NFL the offseason

[AndyP]

The Bengals of course

Former Tennessee Titans and Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones worked out for the Cincinnati Bengals on Thursday, according to league sources.

The workout is thought to be Jones' first with an NFL team since the Cowboys released him in February 2009.

Jones

Bengals coach Marvin Lewis has been a champion in providing second chances to players.

Well that's one way of saying it.

[sToNED_CAT]

The Bengals of course

Well that's one way of saying it.

Heh, I was going to post the same. They are working out Matt Jones too, I see. What's next, trading for Vick :}?

[Mexal]

Heh, I was going to post the same. They are working out Matt Jones too, I see. What's next, trading for Vick :}?

Why not? We already made an offer for Vick last year but he chose to go to the Eagles.

The Bengals are notorious for ignoring character issues and trying to rehabilitate players. And honestly, we've had some serious success cases in Henry, Benson, Tank Johnson. The reason why they're successful is because the teams identity is based around the fact that no one wants them, not to mention that a lot of them have been in bad positions before and are able to support each other. The locker room is that tight at the moment.

Do I want Pacman? Not really. But if he has his shit together and he can help, then fine. If he fucks up, cut him. It's not really that hard. He won't bring a part the locker room nor bring down the team singlehandedly. The same thing can be said for Jones.

This is nothing new with the Bengals and lately, it's been working toward their advantage. They've gotten cheap talent that no one else wanted and has turned them into a winning team. I expect the trend to continue as the leaders within that locker room are quality, stand up guys (Whitworth, Williams, Palmer, Jones, Peko).

[DanteGabriel]

Some fodder for the discussion mill... Jason Whitlock lists his "best QBs of all time", by this metric:

Football is constantly evolving. The game today is considerably different from the game in the 1960s and 1970s. Each decade -- '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s and '00s -- has a distinct personality. Think about it. In the 1960s, segregation and an unstated quota on black players had an impact on style of play. For most of the 1970s, defenders could molest receivers, treat quarterbacks like tackling dummies and use the head slap. The 1980s saw the transition to a finesse game.

It was a process turning the NFL into a John Madden video game that limits contact with the quarterback to two-hand touch.

The greatest quarterback of all time is the one who could excel in all five eras. The criteria is: Which quarterback would you prefer to start a franchise with in any decade?

I've eliminated Otto Graham and Y.A. Tittle from the conversation. I didn't see them play. And they played in eras severely damaged by segregation.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-10-greatest-qbs-of-all-time

[Rockroi]

Hmmm.... I think I love Jason Whitlock.

[DanteGabriel]

Hmmm.... I think I love Jason Whitlock.

In my opinion, Whitlock's the closest thing left to the late great Ralph Wiley, who was my favorite NFL writer.

[Kalbear]

It's odd that he thinks Manning is this wilting flower. This is the guy that broke his jaw and missed two snaps. Or remember in 2005 against the Pats, where he scrambled for like 10 seconds, got utterly demolished by a rushing LB and threw a ridiculous pass to Harrison?

He's not afraid to get hit. And he's strong enough to take hits. But he's fairly smart, and he's not going to take unnecessary hits if he can help it.

Whereas Favre missed several games with injuries, had addictions to painkillers and has made far more boneheaded plays to lose big games than Manning has by a long margin to the point where we associate that with Favre just being Favre. (or Brett being Brett, if you will).

I don't have a problem with him saying Manning blew it in the superbowl (though what's with the racial overtones? Whitlock is odd that way) but using that as a justification that he's weak? Odd.

[Maithanet]

Hmmm.... I think I love Jason Whitlock.

I think he's terrible, and was hesitant to read this article once I saw he'd written it. I remember when Steve McNair was killed, he wrote an article that I found incredibly sexist.

Here's the end of the article, where he gives advice to professional athletes:

Get over your insecurity that you better lock her up while you're in the league because she might not want you when you get cut and she figures out the only money-producing skill you have is throwing a football, fielding a groundball or hitting a three off a screen. There's a damn good chance she's just as insecure as you are and has less to offer. She'll wait. Or someone just like her will. They say it's cheaper to keep her. The truth is, most athletes should never purchase anything. Just test drive. That way, the new car smell they love never goes away.

I remember there was another article around that same time I found equally distasteful, although I can't remember what it was about. Anyway, those two combined were enough for me to resolve not to read his columns, which I had kept until clicking the link on QBs.

I likewise would not call Peyton soft; I'm pretty sure that he's bigger and stronger than Elway.

[DanteGabriel]

I think he's terrible, and was hesitant to read this article once I saw he'd written it. I remember when Steve McNair was killed, he wrote an article that I found incredibly sexist.

