National Football League

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
1,063
1
0
ImmaculateKadence said:
If Tebow had a coach that isn't a total moron and worked the offense around his skill set (like McDaniels was planning), an offensive line that doesn't totally suck, and a deep threat, he would be deadly in the NFL. That's an offense nearly impossible to defend. The problem is John Fox puts him under center behind the leagues worst line with a below average running back and no deep threat. What is expected to happen? Defenses can load up the line and wreak havoc. Right now Tebow is in a no win situation, but he still improves! Criticism of him should stop.....and that's coming from a lifelong Florida State fan!
This ain't Gainesville anymore. There is no way a collegiate/spread offense would ever work in the NFL. Defensive linemen are too athletic, linebackers are too physical, and you would be creating an offense that has zero ability to come back from a deficit.

The spread is based solely on deception and skill athletes; and in the NFL, defensive athleticism (that cannot be replicated in the NCAA) overcomes the spread any day. If it didn't it would have already been implemented in the NFL.

And to all the people saying that Tebow has some indomitable will to win at all costs, I highly doubt that his desire is far and beyond greater than anyone elses in the NFL. Just because Joe Flacco exhudes a calm demeanor, or Marvin Harrison always handed a touchdown catch to a referee instead of gallivanting in the endzone does not mean they do not have a passion for winning.

Sometimes its better to lead by example, and I highly doubt that Tebow's passionate exercises in the locker-room are more persuasive than a lead-by-example style of a Roethlisberger or a Brees.
 
Amsterhammer said:
The only thing I saw last weekend was the ESPN re-run of the Ravens game, what a killer finish!:cool:

Who would have picked the Fins to win like that? Certainly not me. I would have picked the Skins to lose, the Bears to win, and the Pats to win. Eli will have raised a few eyebrows.
Well, you caught a good one to NOT miss.
On Fins, I did not pick them to win let alone win like THAT either. There's a fair amount of that going on this season.


aarnold517 said:
Optimism over here concerning the Bengals 6-2 start. Andy Dalton looks like the real deal, and he's surrounded by young weapons with green, caldwell, simpson, and gresham when he's healthy. Add in ced benson who's always solid and mike zimmer's outstanding defense, and finally the bengals are looking up. Of course, the pessimist in my says that they will come down to earth against the steelers, but one can dream
I like what I see in the Bengals, as you say, even though I'm not a fan of theirs. I like when the young improving upstarts overcome the perennial powerhouses. So here's to dreaming, but I guarantee the Bengals have more than dreaming on their minds and will be full of optimism at home this weekend vs the Steelers. It should be a great game.
 
I remember last year when Wisconsin was considered by many to be the best team in the NCAA, not Auburn or Oregon. But in the Rose Bowl Andy Dalton had no real problem with them, and looked totally like a pro. I was surprised to see him drop as far as he did in the draft, but not surprised he stepped right in and took leadership in the team that took him. He's got two real tests though the next two weeks. Pittsburgh and at Baltimore. Then plays them both again later in the season, plus Houston. A tough series of games and we'll see how he does. The Bengals defense is very solid right now though, and that will help.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
rides like a girl said:
Not so much as a Tebow hater as a non-believer in his talent to be a starting QB in the NFL.

Look at Vick before jail, his numbers were getting worse as the years went on, defenses were figuring him out, injuries piling up missed games. Even after jail, Vick had a great year, then defenses caught up and now he is not having the success he had last year.

Think the same will happen to Tebow without increasing his pocket passing ability, he won't succeed. He will be injured and never live up to his hype.
Vick only had one significant injury while in Atlanta and he was running like hell. Other than that he played 15-16 games every year. As I recall, he and Warrick Dunn would kill defenses with the option plays. Most of his recent injuries with Philly have happened in the pocket; the exception being his rib injury. To say Tebow running increases his risk of injury is just incorrect. It's entirely speculative.

nvpacchi said:
This ain't Gainesville anymore. There is no way a collegiate/spread offense would ever work in the NFL. Defensive linemen are too athletic, linebackers are too physical, and you would be creating an offense that has zero ability to come back from a deficit.

