NFL 2013 (Divisional Round) or defending Peyton's Place

[Jabronius Maximus]

This is supposed to show how great Russell Wilson is and how much of a douche Colin Kaepernick is. And while Kaep is indeed a huge douche, it alos reminds of why I don't like Russell Wilson.

I feel like if I'd known him in college and he weren't a football player, he'd be the guy who's always at the front of the class raising his hand and then staying after to talk to the prof. He'd probably be a fraternity president, student government president, president of the entrepreneurship and the future i-bankers of america. He'd spend his summer interning at Goldman Sachs and digging wells in third world countries and climbing Mt Everest at the same time. It feels like he's been groomed by image consultants since he was 10.

So...what you're saying is Wilson = Carlton Banks? I've thought that before haha

Also keep in mind Wilson is married, Kaep is single, so of course there will be a difference in off field demeanor. Kaep should change as he matures, but if he doesn't then he is definitely a douche.

[aceluby]

So...what you're saying is Wilson = Carlton Banks? I've thought that before haha

Also keep in mind Wilson is married, Kaep is single, so of course there will be a difference in off field demeanor. Kaep should change as he matures, but if he doesn't then he is definitely a douche.

Kaep is one of those guys that no matter what he does it makes him look like more of a douche. I can't wait for Seattle to stomp his face in a bit.

[Jaime L]

On the no-huddle offense: this Grantland article makes a pretty interesting case for Sam Wyche's Bengals pioneering the no-huddle offense (later pilfered by the Bills), the zone blitz (pioneered by Dick LeBeau when he was the Bengals' DC, then brought to the Steelers, because apparently the Steelers get all the nice things the Bengals were supposed to have, like Carson Palmer's healthy knee), and the zone blocking scheme that is often credited to Howard Mudd. But nobody remembers those Bengals any more, because they happened to be the stepping-stone to Montana's "King of the 80s" crown.

http://grantland.com/features/remembering-1988-cincinnati-bengals/

it's almost worse to be a Superbowl loser in terms of legacy. Because the first thing people think about you, regardless of what else you do, is as a loser. This is true for both the 80's Bengals teams and the 90's Bills teams.

My football education included little about how exciting those Bills team were and nothing about how innovative the '88 Bengals were (at least until I read that article). They were just "the other team", a prop necessary to tell the story of Montana's legend. These things get glossed over.

But the flipside is those late 80's Eagles team who never even made a Superbowl but they're remembered for their killer defense and not as losers either. Basically if you make a Superbowl, better win it, or history will remember you harshly and unfairly so.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Kaep may be a a douche, but he acts like you might expect a millionaire in his early twenties to act. His douchiness is endearing sort of. I like quarterbacks who have endearing qualities. Peyton Manning has a funny looking face and is good at acting goofy in commercials. Tom Brady looks awkward whenever he's talking in front of camera and he still dances like adolescent boy who hasn't figured out what to do with his newly long and ungainly limbs. Aaron Rodgers is a Game of Thrones nerd who likes to photobomb teammates. Andrew Luck sounds dorky whenever he talks and likes to play Settlers of Catan. Drew Brees has a bad haircut. Jay Cutler has a double chin and likes to bust balls.

Russell Wilson, in contrast, seems like he was raised and bred by a family friendly PR firm. Basically Carlton Banks, but not funny.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Yeah there really isn't much to Wilson except what he does on and near the field. Give it time, though, it's only his second year. I'm sure we'll see some of his quirks as well.

And you missed Philip Rivers on your list. I swear that guy is Jon Gruden's long lost son, and his sound FX is a hilarious mixture of 'golly' and 'heck'. The guy never swears haha

[Maithanet]

Russell Wilson, in contrast, seems like he was raised and bred by a family friendly PR firm. Basically Carlton Banks, but not funny.

Yeah, Russell Wilson does have a little bit of "too good to be true" swirling around him. I just hope that as he gets greater media glare his foibles are more like "he loves Cheetos. Love em", as opposed to anything genuinely unsavory (although seriously, Cheetos are gross).

In fact, the only thing I have against him (other than playing for the Seahawks) is that he won't admit that the Fail Mary play was just getting lucky on a bad call. I don't know if it is realistic to hope that a quarterback would admit that, but to say with a straight face that it was a touchdown is...pretty ridiculous.

[Mexal]

i just don't think any of the QBs in this draft are worth the #1 overall pick. I'd much rather grab one of the best D-line prospects ever than reach for Johnny Manziel or Teddy Bridgewater with the #1 overall pick.

You gotta try. Average QB play these days just doesn't work.

That being said, I guess they could go the way of Seattle/SF and build the defense even better while taking a flyer on a 2nd round QB that drops. Might work out in a weak AFC, especially with Brady/Manning retiring in a few years.