Here's the end of the article, where he gives advice to professional athletes:

I remember there was another article around that same time I found equally distasteful, although I can't remember what it was about. Anyway, those two combined were enough for me to resolve not to read his columns, which I had kept until clicking the link on QBs.

I can see how you'd find the article and Whitlock's general tone sexist, but I find his willingness to mix it up in social and economic issues refreshing in a sportswriting world filled with bland cheerleaders like Rick Reilly. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I think he has a point and some interesting things to say when he starts talking about the lives athletes lead.

The article on McNair doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's spent a lot of time talking about the realities of life for pro athletes. The things he says are harsh and sometimes offensive, but he pays attention to issues that very few other professional sportswriters are willing to even admit exist.

ETA: I also think you're cherry-picking your quotes a little for maximum offensiveness. Try this earlier section of the article you linked for more context:

I bring all this up because people are looking for the big-picture lesson in the Steve McNair and Arturo Gatti murder/tragedies. McNair, 36, was shot by his 20-year-old mistress, Sahel Kazemi, a waitress at Dave & Buster's. Gatti, 37, was allegedly strangled by his 23-year-old wife, Amanda Rodrigues, a former dancer at Scores. I'm not dismissing the smaller, more obvious lessons: 1.McNair needed to keep his butt at home with his wife and kids; 2. Middle-aged, millionaire men shouldn't romance 20-year-old children who are looking for their lottery ticket. And I'm not blaming the victims. McNair and Gatti did not in any way get what they deserved. No one deserves to be murdered. What I'm saying is the institution of lying/marriage is a horrible idea for athletes.

I'm sure many honest men — or men reading this column outside the presence of their wives or girlfriends — believe marriage is just a bad idea, period, especially for men without children. And I'm certain there are numerous, rational women who understand the foolishness of judging a man's character and/or love based on his ability to control blood flow to his midsection.

Now I could write an entire column clarifying the previous paragraph. Let me just say these few words of clarification. I'm not promoting irresponsible, promiscuous sex. I'm not defending the Shawn Kemps and Travis Henrys of the world. I'm not even remotely against the concept of marriage. I'm against all the lies that go along with the American institution of marriage.

But that's a column for another day. Today's column is about the stupidity of athletes getting married. Besides a strip club, massage parlor or whore house, I can't think of a work environment less supportive of a monogamous, healthy relationship than a men's locker room. Strange Tang is the No. 1 topic of conversation inside a locker room. It's not steroids, the playbook or the next opponent. It's gossip about strip clubs, girls met in soon-to-be-visited cities on Facebook and Myspace and getting drunk. Oh, you might occasionally overhear someone on the God Squad chitchatting about the next Bible study or the evils of the Internet porn they accidently looked at for 90 minutes. But mostly the locker room is a haven for unapologetic sinners. It's a place where you pick up a lot of bad habits.

A professional locker room is filled with in-shape, wealthy young men. They're carted around the country in private planes. They're at an age when they and their peers are supposed to do their hardest partying. They're members of an elite fraternity, and their membership in the fraternity can expire at any moment. What would you do? More than likely, you'd go as hard as you could for as long as you could. At the very least, you'd occasionally dabble. Why get married?

[Rockroi]

Or remember in 2005 against the Pats, where he scrambled for like 10 seconds, got utterly demolished by a rushing LB and threw a ridiculous pass to Harrison?

Ah... n-no!

He's not afraid to get hit. And he's strong enough to take hits. But he's fairly smart, and he's not going to take unnecessary hits if he can help it.

I agree; I thought Whitlock's better points were 1) that the media has done as much as they can to a) say its not Peyton's fault and b ) say its someone else's fault (Wayne, Garcon, the coaching, etc) and 2) that maybe Manning has some flaws that deserve to be looked at (I COMPLETELY forgot that he threw 7 INTs in the 2006 playoff run- wow that's suck-tacular).

I do not think Manning is soft. I agree that much of the time the reason he does not get hit is because his decision making ability and release are so fast, and THAT is due to his extremely hard work--ethic. And Whitlock gives him (easy to miss) props on that.

Whereas Favre missed several games with injuries, had addictions to painkillers and has made far more boneheaded plays to lose big games than Manning has by a long margin to the point where we associate that with Favre just being Favre. (or Brett being Brett, if you will).

As I said during the last thread, I am very much willing to have an all-encompasing debate as to which QB has screwed up more in the playoffs- Favre or Manning? Again, it should be its own thread, with as much stats and facts to back it up. This could take months. We should not give up this opportunity to bad mouth BOTH QBs in one felt swoop. Can we do this? Please? I am begging you all.