The spread is based solely on deception and skill athletes; and in the NFL, defensive athleticism (that cannot be replicated in the NCAA) overcomes the spread any day. If it didn't it would have already been implemented in the NFL.
Not once did I mention the spread. I was simply saying John Fox continously putting a mobile QB under center behind a **** poor offensive line is stupid, especially when he has no tools to work with. It's setting him up for failure because you're taking away his biggest strength. Regardless, you are dead wrong about the spread anyway. Several teams incorporate spread tactics with much success. You remember Kurt Warner and the Cardinals Super Bowl run? They ran the spread much of the season and it took them to the SB. How about the record breaking offense of the 2007 Patriots with Randy Moss? They used the spread like crazy! Wasn't that just a wee bit effective? I think so. :rolleyes: And who was behind that offense...Josh McDaniels, the very coach that drafted Tim Tebow, just sayin. ;) Or how about the Giants? That final game winning drive in the SB was all spread formations.

I'm getting off topic....I think of Tebow as a Roethlisberger type of player. They are both big mobile guys, and I've even seen Big Ben in some spread sets. Certainly not a dedicated spread offense, but the elements are there. There's no reason why Tebow couldn't be successful in a similar offense, or even one with more spread formations. Jay Gruden agrees:
“You’re seeing more spread-type plays becoming available to teams. There are some nuances to the spread offense that put defenses in a bind. … When you have a quarterback who is that big and can run and throw, it can be effective.

“I don’t know if Tebow will ever be the prettiest quarterback like a Tom Brady, a Peyton Manning, a Drew Brees or an Aaron Rodgers, but he has chance to be a very effective NFL quarterback if they stick with him and play to his strengths.”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_bianchi/2011/11/jay-gruden-tim-tebow-bengals-broncos-spread-offense.html/comment-page-1
 
Mar 14, 2010
268
0
0
ImmaculateKadence said:
Vick only had one significant injury while in Atlanta and he was running like hell. Other than that he played 15-16 games every year. As I recall, he and Warrick Dunn would kill defenses with the option plays. Most of his recent injuries with Philly have happened in the pocket; the exception being his rib injury. To say Tebow running increases his risk of injury is just incorrect. It's entirely speculative.



Not once did I mention the spread. I was simply saying John Fox continously putting a mobile QB under center behind a **** poor offensive line is stupid, especially when he has no tools to work with. It's setting him up for failure because you're taking away his biggest strength. Regardless, you are dead wrong about the spread anyway. Several teams incorporate spread tactics with much success. You remember Kurt Warner and the Cardinals Super Bowl run? They ran the spread much of the season and it took them to the SB. How about the record breaking offense of the 2007 Patriots with Randy Moss? They used the spread like crazy! Wasn't that just a wee bit effective? I think so. :rolleyes: And who was behind that offense...Josh McDaniels, the very coach that drafted Tim Tebow, just sayin. ;) Or how about the Giants? That final game winning drive in the SB was all spread formations.

I'm getting off topic....I think of Tebow as a Roethlisberger type of player. They are both big mobile guys, and I've even seen Big Ben in some spread sets. Certainly not a dedicated spread offense, but the elements are there. There's no reason why Tebow couldn't be successful in a similar offense, or even one with more spread formations. Jay Gruden agrees:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_bianchi/2011/11/jay-gruden-tim-tebow-bengals-broncos-spread-offense.html/comment-page-1
Vick has only played in all 16 games once in his career. His passing percentage is ok with the Falcons, in the 50% range. Not upper level QB %. His interception rate was miserable. 14 TD and 12 INT. 15 TD and 13 INT. This year he has 11 TD and 9 INT. For most offenses that is trouble. Can't win big games if the QB isn't there or is turning the ball over.

