• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rockroi

  • Rank
    The Rock That Roared

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

6,691 profile views
  1. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    I think Cousins is a very good QB. He's 3rd in yards, 5th in yards/att, 8th in completion %, 10th on passer rating, 11th in TDs and has only thrown 7 INts (less than the vast majority of starters). And outside the stats he seems like he can play; like he leads the team, controls the game; the guys listen to him etc. Lets look at it this way- you are building pro football team- what QBs would you rather have than Cousins? Brady, Wilson, Brees, Rothlesberger, Rodgers- those guy you would take over Cousins. But after that, there is AT LEAST an argument. Matt Ryan I would probably take over Cousins, but how much is Ryan and how much is it Julio? What about Andre Luck? Isn't Luck just Ryan spelled differently? Same # of letters and everything. Dak Prescott? Okay, but what will his sophomore slump look like? I'm not saying Cousins is great, but right now you would take him over Rivers, Mariotta, Dalton, Tannehill, Stafford, Winston and probably even Carr.
  2. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    Sorry I haven't been around for the last week or so. My business is growing (which is very strange for this time of year; people tend to not want to start a divorce proceeding as the holidays approach, but here I am) and with a lot of other demands its my time was limited. Just a few words about Week 10 (last week); I thought Week 10 was the best week of football all season. The Steelers and Cowboys played a whale of a game; Washington DC continued to vie for a position at the playoff table; the Giants looked amazing on Monday night; KC went into Carolina and played a hell of a game; Broncos and New Orleans played a game that, sadly, came down to one (maybe) controversial play; Miami became the latest team to defeat the Chargers by one score. It kind of felt like every game came down to one play and was decided by less than 7 points. Oh, and the Pats D shit the bed. There was that. In all honesty, it was a great game overall and Wilson is a complete stud; I would love the guy if he were the Pats QB. Every team in the NFL should want a guy like him as their QB. But the Pats were playing too cute because they were PETRIFIED that the Seahawks would get the ball back so they ran every second off the clock and played great field position... except they forgot to score that game-tying TD. Stupid details. The Pats D looked like they were lost without Jamie Collins ... because they were lost without Jamie Collins... Which brings us to Week 11. Fuck the Pats D is terrible. Okay, they won; ... hoorayyyyyy.... kinda... But they beat an absolutely loathsome 49'ers team; they were ranked 29th in DVOA (24th in O; 25th in D) which means they are a worse team than Jacksonville, the Rams, and probably 6 or 7 High School teams. Total shit team. Their QB is completely terrible (yet somehow better than Blaine Gabbert), but thankfully we all learned that while he is kneeling down during the National anthem he is otherwise super focused on the games- this fucker doesn't even let VOTING get in his way. Voting is for oppressors ... apparently ... Colin Kaepernick probably doesn't know how voting works, which is fine because he also doesn't know how "playing QB works" either; he's 0-for as a starter. Five TDs v 2 INTs and 4 Fumbles. Carlos Hyde is half-dead, the O-line is terrible, and the D is shitty at all three levels. And the Pats... struggled. They started off fast, then cooled off in the 3rd before, thankfully, pulling away in the 4th quarter. THey still gave up over 80 yards to Hyde and 2 TDs to Kaep (who was otherwise "meh" completing around 50% of his passes). The Pats were without Gronk, Hogan and their best pass rusher, Jabaal Sheard who was left back in New England for no good reason. But they still had long stretches were it looked like a team that could not force a turnover... because they are a team that cannot force a turnover. They are DEAD LAST in INTs... with five. Guess who had two of those? JAMIE COLLINS! I know, I know, its like the Pats are sucking on purpose. I mean, yeah, it was great that the Pats ... won... but they beat a terrible team and their terrible Qb and their vastly overrated head coach. Who cares? And yes, agreed, Brady looked near-perfect with 4TDs, no picks, 280 yards and ~115 passer rating. But that can only get you so far; QB play becomes tougher in the playoffs as Ds bear down, refs put the flags away and D-coordinators throw in the kitchen sink. The last big game the Pats had was against Seattle and they pooped themselves. The Pats will not play a meaningful game until week 16 (I think) when they go into Denver. Until then? Baltimore? The Jets (x2)? The Pats have to do better in games against quality opponents and not just pile on the trash heap that is San Francisco. Okay, anyway, onto a few other things: -As I write this NFL kickers missed eleven (11) Extra Points. I swear, the rule is in their heads. -Mexal, I honestly have nothing against you. But I think the universe does. The Bengals' season all but ended today when their All-Universe WR AJ Green. Everything about the team is terrible- their head coach allowed the team head-cases to run things; theiur running game is gone, injuries have taken a toll and, generally, the Bengals are having the fatigue of playing great football for 17 weeks just to get fucked over by ... well themselves... in the playoffs. So, to their credit, they are cutting out the middle man and just playing shitty football now. Hopefully, Marv Lewis will gracefully accept his new position as the Junior Varsity head coach of Pinewood Vocational School so we can all get on with our lives. -Holy fuck what is happening to the Packers? See, the Packers are the cautionary tale to any team who thinks "We have (a great QB) so as long as we have (great QB) we will be fine." Well, no. The head coach as to do a bunch of other things and allow the QB to play great and the team to succeed. And Mike McCarthy doesn't do that; he is incabale of getting out of the way. I hope he keeps Josh McDaniel's seat warm when he takes over as Packers head coach in 2017. -Jay Cutler is hilariously terrible. In his last two games he has BARELY gone above 50% passing has 2 TDs and 3 INTs. I watched him on that last drive against the Giants and he went Fumble, terrible Incomplete Pass, well-thrown INT. You fucking mastermind, Jay. Its incredible to me just how much better Brian Hoyer was compared to this sack of poop. He sucks the life out of future Bears teams. That's all I have for right now. Next week the Pats play another seriously terrible team, the Jets. Hold me back in my gleeful enthusiasm...
  3. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    ... yup...
  4. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    So, while I agree, one of the reasons I hate this race is that it has moralized the election. If you vote for HRC, you endorse lying, fraud and dishonesty; if you vote for Trump you endorse racism and misogyny. And while I agree more with the latter than the former, its this "othering" of the election that really aggravates me. And its making moral judgments that say "If you vote for X you are 'bad' and if you support Y you are 'good' and HEAVEN FORBID you say you want to vote for alt-X or alt-Y! Don't get me wrong- I think that more bad people will vote for Trump than will vote for HRC (at least pro-rated), but I don't think that if you vote for Trump you are, defacto, a bad person. And I don't like what this all implies. If I discover tomorrow that my dad voted for Trump... do I not allow him in my home? If I find out a client of mine voted Trump should I cut them off? Should I not accept referrals from Trump supporters? I find all of that a little too "One-Party-State-ish" for me. It sounds like something you would discover happened in "Elections" from 1952 Poland or something.
  5. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    Oh, it was crazy back in the day; Conservatives who were AGAINST the Vietnam war; Liberals that were PRO immigration enforcement ... ... you know, the way the rest of the world is?
  6. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    My God, the good-ol' days when a Republican was just an out-of-touch, rich white man.
  7. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    Well... now it appears that Brady DID vote on Monday morning ... like that lying, orange swill-bucket said ... I don't know what to believe anymore ...
  8. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    Also, DanteGabriel is a fantastic poster and we are all lucky to have him on these boards.
  9. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    Wow. I write one post and we get more traffic than we did for the entire Sunday and Monday night games combined. You are all welcome. As Mexal stated, its being reported that Belichick wrote the letter and its from Steve Burton- a VERY well respected sport's reporter her- so I am starting to believe that's true, but it could be a miscommunication or coming from incorrect sources. I will say that the media in this town is so Stockholm-syndromed by Belichick that they know, instinctively, not to print something about him unless its verified and re-verified as true. I still cannot imagine Belichick writing that letter. Brady is still up in the air. And people are all about parcing what I said and saying I am "tying myself up in knots" to make the case etc and all I can say is that my knowledge of this situation is that Donald Trump is a fucking liar. And using that as a bench mark you can EASILY see why I said what I said. Unless sperry et al are now in the business of believing everything that grease fire says.
  10. NFL 2016 Week 9: Once You Go Dak, You Never Go Back

