National Football League

Page 295 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re: Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
The Hitch said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Feel sorry for those who missed it. I have to say that was maybe the best game I've ever seen, and to me cemented Brady as the best QB ever, maybe best player ever. To come that far back, from that far down, that late in the game, two 2-pt conversions. I mean, at the start of the 4th quarter they were down 28-9.
I wish I had missed it. My only request from the football gods every season is that the pats don't win. Actually going into this game I didn't hate the pats that much (don't feel too strongly about any sporting team anymore these days). But I did want Atlanta to win. And from the moment they did that turnover on Ryan, it was just Destiny that nep would win. Something supernatural had decided it would happen. I was just overcome with a moment of clarity, patriots were going to win, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Atlanta I think had the same thing. Anytime an New England player would do a mistake from that moment on, the football would just happen to fall into their hands and away from Atlanta any way. The Edelman catch is the perfect example of this. Potentially the greatest wr play of all time from Edelman. Take nothing away from him. But that tip could have gone anywhere. There were 3 Atlanta players there. It just so happened to fall in the 1 spot where it was easier for Je to get than the others.

Only patriots ever get this kind of luck. After this, patriots could not win a game for the next 50 seasons and it wouldn't pay off this victory.
True that was a great play by JE. What concentration. I think we will be seeing replays of that for a long, long time.

As for the ball being tipped, things like that happen often enough. That's just football. The Falcons obviously did not practice their tipped ball drill enough. :razz: Remember Seattle in 2014 (actually played Jan 2015) coming back from a 16–0 halftime deficit to beat the Packers in the NFC Championship game, where Seattle was helped by a bobble by Packer's Brandon Bostick of a Seattle onside kick? Or the 2013 NFC Championship game (SF in Seattle) where Seattle CB Richard Sherman tipped the ball away from 9ers WR Crabtree and into the hands of Seattle LB Malcolm Smith (now that was a well placed tip)?

And as for being luck on the Edelman catch, lets say the ball fell to the carpet and it was ruled incomplete. The play was a 1st and 10 at NE 36 (2:28 of the 4th quarter). An incompletion on that play would have made it 2nd and 10 from the NE 36. At that point NE was on a roll. Is there any doubt about NE converting the first down? They had Big Mo (MoJo for momentum) going for them at that point and there seemed to be nothing Atlanta could do to stop NE from advancing the ball downfield even though they were still getting some pressure on Brady. So for me, I will say f**k to the luck crap and only remember that play as being one helluva football play.

Then, if you think that JE catch was the only game-altering play, there were probably a dozen plays by each team, where, had they gone just a bit different, could have affected the outcome. It usually does not make sense to get hung up on one play, even if it does make for good discussion.

The one effect of the JE catch nobody seems to be talking about is how that affected Atlanta. Atlanta HC Dan Quinn challenged the pass completion ruling, the play was upheld as the ruling on the field was confirmed. As a result, Atlanta lost their third and final timeout. Oh how Atlanta could have used that later in the game.

Not just that. The game was really Atlanta's to lose in the second half. And that they did by failing to score in the second half. They even got a turnover in field goal range and proceeded to make mistakes and bad play calls that sent them backwards out of field goal range. So they ended up punting. If Atlanta had just scored a field goal on that series it could have put they game out of reach for NE.

Alpe submitted a one-word post a page or so back: "LEGEND (singular)". Of course referring to Brady.
I want to add "S" (for the plural or Superman, whatever) to that and say: LEGENDS, referring to both Brady and Belichick. This game for me cemented them both as all-time GOATs, surpassing all persons who have either gone before them or are still active. Especially for Belichick, who has remarkably done this in the era of free agency.

I partly understand HOW Bill does this. But being ABLE to do it consistently year after year is a tribute in this era. Just one example, trading MLB Jamie Collins to the Browns for picks at mid-season this year. Collins is a top 15 MLB (some would say even top 10) who would have commanded a bigger contract than NE wanted considering how he played with his teammates in NE. Collins is kind of a star, or star in the making, but Bill does not need all stars. Just guys who he can put together and play well as a unit. And that is how Bill says he assesses things like the Collins trade.

