NFL Thread 11

[DanteGabriel]

Thread 10 is past 20 pages...

Seriously, this is my favorite part of the sports year, and the only thing that keeps me warm in January. Four games featuring top teams (plus the Seahawks) for each of the next two weekends.

Anyway, looks like Marvin Lewis is staying in Cinci, after getting Mike Brown to agree to some changes.

Lewis agreed to an unspecified contract extension on Tuesday that will make him the longest-tenured coach in club history. Owner Mike Brown agreed to changes in the coaching staff and the roster as part of a deal that left both sides comfortable.

Lewis wanted to stay, but only if there were changes in how the team operates. The team initially offered an extension last season, when the Bengals were on their way to winning the AFC North title.

The coach and owner met on Monday and talked about what Lewis needed to stay. They had more discussions on Tuesday morning and reached an agreement in the afternoon.

...

Brown said there won't be changes in the scouting department - the NFL's smallest - or other front-office operations. He also said that a covered practice facility isn't an immediate priority. The Bengals are the only northern team without one either completed or planned.

The Bengals have the right to cover one of the practice fields next to Paul Brown Stadium, but would have to pay for it. Instead, the Bengals got on buses and went to a soccer facility to practice for their playoff game against the Jets last season.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/01/04/bengals-marvin-lewis.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

I dunno, feels like ol' Charlie Brown decided that this time, Lucy wouldn't pull the ball away at the last second...

[Kalbear]

I think ultimately it's an issue with ideology, and that Lewis is screwed no matter what. The ideas he proposed (having more scouts and a better scouting organization, having an indoor practice facility, having more staff in general) should be blatantly obvious to any owner in terms of value. If they're not...chances are that owner isn't going to support much for football anyway.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think Lewis is that good of a coach. In particular, his teams find interesting ways to lose, and that to me is a sure sign of being outcoached - when you consistently and regularly lose games you were competitive in. Palmer's regression to teh suck is another issue, as are injuries, but the organization just hasn't supported the Bengals worth a damn.

[Mexal]

I think ultimately it's an issue with ideology, and that Lewis is screwed no matter what. The ideas he proposed (having more scouts and a better scouting organization, having an indoor practice facility, having more staff in general) should be blatantly obvious to any owner in terms of value. If they're not...chances are that owner isn't going to support much for football anyway.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think Lewis is that good of a coach. In particular, his teams find interesting ways to lose, and that to me is a sure sign of being outcoached - when you consistently and regularly lose games you were competitive in. Palmer's regression to teh suck is another issue, as are injuries, but the organization just hasn't supported the Bengals worth a damn.

I'm curious where the media got that idealogy from. I know Lewis hasn't said it in any press conferences or ever been quoted saying those things. The fanbase has been calling for more scouts, indoor practice facility and a GM for 20 years. They've been calling for Brat's head for 5 years. But Lewis is a master of saying a lot but really saying nothing so it's sometimes hard to determine what he really wanted.

That being said, I'm fine with Lewis coming back if they bring in a new offensive coordinator. I agree that Lewis has been outcoached but to me, it generally seems like he gets outcoached offensively; more specifically, his inability to game plan against the opponents defense. This is a direct reflection on Bratkowski and I can see future success should we have a new scheme and game planner. Lewis is not an offensive coach, never has been. His players respect him and play hard for him but he's never been innovative or creative and never will. However, if he gets the right person in, I do think there is talent there to succeed (Josh McDaniels anyone?).

I am happy with where our defense is. I think the defense has played well and with our pick, they should have a shot at Bowers, Quinn, Fairley or Peterson (if we don't take Green to improve at WR) which can only help improve our depth. This year, we've had 17 players end up on injured reserve, the vast majority of them on defense which has caused a severe lack of depth. Zimmer is still the right man for the job and the fact that we're learning to play young talent over old, expensive and ultimately ineffective players is a good sign. Dunlap is a prime example of this with 9.5 sacks in 8 games since getting regular and consistent snaps in passing situations. I really like our future there.

At the end of the day, we have talent, just the inability to coach them properly. Lewis isn't a great head coach but he's not a terrible one either and if he had the right people around him, I do think he can bring success. The calibre of coaches that Brown would lure to Cincinnati won't be nearly as good as Lewis so I can live with him coming back but only if there are significant coaching changes beneath him. Otherwise, I see next year being a lot like this one, albeit with an easier schedule.

[Rhom]

Going back a bit to the last thread and the discussion of trading up for Andrew Luck...

I heard Adam Schefter this morning on ESPN radio talking about the potential of a Carolina trade for the number one pick. He said that there are no indications that they have any interest in trading, but that if they did the price would be "exorbitant, not just high... exorbitant." He said that if he had to guess, if the 49ers wanted to move up from number 7 to take him it could take as much as 3 first round picks.

Schefter also said that even then, there's no guarantee that the Panthers would trade. He made the same point that I did, no GM wants to be the guy who passed on the next big thing.

I also heard Marvin Lewis give the typical coachspeak about Ochocinco and TO's status with the team. (Chad is under contract, Terrell is a free agent and we'll have to see where the NFL is.) :rolleyes: Then he was asked about Carson Palmer and he actually said he thought Palmer "grew as a leader this year." :shocked: The funny thing about it was that the question was preceeded with "We heard Leslie Frazier say in no uncertain terms that Brett Favre won't be back..." It really showed the difference between the typical coachspeak and the breath of fresh air that was Frazier's Favre statement.

Speaking of Favre... I saw a headline in a New York paper that had his picture and said "No Happy Ending." :rofl:

[Prince of the North]

Speaking of Favre... I saw a headline in a New York paper that had his picture and said "No Happy Ending." :rofl:

That is awesome! :laugh:

[Mexal]

Going back a bit to the last thread and the discussion of trading up for Andrew Luck...

I heard Adam Schefter this morning on ESPN radio talking about the potential of a Carolina trade for the number one pick. He said that there are no indications that they have any interest in trading, but that if they did the price would be "exorbitant, not just high... exorbitant." He said that if he had to guess, if the 49ers wanted to move up from number 7 to take him it could take as much as 3 first round picks.

Schefter also said that even then, there's no guarantee that the Panthers would trade. He made the same point that I did, no GM wants to be the guy who passed on the next big thing.

I also heard Marvin Lewis give the typical coachspeak about Ochocinco and TO's status with the team. (Chad is under contract, Terrell is a free agent and we'll have to see where the NFL is.) :rolleyes: Then he was asked about Carson Palmer and he actually said he thought Palmer "grew as a leader this year." :shocked: The funny thing about it was that the question was preceeded with "We heard Leslie Frazier say in no uncertain terms that Brett Favre won't be back..." It really showed the difference between the typical coachspeak and the breath of fresh air that was Frazier's Favre statement.

Speaking of Favre... I saw a headline in a New York paper that had his picture and said "No Happy Ending." :rofl:

Not surprised about Luck. He's an amazing prospect.

Lewis is infamous for coach's speak. I hate it, the press hates it and other fans hate it. So frustrating. Though to be fair, I can see why he does it, especially within the Bengals organization as he was made a fool of before (Chris Henry).

[Kalbear]

On the flip side, many teams should be willing to give up an exorbitant price for Luck if he goes out. There is no reason to believe he won't be a stellar candidate coming out of school, and unlike Locker he's a lot more than just hype. If a team gave up 3 first round picks I think that would actually be worth it depending on that team's needs; for instance, Seattle shouldn't because they're simply terrible everywhere. But Denver, Carolina, the 49ers, the Cardinals - they could all do it happily. They've got enough of a young team that they could work it.

[Mexal]

On the flip side, many teams should be willing to give up an exorbitant price for Luck if he goes out. There is no reason to believe he won't be a stellar candidate coming out of school, and unlike Locker he's a lot more than just hype. If a team gave up 3 first round picks I think that would actually be worth it depending on that team's needs; for instance, Seattle shouldn't because they're simply terrible everywhere. But Denver, Carolina, the 49ers, the Cardinals - they could all do it happily. They've got enough of a young team that they could work it.

I just don't see it. I guess it could happen because of the hype of Luck but I would be really surprised if a team paid that much.

[Rhom]

On the flip side, many teams should be willing to give up an exorbitant price for Luck if he goes out. There is no reason to believe he won't be a stellar candidate coming out of school, and unlike Locker he's a lot more than just hype. If a team gave up 3 first round picks I think that would actually be worth it depending on that team's needs; for instance, Seattle shouldn't because they're simply terrible everywhere. But Denver, Carolina, the 49ers, the Cardinals - they could all do it happily. They've got enough of a young team that they could work it.