As for the CK/Wilson debate, I'd much rather a "too good to be true" player had success than a douche.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Don't really get the Kaep hate. I'm a Niners fan, obviously, so I can't be truly objective, but outside of the superficial (the tats and the bicep kissing) what has he done that's so doucheworthy? He's not a good interview, but I don't think that's a sure sign of douchedom so much as it is a sign that his HC has him on a short leash mediawise.

[Reposado]

The teams with the two best young D-linemen in the league are drafting 1st and 2nd overall. Makes for some interesting possibilities. I think the Texans should take him. I don't think they should completely give up on Schaub yet, especially in a year without a slamdunk QB prospect. I think Hundley, Winston, and Mariota will all grade out higher than anyone in this draft, so if they suck again next year they can snap up one of those three.

they should absolutely give up on schaub. especially this year, with the "slamdunkiest" of qb prospects available. if they give schaub another year, they're potentially handing him to jacksonville.

whats worse, their defense will probably improve. (it should bounce back even without clowney, and he can only help) so that they miss out on the top guy next year

Yeah, Russell Wilson does have a little bit of "too good to be true" swirling around him. I just hope that as he gets greater media glare his foibles are more like "he loves Cheetos. Love em", as opposed to anything genuinely unsavory (although seriously, Cheetos are gross).

if he did love cheetos, i think i would immediately downgrade his longterm prospects. jax on the other hand........

Russell Wilson, in contrast, seems like he was raised and bred by a family friendly PR firm. Basically Carlton Banks, but not funny.

we havent seen him dance yet, so you we cant be certain of that

[Maithanet]

it's almost worse to be a Superbowl loser in terms of legacy. Because the first thing people think about you, regardless of what else you do, is as a loser. This is true for both the 80's Bengals teams and the 90's Bills teams.

My football education included little about how exciting those Bills team were and nothing about how innovative the '88 Bengals were (at least until I read that article). They were just "the other team", a prop necessary to tell the story of Montana's legend. These things get glossed over.

But the flipside is those late 80's Eagles team who never even made a Superbowl but they're remembered for their killer defense and not as losers either. Basically if you make a Superbowl, better win it, or history will remember you harshly and unfairly so.

I dunno, I agree that if a team can never get over the top, they may be remembered as a loser, despite winning their conference. But there are very few teams that are remembered at all, for anything, that never even made the Super Bowl. You mentioned the Eagles defense, but I know I wouldn't have heard about that if I weren't a Redskins fan.

So I guess you might ask whether it is better to be remembered for losing the big one or simply forgotten. I would probably prefer the former; at least the late 80s Bengals and early 90s Bills were pretty good, and both of them had at least one Super Bowl they could have won. But it was not to be.

[Independent George]

hrmm Kiper has Johnny Football going #1 to Houston

http://youtu.be/KHCkGm6nues

5. Oakland: Sammy Watkins

4. Cleveland: Blake Bortles

3. Jacksonville: Jadaveon Clowney

2. St. Louis: Jake Matthews

1. Houston: Johnny Manziel

As a Texan fan I say why not, it would be interesting if nothing else.

If he can stay upright that is.

I really hope Houston doesn't take Manziel, as it would dramatically reduce the likelihood of me getting to see J.J. Watt pounding him into the ground like a tent stake. And I really want to see J.J. Watt pound him into the ground like a tent stake

[Fez]

The Jets have extended Rex Ryan's contract through 2016. Previously, next season was his last under contract. So presumably unless next year's a disaster, he's going to get some time to try and improve things. Although, apparently much of his salary is incentive-based around post-season wins, so Woody and Idzik have high expectations.

I'm pretty happy to hear this news. Rex may not know shit about offense, but he is a great defensive mind, and he gets all his players to play hard for him. I haven't yet formed an opinion on Marty Mornhinweg, he didn't exactly have much offense to coordinate with last year, but Idzik needs to stay on top of that offense, and make sure Rex doesn't forget about it.

[Jaime L]

Kaep may be a a douche, but he acts like you might expect a millionaire in his early twenties to act. His douchiness is endearing sort of. I like quarterbacks who have endearing qualities. Peyton Manning has a funny looking face and is good at acting goofy in commercials. Tom Brady looks awkward whenever he's talking in front of camera and he still dances like adolescent boy who hasn't figured out what to do with his newly long and ungainly limbs. Aaron Rodgers is a Game of Thrones nerd who likes to photobomb teammates. Andrew Luck sounds dorky whenever he talks and likes to play Settlers of Catan. Drew Brees has a bad haircut. Jay Cutler has a double chin and likes to bust balls.

Russell Wilson, in contrast, seems like he was raised and bred by a family friendly PR firm. Basically Carlton Banks, but not funny.

I pretty much agree. I like QBs who seem like real people with actual personalities instead of the ungenuine robotic like way most QBs handle their media obligations. I actually don't think Russell Wilson is ungenuine - I think he's legitimately a robot. It's trite, but I imagine grabbing a beer with him would be the most boring night of any starting QB. I think of all the QBs, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning have shown to be the most adept at handling the media and the demands of fame while still coming off like a real person. None of the other QBs are anywhere near as comfortable with the spotlight.

I'll say this about Kaepernick - he's fine coming off douchey and unlikable as long as he wins. The second that stops, he'll become the prima donna everyone now thinks RG3 is. Probably worse honestly considering he's more closed off.

I dunno, I agree that if a team can never get over the top, they may be remembered as a loser, despite winning their conference. But there are very few teams that are remembered at all, for anything, that never even made the Super Bowl. You mentioned the Eagles defense, but I know I wouldn't have heard about that if I weren't a Redskins fan.

So I guess you might ask whether it is better to be remembered for losing the big one or simply forgotten. I would probably prefer the former; at least the late 80s Bengals and early 90s Bills were pretty good, and both of them had at least one Super Bowl they could have won. But it was not to be.

See I think there's more examples beyond those 80's Eagles teams. I would argue the same applies to those Fouts Chargers teams or more recently Rex Ryan's Jets teams that made the AFC Championship game in back to back years. I think their legacy is to be remembered more fondly than most Superbowl losers because the legacy focuses first on what they accomplished not what they didn't. But when you're that close and you come up short, that's where the conversation starts - with your big loss rather than all the wins that got you there.

.

[Mexal]

I'll say this about Kaepernick - he's fine coming off douchey and unlikable as long as he's win. The second that stops, he'll become the prima donna everyone now thinks RG3 is. Probably worse honestly considering he's more closed off.

And everyone thought Newton was. Notice how that has stopped this season as he put up pretty good numbers?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Newton's numbers were pretty much the same, the difference was the rest of the team.

[Mexal]

Newton's numbers were pretty much the same, the difference was the rest of the team.

I know, but there was a perception he improved because of the improvement of the defense and the 4Q come backs that he didn't have prior to this season. And all of a sudden, the talk about him as a character disappeared. If RG3 plays well next year, that talk will disappear too just like if CK doesn't improve and stops winning, it'll ramp up.

[Maithanet]

See I think there's more examples beyond those 80's Eagles teams. I would argue the same applies to those Fouts Chargers teams or more recently Rex Ryan's Jets teams that made the AFC Championship game in back to back years. I think their legacy is to be remembered more fondly than most Superbowl losers because the legacy focuses first on what they accomplished not what they didn't. But when you're that close and you come up short, that's where the conversation starts - with your big loss rather than all the wins that got you there.

.

I dunno, do you really think that ten years from now anybody outside of New York is going to be talking about how good those late '00 Jets were? I really don't think so. Great defenses get remembered when they are dominant enough to win championships. The '85 Bears, the '00 Ravens, the '02 Bucs. Other than that, they're a footnote at best - they had a good defense for a couple of years, bfd. For anyone under 40, Dan Fouts is only remembered because he's still on TV, otherwise he's just a slightly more talented Vinny Testaverde.

I guess I just feel like when you are talking about what is remembered there are two things: Super Bowls and records. Winning the Super Bowl is how you become a great, but losing in the Super Bowl at least means that you were there as part of history. Other than that, if you set an all time record, like Marino or Bruce Smith, you can be remembered, but the only teams that get remembered are the ones who make Super Bowls.

And everyone thought Newton was. Notice how that has stopped this season as he put up pretty good numbers?

Yeah, although that kid warming up his arm helped a lot too.

.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I know, but there was a perception he improved because of the improvement of the defense and the 4Q come backs that he didn't have prior to this season. And all of a sudden, the talk about him as a character disappeared. If RG3 plays well next year, that talk will disappear too just like if CK doesn't improve and stops winning, it'll ramp up.

I do love the shot him sitting on the bench with a towel over his head, after leading the go ahead touchdown drive in the 4th quarter vs the Patriots.

[DanteGabriel]

I dunno, do you really think that ten years from now anybody outside of New York is going to be talking about how good those late '00 Jets were? I really don't think so.

I think New Englanders will be talking about the Butt Fumble for a while. ;)

[Independent George]

I dunno, do you really think that ten years from now anybody outside of New York is going to be talking about how good those late '00 Jets were? I really don't think so. .

People inside NY really don't think those late 00's Jets were all that good. Because they really weren't all that good.