[Renasko]

What do NFL fans watch during the off-season? Do you tune into basketball or some other sport, or just tune-out all-together? Speaking of which, when does the season re-commence.

/total noob, as far as NFL goes

[DanteGabriel]

(I COMPLETELY forgot that he threw 7 INTs in the 2006 playoff run- wow that's suck-tacular).

I'm still filled with rage from those playoffs. If either the Chiefs or the Ravens had had competent offenses that season, the Colts don't win the Super Bowl. I remember sitting there during their first round game against the Chiefs that year, watching TY LAW pick Manning twice, watching the Chiefs' offense squander the game that Manning was trying to give away, and thinking to myself, "I'd pay my own money to herd the Titans onto a plane and get them in here to play the second half for the fucking Chiefs."

And then of course came the epic Pats' collapse in the AFC Championship game.

What do NFL fans watch during the off-season? Do you tune into basketball or some other sport, or just tune-out all-together? Speaking of which, when does the season re-commence.

/total noob, as far as NFL goes

Well, right about now, us NFL addicts are watching coaching and free agent moves. In a couple of weeks we'll have the NFL Meat Market Scouting Combine, where the most promising college football players go to be graded and evaluated by NFL scouts before the draft... In a month there will be the first offseason team activities, then in April the NFL draft, then training camps open in the summer... I don't really follow other sports, so football season is all it for me. I mean, I watch the occasional Sox or Celtics game on TV, and pay more attention in the playoffs, but I'd say the NFL is the only sports league I really care about.

There will be exhibition preseason games in August. The first game of the regular season in 2010 will be the Thursday night kickoff game on September 9. The bulk of teams will play their first game of the season the following Sunday, the 12th.

[Space Bandito]

Can we combine the old thread? I don't think Pac Man warrented his own thread. <_<

What do I watch? UFC, the occasional 'I am tired and I can't reach the remote' baseball game. Even a (sorry Euro's) soccer game on the Spanish network because I like to hear the guy talk fast and brush up on my espanol. I can't get into Arena football. NASCAR is extremely boring and I just don't get it. I would probably enjoy hockey if I could find it.

I second the opinion that the NFL season never ends. The networks, talk shows and blogs feed this of course. It equals ratings. We are junkies and we need our fix. Soon comes free agency, the combine, the draft, mini camps, off season work outs and then before we know it! Pre-season! Then after that fantasy football. :cheers: Ahh just around the corner.

[Renasko]

Thanks for dropping me some info. :)

[Kalbear]

I'm still filled with rage from those playoffs. If either the Chiefs or the Ravens had had competent offenses that season, the Colts don't win the Super Bowl. I remember sitting there during their first round game against the Chiefs that year, watching TY LAW pick Manning twice, watching the Chiefs' offense squander the game that Manning was trying to give away, and thinking to myself, "I'd pay my own money to herd the Titans onto a plane and get them in here to play the second half for the fucking Chiefs."

Well, the Pats had the opportunity to stop the Colts in that playoff run too - it's not like they were the kryptonite to the Pats or anything.

And Rock, I agree - I don't like the excuses a lot of folks are coming up with for Manning. Yes, Wayne didn't make a great cut. Yes, other people dropped the ball. That doesn't make that decision any better; Manning got out-Manninged. The coaching saw an exploitable chance and took it, and it paid off.

Now, the flip side of this is that this happens to every single QB out there. It usually only happens once or twice to good QBs since they learn from that behavior, and that's the thing; Manning doesn't have tendencies that can be used against him over and over. But that was on him; this was a tendency that no one else had jumped on - and the Saints made a great call and a great play. Doesn't mean Manning sucks horribly.

Just means that he didn't have a Troy Brown to strip the ball away from the defender at the last minute and get a first down out of it. :P

[DanteGabriel]

Well, the Pats had the opportunity to stop the Colts in that playoff run too - it's not like they were the kryptonite to the Pats or anything.

Well, yes, the fact that I was filled with resentment at the Chiefs and Ravens for being unable to capitalize on Manning's shitty performance doesn't absolve the Pats of their own failure in the AFC Championship Game. It's not like I was thinking during those earlier games, "Jesus God, if the Chiefs or Ravens can't do it, then the Colts are going to beat the Pats in a stomach-punch game with a ridiculous, soul-crushing second half comeback!" No, I just wanted the Colts out of the playoffs as soon as possible, preferably due to Manning picks, as a general policy.