I dunno... 3 first round picks would be a steep price, even for a team that ostensibly has all the pieces in place.

[Biter]

If I've interpreted what you have been saying in these NFL threads correctly, the Patriots are the clear favorites to come out of the AFC this year. Are there any favorites in the NFC at this point, or is it open to many different scenarios?

And what do you think about the Falcons this year? Strengths, weaknesses, any preferred opponents?

[Mexal]

If I've interpreted what you have been saying in these NFL threads correctly, the Patriots are the clear favorites to come out of the AFC this year. Are there any favorites in the NFC at this point, or is it open to many different scenarios?

And what do you think about the Falcons this year? Strengths, weaknesses, any preferred opponents?

Patriots are the favorites but I can see them losing to the Steelers.

As for the NFC, no real clear favorites. Falcons, Saints, Packers and Eagles are all good teams. I can see any of them winning on a good day.

I like the Falcons and enjoy watching them play. Strengths are their top 4 skill players (Ryan, Turner, White, Gonzalez). Weaknesses are defense (particularly pass defense) and all their other WRs. I can see Saints, Eagles and Packers beating them if they go a heavy pass attack and stop Turner.

[Jaime L]

On the flip side, many teams should be willing to give up an exorbitant price for Luck if he goes out. There is no reason to believe he won't be a stellar candidate coming out of school, and unlike Locker he's a lot more than just hype. If a team gave up 3 first round picks I think that would actually be worth it depending on that team's needs; for instance, Seattle shouldn't because they're simply terrible everywhere. But Denver, Carolina, the 49ers, the Cardinals - they could all do it happily. They've got enough of a young team that they could work it.

Some guys are worth three first rounders but you basically have to become Peyton Manning. That said, I think he's the best prospect to become that of anyone who's come out since. Quick release, accurate, mobile, smart, a winner...you look at all the flawed QBs with lesser skillsets and resumes who've gone #1 overall in the last decade (Couch, Vick, Carr, Palmer, E. Manning, Smith, Russell, Stafford, Bradford) and you look at a guy like Luck who looks to be head and shoulders above that. Each of those other guys had at least one major question mark that Luck just doesn't. He could still go to the wrong situation (possibly a team with no O-line because they gave up 3 first rounders) and bomb out...but he's one guy I'd be surprised to see not become a stud. Like Manning.

Also, Kal, do you really think Carolina would give up 3 first round picks to Carolina just to draft Luck?! I hear those guys can't stand those other guys.

[Jaime L]

He can always go back and finish his degree, and I bet he will. But he's got to go pro now.

I mean I agree with what you're saying and would be absurd for Luck to earn 1/3rd of what Bradford did but the 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the possible lockout. If they don't resolve it by March 5th, there is no draft. And there is still the possibility of a lost season where Luck could've instead been playing at Stanford. They'd be insane to do so..but here we stand.

Also even if there is an agreement to avert a lockout prior to March 5th, you have to think it's also partly contingent on a new rookie pay scale being instituted prior to the draft. Imagine however it goes down Luck will make less.

[Rockroi]

Mexal:

Patriots are the favorites but I can see them losing to the Steelers.

Because I enjoy torturing myself, here are the teams I fear the most in the AFC:

6. Jets: All done. Jets lost 3 of their last 5, and have looked hapless since losing to the Pats. And they still have Sanchez as their QB and not sure they can recover from that.

5. The Chiefs: I fear the unknown. Pats' worst performances this season were against Qbs they were facing for the first time: Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colt McCoy, and Matt Flynn. I would like our chances much better had we faced the Chiefs during the season. However, with all that said, The Chiefs beat ONE playoff team all season... and that team was the Seahawks. I think the Pats can basically put the whole D-line and backers on Charles and force Cassell to win the game, which I find dubious. And I do not think KC's "meh" defense can stop the Pats.

4. Steelers: Pats own them. Pats know how to disrupt Big Ben, can stop Mendenhall, and have proven they can eat up that defense. The main concern here is that the Steelers always play well and have played best against the best teams- NO, Ravens, and Atlanta. The converse is that they looked terrible against the Pats and Jets- which seems very relevant here.

