I just pray Taylor and McFadden can avoid silly pass interference calls like against the Ravens, they practically gifted them 2 TD's although one of them was a bit dubious. The key for the Steelers D is, as the Eagles failed to do, to keep pressure on Warner, he really can't be left in pocket for long or he willl punish you.

But actually I'm a little sad we're playing the Cardinals, would have backed them against anyone but the Steelers.

saxoneagle 29-01-2009 09:30 PM

The Steelers are an excellent team. The Cardinals are a decent enough team who have hit a hot run of form.

I'd much rather a team who has been consistent over the season than one who limped into the play-offs at 9-7.

What is the worst regular season record of a Superbowl Champion?

jj62255 29-01-2009 09:33 PM

The 1988 San Francisco 49ers and 2007 New York Giants both had a 10 - 6 record and won the Super Bowl.

Could be a new record :eek:

peagle 29-01-2009 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle
The Steelers are an excellent team. The Cardinals are a decent enough team who have hit a hot run of form.

I'd much rather a team who has been consistent over the season than one who limped into the play-offs at 9-7.

What is the worst regular season record of a Superbowl Champion?

I can see why you would rather that but the nature of the system means that Cardinals have every right to win it and therefore many will support them as seeming underdogs. Though actually in many ways they are favourites considering how well they have done in the post-season.

The question is will the Cardinals let the fact that everyone now sees them as VERY serious contendors as opposed to reasonable outsiders affect them?

saxoneagle 29-01-2009 09:37 PM

In the same way I was glad when the 8-8 Chargers lost, I'll be glad when the Cardinals do, too.

pauldrulez 29-01-2009 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jj62255
I have a really hard time seeing them do that with James and Hightower. I'm sure they'll be throwing it most of the game, and I just pray Taylor and McFadden can avoid silly pass interference calls like against the Ravens, they practically gifted them 2 TD's although one of them was a bit dubious. The key for the Steelers D is, as the Eagles failed to do, to keep pressure on Warner, he really can't be left in pocket for long or he willl punish you.

But actually I'm a little sad we're playing the Cardinals, would have backed them against anyone but the Steelers.

James isn't tired, Hightower has sucked since the start of the season but has been pretty good at Short Yardage.

If they can establish this then they are fine. If not, then the Steelers can throw a million exotic blitzes at the Cards and they are fine.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.