Just means that he didn't have a Troy Brown to strip the ball away from the defender at the last minute and get a first down out of it. :P

Funny thing to bring up, since Pierre Garcon stripped Ed Reed of a Manning pick in this year's divisional round game.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, that was pretty amazingly lucky too (for Manning). People don't remember that bad throw nearly as much due to the end result. same with Brady back in 2006 with the Bolts; if the SD guy just lays down, Pats lose and the Bolts likely go to the superbowl - and Brady has just choked a game away in almost the same way that Manning did the superbowl.

Which is my point; great QBs still make mistakes, and they're not less great because of it.

Anyway.

On the 2010 uncapped year: is anyone else feeling like pro football has hit its absolute peak, and now we're going to see a sharp decline? With no cap (either higher or lower) we'll see some teams be cheapskates and put out a fairly meh performance. Other teams will spend like the dickens. And with no labor agreement we may see a lockout where the TV networks are paying the NFL $5bn to simply not do anything at all.

Just feels like this is a real end of an era.

[Rockroi]

Now, the flip side of this is that this happens to every single QB out there. It usually only happens once or twice to good QBs since they learn from that behavior, and that's the thing; Manning doesn't have tendencies that can be used against him over and over. But that was on him; this was a tendency that no one else had jumped on - and the Saints made a great call and a great play. Doesn't mean Manning sucks horribly.

I never said he sucked horribly. No. I WANT him to suck horribly, but that's hardly the same thing. Isn't it?

Just feels like this is a real end of an era.

Are we talking about the Pats again? No? The Salary Cap? Okay, I'll bite...

I don't know what to think. I really feel like the uncapped year is going to be your classic "Y2K"- a lot of build up for doom and gloom and then... nothing. There are not that many really great free-agents out there that can take advantage of the uncapped year (*cough*WILFORK*cough*); its only one year (if I am right on this, if you sign a guy for multiple years, ONLY 2010 is uncapped; all other seasons have to live with the cap... assuming the owners can work out the numbers with the players).

There is a lot of complaints about the CBA; one Union guy said that on a scale of 1-10, 1 being DEFINITELY football in 2011, 10 being NO CHANCE, he would put the odds of football being played in 2011 at a "14." But then Goodall comes out and says that players will definitely be paid more in 2011 because they deserve more. That sounds to me like some sort of progress.

Which is my point; great QBs still make mistakes, and they're not less great because of it.

But can I still hate Brett Favre? I mean, fine Manning is what he is, but Favre I really should be allowed to despise due to his playoff implosions. Don't take that away from me!

[Space Bandito]

I think the owners are gonna be pretty consistent on this cap. I don't think it is gonna be the big spending spree many players think (or hope) it is going to be. I don't think we are gonna see one team be the Yankees and one team the Nationals. I think the owners have goals that they are already preparing for. We'll see how the Wilfork and Pepper type contracts are handled.

I do think it is a different era as far as Offense vs Defense. With QB's being protected so much and the safety position once the enforcer on the field is now the QB of the defense. A position once held by the middle linebacker.

[Kalbear]

I never said he sucked horribly. No. I WANT him to suck horribly, but that's hardly the same thing. Isn't it?

Not everything's about you, Rock. There were plenty of media that were saying this tarnishes Manning's reputation and puts big question marks about his career. And...it doesn't. Not to me. In my mind he's still the best quarterback of the modern era and is redefining the position the way Montana did in the 80s. Him throwing a bad interception in one game - even an important one - doesn't diminish all the other stuff.

I don't know what to think. I really feel like the uncapped year is going to be your classic "Y2K"- a lot of build up for doom and gloom and then... nothing. There are not that many really great free-agents out there that can take advantage of the uncapped year (*cough*WILFORK*cough*); its only one year (if I am right on this, if you sign a guy for multiple years, ONLY 2010 is uncapped; all other seasons have to live with the cap... assuming the owners can work out the numbers with the players). ]/quote]I think it's unrealistic to believe that once the salary cap is gone for a year that it'll return. The players simply want more of that money and see the cap as a large barrier, and too many owners want to spend less than they currently have to on salary. That's the real problem - it's not just a salary ceiling, it's also a salary floor that's being removed. And too many owners really want that too. That and the players? It's going to be hard to overcome.

Which is stupid, because the parity of the league is one of the things that really makes it so strong. There are only a handful of completely atrocious teams year in and out, and that largely has to do with ownership. There's nothing like the putritude of baseball franchises who have had 22 year droughts of suck, or basketball's complete failures. I wish more people could see this.

I'm sure that at some level football will still be good. But it won't be great.

Oh, here's one big casualty of a salary cap removal: it's very likely that fantasy football is going to suck.