3. Ravens: 1) Ravens are always a tough win, 2) Ravens will be playing a cake-like KC game (Ravens can shut down Charles) before the Pats, 3) Pats BARELY beat the Ravens earlier this season, and that was without Ed Reed. That seems relevant. The converse is that the Ravens looked HORRIBLE against a horrible Bengals team, and needed OT to defeat a wretched Houston team. I think there is a chance that the Ravens come undone in the postseason (much in the same manner the Pats did last season). If they fall behind early to the Pats, there is no way they can recover.

2. Colts: The Pats THRIVE on games where they can maximize their positives, minimize their negatives, and impose the opposite conditions on their opponents. They make the odds shift heavily in their favor and take away the most important parts of the opposing team's game. Peyton Manning negates ALL THAT! Manning has, in the last two games v. the Pats, had the ball in his hands on the last meaningful drive of the game. He is one and one in those games. Do we, as Pats fans, really want the season to come down to that kind of coin flip? Yeah, his D is pretty mediocre, and the team is suffering from injuries, but Manning has his running game back and makes all those around him better. And Reggie Wayne is fine. The up-side is that the Colts looked lost against an imploded Houston team and was only 1-2 v. playoff teams (and then suffered losses to the Chargers and Cowboys... that's not good). My greatest fear, though, remains, Foxboro, 4th quarter, 2 minute warning, Pats leading 24-21 and Manning with the ball in his hands at his own 35. Avoid the coin-flip.

1. The Patriots: But in the end, the team I fear the most this season losing it for the Pats would be the Pats themselves. The Pats D are still dreadful on third down, have problem catching up to the run on the edges, played bad teams close at various times, and sometimes take far too long to warm up (complete inverse from last season. season). The Pats also have a weird quirk... very little playoff experience: most of the guys on this team have no experience with long, deep playoff runs- hell, while Brady, Branch, Welker and Wilfork have Super-Bowl experience, few of the other players have ANY! Mistakes WILL BE MADE.

With all that said, I think the Pats should be favored v. the field.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

If Denver even tries to take Luck I will revolt. As a fan I'm willing to roll the dice with Tebow. We had a franchise QB in Cutler. He's gone. Tebow's what we got now. The guy is imperfect obviously--but his determination to win, to play better, and motivate the team is great. I like watching him play.

Denver has a chance to draft some stud d-line, secondary, or linebackers, and they need to dedicate themselves to it. I wouldn't be against Denver trading up and staying in the top 10 for more picks. The defense is awful and it's going to take a lot of draft picks to fix it.

Offensively, draft only o-line, and possibly a stud running back early. Other than that, no Luck, and defense all the way.

[Quoth]

If that is true (and I'm not doubting you), I was subjected to a terrible piece of radio reporting last night. I hadn't been following the timeline of the potential lockout, but last night it was presented as if this year's draft was happening as usual regardless, and that's why Luck would be insane not to leave.

I had heard the same. That the draft might be the last bit of action before a lockout.

[Darkostar]

As ever, Vikes need O-line and secondary help in the draft. Still have my fingers crossed for a Vick+AP backfield in 2011, so a QB in the draft may not be necessary.

[Darkostar]

What is this 2011 you speak of??

Oh right, it's still 2010 because I blocked this season from my mind the season hasn't started yet.

[DanteGabriel]

5. The Chiefs: I fear the unknown. Pats' worst performances this season were against Qbs they were facing for the first time: Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colt McCoy, and Matt Flynn. I would like our chances much better had we faced the Chiefs during the season. However, with all that said, The Chiefs beat ONE playoff team all season... and that team was the Seahawks. I think the Pats can basically put the whole D-line and backers on Charles and force Cassell to win the game, which I find dubious. And I do not think KC's "meh" defense can stop the Pats.

Is it really about facing a QB for the first time, or not having much film on the QB? Besides, one would hope that Belichick is fairly well acquainted with Cassel's strengths and weaknesses...

[arrowfan]

I don't like it when teams throw everything they've got into a single prospect, and as others have mentioned, before they've even taken a snap in the NFL.

There are some great QBs out there that can be got for cheap and lower in the draft rounds or signed up from other teams... examples over history would include Favre and Rodgers. (Favre was a 2nd round draft pick by Atlanta, released and signed with Packers)

While there are some examples of star college QBs who go on to be stars in the NFL (Brady, P Manning), they seem to be the exception to the rule.

If I'm a GM of an NFL team, no way I'm going to throw everything I've got at a single player (salary cap wise, trading up for higher draft round picks, etc). Use what you got and work with what's available.