    @Jaime L I just want to respond to your comments here and let you know that I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life. As a child I was on of FOUR kids on my 4th grade class to vote for Mondale over Reagan. While I have supported GOP candidates, they have all been local; I have been involved heavily in electing Elizabeth Warren as Senator in Massachusetts (my state, obviously) where I was a poll-watcher for her campaign as well as part of her volunteer legal team (sounds much more impressive than it is; just means they call me if there needs to be an emergency legal case filed if somebody has wrongly been kept from voting). So, understand that my opinion on this is HORRIBLY slanted to my view on this issue. Okay. Trump is lying. That's a hot-take, huh? The lying liar who lies lied? He's lying. First, on Monday, I listed to Brady's radio interview where he said he had not voted yet. Massachusetts had early voting but it ended Friday; (and absentee balloting ended a few weeks earlier) but Mass has no early voting Monday so if Trump said that Brady voted for him Monday night ... somebody is lying. Second, Giselle was asked "Does your family support Trump?" and responded, "No." Now, I don't doubt that Giselle carries a lot of weight in that family, but I doubt that she can keep Brady from voting for Trump. But I don't think that as of Monday night he voted for Trump, and I think its still possible he won't vote for Trump. Third, while Brady is prone to lying about certain things, if Brady's goal is not to attract attention to him or his vote DURING the election, he could accomplish the same thing by just saying, "I'll announce who I voted for after the election," which is what he did in the radio interview. He did not have to say "I have not voted yet." He could just say "I voted but I won't reveal it until next week. He had no incentive to lie about this. Brady is from California, a traditionally liberal state. While it does possess enclaves of GOP support (Orange County), its a very blue state. Statistically, Brady is likely connected to that blue-side of the state. Yes, he had that hat and Trump has been in the Kraft ownership suite, but that's at best circumstantial evidence. Its hardly an endorsement. If there is ONE thing that bothers me about Brady and his possible right-leaning ties is that he did not show up to the White House for the last Superbowl, the only SB Brady would have gone to with a Democratic President. Local fans will recall that Bruins Goalie Tim Thomas did not attend the White House ceremony with Obama and stated that it was PRECISELY because he did not respect Obama (... great ...), but Brady? This seems a little strange. Still, its not an endorsement of Trump. This brings us to Belichick which, I think, is easier than Brady to disprove. For starters, the note sounds like it was written by somebody NOT named Bill Belichick who keeps most his comments very brief, even when he's speaking right to them. IN the inaugural, "A Football Life" Belichick speaks to Russ Frances and while effusive, his commentary is contained; same thing when he leaves a message for then Red Sox manager Terry Francona congratulating him on his Playoff birth. Nothing long and flowing as the letter sent to Trump. Secondly, Belichick is a true non-conformist; he does not lean red even though he has some traditionally right-leaning sentiments (ie: his admiration for the military). He is supposedly a registered Democrat. Third, I cannot fathom Belichick allowing anyone to READ a letter he wrote to a third party; Belichick is intently private (some would say secretive... others would say Tywin-esque). Supposedly, the fire-wall of privacy extends to people who are actually friends of his: Lenny Clarke, the stand-up comedian and ersatz-actor, supposedly responds to interview requests about Belichick by asking, "Did Bill say this was okay," and if he does not get a 'yes' he politely declines to comment. Belichick will talk your ear off about football, and may talk a little about other sports, but nothing else. He rarely gives opinions on anything besides a sport. Fourth, DONALD TRUMP HAS INCENTIVE TO LIE! Right now, States locked into blue or leaning heavy blue give Hillary ... 274 Electoral Votes... ah, she only needs 270. Therefore, for Trump to have a CHANCE here he needs to flip a couple of blue states EVEN BEFORE he runs the table on the battle ground states (Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Florida). So, this was his deep pass. And in his mind... I bet he does not think he's lying. I bet Brady said something to him like, "You're great; you ran an amazing campaign;" and then - if you believe he'll vote for Trump - added in, "I am going to vote for you on Tuesday." But Tuesday is not Monday night. And Fifth, Trump SHOULD know that neither Brady or Belichick is likely to issue a denial; they would both likely answer "No comment" or "Going to discuss football and Seattle, not something like elections." So, its a safe bet to just spew something nobody is going to remember in 2 days. So, no I don't think Brady (as of Monday night) voted for Trump and I don't think Belichick wrote that note. Oh, and fucking Rex Ryan endorsed Trump and spoke at a rally for Trump. Go pick on that ignorant, overrated swill-pile. I don't think Belichick would want to associated with somebody who would associate with ... Rex Ryan.
  11. NFL 2016 Week 7: Nobody's Burfict

    Also remember that Cleveland gets that exclusivity window to negotiate with Collins before anyone else can (officially anyway) after the season is over but before the free-agent season begins. I actually think this deal makes a lot of sense for the Browns because they get a guy for ... nothing. Or next to nothing; they give up a compensatory pick that doesn't matter to them- its not really even theirs. They pick up a huge player who is going to play with something to prove/a chip on his shoulder and could be a center-peice of their new D.
  12. NFL 2016 Week 7: Nobody's Burfict

    But do the Pats have that Depth? The Pats have been trying to find athletic LBs all season. First, they signed Mingo who had been cut from (you guessed it) Cleveland; last week, the Past traded for under-performing Lions LB Kyle Van Noy; they have been impressed with Roberts who had been eating into Collins' reps. And Donte Hightower is one of the best LBs in the NFL. But Mingo is REALLY small; if you think he can improve the Pats' D versus the run (as opposed to Collins) that's not going to happen. Robert's is a rookie who other teams will learn, in due time, how to play against. Van Noy is a Lions reject. Hightower is not now nor has he ever been a pass rusher (that was something Collins could do). None of these guys are very good versus the pass. Look, here is something I have to ask: Are the Patriots as good or better today than they were on Sunday? There is no reasonable person who can answer that question in the affirmative.
  13. NFL 2016 Week 7: Nobody's Burfict

    But he doesn't have to sell early; that's my major problem here. He could have kept Collins for the rest of the season, a contract season where he would want to play hard so that he gets "von Miller money" next season from some team willing to forget he's clearly not von Miller. He does not need to sell him a year early or hold onto him for a year late; he only needs to hold onto him for 8 to 11 more games. I kinda get the compensatory pick theory; if, during the off-season, the Pats take in more players that require compensatory picks than they lose, they may not get ANY compensatory pick from losing Collins. Noted. But you know what you DEFINITELY lose by trading away Jamie Collins? Those 8 to 11 games. Where you need "all hands on deck" on this D which has ... issues. The Pats D is #3 in points given up (16.5 per game) which is the classic "bend-don't-break" philosophy of the Pats. In yards per game- not a great metric -they are basically middle-of-the-road (total 14, pass 17, rush 11). How does Collins fit into this? Well, (And I am quoting all these next few stats from memory) apparently when a QB throws to a guy Collins is covering, that QB's passer rating is ~57.6 which means that Collins is great against the pass. Now against the run? So, this one is interesting; when the Pats played Buffalo, Collins played only ~45 of the 68 plays on D; for nearly ALL the plays Collins was taken out was when Buffalo went into a 2-back set- ie when the Bills were going to run and Collins would have to take on the FB. Collins had already given up the big run earlier. I think that you can say that Collins was weakening against the run and that Belichick knew this. My problem is ... who cares about the run? Seriously, the best RB the Pats will face for the remainder of the season is "Who'DaFuck'Cares" (Clemson, 3rd round) because nobody runs anymore. CJ Anderson is on IR, Le'Veon Bell is going to go on IR so not sure why I would care in the playoffs. If Collins is bad against the run, wouldn't somebody else step up? The last great RB the Pats faced in the playoffs was Marshawn Lynch. He got over 100 yards. It. Didn't. Matter. I'm just saying that the Pats can manage against really good running backs. If Collins is THAT good against the Pass... I just feel like that's a mistake. Now... In that same Superbowl, the Seahawks started on their own 20 with ~2 min left to play. The first play from scrimmage was a wheel route to ... Marshawn Lynch for nearly 30 yards. Who was covering him? Jamie Collins! Its possible that I am overreacting to this; that this is a trade that should have been done; that by exiling Collins to Cleveland Belichick is doing more than getting a 3rd round pick- he is once again solidifying his Alpha-Dragon status, looking at Sheard, Hightower, Solder and anyone else - "Think we 'need' you? We. Don't." And that's defiantly a good thing in this context. But . . . But the only real way I can sleep at night with this trade is that for the next 8-11 games I know that Jamie Collins' impact on those games would have been trending towards "low" which - by knowing Collins' stats, his impact, athleticism, and impact on this D - is a hard pill to swallow. Because right now I think the major reason Collins was traded was because his demands were what was hard for Belichick to swallow.
  14. NFL 2016 Week 7: Nobody's Burfict

    So, more from on the Collins trade and they gave a bit of an explanation as to why the Pats MAY have gotten more from Collins by trading him than by letting him go: (Emphasis added). So, the Pats DID guarantee they would have gotten something; had they let Collins walk they would not have necessarily gotten anything.
  15. NFL 2016 Week 7: Nobody's Burfict

    And there they have Garrett locked under the Rookie Salary cap and don't have to pay him much of anything; so you get two HUGE young players for 3-4 years and only have to, really, pay for one of them. This is a huge mantra of Darth Hoodie, or at the very least its the mantra of the media here constantly repeats. And its very true; I think the Pats must lead the NFL in "Buying low and selling high." At the same time, the Pats could have kept Collins for the remainder of the season, have him play and just not resign him. And for that time, remember: it would have been Collins' "contract year" and he would have or should have been playing "balls out." And that may have made this team unstoppable (then again Collins was only ... "good" on D).