You compare Tim to QB's like Warner, etc that were good passers, quick release types who ran a hybrid spread. Tim is not a good passer. Can't compare Tim to Kurt Warner in passing mechanics.

Big Ben's completion rate his first year was 66%. Two fumbles in 14 games. His total yards rushing was 144. Hardly Tebow like numbers. The most Ben rushed was 204 yards in a season.

Tim's completion rate is 46 % in three games. He has fumbled 4 times, 3 in one game when he faced a good defense, the Lions. Lucky only lost one of the fumbles. He has rushed 277 in 6 games this year. Right now he runs better than he throws. Not good if you want success in this league.

Can't see how he will survive in this league having to rush that much and not being accurate passer. If he is in a modified spread, he still has to complete passes.

Guess he is lucky he is in the soft AFC West and not the AFC North or East. That may be the way he survives. If he played the AFC North of East defenses twice a year, not sure he would survive running against those teams.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
rides like a girl said:
Vick has only played in all 16 games once in his career. His passing percentage is ok with the Falcons, in the 50% range. Not upper level QB %. His interception rate was miserable. 14 TD and 12 INT. 15 TD and 13 INT. This year he has 11 TD and 9 INT. For most offenses that is trouble. Can't win big games if the QB isn't there or is turning the ball over.
If you read my statement carefully, I said Vick played in 15-16 games, so you essentially reiterated what I said with a bunch of irrelevant stats. Why are we talking about Vick anyway? He has nothing to do with Tebow.

rides like a girl said:
You compare Tim to QB's like Warner, etc that were good passers, quick release types who ran a hybrid spread. Tim is not a good passer. Can't compare Tim to Kurt Warner in passing mechanics..
I wasn't comparing Tebow to Warner or Brady. I was pointing out the spread is effective in the NFL. In actuality, it's used by some of the most effective and prolific offenses in history. Please read more carefully.

rides like a girl said:
Big Ben's completion rate his first year was 66%. Two fumbles in 14 games. His total yards rushing was 144. Hardly Tebow like numbers. The most Ben rushed was 204 yards in a season.

Tim's completion rate is 46 % in three games. He has fumbled 4 times, 3 in one game when he faced a good defense, the Lions. Lucky only lost one of the fumbles. He has rushed 277 in 6 games this year. Right now he runs better than he throws. Not good if you want success in this league...
Why did you give me big ben's stat line, I was comparing the two physically. Ben is about two inches taller and and about 5 pounds heavier and both are good out of the pocket. Ben's numbers his first year are irrelevant; he was drafted by a playoff contender. Tebow was not; he has no line and no offensive weapons. Not to mention Roethlisberger had a helluva defense. You want stats? Look at Roethlisberger's stat line in his first SB :rolleyes:

What I've noticed about Tebow is when he get's in a hurry up, he shines. Look at what he did against the chargers in the fourth quarter; he scored 14 points coming into a game in which they were down by 19. Look at the dolphins: he was under center most of the game, but when they got into the hurry up, he brought them back 15 and won in OT. How about last year against the Texans? He brought them back 17 points while passing for over 300 yards (but he's inaccurate :rolleyes:).

When he is in an up tempo fast paced offense, he plays very well. It doesn't have to be a spread or no huddle, just put him the shotgun and play an up tempo game. He has the motor to do that. What happened in the detroit game? He was under center most of the time playing a slower game. He was totally out of his element, and had a difficult time resulting a single bad game.
 
ImmaculateKadence said:
Why are we talking about Vick anyway? He has nothing to do with Tebow.
Both have slow "wind up" deliveries, both have questionable abilities to read defenses, both can improvise dramatically sometimes, both run well and were mostly runners coming out of college.

Tebow is bigger, but not as agile. Personality and ethics wise, they are on different planets.