Back to the SB game, other than legendary performances by Brady and Bill, I really have to give big props to NE DC Matt Patricia for adjustments made that really messed up what Ryan and Atlanta had been doing in the first half. I won't be surprised if Patricia ends up on some team's radar for a HC position.

Nice try by Atlanta though. And for all the Saints fans out there, N.O.L.A. (No One Likes Atlanta - right?).
100% Correct / Spot On. I took great joy to see the tears of Falcon's Fans and the prognosticators. Nothing could ever make up for the childhood pain I had to endure from those last second losses / hail marry's etc.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Tank Engine said:
King Boonen said:
I watched until half time then went to sleep...
I got to the final Atlanta score, it was way beyond my bedtime and so I dozed off.

Although New England hadn't exactly been dominated in the first half, Atlanta had been definitely better and had taken advantage of the turnovers. I thought there was no way that the Patriots would come back.

When I woke up in the morning, I checked the score and my jaw just dropped. I immediately watched the highlights. There were some huge plays (4th and 3 when the Pats were still 25 points down, the Ryan fumble - he was caught just before his arm started coming forward and of course the Edelman catch). But what were the Falcons thinking. Close to the Pats 20 with time running down and getting a FG would put them two scores up (Alpe more or less sums up my thoughts above).
A bit like passing when you're 2nd and goal on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and 4 points down..?
Not really. Passing wasn't a bad decision. Statistically that season passing on the 1 yard line was more succesful than punching it in, especially with Marshawn who historically struggled with goal line rushes.

Also a pass play would have allowed them to go for it on 3rd and 4th down. A rush play would have kept the time going and they might only have had the time for 3rd.

Butler made a brilliant play. The decision wasn't bad. If they had run it its possible Butler would have stripped the ball and then everyone would complain why they didn't pass
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
King Boonen said:
Tank Engine said:
King Boonen said:
I watched until half time then went to sleep...
I got to the final Atlanta score, it was way beyond my bedtime and so I dozed off.

Although New England hadn't exactly been dominated in the first half, Atlanta had been definitely better and had taken advantage of the turnovers. I thought there was no way that the Patriots would come back.

When I woke up in the morning, I checked the score and my jaw just dropped. I immediately watched the highlights. There were some huge plays (4th and 3 when the Pats were still 25 points down, the Ryan fumble - he was caught just before his arm started coming forward and of course the Edelman catch). But what were the Falcons thinking. Close to the Pats 20 with time running down and getting a FG would put them two scores up (Alpe more or less sums up my thoughts above).
A bit like passing when you're 2nd and goal on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and 4 points down..?
Not really. Passing wasn't a bad decision. Statistically that season passing on the 1 yard line was more succesful than punching it in, especially with Marshawn who historically struggled with goal line rushes.

Also a pass play would have allowed them to go for it on 3rd and 4th down. A rush play would have kept the time going and they might only have had the time for 3rd.

Butler made a brilliant play. The decision wasn't bad. If they had run it its possible Butler would have stripped the ball and then everyone would complain why they didn't pass
It's too long ago for me to remember, but wasn't Lynch basically guaranteed gain pretty much every time he ran the ball in that game? I seem to remember the Seahawks took an age between first and second down, the Seahawks still had a time out too and I'm sure that the Pats we terrible at stopping short yard gains that season (or, at least, they were worst at it compared to everything else). It was a brilliant play from Butler but a really bad decision from Seattle.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Tank Engine said:
But what were the Falcons thinking. Close to the Pats 20 with time running down and getting a FG would put them two scores up (Alpe more or less sums up my thoughts above).
A bit like passing when you're 2nd and goal on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and 4 points down..?
OK it's with the benefit of hindsight, but as The Hitch argues there was some logic in that choice. I commented on that call in the Seattle-NE game and was also less harsh about the Seattle call.

Atlanta called a play which took time to develop, i.e. a risky play in which the benefits of taking a risk were highly dubious. I was thinking that a quick slant pattern would be a reasonable call, but then I have great sentiment to a play called in the first Cowboys-49ers NFC championship game of the Aikman era. The 49ers had reduced the gap to 4 points with 5-6 minutes left (as memory serves). They were probably looking for the Cowboys to run the clock out with Emmitt Smith, but on the first play of the drive, they called a quick slant to Harper (? -not Irvin for sure), which turned into a huge gain and it was game over, insert coin. But then again, that's hindsight. That play worked perfectly.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
The Hitch said:
King Boonen said:
Tank Engine said:
King Boonen said:
I watched until half time then went to sleep...
I got to the final Atlanta score, it was way beyond my bedtime and so I dozed off.

Although New England hadn't exactly been dominated in the first half, Atlanta had been definitely better and had taken advantage of the turnovers. I thought there was no way that the Patriots would come back.

When I woke up in the morning, I checked the score and my jaw just dropped. I immediately watched the highlights. There were some huge plays (4th and 3 when the Pats were still 25 points down, the Ryan fumble - he was caught just before his arm started coming forward and of course the Edelman catch). But what were the Falcons thinking. Close to the Pats 20 with time running down and getting a FG would put them two scores up (Alpe more or less sums up my thoughts above).
A bit like passing when you're 2nd and goal on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and 4 points down..?
Not really. Passing wasn't a bad decision. Statistically that season passing on the 1 yard line was more succesful than punching it in, especially with Marshawn who historically struggled with goal line rushes.

Also a pass play would have allowed them to go for it on 3rd and 4th down. A rush play would have kept the time going and they might only have had the time for 3rd.

Butler made a brilliant play. The decision wasn't bad. If they had run it its possible Butler would have stripped the ball and then everyone would complain why they didn't pass
It's too long ago for me to remember, but wasn't Lynch basically guaranteed gain pretty much every time he ran the ball in that game? I seem to remember the Seahawks took an age between first and second down, the Seahawks still had a time out too and I'm sure that the Pats we terrible at stopping short yard gains that season (or, at least, they were worst at it compared to everything else). It was a brilliant play from Butler but a really bad decision from Seattle.
Lynch did have some decent runs in the first half of 3 to 5 yard gains, but one run with no gain on the Seattle end of the field. In the 3rd quarter on the Seattle side he started getting more yards per carry (7 to 15 yards), but down inside the NE 10 yard line he was stopped for no gain and Seattle kicked a FG. Later in the 3rd, Lynch went 14 yards down to the NE 4 yard line. The next play NE stopped Lynch for a 1 yard gain. Seattle ended that drive with a TD pass to Baldwin. The next 3 runs by Lynch went for 2, 2, and 1 yard gains. Just before the game ending play, Lynch ran 4 yards to the NE 1 yard line. So the Pats had established the ability to stop Lynch. But basically it came down to execution.

Now, open field gains are typically more wide open than goal line. On that last play of the Seattle drive (the Butler interception play) Belichick, after some deliberation, called goal line defense. It was basically cover-1 (ever body in man coverage with a single safety over the top). Seattle lined up WR Baldwin left (covered by NE corner), the TE Luke Willson was lined up left (covered by LB), Lynch in the backfield left of Wilson (covered by NE defender - not sure who), WR Kearse slot right on the line of scrimmage (covered by big Brandon Browner), and WR Lockette lined up outside and behind Kearse (covered by Butler deep). Including the safety, that's 6 defenders, with the other 5 committed to the run. However, NE had 7 in the box so the LB covering Willson and defender covering Lynch come off to support run. So, Seattle had 6 linemen including the TE, NE had 7 defenders not including the safety. Advantage NE in that situation. That plus the fact NE had success stopping Lynch some of the time down close, it was not a bad decision to pass the ball. But again, it came down to execution.

Side note: the hardest pass to defend on the goal line is a fade route. Easier to defend are slants. But Seattle really did not have a WR or TE on the roster that year who was good at fades (like Gronk, Graham, Dez). (BTW, this is why Sherman beeched at OC Bevel this year - for calling slants at the goal line when you have a Jimmy Graham who can go up and snag a high thrown fade route).

So Bevel on that final play called a slant with a rub thrown in to make it harder to defend. Where Seattle failed to execute:
1. QB Wilson did not put the ball in a location only catchable by the WR Lockette. He put it too high and in front of the WR. It would have been different had Wilson put it lower and down on the hip of Lockette.
2. Wilson could have gotten the ball out faster.
3. Kearse often gets the role of being the obstacle in the rub. His assignment that play, disrupt Butler. Problem is, Kearse was covered by a more physical Browner. Kearse was not successful driving Browner back into the path Butler needed to take. In video, you can see Browner using leverage against Kearse to pervent being driven back too much. Kearse got him backwards about 2 yards, but needed to get him at least 1 yard, or 2, deeper to make Butler have to take a wider path to the receiver.
If Seattle had executed just one of those areas Seattle would have come away with a TD, unless Butler made a great tackle at the goal line. Had Kearse done his job well it certainly would have been a TD.

Seattle had 1 timeout remaining I think and 26 ticks on the clock. So they could have run to Lynch then called timeout if needed. If I'm Wilson, I really don't like the matchup of Browner on Kearse, knowing Browner is more physical than Kearse and what Kearse's role on that pass was. I might have switched to run. But then there's that little advantage NE had of 7 defenders on 6 blockers. To run, Bevel should have brought in an extra tackle and run with a heavy set. Two times if necessary. But it was too late for that. The play and personnel were already in place and they would have had to burn the timeout to switch it up that much. If Seattle was going to run, OC Bevel should have made that decision much sooner to get the right personnel on field. By the time Wilson got the orders, the best choice was pass.
 
Wow...heads are rolling in Atlanta; both the defensive coordinator & DL line coach are fired:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/falcons-fire-coaches-richard-smith-and-bryan-cox-after-super-bowl-collapse/

I can't recall a Super Bowl losing team that fired a coordinator & position coach at the same time. Holy smokes...there must have some serious chewing out in that Falcons locker room after the game. IMO, I think the Falcon's defense simply quit in OT; Brady & the boys marched down the field in a much too easy eight-play 75-yard drive where the Falcon's D looked like they didn't know what planet they were on. Now there's a vacant D-coordinator job...next man up into the pressure cooker.
 
Re: Re:

I wouldn't say they quit, they actually were in almost every play, but they were tired, and Brady and the entire Pats offense were unstoppable at that point, in a total zone.

I can only imagine what that locker room was like after that game, but firing both had to be something more than just one game like that. I mean they didn't even really collapse on defense if you think about it. The offense wasn't moving the ball in the 2nd half either. And that series of calls once they were in FG range with 5 minutes to go were Shanahan's fault is my guess. But in the end, they got beat by a better team.

Atlanta still has talent, but in that hourglass division, I won't be surprised if they finish 8-8, or even end up in last place next year. I like Carolina's chances, and maybe New Orleans, if they can get anything out of their defense. TB also looks like they could win the division as well.

As to the Butler int from a couple years ago, something else to consider is that he was very young at the time, and not that well known, a dime back, so going at him made the most sense on paper. It wasn't a perfect throw, but it was an extremely head's up play by Butler. After that game, Derrell Revis said Butler's pick didn't surprise him at all, as Butler had huge talent and the potential to be great. Today he's considered one of the better CB's in the league, and almost made the Pro Bowl. Put another way, though Butler did trip over his feet on one play in the Super Bowl, Atlanta rarely threw at him all night. He (and McCourty) will hardly make any highlight reels, because the Falcons avoided him.
Tank Engine said:
I have great sentiment to a play called in the first Cowboys-49ers NFC championship game of the Aikman era. The 49ers had reduced the gap to 4 points with 5-6 minutes left (as memory serves). They were probably looking for the Cowboys to run the clock out with Emmitt Smith, but on the first play of the drive, they called a quick slant to Harper (? -not Irvin for sure), which turned into a huge gain and it was game over, insert coin. But then again, that's hindsight. That play worked perfectly.
Great memory! That was Montana's last game in a 49er uniform, and a lot of SF fans were upset that once he healed from an early season injury heading into the playoffs, didn't get his job back. Steve Young did play well in that game though. The game was in SF, and at that point it looked like the Niners had momentum and were going to come back and win, the quick slant to Harper took everyone by surprise. A very loud stadium fell silent. Brilliant call.
 
Considering their defense turned around about that time, this decision becomes much more clear.

In other news, big props to Kenny Easley for making the HOF. I am a big advocate of players who played great, great football, but had fairly short careers (be that injury, happenstance, age, burnout) or players with some great years, followed by injury plagued years, still getting in. This applies to Kurt Warner, Sterling Sharpe, Calvin Johnson, Tony Boselli, Jim Plunkett as well.

I should note this does not apply to potential, or very short bursts of greatness, followed by struggle and a quiet retirement. Greg Cook, Marcus Dupree, Billy Sims, or Chad Pennington come to mind. Bo Jackson too. He was an incredible athlete, but only played four seasons, made some highlight reels, but never once gaining 1,000 yards.

Now, what about someone like Herschel Walker?
 
After posting that tweet, I thought I should have asked in the post if anyone had any idea what the defensive stats for Atlanta looked like before and after mid-season when Quinn took over the defensive play calling. Your answer is very interesting indeed.

Atlanta's defensive players definitely have head coach Quinn's stamp on them. In one word: FAST. That was the same trait he sought in players when he was in Seattle. With that comes ideas how to use that speed. There must have been differences in philosophy between the HC Quinn and the defensive coordinator on how to use those players abilities. I think Quinn, having been a DC under Carroll in Seattle, would be more flexible on how to use players. Carroll has always said strongly, "Don't tell what a player can't do. Tell me what he can do, and use that." That is an idea that comes from the philosophy of building a defense around players, instead of force fitting players into a system. It could be Quinn's defensive staff wanted to fit players to a system, and when that happens sometimes the players just do not perform as well.

Also interesting is the fact the D-Line coach was fired. Why not also fire the linebackers coach? It could all be over a spat jointly between the DC and D-Line coach against Quinn. But maybe not. Maybe, and OFC this is all speculation, the firing of the D-Line coach was also over philosophy. And here is why I asked why not fire the LB coach as well. Atlanta's LBs are a fast bunch. To take advantage of that, you want the LBs to be able to flow freely to the ball. And to do that effectively you need interior defensive linemen to tie up the offensive linemen and hold down their gaps. You definitely do not want the defensive linemen being driven backwards, because when that happens it cuts off the linebackers lines of flow to the ball. You do not need the defensive linemen to make plays (e.g. make lots of tackles or get lots of sacks). Sacks and tackles need to come more from the defensive ends and linebackers.

Or the disagreement (if it exists) on how to use players might be Quinn wanting to use certain defensive end talent on the inside (e.g. use a player's talents, vs. just putting them in a position). A clear trait of a Carroll and Quinn philosophy is they want players who can play multiple positions, again like Seahawks using Michael Bennett and Frank Clark at DE and DT positions. If you have D-Linemen capable of playing multiple positions, but have a coach not willing to develop the players to play more than one spot, I fricking guarantee that coach will have serious issues with HC Dan Quinn.

So, how does this all look right now for Atlanta? I mean they just lost their OC to San Fran, now they lose their DC and DL coach to some bonfire. The question is, will all these changes prevent Atlanta from sustaining their performance next year? I don't necessarily think so. Pruning the inflexible dead wood DC and D-Line coaches might just be what Atlanta needs to become a dominant defense.
----------
I agree with advocating players to the HOF who played great football, but had fairly short careers etc, with the limitations you pointed out as not applying to (e.g. Dupree, Sims, Cook, Pennington, and Bo). Even if Bo still make bank on commercials.

But in regard to Herschel Walker? No. Never. Because:
1. Walker spurned the NFL for 3 years in the USFL. That just means his USFL production cannot be used to justify a spot in the NFL HOF.
2. After the USFL, Walker spent about 11 years in the NFL starting in 1986 with the Cowboys. He spent 4 years in Dallas, 3 with the Vikes, 3 with the Eagles, 1 with the Giants, and then 2 more back with Dallas.
2.a. In that time he only had 2 Pro Bowls and 2 All-Pro selections (both 1987 and 1988).
2.b. In that time he only had 2 1000+ yard seasons (1988 in Dallas, & 1992 in Philly).
2.c. After he left Dallas to go to the Vikes in 1989, his production really fell off. He was no longer the same dominating player.
2.d. He amassed a total 8225 yards rushing, and had a decent 4.2 yards per carry. But there are other inactive running backs who have over 10,000 yards rushing who are not in the HOF (Ricky Williams, Otis Anderson, Eddie George, Tiki Barber, Tom Jones, Jamal Lewis, Ricky Watters, Warrick Dunn, Corey Dillon, Fred Taylor, Edgerrin James - tho James has been a one-time finalist).
So, Walker really only had 2-3 good years in Dallas, and was unspectacular after that. BOY, Dallas (Jimmy Johnson) really made Dallas a contender for years by trading Walker to the Vikes in exchange for the Vikes entire draft picks.

I may be able to be talked out of that opinion on Walker, but it would take a good argument. I will say I respect what Walker did. He had a monster work ethic and brought himself up from nothing. If you have never seen the documentary on Herschel it is worth it. It's either 30/30 or NFL.com video.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Great memory! That was Montana's last game in a 49er uniform, and a lot of SF fans were upset that once he healed from an early season injury heading into the playoffs, didn't get his job back. Steve Young did play well in that game though. The game was in SF, and at that point it looked like the Niners had momentum and were going to come back and win, the quick slant to Harper took everyone by surprise. A very loud stadium fell silent. Brilliant call.
It helps to remember when you're a Cowboys fan, who had great respect for the 49ers' offence in that era (I really liked the hit them quick from all angles approach and they were just stuffed with talent). The Cowboys-49ers games were the ones I always looked forward to and the Superbowl sometimes felt like an encore at a proms concert a(i.e. a relatively throw away piece of music after some major work).
 
It's amazing to see the polar opposite developments of Brady and Manning's (Peyton, of course) careers. Last year, 39 year old Manning literally limped his way to a SB, riding the coattails of a dominating offense and many other excellent position players on that team, to a 39 year old Brady that had one of the most impressive seasons that a QB ever had. Not only his age, but missing the first 4 games, playing under pressure and the scrutiny and then coming up with the goods to overhaul a very good Falcons team that was up by more than three touchdowns. And he isn't slowing down. How long will he play? Until he's 50???
 
Brady last week said if his body holds up, he might play to 45. I find it interesting that Aaron Rodgers has adopted some of Brady's off-season routine (Yoga, improved diet with a lot of natural foods, etc.).

I would like to see the metrics in Atlanta's defense last season. No time to do my own research. I think during the SB it was mentioned Quinn likes power at DT, and speed everywhere else on defense. Sounds like very modern football.
 
Nomad said:
Wow...heads are rolling in Atlanta; both the defensive coordinator & DL line coach are fired:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/falcons-fire-coaches-richard-smith-and-bryan-cox-after-super-bowl-collapse/

I can't recall a Super Bowl losing team that fired a coordinator & position coach at the same time. Holy smokes...there must have some serious chewing out in that Falcons locker room after the game. IMO, I think the Falcon's defense simply quit in OT; Brady & the boys marched down the field in a much too easy eight-play 75-yard drive where the Falcon's D looked like they didn't know what planet they were on. Now there's a vacant D-coordinator job...next man up into the pressure cooker.
Matt LaFleur part of that clean out? He just joined McVay at LA [Rams]...
Bet Goff's looking forward to next season with LaFleur and McVay considering their histories with QBs
 
BullsFan22 said:
It's amazing to see the polar opposite developments of Brady and Manning's (Peyton, of course) careers. Last year, 39 year old Manning literally limped his way to a SB, riding the coattails of a dominating offense and many other excellent position players on that team, to a 39 year old Brady that had one of the most impressive seasons that a QB ever had. Not only his age, but missing the first 4 games, playing under pressure and the scrutiny and then coming up with the goods to overhaul a very good Falcons team that was up by more than three touchdowns. And he isn't slowing down. How long will he play? Until he's 50???
It's called good genetics and not getting sacked as often as other QBs (Brady had the lowest number of sacks out of the starting QBs this season). He had one major injury in his illustrious career - a torn ACL that cost him the entire season back in 2008. As you referenced Peyton Manning; a major neck injury in 2010 and an assortment of chronic injuries since then. Manning missed almost half of 2015 due to plantar fasciitis and limped through playoffs & Super Bowl. And take a young QB like Teddy Bridgewater: a completely blown-out knee during a non-contact drill in practice last preseason that potentially could be career ending. And Big Ben, as big as he is (no pun intended), he looks gimpy in almost every game and is playing on barrowed time. So, consider good genetics and not getting hit a zillion times the key to QB longevity.
 
Nomad said:
BullsFan22 said:
It's amazing to see the polar opposite developments of Brady and Manning's (Peyton, of course) careers. Last year, 39 year old Manning literally limped his way to a SB, riding the coattails of a dominating offense and many other excellent position players on that team, to a 39 year old Brady that had one of the most impressive seasons that a QB ever had. Not only his age, but missing the first 4 games, playing under pressure and the scrutiny and then coming up with the goods to overhaul a very good Falcons team that was up by more than three touchdowns. And he isn't slowing down. How long will he play? Until he's 50???
It's called good genetics and not getting sacked as often as other QBs (Brady had the lowest number of sacks out of the starting QBs this season). He had one major injury in his illustrious career - a torn ACL that cost him the entire season back in 2008. As you referenced Peyton Manning; a major neck injury in 2010 and an assortment of chronic injuries since then. Manning missed almost half of 2015 due to plantar fasciitis and limped through playoffs & Super Bowl. And take a young QB like Teddy Bridgewater: a completely blown-out knee during a non-contact drill in practice last preseason that potentially could be career ending. And Big Ben, as big as he is (no pun intended), he looks gimpy in almost every game and is playing on barrowed time. So, consider good genetics and not getting hit a zillion times the key to QB longevity.
I agree about Ben R. He seems to be someone ready to retire and has already mentioned after the playoffs. To me he never looks 100%. He and Palmer seem to get up off the ground slower and slower all the time.

Talking about QBs it seems that Cutler has also been linked to the 49ers as well as Cousins, Garropolo and a few others. This could end up being a big problem for the 49ers especially if they fail to pick up a veteran QB and their draft pick is not ready. It could end up being like the Rams problems after drafting Goff. Some people think all four of the existing QBs will be gone including Kaep but they will have to keep at least one. I think they may draft two. But of course they have already been given the worst odds to succeed next year along with the Browns and considering the changes to come and ones that have already happened, that is probably realistic.
 
Whomever goes to the 49ers better get ready for a rough season. I can't imagine Washington letting Kirk Cousins go. Why they haven't signed him to a long term deal is beyond me. He's not destined for the HOF, but when you look at the dearth of starting QB talent in the NFL, and he's maybe the 10th best in the league, how could they let him go? I can't imagine anyone thinking Jimmy Garappolo is going to step right into an offense as a starter and start winning. He has only a handful of plays, and two starts under center for the best team, best offense, and best coaching staff in the NFL, playing behind the best QB in NFL history. Hardly a crucible.

Ben has mentioned retiring, and I think should. Palmer was actually healthy most of the season, but he too has to be at or near the end. Just one injury from being done. The elephant in the room however is Romo. Why he doesn't retire with all his injuries is beyond me. Can anyone seem him going somewhere, Houston perhaps (oops, they overpaid for Osweiller and can't afford Tony), and lasting all 16 games and into the playoffs? How about playing 10 games, and into the playoffs? Even that seems unlikely to me.

Here's a good article from BR on FA QB's this off season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2691579-nfl1000-free-agent-rankings-for-the-2017-qb-market

The 11 QB's they list are:

• EJ Manuel
• Blaine Gabbert
• Matt McGloin
• Ryan Fitzpatrick
• Geno Smith
• Case Keenum
• Matt Barkley
• Brian Hoyer
• Mike Glennon
• Kirk Cousins
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Whomever goes to the 49ers better get ready for a rough season. I can't imagine Washington letting Kirk Cousins go. Why they haven't signed him to a long term deal is beyond me. He's not destined for the HOF, but when you look at the dearth of starting QB talent in the NFL, and he's maybe the 10th best in the league, how could they let him go? I can't imagine anyone thinking Jimmy Garappolo is going to step right into an offense as a starter and start winning. He has only a handful of plays, and two starts under center for the best team, best offense, and best coaching staff in the NFL, playing behind the best QB in NFL history. Hardly a crucible.

Ben has mentioned retiring, and I think should. Palmer was actually healthy most of the season, but he too has to be at or near the end. Just one injury from being done. The elephant in the room however is Romo. Why he doesn't retire with all his injuries is beyond me. Can anyone seem him going somewhere, Houston perhaps (oops, they overpaid for Osweiller and can't afford Tony), and lasting all 16 games and into the playoffs? How about playing 10 games, and into the playoffs? Even that seems unlikely to me.

Here's a good article from BR on FA QB's this off season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2691579-nfl1000-free-agent-rankings-for-the-2017-qb-market

The 11 QB's they list are:

• EJ Manuel
• Blaine Gabbert
• Matt McGloin
• Ryan Fitzpatrick
• Geno Smith
• Case Keenum
• Matt Barkley
• Brian Hoyer
• Mike Glennon
• Kirk Cousins

Yes well there have to be some doubts about Garappolo, surely Washington have to keep Cousins and simply pay up, if not they seriously risk losing him and what is their option ? None of the other QBs on the list is much of an improvement on Kaep and most are worse. Romo is the elephant in the room for sure. He doesn't want to retire but should unless he wants to be another Montana and can't sleep properly at night because of the pain in his legs and back. The Osweiller experiment will have some teams gun shy about paying up for unproven QBs but Washington have no choice and Cousins has done enough to be paid well otherwise teams like the 49ers that are cashed up will pay the money. Tyrod Taylor will also be a free agent but isn't a fit for Shanahan's offense. Gabbert will pick up a back up job without much trouble but not for a lot of money. 49ers will probably let him go though although he is younger than Ponder who might have trouble getting another job if he is cut. It's been years since he started a game apart from last preseason and even then it was only part of a game.
 
I am not a big fan of the franchise tag. Rumors are floating that Redskins may use it on Cousins.

Rumor also is a Romo trade will likely happen in next 30 days.

Projected #1 overall pick Myles Garrett lobbies for Dallas' Jerry Jones to trade up to pick him. Not a bad wish for Myles. But that is like a little kid asking for an ice cream cone the size of Jupiter, considering the number of picks Dallas would have to give up to get him. Who knows? If Myles keeps stroking Jones ego, Jerry just might bite.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY