NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, sperry said:

It's more like if your'e gonna joke about some stuff, you better be damn sure you're being funny.

Fair enough. 

[James Arryn]

We need a mama bear. Where's Nic?

[dbunting]

I am going to type something that seems really strange. The Detroit Lions seem to be building a good team! They have gone out and addressed a major weakness in their O line and added two of the best OL free agents while letting their own underperforming ones leave. Is this the turning point, is Bob Quinn going to make Detroit a legitimate team? All signs are pointing to them drafting a RB (1st or 2nd rd) to go with that better line, both of which benefits Stafford. Only time will tell but it looks like they are heading the right way.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Rockroi said:

Nobody is really arguing anything.  I'm certainly not upset at the way anyone has responded to the Pats win.  I am honestly just repeating some of the things I have been watching on various sports shows over the last two months (ie: highlight porn).  

I'm not saying that you can "definitively" say Brady is the GOAT, but I am saying that he is probably the GOAT in terms of QB and a really, really strong case can be made that he is the greatest football player ever, not just QB.  And, yes, some have even stated that he has surpassed Gretzky and/or Jordan as the greatest pro athlete.  Now, for any of those I can have the discussion, but if you do not believe that Brady is any of those things, that's fine; I begrudge nobody their well-reasoned opinions.  

At the same time, if I advance my position that does not mean I am suffering from some sort need to "overcompensate" or "victim complex."  In fact, I was saying the opposite - that because of how satisfied I am over the Pats success over the last 15 years I am really not even remotely bothered anymore by Ballghazi or Spygate or anything like that (except when ESPN splashes it on their scroll or Bill Polian regurgitates the lie that the Pats had been caught recording opposing teams' practices, which leads ESPN to issue an apology... at 3AM...).  Really, I was just saying how happy I was.  

Now, if expressing happiness is so triggering I can stop.  We should discuss less happy things like, you know, the Jets... 

 

 

I thought it was pretty clear that I was joking, but we all know how sarcasm and the interwebs go together.

That said, the reason why I can't agree with the idea that Brady is the GOAT, or even the best QB ever, is because there are two other QBs who played at the same time who I think most objective people outside of NE would rather start their franchises with over Brady. Brady is certainly the most successful QB ever, and an all time great, but I honestly don't view him as the best.

[Fez]

15 hours ago, Rockroi said:

Now, if expressing happiness is so triggering I can stop.  We should discuss less happy things like, you know, the Jets... 

Hey now; there's something very liberating about just not giving a shit anymore. Also, with the Woody Johnson-Trump-Brady/Belichick friendship circle, we're all one big happy, horrible family now.

 

Also, no NFL player is remotely as dominant as Gretzky, Jordan, Seaver, or several other all-timers from other sports; the NFL is just too team-reliant for that to be the case.

Brady's not even the GOAT of Boston sports; that's Bill Russell. He has surpassed Larry Bird and David Ortiz though, IMO. But I suspect Ortiz is more beloved.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

 

 

Also, no NFL player is remotely as dominant as Gretzky, Jordan, Seaver, or several other all-timers from other sports; the NFL is just too team-reliant for that to be the case.

 

I'd disagree. His name is Rice. He is to football stats what Gretzky is to hockey. In spite of playing in a less offensive era than now (and when rb's still were the stat padders) his numbers are still unbelievably dominant. It's still a natural progression of relatively close numbers, then huge gap, then Rice. For instance, the difference between he and the next most receiving yards (Owens) is the difference between Owens and Mark Clayton, ranked 58th.

Edit, if you want individual seasons rather than volume. For example his 1987 season was unreal. Lead the NFL in scoring with 23 touchdowns in 12 games (strike shortened.) The next 22 leaders are all kickers...yes, he was ahead of all them...and 2nd place for non-kickers scored 11, less than half Rice's total. 

I'd say that individual numbers translate somewhat less to championships in football, but Rice dominates the numbers as much or more than others dominate their sports.

Edit again, just noticed: Seaver? Not Walter Johnson or Koufax or Pedro or Ryan or even Clemens, but Seaver?

[Fiddler]

3 hours ago, dbunting said:

I am going to type something that seems really strange. The Detroit Lions seem to be building a good team! They have gone out and addressed a major weakness in their O line and added two of the best OL free agents while letting their own underperforming ones leave. Is this the turning point, is Bob Quinn going to make Detroit a legitimate team? All signs are pointing to them drafting a RB (1st or 2nd rd) to go with that better line, both of which benefits Stafford. Only time will tell but it looks like they are heading the right way.

I have really liked the way free agency has went so far.  Signing Wagner and Lang could be huge for this team.  Now if the rookie lineman from last year can continue to improve, the Lions could have a good line.  I'm also glad they didn't do what I hear people around this state want them to, try and sign Peterson or Charles.  I hear people say this all the time and I cringe.  I wouldn't touch either of those running backs.

In the end, for me anyways, is whether or not this team can win consistantly and in the playoffs with Stafford and Caldwell.  So far they haven't been able to, but maybe the future is looking up.

[King Ned Stark]

Reports that Butler will visit the Saints thursday, Bill can match offer (if they make one) or take Saints first rd pick (11).  Think I'd rather have Butler, and go for it all the next few years, but either way, it seems too good to be true.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I'd disagree. His name is Rice. He is to football stats what Gretzky is to hockey. In spite of playing in a less offensive era than now (and when rb's still were the stat padders) his numbers are still unbelievably dominant. It's still a natural progression of relatively close numbers, then huge gap, then Rice. For instance, the difference between he and the next most receiving yards (Owens) is the difference between Owens and Mark Clayton, ranked 58th.

Edit, if you want individual seasons rather than volume. For example his 1987 season was unreal. Lead the NFL in scoring with 23 touchdowns in 12 games (strike shortened.) The next 22 leaders are all kickers...yes, he was ahead of all them...and 2nd place for non-kickers scored 11, less than half Rice's total. 

I'd say that individual numbers translate somewhat less to championships in football, but Rice dominates the numbers as much or more than others dominate their sports.

Edit again, just noticed: Seaver? Not Walter Johnson or Koufax or Pedro or Ryan or even Clemens, but Seaver?

I remember in the first Fantasy Football league I was ever in (I think this was 1988) Rice was treated like Pele. You could draft his TD's or yardage. Each counted for one pick. 

[dbunting]

1 hour ago, Fiddler said:

I have really liked the way free agency has went so far.  Signing Wagner and Lang could be huge for this team.  Now if the rookie lineman from last year can continue to improve, the Lions could have a good line.  I'm also glad they didn't do what I hear people around this state want them to, try and sign Peterson or Charles.  I hear people say this all the time and I cringe.  I wouldn't touch either of those running backs.

In the end, for me anyways, is whether or not this team can win consistantly and in the playoffs with Stafford and Caldwell.  So far they haven't been able to, but maybe the future is looking up.

Yeah, if you could get Peterson / Charles for 2 years relatively cheap, then maybe. There has been a strong link to Mixon from Quinn, IMO, if he is there when the Lions pick in Rd 2 he is their pick. As a 2nd rd pick he would be way cheaper than Peterson/Charles and you would have him for four years.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I'd disagree. His name is Rice. He is to football stats what Gretzky is to hockey. In spite of playing in a less offensive era than now (and when rb's still were the stat padders) his numbers are still unbelievably dominant. It's still a natural progression of relatively close numbers, then huge gap, then Rice. For instance, the difference between he and the next most receiving yards (Owens) is the difference between Owens and Mark Clayton, ranked 58th.

Edit, if you want individual seasons rather than volume. For example his 1987 season was unreal. Lead the NFL in scoring with 23 touchdowns in 12 games (strike shortened.) The next 22 leaders are all kickers...yes, he was ahead of all them...and 2nd place for non-kickers scored 11, less than half Rice's total. 

I'd say that individual numbers translate somewhat less to championships in football, but Rice dominates the numbers as much or more than others dominate their sports.

Edit again, just noticed: Seaver? Not Walter Johnson or Koufax or Pedro or Ryan or even Clemens, but Seaver?

Okay, yeah, maybe Rice is the one NFL example.

Also, I could've mentioned any of those pitchers, yeah. Well, maybe not Pedro, the peak was too short; but the rest, sure. I just like Seaver.

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Okay, yeah, maybe Rice is the one NFL example.

Everyone knows the most dominant athlete in sports is Donald Bradman (cricket).  His career batting average of 99.9 is fully 64% higher than then #2 cricketer of all time (Pollack, with 60.9).  And he did that while missing much of his athletic prime during WW2, and playing until his 40th birthday. 

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Everyone knows the most dominant athlete in sports is Donald Bradman (cricket).  His career batting average of 99.9 is fully 64% higher than then #2 cricketer of all time (Pollack, with 60.9).  And he did that while missing much of his athletic prime during WW2, and playing until his 40th birthday. 

I did know there was some cricket player that was absurdly dominant compared to everyone else, but I couldn't remember who it was.

[Week]

27 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Everyone knows the most dominant athlete in sports is Donald Bradman (cricket).  His career batting average of 99.9 is fully 64% higher than then #2 cricketer of all time (Pollack, with 60.9).  And he did that while missing much of his athletic prime during WW2, and playing until his 40th birthday. 

Also per wiki - 

Quote

The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".^[3] In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.^[243] The respective records are .366 and 30.1.

Damn.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I did know there was some cricket player that was absurdly dominant compared to everyone else, but I couldn't remember who it was.

I don't care at all about cricket, but I love that particular bit of trivia. 

2 minutes ago, Week said:

Also per wiki - 

Damn.

I know, it's awesome!  It is almost impossible to even come up with a fair comparison to a modern athlete.  Baseball's stats are the most similar to cricket, and it would be like if Mike Trout improved his batting average by .100 and maintained that level for another twelve years.  I think most people would call that impossible.

[dbunting]

Eddie Lacy to Seattle, 1 yr 5 mil...sounds like a make it contract

[Week]

25 minutes ago, dbunting said:

Eddie Lacy to Seattle, 1 yr 5 mil...sounds like a make it contract

Reportedly weighed in at 267 pounds which is slightly above normal for a 5'11" back ... I guess it is only 20 pounds (reportedly) more than Blount who is 6'0". Still. Damn man, that's a lot of freight.

[lancerman]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I'd disagree. His name is Rice. He is to football stats what Gretzky is to hockey. In spite of playing in a less offensive era than now (and when rb's still were the stat padders) his numbers are still unbelievably dominant. It's still a natural progression of relatively close numbers, then huge gap, then Rice. For instance, the difference between he and the next most receiving yards (Owens) is the difference between Owens and Mark Clayton, ranked 58th.

Edit, if you want individual seasons rather than volume. For example his 1987 season was unreal. Lead the NFL in scoring with 23 touchdowns in 12 games (strike shortened.) The next 22 leaders are all kickers...yes, he was ahead of all them...and 2nd place for non-kickers scored 11, less than half Rice's total. 

I'd say that individual numbers translate somewhat less to championships in football, but Rice dominates the numbers as much or more than others dominate their sports.

Edit again, just noticed: Seaver? Not Walter Johnson or Koufax or Pedro or Ryan or even Clemens, but Seaver?

Only one position can be as dominant and a difference maker on their team as a super star basketball or hockey player and it's QB. Not for nothing but Rice came on a team that already won two Super Bowls right before he got there and his team's that won Super Bowl's were literal super teams by todays standards. 

We know what the Detroit Lions look like with Calvin Johnson. We know what the Vikings look like with Randy Moss (who at his peak was at least on par. We know how many Super Bowls Jerry Rice won without a great QB, the answer is 0.

And we know how Joe Montana comes in and turns the 49'ers into a dynasty. We know how Tom Brady comes to a team that was 5-11 the previous year and they never have a losing or .500 season since. We know how the year between Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck the Colts had an abysmal record. Hell we can go back to the 50's and talk about how the Browns went to 10 straight championship games with Otto Graham. Then two years after Graham retires the greatest RB of all time and who many people have called the most dominant player ever played and in an 8 year career only gets 1 championship. 

QB is the only position equivalent to being a super star hockey or basketball player. They translate to wins. And you can go back to the start of the Super Bowl era. Names like Starr, Dawson, Namath, Unitas, Bradshaw, Staubach, Griese, Montana, Elway, Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Aikman, Warner, Roethlisberger  Favre, and young translate to 36 of the Super Bowls. Then you got guys like Tarkenton, Kelly, Marino making a ton of appearances. Then you have years where a guy like Eli or Flacco had an all time great statistical playoff run on their way to winning one. Or when Theisman was one of the best QB's in the league when he won. 

Rice is the best WR of all time but he simply doesn't have the impact of a QB. And yes he does have the best stats. Part of that is that he played 20 years which is longer than anybody comparable to him. Another part of that is for 15 of those 20 years he played a guy who was until the last few years considered the consensus GOAT QB and is probably number 2 for alot of people and another QB who alot of people would rank as a top 10 of all time who might literally have had the greatest peak of any QB ever. As opposed to lets say Randy Moss who only played with Brady 2 and half years. Or TO who had Young for like 3 years. And he also played in the WCO when it was still way ahead of it's time and teams didn't know how to defend it.

I'm not saying all this to diminish Rice. But he was in the ideal situation for a WR in his era and it's alot harder to imagine his team's having the same success without Montana or Young than it is without Rice. 

[James Arryn]

Lancer, I was halfway through a post, searching for exact numbers when I came across a summary that puts it very nicely;

 

 

• In Rice’s rookie year, Montana missed one game. Matt Cavanaugh started against the Eagles, who had one of the best pass defenses in the league. Rice caught 3 passes for 71 yards and a score.

• In 1986, Rice’s second season, Montana suffered a severe back injury in week one that nearly ended his career. Jeff Kemp (6) and Mike Moroski (2) started half of the season before Montana came back. In those eight games, Rice caught 40 passes for 820 yards and 9 TDs. Over sixteen games, 80 receptions, 1640 yards and 18 TDs would have been the most impressive season by any receiver in the league. Excluding Rice (who had 86-1570-15), Stanley Morgan had the second most receiving yards (1491) and Wesley Walker was second in receiving touchdowns (12). And yes, to those observant readers, Rice’s numbers that season were better without a gimpy Montana than with one.

• Montana and Young would start every non-strike game over the next four seasons, so let’s skip ahead to 1991. Montana had a season-ending elbow injury in the pre-season and Young injured his knee in mid-season. Steve Bono started six games for the 49ers, and Rice caught 33 passes for 415 yards and four scores playing with Bono. After losing their first start under Bono, the 49ers would win their next five games. Pro-rated over 16 games, Rice (88 receptions, 1107 yards, 10.7 TDs) would have ranked 4th, 8th and 5th in receptions, receiving yards and receiving TDs with Bono.

• In 1995, Young went down again, and this time Elvis Grbac took over. In five starts, Rice put up an absurd 31-550-4, for a pro-rated 99-1760-12.8 (actual 122-1848-15). Those 1760 receiving yards would be good enough for #2 all-time on the single-season list.

• Young missed four more starts in 1996, with Grbac again picking up the slack. Rice scored in every game, and caught 27 passes for 322 yards and 5 scores. The pro-rated Rice would have led the league with his 108 catches and ranked 4th with his 1288 yards; his 20 TDs would outpace the #2 man by six scores. The actual Rice had 108-1254-8.

So for 5 seasons, Grbac (9), Kemp (6), Bono (6), Moroski (2) and Cavanugh (1) started 24 games for the 49ers. In exactly a year and a half’s worth of games, Rice caught 134 passes for 2,177 yards and 23 TDs, and ran for one score as well. That’s an average season of 89 catches, 1451 receiving yards and 16 touchdowns, or roughly the career best season for nearly every WR who has ever played the game. And, of course, only 25% of those games came during what we would typically call a wide receiver’s prime. Eighteen of those 24 games that he played without Montana or Young came during Rice’s first or second season, or when he was 33- or 34-years old. In ’95 and ’96, playing at an age when most receivers start slowing down, catching passes from Elvis Grbac, and playing with Derek Loville and Terry Kirby at RB, Rice put up numbers that could arguably pass for the best season of Cris Carter’s or Steve Largent’scareer.

[lancerman]

I'm not saying he's not the best WR of all time or that he couldn't be successful without Montana or Young. But the fact is most WR's don't get the benefit of 15 of 20 years where they mostly were thrown to by Montana and Young. It does make a difference in the massive gap between him and TO and Moss. 

 

In fact, how big do you think that gap is if TO or Moss spend 5 years with Brady and 10 years with Brees? Because we know what Moss did with one year of healthy Brady (09 Brady was coming off the biggest injury of his career). Maybe Rice is still ahead. But it's more of a discussion. 

And again the 88, 89, and 94 Niner's were super teams and had a great QB playing at an MVP level. I can say them at a minimum two of those three Super Bowls without Rice. I can't see them winning anything with Montana or Young.