I was pointing out the spread is effective in the NFL.
True. But I don't know if Tebow works best, or will work best in a spread. Do you?

Look at Roethlisberger's stat line in his first SB.
And they got help from the officials, who later admitted it. But also look at his entire post-season that year. They barely escaped Indy after Vangerjagt missed a gimmie in a very sloppy game. The team relied heavily on their defense, and running game that year.

I'd like to think Tebow would be almost as good as Ben was that year. Maybe.

What I've noticed about Tebow is when he get's in a hurry up, he shines.
Generally agree. His energy level tends to rise to the top then. But such a style is very difficult to coach. It's one thing to have Peyton Manning basically being an offensive coordinator on the field, and another to coach Tebow like that, hoping he can come through.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
... But I don't know if Tebow works best, or will work best in a spread. Do you?
My $0.02, right now Tebow does not work best in a spread. He will need to improve ability to read defenses to know what the defense is giving him, and also get quicker at reading his checks after the snap. At most the QB better be getting rid of the ball within a maximum 5 secs and ideally quicker than 3 secs (last year the average sack time was under 3 seconds). If he's got 5 receivers running routes that means he's got less than 1 sec (or 0.5 secs) per receiver to decide no, no, no, no, yes. If lucky, one of the first three are open.

Will he eventually work well in a spread? I think he can. By sheer will, determination, and hard work.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Both have slow "wind up" deliveries, both have questionable abilities to read defenses, both can improvise dramatically sometimes, both run well and were mostly runners coming out of college.

Tebow is bigger, but not as agile. Personality and ethics wise, they are on different planets.
I questioned the comparison because the assertion was made that Vick's inclination to run has apparently led to him being injury prone which means that Tebow's inclination to run means the same. Something I see as just ridiculous. The guy is 6'3" 240 pounds and runs totally different than Vick. He also plays smarter. It didn't have anything to do with perceived similarities in their respective games.

Alpe d'Huez said:
True. But I don't know if Tebow works best, or will work best in a spread. Do you?
Can you clarify that question for me? Was it rhetorical? :eek:


Alpe d'Huez said:
I'd like to think Tebow would be almost as good as Ben was that year. Maybe.
Big Ben benefited from some offensive weapons and a defense; Tebow has neither. I used Roethlisberger's dreadful SB as an example of a bad game, exactly what Tebow had against Detroit. One bad game does not indicate abject failure.


Alpe d'Huez said:
Generally agree. His energy level tends to rise to the top then. But such a style is very difficult to coach. It's one thing to have Peyton Manning basically being an offensive coordinator on the field, and another to coach Tebow like that, hoping he can come through.
I agree. I'm not saying Tebow can step into any offense and succeed. I'm saying in the right offense, he can be deadly. It may be difficult to coach, but it's just as difficult, if not more, to defend.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
THUR. NOV 10
Oakland at San Diego
SUN, NOV 13
Arizona at Philadelphia
Tennessee at Carolina
Houston at Tampa Bay
Washington at Miami
Jacksonville at Indianapolis
Denver at Kansas City
Buffalo at Dallas
New Orleans at Atlanta
St. Louis at Cleveland
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati
Baltimore at Seattle
NY Giants at San Francisco
Detroit at Chicago
New England at NY Jets
MON, NOV 14
Minnesota at Green Bay

Can't believe I'm picking the Fins over my Skins....:(
 
Oakland at San Diego - Even if Palmer is up to speed, I'll take SD.
Arizona at Philadelphia - Philly can't play worse than last week, right?
Tennessee at Carolina - Close game, but Carolina still has problems.
Houston at Tampa Bay - I like the way Houston is playing.
Washington at Miami - Miami better than their record?
Jacksonville at Indianapolis - Is Indy improving enough for an upset?
Denver at Kansas City - Which KC shows up? Which Tebow?
Buffalo at Dallas - Which Romo shows up? Both need a win.
New Orleans at Atlanta - Atl improving, but Saints dangerous.
St. Louis at Cleveland - StL improving, but not enough.
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati - A real test for Cincy, but Pitt used to games like this.
Baltimore at Seattle - Can Seattle avoid a shutout?
NY Giants at San Francisco - A good test for SF, but I like them as a complete team.
Detroit at Chicago - Bears rolling, but Lions a better team. Right?
New England at NY Jets - Jets on a roll. Pats on the slide?
Minnesota at Green Bay - Can anyone beat GB? Anyone?
 
Amsterhammer said:
THUR. NOV 10
Oakland at San Diego
SUN, NOV 13
Arizona at Philadelphia
Tennessee at Carolina
Houston at Tampa Bay
Washington at Miami
Jacksonville at Indianapolis
Denver at Kansas City
Buffalo at Dallas
New Orleans at Atlanta
St. Louis at Cleveland
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati
Baltimore at Seattle
NY Giants at San Francisco
Detroit at Chicago
New England at NY Jets
MON, NOV 14
Minnesota at Green Bay

Can't believe I'm picking the Fins over my Skins....:(
I'll help. I'm taking your Skins over the Fins. And I deviated from yours on the following others:

WAS ftw; IND get first win! BUF ftw; ATL ftw; CIN ftw; NYG ftw.

I know it sounds crazy, but if IND is going to win just one this could be it.
Dallas: all my Dallas friends are picking BUF (I can't believe they've sold out).

Atlanta I have a vested interest in due to an avatar bet with FoxxyBrown1111. He took ATL to win 8 games, I said ATL would win 10. So far the Falcons are 5-3, and I think they have a good chance to win 5 more. But because of this bet I have to pick ATL. But just in case, I have been working on my FAIL avatar. Here it is...



(no fair stealing this now)
 
Mar 14, 2010
268
0
0
"Atlanta I have a vested interest in due to an avatar bet with FoxxyBrown1111. He took ATL to win 8 games, I said ATL would win 10. So far the Falcons are 5-3, and I think they have a good chance to win 5 more. But because of this bet I have to pick ATL. "

Probably the only reason I look for Atlanta results....enjoy tracking this all important bet.
 
LOL!

Chargers stunk up the stadium last night. Rivers really shot them in the foot. They also did a poor job of clock management, and I have to wonder how much longer Norv Turner can keep his job. Rex Ryan was right, that team is stacked, and to play this poorly is inexcusable. I wish Foxy were here, as he could pile on the "I told you so" bandwagon about Turner.

Real good college game this weekend on the west coast, with Oregon at Stanford. The game easily could be one of those 48-45 games, with the team having the ball last, or a late turnover, deciding the game.
 
OK. I'm glad to have been a partial contributor to the entertainment value here.

Stanford vs. Oregon tomorrow will be like a bowl game and may be the best matchup since Oregon vs. LSU. Here's some stats on both teams:

Pacific 12 Conference Standings - 2011
STANDINGS......Conference................. Season
Pac 12 – N.........W-L......PF.......PA.......W-L......PF.......PA
Stanford..............7-0......333......132......9-0.......434......149
Oregon................6-0......262......120......8-1.......414......187

From the following National rankings, it is clear Stanford is the more balanced offensive team and the Ducks rely more on the running game.

2011 OVERALL FBS RANKINGS – OREGON:
PASSING YARDS.......212.2... 78th Overall
RUSHING YARDS......298.4......5th Overall

POINTS FOR...............46.0......5th Overall
POINTS AGAINST...... 20.8.....26th Overall

2011 OVERALL FBS RANKINGS – STANFORD:
PASSING YARDS........281.1... 23rd Overall
RUSHING YARDS.......224.7....17th Overall

POINTS FOR................48.2......3rd Overall
POINTS AGAINST.........16.6....11th Overall

So far, edge to the Cardinal.

To eliminate the uncomparable apples and oranges (e.g. Oregon played LSU, Nevada and Mizzou State; Stanford played San Jose St and Duke), below are the Pac-12 Conference rankings summarized. Notice who is tops in the conference stopping the run... the Cardinal. I think if Stanford can stop the Ducks running then they should have control of the game and it's theirs for the taking. If not... it could be a long day for Stanford even with Luck.

Turnover margins are nearly identical with the Cardinal having a slight edge.

But look at the time of possession and red zone offense efficiency! Stanford has a big edge there. I would think with Stanford's balanced offensive attack that they are able to do some things better than Oregon, such as:
1. keep the yardsticks moving and eating up the clock
2. giving them more options in the red zone and keeping defences off balance.

So, I think Stanford will win, although it could go either way especially if one team makes mistakes or turnovers. Either way, should be a great game as you say, Alpe.

PAC-12 Conference ONLY Stats (Excludes Non-Conference Games):
http://www.pac-12.org/portals/7/images/Football/2011-Stats/HTML/confonly.htm

SCORING OFFENSE......Avg/G.
1....Stanford......................47.6
2....Oregon........................43.7

SCORING DEFENSE......Avg/G.
1....Stanford......................18.9
2....Oregon........................20.0

TOTAL OFFENSE......Avg/G.
1....Stanford................ 525.0
2....Oregon...................496.2

TOTAL DEFENSE......Avg/G.
1....Stanford................ 334.9
5....Oregon...................396.0

RUSHING OFFENSE......Yards/G.
1....Oregon........................317.2
2....Stanford......................239.4

RUSHING DEFENSE......Yards/G.
1....Stanford.....................93.3
2....Oregon.....................116.7

PASS OFFENSE......Avg/G.
4.... Stanford.............285.6
12...Oregon...............179.0

PASS DEFENSE......Avg/G.
3....Stanford............. 241.6
9....Oregon................279.3

TIME OF POSSESSION......Avg/G.
1.... Stanford......................... 34:13
12...Oregon............................24:17


TURNOVER MARGIN......Margin......Per/G
.
2....Stanford........................+4..............0.57
3....Oregon..........................+2..............0.33

RED ZONE
OFFENSE.........Scores-Chances.....Pct
.
1....Stanford............40-40................ 100.0
3....Oregon..............27-29...................93.1


RED ZONE
DEFENSE.........Scores-Chances.....Pct
.
3....Stanford......... 14-19................... 73.7
4....Oregon............16-21................... 76.2
 
This could be one of those 48-46 games, though I think both teams defenses aren't as porous as some would say.

Oregon is more tested, and used to being in the spotlight. But having it in Stanford is going to help the Cardinal.
 
And in the end it wasn't even close much at all. Oregon faster, more weapons, more dynamic, better capitalized on mistakes. Made Andrew Luck look average. After being forgotten after that opening day loss to LSU, they have climbed right back into the big picture and should now be ranked #4 behind LSU, Oklahoma St. and Alabama. Or maybe even #3.
 
Good games today.

I can't believe how flat the Ravens played. A week after beating the Steelers in a hard fought battle to move into a tie for 1st place, they fall on their faces. Seahawks show promise, especially on defense.

Bears made the Lions look like the Lions of 2009-2010, and look very good right now having won 4 in a row.

Cowboys looked like the team many thought they would in flattening the Bills. Next week they play Washington, and will thus probably lose.

Cardinals came to life as well. Backup QB John Skelton for the win. After all the hype, the Eagles are now likely out of the playoff picture at 3-6.

Tebow wins again, against the hot/cold Chiefs. Well, sort of Tebow. 2/8 69 yards. But hey, a win's a win!

Despite being swept by Baltimore, the Steelers have moved back into first. I do have to wonder how Cincy would have done against Steelers had Green not gotten hurt.

SF quietly moves to 8-1 with a gritty win over the Giants. 49ers have a very solid team.

Rams continue to improve, with a win over the Browns. Dolphins continue to improve too. Good, tough win for the Saints, in Atlanta. Texans, Titans and Jags all won like expected.
 
Good summary. The shockers of the day to me were the Cards over the Eagles, and the Seahawks over the Ravens. The only game I watched was Seattle vs Baltimore.

The Hawks do look promising defensively, and I especially like the young, big, physical secondary who caused problems for Flacco and the Raves receivers. If Seattle still had Kelly Jennings (@corner) Seattle would have lost the game. I was also impressed with the Seattle run offense, who did what they needed when the needed it, like running out the clock at the end. Going into this game, the Raves had the best overall defense in the NFL and the third best rushing defense. But Seattle got good push off the line and created running space for Marshawn Lynch, who ended up with a bit over 100 yards on around 30 carries for the day. The disappointment for Seattle though is getting only FGs on some of the turnovers they got. They were weak offensively in the red zone... for that, credit the Raves "D" for keeping the game manageable and not letting it get out of hand. Otherwise, it could have been a blowout for Seattle.
 
Amsterhammer said:
Grossman starts (again). Whoopee.:confused:
Sorry Amsterhammer. I picked your Skins but it didn't work out. MIA has won 2 in a row now. The Skins have lost 5 straight (3-6 record, same as my Hawks). But it could be worse... like Indy's 10-loss streak.

Alpe's Raiders dumped the Bolts. Poor SD, what an enigma. I'm sure there is some explanation for SD. I hear rumors, but I just don't follow them that close to know if there's any merit to them.
 
That's a good question Lancaster. You may have to go back before the modern era, like a half-century or more.

I don't know that the Raiders are my team. I do tend to like west coast teams because I'm from the west coast and grew up with this thinking. But mostly there are teams I like to watch, and teams I don't like. I was definitely cheering for Oakland over SD tho. The Chargers desperately need a new coach.

If the Seahawks young OL can gel and improve, and they get someone like Matt Barkley, Landry Jones, or maybe Andrew Luck in the draft, they could have a very good team in a couple years. But they also need a better receiving tight end, better slot receivers, a better pass rush. The Seahawks are dismal at times, but if I were a Seattle fan I'd have a lot of hope for the future. Much more than in Miami, Washington, etc.

Speaking of Luck, the question now is, what is Peyton Manning going to do? He obviously could retire, but you can tell the guy is just burning to play this season, even at 0-10. Assuming he does not, does Indy draft him, and push Manning aside? I think that would be a mistake, as if Manning can get healthy, he could give them 3-5 more great years. Let's not forget that he's the best QB in the NFL over the last decade (not Brady, not Rodgers), and Luck hasn't played a down in the NFL. What I can't see is Luck accepting a draft by Indy, and sitting on the bench for a few years behind Manning, waiting to play. He won't do it.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Let's not forget that he's the best QB in the NFL over the last decade (not Brady, not Rodgers), and Luck hasn't played a down in the NFL. What I can't see is Luck accepting a draft by Indy, and sitting on the bench for a few years behind Manning, waiting to play. He won't do it.
I'm happy to join you in wishfully thinking the above......

I don't see the Skins winning another game. Which leads me to my wishful thinking theory....just bear with me before y'all start laughing......

This last weekend's results vastly increased our chances in the great 'SuckforLuckStakes'!

All we need is for the Vikings, Panthers, Rams and Fins to each win another game....or two.....not an impossibilty considering their respective recent upturns in form.......while our form continues to nose dive to new depths of incompetence........while at the same time Peyton makes a miracle recovery after stem cell surgery in Europe, so that an ambitious kid like Luck will refuse to go there and sit on the bench for several more years. He'd surely rather go somewhere that needs him desperately and is willing to build a future sqaud around him.

And that, my friends, is how the Redskins could sneak a last minute score in the SFL stakes.:p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY