NFL Offseason '18: Our American Cousins

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's an interesting debate to have, but I think you have to establish some parameters before you can have it.I think the most important one is time span. Are we talking about the last 5 years, 10 years, since 2000, or the entire history of the NFL? Because the Pats perfectly highlight that. If we go by the first three measurements then yes, Jace is right, they are in a league of their own. But if we go with the entire history of the NFL, they aren't even a first tier team because all their glory has come from one third of the league's history. 

Then we have to figure out what we're measuring and how do we weight things. Let's use the Cowboys as an example here. How much value do we give them for being "America's Team"? Do they get credit for being the most financially successful team over the last few decades even though their product has largely been bad over that time frame? What about the value of the franchise, as the Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL? And how hard a hit do we give them for having a crazy owner? And lastly, how do assess the early 90's Cowboys, who were a Dynasty while has having a tremendous amount of personal problems (take the legendary "White House," for example)? It's really all subjective with an agreed upon measurement system.

Personally, I think the two most stable franchises in league history are the Steelers and the Packers. Both teams have multiple titles from three different decades. Then the Giants, Pats and 49ers probably round out the top five, followed by the Cowboys and the Broncos. After that it's kind of crap shoot, but I think I could argue my Vikings would be next, but I get if you want to drop them lower because their history's greatest chokers. Also, I have no idea how you rate the Racial Slurs, because they have been a fairly successful franchise, but not as of late and their name alone costs them so many points for me.

27 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

The Browns:

Browns

 

I typically deffer to you since you're still a fan girl for the NFL while I've become a much more causal viewer since I graduated from college (2011), but you're dead wrong here. The Lions and the Cardinals deserve to be in the group of utter and complete shame too. The Cardinals are one of the leagues oldest teams, they have only two titles and the last one was won over 70 freaking years ago. Likewise, the Lions are a very old team too, they've only won four titles and the last one was over 60 years ago. The Browns, also being an old team, can at least claim they've won eight titles, and the last one was within the last 50 years. Also, the Lions and the Cards are in the bottom third of total winning percentage in league history, which the Browns are not. These three teams have just been awful.
 

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's an interesting debate to have, but I think you have to establish some parameters before you can have it.I think the most important one is time span. Are we talking about the last 5 years, 10 years, since 2000, or the entire history of the NFL? Because the Pats perfectly highlight that. If we go by the first three measurements then yes, Jace is right, they are in a league of their own. But if we go with the entire history of the NFL, they aren't even a first tier team because all their glory has come from one third of the league's history. 

Then we have to figure out what we're measuring and how do we weight things. Let's use the Cowboys as an example here. How much value do we give them for being "America's Team"? Do they get credit for being the most financially successful team over the last few decades even though their product has largely been bad over that time frame? What about the value of the franchise, as the Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL? And how hard a hit do we give them for having a crazy owner? And lastly, how do assess the early 90's Cowboys, who were a Dynasty while has having a tremendous amount of personal problems (take the legendary "White House," for example)? It's really all subjective with an agreed upon measurement system.

Personally, I think the two most stable franchises in league history are the Steelers and the Packers. Both teams have multiple titles from three different decades. Then the Giants, Pats and 49ers probably round out the top five, followed by the Cowboys and the Broncos. After that it's kind of crap shoot, but I think I could argue my Vikings would be next, but I get if you want to drop them lower because their history's greatest chokers. Also, I have no idea how you rate the Racial Slurs, because they have been a fairly successful franchise, but not as of late and their name alone costs them so many points for me.

I typically deffer to you since you're still a fan girl for the NFL while I've become a much more causal viewer since I graduated from college (2011), but you're dead wrong here. The Lions and the Cardinals deserve to be in the group of utter and complete shame too. The Cardinals are one of the leagues oldest teams, they have only two titles and the last one was won over 70 freaking years ago. Likewise, the Lions are a very old team too, they've only won four titles and the last one was over 60 years ago. The Browns, also being an old team, can at least claim they've won eight titles, and the last one was within the last 50 years. Also, the Lions and the Cards are in the bottom third of total winning percentage in league history, which the Browns are not. These three teams have just been awful.
 

Mine was an 'as they stand now' breakdown.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Real bad:

Colts

Miami

Jets

Chargers

49'ers

Texans

I want to be mad about this placement, but Jed York deserves it.  And even before he was put in charge, his parents were pretty cheap.  Still optimistic about the future though.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I want to be mad about this placement, but Jed York deserves it.  And even before he was put in charge, his parents were pretty cheap.  Still optimistic about the future though.

Yeah, a year ago they're in the Really Dysfunctional catagory

[Maithanet]

17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's an interesting debate to have, but I think you have to establish some parameters before you can have it.I think the most important one is time span. Are we talking about the last 5 years, 10 years, since 2000, or the entire history of the NFL? Because the Pats perfectly highlight that. If we go by the first three measurements then yes, Jace is right, they are in a league of their own. But if we go with the entire history of the NFL, they aren't even a first tier team because all their glory has come from one third of the league's history. 

Then we have to figure out what we're measuring and how do we weight things. Let's use the Cowboys as an example here. How much value do we give them for being "America's Team"? Do they get credit for being the most financially successful team over the last few decades even though their product has largely been bad over that time frame? What about the value of the franchise, as the Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL? And how hard a hit do we give them for having a crazy owner? And lastly, how do assess the early 90's Cowboys, who were a Dynasty while has having a tremendous amount of personal problems (take the legendary "White House," for example)? It's really all subjective with an agreed upon measurement system.

Personally, I think the two most stable franchises in league history are the Steelers and the Packers. Both teams have multiple titles from three different decades. Then the Giants, Pats and 49ers probably round out the top five, followed by the Cowboys and the Broncos. After that it's kind of crap shoot, but I think I could argue my Vikings would be next, but I get if you want to drop them lower because their history's greatest chokers. Also, I have no idea how you rate the Racial Slurs, because they have been a fairly successful franchise, but not as of late and their name alone costs them so many points for me.

I am not counting historical glory, only what we have seen from the franchises, and what we expect to see in the future.  The Patriots have made the most of the Brady era in a way that the Colts, Saints, and Packers have totally failed to do with their great qbs.  In fact, the only comparable run ever is the 80s niners, which had a shorter window given that Montana was much more injury prone than Brady. 

I don't care about whether an organization is good at making money or branding themselves.  I am projecting a winner.  As in, if the NFL had an auction for the rights to each player, where each franchise has the same amount of money, and then they played the next twenty seasons (with normal drafting from then on), who would win the most SBs? 

Top:  Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Eagles, Giants, Broncos

Second tier:  Packers, Chiefs, Vikings, Panthers, Falcons

Maybe above average: Texans, Seahawks, Niners

Mediocre: Cardinals, Cowboys, Rams, Dolphins, Jets, Chargers

Pretty Bad:  Saints, Bucs, Jags, Bengals, Titans

Awful:  Redskins, Browns, Lions, Bills, Bears, Raiders, Colts

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Top:  Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Eagles, Giants, Broncos

I'm a bit perplexed by the Giants' placement. They've played one playoff game in the last six seasons and they gutted their organization recently. Plus defending the kicker who regularly beat his wife is a terrible look. 

Quote

Pretty Bad:  Saints, Bucs, Jags, Bengals, Titans

I also find this one to be a bit odd. The team has been fairly stable over the last few seasons and their roster is really strong. I thought they were going to win the Superb Owl this year.

If your hold up is Brees' age, I get it, but I think it's a bit of an illusion. My lukewarm feelings on Kirk Cousins have been well known, but I think he could replace Brees and there'd be little to no drop off other than that the Saints turnovers would go up. Brees led the league this year in yard per attempt, but his team also lead the league in YAC, and more importantly, Brees' passes traveled through the air less than any other QBs' on average. He was essentially throwing a lot of short passes and the skill position players did the rest. Cousins could replace that, as could a lot of other QBs. Now that's not a shot at Brees, but he has become a system QB, of sorts. 

[Jace, Extat]

WEFFL media insider here.

I've been going down rabbit holes and apparently the favorite for being the subject of season 3 of All or Nothing is the Denver Broncos.

Apparently there were a lot of cameras around the team all year, and Jace could imagine that Elway decided he couldn't take the hit of firing Vance to cap the ruinous campaign.

Could be interesting. Unfortunate that Joseph is a sexual deviant who sounds like a tall glass of Xanex.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

You think sexual deviance is unfortunate?

When it's describing a man who exposed his flaccid cock to a woman in public seemingly without encouragement?

Yes.

[Rhom]

7 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

When it's describing a man who exposed his flaccid cock to a woman in public seemingly without encouragement?

Yes.

Do we draw a distinction between flaccid and engorged when determining degree of unfortunateness?

[Maithanet]

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm a bit perplexed by the Giants' placement. They've played one playoff game in the last six seasons and they gutted their organization recently. Plus defending the kicker who regularly beat his wife is a terrible look. 

Ah yes, the standard six season increment for measuring team success.  I'll see that and raise you an eleven year increment, which has seen two super bowl wins.  And they got those wins the hard way, without a very good quarterback.  I am always going to give credit for teams that have pulled that off, since every year ~25 teams attempt to do it, and this century only the Bucs, Giants, Ravens, Broncos and Eagles have pulled it off.  And the Giants did it twice!  Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to win two super bowls since at least the 80s, and possibly ever. 

 

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I also find this one to be a bit odd. The team has been fairly stable over the last few seasons and their roster is really strong. I thought they were going to win the Superb Owl this year.

If your hold up is Brees' age, I get it, but I think it's a bit of an illusion. My lukewarm feelings on Kirk Cousins have been well known, but I think he could replace Brees and there'd be little to no drop off other than that the Saints turnovers would go up. Brees led the league this year in yard per attempt, but his team also lead the league in YAC, and more importantly, Brees' passes traveled through the air less than any other QBs' on average. He was essentially throwing a lot of short passes and the skill position players did the rest. Cousins could replace that, as could a lot of other QBs. Now that's not a shot at Brees, but he has become a system QB, of sorts. 

You mean stable at 7-9?  Because that's what they were in 2012, 14, 15 and 16.  It wasn't until their bang up draft last year that they emerged from the muck of mediocrity.  And to go 7-9 so regularly with Drew Brees lighting up the league is in fact pretty shameful.  If they could have managed even the 20th best defense in the league any of those years, they would have made the playoffs. 

And Drew Brees is more or less as good as Kirk Cousins?!

Did Skip Bayless come on tv, and you accidentally typed what he was saying?  Ok guys, quick opinion, who's the better player Lebron James or Otto Porter?  I mean, their numbers are pretty comparable if you just ignore the numbers. 

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Ah yes, the standard six season increment for measuring team success.  I'll see that and raise you an eleven year increment, which has seen two super bowl wins.  And they got those wins the hard way, without a very good quarterback.  I am always going to give credit for teams that have pulled that off since every year ~25 teams attempt to do it, and this century only the Bucs, Ravens, Giants and Eagles have pulled it off.  And the Giants did it twice!  Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to win two super bowls since at least the 80s, and possibly ever. 

True, but they also fired their two-time winning Superb Owl coach only four seasons after the second win and have looked real incompetent since then (that nonsense with benching then bringing back Eli this year). I agree that you shouldn't just look at the past six seasons or so when evaluating a team, but they do need to be part of the conversation as well. They seem much more like a second-tier team, than the cream of the crop.

I'd also knock the Eagles down to second tier too on account of all the nonsense they allowed Chip Kelly to get away with, and while they had years of stability before him with Andy Reid, they generally weren't world-beaters either (and the organization never took steps to deal with Reid's extreme clock management problems)

Looking over roughly the past 15 years, I just think there's a world of difference between how well-run the Patriots, Steelers, and Ravens (and maybe Broncos, just for the Manning coup) are and the rest of the league.

[Maithanet]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

True, but they also fired their two-time winning Superb Owl coach only four seasons after the second win and have looked real incompetent since then (that nonsense with benching then bringing back Eli this year). I agree that you shouldn't just look at the past six seasons or so when evaluating a team, but they do need to be part of the conversation as well. They seem much more like a second-tier team, than the cream of the crop.

Following NFC East football since the early 90s, the Giants have a tendency to crash hard and recover quickly.  They've made 3 Super Bowls in the past 20 years, which is more than any other NFC team, and since at least the 80s they've made a habit of overachieving in the playoffs. I'm not counting them out yet, although if this current malaise continues then they could fall. 

 

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'd also knock the Eagles down to second tier too on account of all the nonsense they allowed Chip Kelly to get away with, and while they had years of stability before him with Andy Reid, they generally weren't world-beaters either (and the organization never took steps to deal with Reid's extreme clock management problems)

I wouldn't hold Chip Kelly against the Eagles too much.  I mean, he is an innovator, his offenses looked really good, and he won the NFC East his first year.  Then in years 2 and 3 things went sour, and they fired him. That seems like a pretty normal thing to do, but I don't see the Chip Kelly experiment as a black mark for the organization.  It was a high risk, high reward signing that didn't work out.  You move on and, in the case of the Eagles, win the Super Bowl two years later. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Ah yes, the standard six season increment for measuring team success.  I'll see that and raise you an eleven year increment, which has seen two super bowl wins.  And they got those wins the hard way, without a very good quarterback.  I am always going to give credit for teams that have pulled that off, since every year ~25 teams attempt to do it, and this century only the Bucs, Giants, Ravens, Broncos and Eagles have pulled it off.  And the Giants did it twice!  Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to win two super bowls since at least the 80s, and possibly ever. 

This proves my point though. Adjusting the time window completely changes the results. That's why I said it needs to be clarified. 

Quote

You mean stable at 7-9?  Because that's what they were in 2012, 14, 15 and 16.  It wasn't until their bang up draft last year that they emerged from the muck of mediocrity.  And to go 7-9 so regularly with Drew Brees lighting up the league is in fact pretty shameful.  If they could have managed even the 20th best defense in the league any of those years, they would have made the playoffs. 

I think their recent track record would place them above your "Pretty Bad" tier, no? I'm not arguing that they should be in the first, or maybe even the second tier, just that they don't belong that close to the bottom. Hell, I thought they might be the best team in the league this year. That has to count for something. 

Quote

And Drew Brees is more or less as good as Kirk Cousins?!

Did Skip Bayless come on tv, and you accidentally typed what he was saying?  Ok guys, quick opinion, who's the better player Lebron James or Otto Porter?  I mean, their numbers are pretty comparable if you just ignore the numbers. 

Oh come on man. That's not what I said and you know it. My argument was that there wouldn't be too much of a step back if Cousins replaced Brees, not because he's just as good, but because he would fit well in that system with those skill players. I think a lot of QBs would, actually. 

And their numbers aren't wildly different, though Brees' are better. In 2017, Brees was 1st in accuracy, Cousins was 9th. Brees was 4th in yards, Cousins was 7th. Cousins was 8th in TDs, Brees was 11th. Kirk had 5 more Ints, which isn't surprising, and I said before that that would be the biggest difference between Brees and Cousins: turnovers. And I think we can all agree that Brees had a lot more talent around him than Cousins did. 

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This proves my point though. Adjusting the time window completely changes the results. That's why I said it needs to be clarified. 

I think their recent track record would place them above your "Pretty Bad" tier, no? I'm not arguing that they should be in the first, or maybe even the second tier, just that they don't belong that close to the bottom. Hell, I thought they might be the best team in the league this year. That has to count for something. 

Oh come on man. That's not what I said and you know it. My argument was that there wouldn't be too much of a step back if Cousins replaced Brees, not because he's just as good, but because he would fit well in that system with those skill players. I think a lot of QBs would, actually. 

And their numbers aren't wildly different, though Brees' are better. In 2017, Brees was 1st in accuracy, Cousins was 9th. Brees was 4th in yards, Cousins was 7th. Cousins was 8th in TDs, Brees was 11th. Kirk had 5 more Ints, which isn't surprising, and I said before that that would be the biggest difference between Brees and Cousins: turnovers. And I think we can all agree that Brees had a lot more talent around him than Cousins did. 

Jace got your back baby.

Breesus is old. OLD

Kirkus in NO would go down like a nice intern with daddy issues.

Effective system. Dynamic RB's. Fine line. Good WR's. Ball hawking defense.

What the fuck isn't there to like? Trevor Symion could look good in that offense. Maybe not 5000 yards a season good, but throw a fucking bone in me.

Kirk would win a SB in NO. It's not widely acknowledged that Brees and the team have a less than savory history.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Jace got your back baby.

Breesus is old. OLD

Kirkus in NO would go down like a nice intern with daddy issues.

Effective system. Dynamic RB's. Fine line. Good WR's. Ball hawking defense.

What the fuck isn't there to like? Trevor Symion could look good in that offense. Maybe not 5000 yards a season good, but throw a fucking bone in me.

Kirk would win a SB in NO. It's not widely acknowledged that Brees and the team have a less than savory history.

I think of Brees as one of those rare QBs who can elevate his receivers, and make average or flawed guys look like Pro Bowlers. Cousins is competent, but I don't think he can make guys better than their talent.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I think of Brees as one of those rare QBs who can elevate his receivers, and make average or flawed guys look like Pro Bowlers. Cousins is competent, but I don't think he can make guys better than their talent.

Jace thinks Brees is a great QB who looks like a legendary QB because of the offense he plays in.

Cousins is a fine QB, and the Saints have the roster strength to be no different than Philly when it comes to deployment of a limited QB's skill set.

It's not that the Saints should have traded Brees to Washington for Cousins or anything. It's that Brees is coming to the end of the road and Cousins is available in the here and now.

A known commodity has value.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Ah, that is unfortunate.  I was picturing something like that he was a furry.

Indeed.

Always wanted to meet a furry. What's goin' on there, ya'know? What? What ah, what are you up to?

[DMC]

16 hours ago, Rhom said:

Do we draw a distinction between flaccid and engorged when determining degree of unfortunateness?

Engorged?  I think you need to see a doctor.

14 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I am always going to give credit for teams that have pulled that off, since every year ~25 teams attempt to do it, and this century only the Bucs, Giants, Ravens, Broncos and Eagles have pulled it off.  And the Giants did it twice!  Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to win two super bowls since at least the 80s, and possibly ever. 

Agreed, the Giants deserve credit in my book for consistently overachieving their stats - for a long time, and especially on defense.  Not sure that credit should go to the organization though.

14 hours ago, Fez said:

True, but they also fired their two-time winning Superb Owl coach only four seasons after the second win

Does four seasons really qualify as an "only?"

5 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think of Brees as one of those rare QBs who can elevate his receivers, and make average or flawed guys look like Pro Bowlers. Cousins is competent, but I don't think he can make guys better than their talent.

Yeah I think assuming Cousins could do what Brees has done for over a decade is downright silly.  Sorry Ty.

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This proves my point though. Adjusting the time window completely changes the results. That's why I said it needs to be clarified. 

Yep.  For instance, changing the timeframe for the niners means encapsulating exciting future, to dumpster fire, to khakis rule!, to boring and bad, to the original Mooch, to "man, hope Steve Young is still smart after that Cards game," to the glory days, to signing old OJ, to John Brodie.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 2/17/2018 at 0:22 AM, dmc515 said:

 

Yeah I think assuming Cousins could do what Brees has done for over a decade is downright silly.  Sorry Ty.

 

That wasn’t my argument though. Of course Cousins can’t replicate what Brees has achieved over the last decade. But he could replace Brees right now with this specific offense. Brees only threw 23 TDs this year. Cousins would throw more than that if he was in this offense, which doesn’t require the QB to do a whole lot. That’s why I said I wouldn’t expect much of a drop off if you swapped the two QBs.

[Maithanet]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That wasn’t my argument though. Of course Cousins can’t replicate what Brees has achieved over the last decade. But he could replace Brees right now with this specific offense. Brees only threw 23 TDs this year. Cousins would throw more than that if he was in this offense, which doesn’t require the QB to do a whole lot. That’s why I said I wouldn’t expect much of a drop off if you swapped the two QBs.

Here are Brees and Cousins stats for this year.  Brees is better in every way except tds thrown:  yards, int, comp %, first downs, td/int ratio.  And Brees' touchdown number was low largely because the Saints having a rushing attack that led the league in touchdowns this year (23), well ahead of the Redskins (10).  You might come back with "but Cousins would benefit from that run game too!" which is true to some extent, but teams are way more afraid of Brees than they are of Cousins, so there's every reason to think Kamara might have a little less room with Captain Kirk in the backfield.

Brees' touchdown figures have been very high for his whole career, so if anything, this year is likely an aberration.  In 2016, he had 37 tds on a very mediocre Saints team.  Hell, the last time Brees had only 23 tds was 2003. 

Really the only way that you can say that Brees and Cousins are "maybe kinda" comparable is if you think Brees' play is going to fall off a cliff in his old age.  Last year saw no signs of that, and I don't expect it this year either.