Official 2011-12 NFL Regular Season Thread
- Thread starter RAMSTORIA
- Start date
- Status
.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
I'm really surprised that Detroit, Oakland and the Jets decided not to play Sunday. I really thought those teams would've played up to their level, but instead played down and lost badly.
I'm not surprised the Cowboys lost, but I thought they would've changed something. I guess they still are the Dallas Cowgirls, and that probably won't change until you get a retired Navy Seal to coach that team.
Next week?
Lions-Saints: That Lions Defense against Drew Brees? Yeah, blowout.
Bengals-Texans: I doubt anyone wants to win this game so I'll say the Bengals because Delhomme is only the healthy QB on that team, and...yeah.
Falcons-Giants: One fraud, one inconsistent team. I'll go with the fraud for now, but I might change this pick.
Steelers-Broncos: If Tebow couldn't throw the ball on the Chiefs, he won't against the Steelers.
That'd mean in Round 2 we'd have...
Saints-49ers
Bengals-Patriots
Falcons-Packers
Steelers-Ravens
I'm not surprised the Cowboys lost, but I thought they would've changed something. I guess they still are the Dallas Cowgirls, and that probably won't change until you get a retired Navy Seal to coach that team.
Next week?
Lions-Saints: That Lions Defense against Drew Brees? Yeah, blowout.
Bengals-Texans: I doubt anyone wants to win this game so I'll say the Bengals because Delhomme is only the healthy QB on that team, and...yeah.
Falcons-Giants: One fraud, one inconsistent team. I'll go with the fraud for now, but I might change this pick.
Steelers-Broncos: If Tebow couldn't throw the ball on the Chiefs, he won't against the Steelers.
That'd mean in Round 2 we'd have...
Saints-49ers
Bengals-Patriots
Falcons-Packers
Steelers-Ravens
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
What was up with the Jets? I hate them and I love their failures for two reasons. Rex Ryan is all talk and of course the most over rated "team" player in the world in LDT continues to never even sniff a superbowl.
He also tossed Holems under the bus in the post game saying "that its hard to follow a leader who behaves in that way." Hey, LDT, a person with real class wouldnt have felt the need to directly take shots at his supposed captain. A person with real leadership might have acknowledge that fact that something else might have been going on instead of piling on. Oh I forgot class has a different meaning when its applied to you.
LDT now and forever..you are one of the best individual players due to your selfish ability to blame everyone else on any time you are on.
He also tossed Holems under the bus in the post game saying "that its hard to follow a leader who behaves in that way." Hey, LDT, a person with real class wouldnt have felt the need to directly take shots at his supposed captain. A person with real leadership might have acknowledge that fact that something else might have been going on instead of piling on. Oh I forgot class has a different meaning when its applied to you.
LDT now and forever..you are one of the best individual players due to your selfish ability to blame everyone else on any time you are on.
Getting tired of the Patriots, Steelers and Ravens getting into the playoffs lol. A healthy Texans team would have been fun to watch and the Bengals can be very scrappy. I hope the Steelers and Patriots lose.. Giants have plenty of playoff experience and I just can't see the Falcons beating them. The Giants can be off and on at times, but unlike my Boys..they get tougher as the playoffs roll around.
Now that i think about it i hope Rodgers doesn't get snubbed in the Mvp voting just because Brees decided to statpad the last couple of games i mean people always jump on Brady when he seems like he does it but yet its perfectly ok for Brees to put 62 on the colts etc
I think Flynn putting up huge numbers may sway more voters than Brees' big stats the last two games. Some voters could take that to show that Rodgers just has a great team and even a seldom used back up like Flynn can put up monster numbers in that system.
If I was voting I'd probably give MVP to Brees and the offensive player award to Rodgers. Both had monster years, but I think the Packers win more games sans Rodgers than the Saints win sans Brees. Splitting those awards is away to reward both of them.
If I was voting I'd probably give MVP to Brees and the offensive player award to Rodgers. Both had monster years, but I think the Packers win more games sans Rodgers than the Saints win sans Brees. Splitting those awards is away to reward both of them.
[quote name='renique46']Now that i think about it i hope Rodgers doesn't get snubbed in the Mvp voting just because Brees decided to statpad the last couple of games i mean people always jump on Brady when he seems like he does it but yet its perfectly ok for Brees to put 62 on the colts etc[/QUOTE]
It's pretty simple. Non-Saints fans like Brees and Payton, and non-Patriots fans (on balance) hate Brady and Belichick. You're right, the latter pair would be skewered if they'd done the same thing. I don't have a problem with it though, this isn't a college game, defensive players are paid to make stops.
I don't think Rodgers is going to lose the MVP, he's been too good all season. Brees definitely tightened things up towards the end (as did Brady for that matter), but I still expect Rodgers to win it, and he should. It probably won't be unanimous though, whereas it might have been a month ago.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
If I was voting I'd probably give MVP to Brees and the offensive player award to Rodgers. Both had monster years, but I think the Packers win more games sans Rodgers than the Saints win sans Brees. Splitting those awards is away to reward both of them.[/QUOTE]
I really think Rodgers had the more consistent season, even though Brees definitely picked it up towards the end. Rodgers didn't have a single game all season where he committed more turnovers than he had touchdowns, Brees had 3, 2 of them losses to terrible teams (Bucs and Rams). I don't think Rodgers would have lost either of those games, given how much more careful with the ball he is than Brees.
It's pretty simple. Non-Saints fans like Brees and Payton, and non-Patriots fans (on balance) hate Brady and Belichick. You're right, the latter pair would be skewered if they'd done the same thing. I don't have a problem with it though, this isn't a college game, defensive players are paid to make stops.
I don't think Rodgers is going to lose the MVP, he's been too good all season. Brees definitely tightened things up towards the end (as did Brady for that matter), but I still expect Rodgers to win it, and he should. It probably won't be unanimous though, whereas it might have been a month ago.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
If I was voting I'd probably give MVP to Brees and the offensive player award to Rodgers. Both had monster years, but I think the Packers win more games sans Rodgers than the Saints win sans Brees. Splitting those awards is away to reward both of them.[/QUOTE]
I really think Rodgers had the more consistent season, even though Brees definitely picked it up towards the end. Rodgers didn't have a single game all season where he committed more turnovers than he had touchdowns, Brees had 3, 2 of them losses to terrible teams (Bucs and Rams). I don't think Rodgers would have lost either of those games, given how much more careful with the ball he is than Brees.
gbpackers94
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
Rodgers still had significantly better stats, even with playing one less game he had 1 more overall touchdown, 9 less turnovers, and this was all with more than 150 less pass attempts. The only part where Brees beats Rodgers is passing yards and completion percentage, but when you throw 150 more times than someone else, of course you are going to have more yards. And saying that anyone else can come into the system and be successful is ridiculous. That was one of the worst passing defenses in the league (22nd) so big numbers are to be expected from any halfway decent QB (Flynn qualifies). And also I could make the argument that the Saints roster is nearly as talented as the Packers (maybe even better on offense, specifically oline), so why should one QB be punished and another be rewarded when that applies to both teams. I'm obviously biased and this thread isn't directed at anyone (it seems most people agree Rodgers should win), but if Rodgers doesn't win this will be worse than Ryan Braun winning the MVP over Matt Kemp
That's why I give Rodgers the Most Outstanding Offensive Player award, hist stats are more impressive overall IMO.
But I'd give Brees gets the MVP as I don't think the saints even make the playoffs without them. While Flynn showed yesterday that the Packers are just an awesome offensive team. They aren't 15-1 without Rodgers, but they're still in the playoffs.
Personally, I love that the NFL has the MVP award and the most outstanding offensive and defensive player awards as it gets around the stats arguments.
MVP should go to who had the most valuable impact on their team, and stats are only one part of that. The most outstanding awards go to who had the most monster year stats wise on each side of the ball.
I wish the NBA and MLB would do that. They at least do on the defensive side I guess with the defensive player of the year in the NBA and gold gloves in MLB. Just need to add an overall offensive player of the year award.
But I'd give Brees gets the MVP as I don't think the saints even make the playoffs without them. While Flynn showed yesterday that the Packers are just an awesome offensive team. They aren't 15-1 without Rodgers, but they're still in the playoffs.
Personally, I love that the NFL has the MVP award and the most outstanding offensive and defensive player awards as it gets around the stats arguments.
MVP should go to who had the most valuable impact on their team, and stats are only one part of that. The most outstanding awards go to who had the most monster year stats wise on each side of the ball.
I wish the NBA and MLB would do that. They at least do on the defensive side I guess with the defensive player of the year in the NBA and gold gloves in MLB. Just need to add an overall offensive player of the year award.
[quote name='renique46']Now that i think about it i hope Rodgers doesn't get snubbed in the Mvp voting just because Brees decided to statpad the last couple of games i mean people always jump on Brady when he seems like he does it but yet its perfectly ok for Brees to put 62 on the colts etc[/QUOTE]
I hate when people bitch about a QB "padding stats".
You want him to not pad his stats? Thening STOP him from doing it. If your team can't well then that's too bad.
I hate when people bitch about a QB "padding stats".
You want him to not pad his stats? Then
ing STOP him from doing it. If your team can't well then that's too bad.[quote name='dmaul1114']
But I'd give Brees gets the MVP as I don't think the saints even make the playoffs without them. While Flynn showed yesterday that the Packers are just an awesome offensive team. They aren't 15-1 without Rodgers, but they're still in the playoffs.
[/QUOTE]
So you're basically saying that if Matt Flynn had subbed in for Brees yesterday instead of Rodgers he couldn't have done the same thing? Maybe that's true, but I don't know how you could say it conclusively.
Brees definitely has a strong case to make on his own for MVP consideration, but I really don't think it's fair to Rodgers to hold Flynn's performance against him, and I really hope people don't (though I fear some might).
But I'd give Brees gets the MVP as I don't think the saints even make the playoffs without them. While Flynn showed yesterday that the Packers are just an awesome offensive team. They aren't 15-1 without Rodgers, but they're still in the playoffs.
[/QUOTE]
So you're basically saying that if Matt Flynn had subbed in for Brees yesterday instead of Rodgers he couldn't have done the same thing? Maybe that's true, but I don't know how you could say it conclusively.
Brees definitely has a strong case to make on his own for MVP consideration, but I really don't think it's fair to Rodgers to hold Flynn's performance against him, and I really hope people don't (though I fear some might).
[quote name='bvharris']So you're basically saying that if Matt Flynn had subbed in for Brees yesterday instead of Rodgers he couldn't have done the same thing? Maybe that's true, but I don't know how you could say it conclusively.
Brees definitely has a strong case to make on his own for MVP consideration, but I really don't think it's fair to Rodgers to hold Flynn's performance against him, and I really hope people don't (though I fear some might).[/QUOTE]
Put more simply, I think the Packers have a MUCH better overall team than the Saints.
I'm not just going by Flynn's performance.
I'm just one of those guys who thinks the MVP award should always go to whichever player had the biggest impact on his team, not just who had the highest QB rating or better stats. i.e. Which player, if you removed him from his team, would have that team lose the most additional games that year?
That's what "most valuable player" means to me. And I love that the NFL has the most outstanding awards to just purely reward individual players for having great stats, regardless of how valuable it was to their team--that way people who have monster years on crummy teams etc. can be rewarded as well.
Brees definitely has a strong case to make on his own for MVP consideration, but I really don't think it's fair to Rodgers to hold Flynn's performance against him, and I really hope people don't (though I fear some might).[/QUOTE]
Put more simply, I think the Packers have a MUCH better overall team than the Saints.
I'm not just going by Flynn's performance.
I'm just one of those guys who thinks the MVP award should always go to whichever player had the biggest impact on his team, not just who had the highest QB rating or better stats. i.e. Which player, if you removed him from his team, would have that team lose the most additional games that year?
That's what "most valuable player" means to me. And I love that the NFL has the most outstanding awards to just purely reward individual players for having great stats, regardless of how valuable it was to their team--that way people who have monster years on crummy teams etc. can be rewarded as well.
gbpackers94
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
[quote name='bvharris']I don't agree with this, and I'm curious to know what you're basing it on.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The Packers allow the most yards per game in the NFL and they give up more ppg than Nawlins. There oline is also a lot worse, so the only positions where I think the Packers are clearly more talented is wide receiver, and that's not even by much.
Agreed. The Packers allow the most yards per game in the NFL and they give up more ppg than Nawlins. There oline is also a lot worse, so the only positions where I think the Packers are clearly more talented is wide receiver, and that's not even by much.
Just general sense. Certainly can't find any stats to back it up. I just as a whole would take the Packers players over the saints along the lines. Think Ryan Grant, when healthy, is better than any of the Saints RBs as a rusher.
Defense is a wash I guess as both have sucked on D this year despite having some great players.
I don't really have a horse in the race though as I don't really give a crap one way or the other about either team or player. The Packers have just impressed me more this year than the Saints, despite the Saints having gaudier stats.
I don't expect either team to win the SB though. Defense wins championships. I see either SF or NE winning the title. No horse in that race either as I dislike both those teams! Doubt I'll watch much of the playoffs this year.
Defense is a wash I guess as both have sucked on D this year despite having some great players.
I don't really have a horse in the race though as I don't really give a crap one way or the other about either team or player. The Packers have just impressed me more this year than the Saints, despite the Saints having gaudier stats.
I don't expect either team to win the SB though. Defense wins championships. I see either SF or NE winning the title. No horse in that race either as I dislike both those teams! Doubt I'll watch much of the playoffs this year.
gbpackers94
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Defense wins championships. I see either SF or NE winning the title.[/QUOTE]
gbpackers94
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
Yeah all I remember of Jordan is space jam and his brief wizards stint. I vaguely remember watching him on the bulls for his final year or two.
That explains it then. They won all those titles as they were excellent on both sides of the ball, and had one of the greatest clutch players in NBA history in Jordan to win close games for them.
As much as I hate the Patriots, I'd put my money on them as they have a great offense and a pretty solid defense (though their never seems to play a full 4 quarter game which could bite them in the ass).
I think the Packers and Saints lack the D to win it all unless their offense just puts up tons of points all post season (which is possible). SF and Baltimore don't have quite enough offense to get it done. The other teams I don't think are legit contenders other than maybe Pittsburgh--but Big Ben's injury is a huge worry as high ankle sprains take a long time to heal and are easily tweaked again.
As much as I hate the Patriots, I'd put my money on them as they have a great offense and a pretty solid defense (though their never seems to play a full 4 quarter game which could bite them in the ass).
I think the Packers and Saints lack the D to win it all unless their offense just puts up tons of points all post season (which is possible). SF and Baltimore don't have quite enough offense to get it done. The other teams I don't think are legit contenders other than maybe Pittsburgh--but Big Ben's injury is a huge worry as high ankle sprains take a long time to heal and are easily tweaked again.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just general sense. Certainly can't find any stats to back it up. I just as a whole would take the Packers players over the saints along the lines. Think Ryan Grant, when healthy, is better than any of the Saints RBs as a rusher.
Defense is a wash I guess as both have sucked on D this year despite having some great players.
I don't really have a horse in the race though as I don't really give a crap one way or the other about either team or player. The Packers have just impressed me more this year than the Saints, despite the Saints having gaudier stats.
I don't expect either team to win the SB though. Defense wins championships. I see either SF or NE winning the title. No horse in that race either as I dislike both those teams! Doubt I'll watch much of the playoffs this year.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious. You say Defense wins championships, yet you see NE as a possibility to win the title? Another team with no Defense to speak of and has looked more vulnerable than any other year in the past 5+ yrs IMO. Once the playoffs come around there's just no guarantee who will reach the Super Bowl. We've had underdogs in contention the last few years. Green Bay being one of those teams last year along with the Giants, Cardinals, Saints.
Defense is a wash I guess as both have sucked on D this year despite having some great players.
I don't really have a horse in the race though as I don't really give a crap one way or the other about either team or player. The Packers have just impressed me more this year than the Saints, despite the Saints having gaudier stats.
I don't expect either team to win the SB though. Defense wins championships. I see either SF or NE winning the title. No horse in that race either as I dislike both those teams! Doubt I'll watch much of the playoffs this year.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious. You say Defense wins championships, yet you see NE as a possibility to win the title? Another team with no Defense to speak of and has looked more vulnerable than any other year in the past 5+ yrs IMO. Once the playoffs come around there's just no guarantee who will reach the Super Bowl. We've had underdogs in contention the last few years. Green Bay being one of those teams last year along with the Giants, Cardinals, Saints.
[quote name='dm85']I'm curious. You say Defense wins championships, yet you see NE as a possibility to win the title? Another team with no Defense to speak of and has looked more vulnerable than any other year in the past 5+ yrs IMO. Once the playoffs come around there's just no guarantee who will reach the Super Bowl. We've had underdogs in contention the last few years. Green Bay being one of those teams last year along with the Giants, Cardinals, Saints.[/QUOTE]
NE's defense is solid. They just don't seem to play full, 4 quarter games. They do shit like yesterday and give up a bunch of points early, then shut the other team down. So their stats suck as a result. Whereas the Saints and Packers D seem to just be bend but don't break the whole game--or they just score enough to win shootouts like the Packers did yesterday.
Like I said, I hate NE. There's really no team I like at all in the playoffs this year. I just see them as having the best mix of offense and defense of the playoff teams. But I'd love to see them choke and lose their first game anyway! Which they may well do if their defense doesn't learn to play the whole game.
NE's defense is solid. They just don't seem to play full, 4 quarter games. They do shit like yesterday and give up a bunch of points early, then shut the other team down. So their stats suck as a result. Whereas the Saints and Packers D seem to just be bend but don't break the whole game--or they just score enough to win shootouts like the Packers did yesterday.
Like I said, I hate NE. There's really no team I like at all in the playoffs this year. I just see them as having the best mix of offense and defense of the playoff teams. But I'd love to see them choke and lose their first game anyway! Which they may well do if their defense doesn't learn to play the whole game.
As someone who has watched 16 New England Patriots games this season, I can tell you right now that their defense is about as far as you can get from solid. On paper, it's abysmal. They manage to play above what their stats would suggest by forcing turnovers and ranking higher in points allowed than they do in yards allowed (which they have every year under Belichick). Green Bay's defense manages to survive much the same way.
But make no mistake, the New England defense is not good. If they win it all (which I still think they could) it will be in spite of their D, not because of it.
The Patriots' safety play this season has been among the worst I've ever seen, and IMO is the main culprit in their defensive struggles. Getting Patrick Chung back will help, but the fact that Belichick was experimenting with Devin McCourty (whose had a pretty abysmal 2nd year overall after making the Pro Bowl his rookie year) at safety yesterday tells you all you need to know. For the record, he actually looked decent back there, but when you're scrambling to figure out what to do on defense through week 17, your defense is not "solid".
But make no mistake, the New England defense is not good. If they win it all (which I still think they could) it will be in spite of their D, not because of it.
The Patriots' safety play this season has been among the worst I've ever seen, and IMO is the main culprit in their defensive struggles. Getting Patrick Chung back will help, but the fact that Belichick was experimenting with Devin McCourty (whose had a pretty abysmal 2nd year overall after making the Pro Bowl his rookie year) at safety yesterday tells you all you need to know. For the record, he actually looked decent back there, but when you're scrambling to figure out what to do on defense through week 17, your defense is not "solid".
Fair enough. I'm just wasting time procrastinating work, otherwise I wouldn't bother trying to argue this stuff as it's not my forte. I don't watch all that much NFL so my impressions aren't very informed and just based on sportscenter highlights and snippets of games I catch while watching Raider's games at the sports bar down the street. 
So you guys definitely win the argument! I'm MUCH more of a college sports fan than pro sports fans. I only pay attention to pro sports in years my teams are at least in the playoff hunt.
So you guys definitely win the argument!
I'm MUCH more of a college sports fan than pro sports fans. I only pay attention to pro sports in years my teams are at least in the playoff hunt.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']
MVP should go to who had the most valuable impact on their team, and stats are only one part of that. The most outstanding awards go to who had the most monster year stats wise on each side of the ball.
.[/QUOTE]
You could almost make a case for Brady under that. But given everything, I agree. Brees-because of the record setting year
MVP should go to who had the most valuable impact on their team, and stats are only one part of that. The most outstanding awards go to who had the most monster year stats wise on each side of the ball.
.[/QUOTE]
You could almost make a case for Brady under that. But given everything, I agree. Brees-because of the record setting year
[quote name='usickenme']You could almost make a case for Brady under that. But given everything, I agree. Brees-because of the record setting year[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you can make a case for Brees, Brady or Rodgers based on the standard of who generated the most wins for their teams by themselves.
And it's a pretty close call between the three of them. But I'd go Brees due to his record and IMO having a tad less talent around him than the other two.
But again, it's a very close call and wouldn't be an outrage or anything if any of the three win it. Hopefully one wins it and another one gets the Offensive player award so they can at least recognize 2 of the 3.
Yeah, you can make a case for Brees, Brady or Rodgers based on the standard of who generated the most wins for their teams by themselves.
And it's a pretty close call between the three of them. But I'd go Brees due to his record and IMO having a tad less talent around him than the other two.
But again, it's a very close call and wouldn't be an outrage or anything if any of the three win it. Hopefully one wins it and another one gets the Offensive player award so they can at least recognize 2 of the 3.
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
Rodgers will probably win it because he's starting to get that "Favre Effect" in the league. It seems like every broadcaster can't stop talking about the guy and gets at least a semi-chub.
He's now the new golden boy for then NFL.
If I were to rank them I would give it to Brady and my order would go:
1) Brady
2) Brees
3) Rodgers
Especially given the numbers Flynn put up yesterday. Rodgers is great but I think he also has the most weapons available to him followed by Brees. I think if you were to take Brees out of the NO offense they would not be as good but would survive. If Brady was out I think NE gets trounced.
He's now the new golden boy for then NFL.
If I were to rank them I would give it to Brady and my order would go:
1) Brady
2) Brees
3) Rodgers
Especially given the numbers Flynn put up yesterday. Rodgers is great but I think he also has the most weapons available to him followed by Brees. I think if you were to take Brees out of the NO offense they would not be as good but would survive. If Brady was out I think NE gets trounced.
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
LOL, now DJAX is sorry and is willing to take the franchise tag...
Gee, could that be because he's burned all of his bridges and his stock is at an all time low?
After the crap he pulled this year I would offer him a huge contract but make most of the cash incentive based. If he balks I'd tell him to take a hike. He's good but not worth the drama, especially with the emergence of Maclin.
Gee, could that be because he's burned all of his bridges and his stock is at an all time low?
After the crap he pulled this year I would offer him a huge contract but make most of the cash incentive based. If he balks I'd tell him to take a hike. He's good but not worth the drama, especially with the emergence of Maclin.
[quote name='Chitown021']Rodgers will probably win it because he's starting to get that "Favre Effect" in the league. It seems like every broadcaster can't stop talking about the guy and gets at least a semi-chub.
He's now the new golden boy for then NFL.
If I were to rank them I would give it to Brady and my order would go:
1) Brady
2) Brees
3) Rodgers
Especially given the numbers Flynn put up yesterday. Rodgers is great but I think he also has the most weapons available to him followed by Brees. I think if you were to take Brees out of the NO offense they would not be as good but would survive. If Brady was out I think NE gets trounced.[/QUOTE]
Commentators have a knack of falling in love with who ever they're commentating about. Especially the MNF crew. Rodgers is the best thing since sliced bread. He's a GREAT QB, but it's like they forget past legends of the league so easily. Some even tend to claim him best ever all time. They get so caught up with the here and now.
As far as DJ goes. The man earned his money. Not a fan of how he goes about it, but pay what you owe and move on. He could have definitely handled it more like Matt Forte did, but my point is still valid.
He's now the new golden boy for then NFL.
If I were to rank them I would give it to Brady and my order would go:
1) Brady
2) Brees
3) Rodgers
Especially given the numbers Flynn put up yesterday. Rodgers is great but I think he also has the most weapons available to him followed by Brees. I think if you were to take Brees out of the NO offense they would not be as good but would survive. If Brady was out I think NE gets trounced.[/QUOTE]
Commentators have a knack of falling in love with who ever they're commentating about. Especially the MNF crew. Rodgers is the best thing since sliced bread. He's a GREAT QB, but it's like they forget past legends of the league so easily. Some even tend to claim him best ever all time. They get so caught up with the here and now.
As far as DJ goes. The man earned his money. Not a fan of how he goes about it, but pay what you owe and move on. He could have definitely handled it more like Matt Forte did, but my point is still valid.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
Rodgers is the MVP guys. End of story.
I'm reading that Penn State might hire Greg Roman as their coach, with a decision coming this week. Just in time to ruin any chance San Fran has at a playoff run. Awesome.
I'm so sick of these coaching moves while people still have actual jobs.
I'm reading that Penn State might hire Greg Roman as their coach, with a decision coming this week. Just in time to ruin any chance San Fran has at a playoff run. Awesome.
I'm so sick of these coaching moves while people still have actual jobs.
TheBigAndy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Rodgers is the MVP, at worst it will be co-mvp with Brees.
Chitown021
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
Actually I'm changing my vote to Cutler for MVP. Look what happened to the Bears as soon as he got hurt...
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But again, it's a very close call and wouldn't be an outrage or anything if any of the three win it. Hopefully one wins it and another one gets the Offensive player award so they can at least recognize 2 of the 3.[/QUOTE]
Agree but it is just fun watching Packer fans who have nothing to complain about, get their collective panties in a bunch. First it was - we don't get no respect. now it is Rodgers don't get no respect.
But again, it's a very close call and wouldn't be an outrage or anything if any of the three win it. Hopefully one wins it and another one gets the Offensive player award so they can at least recognize 2 of the 3.[/QUOTE]
Agree but it is just fun watching Packer fans who have nothing to complain about, get their collective panties in a bunch. First it was - we don't get no respect. now it is Rodgers don't get no respect.
pitfallharry219
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 56 (100%)
Ryan cries as Jets clean out lockers
Or he was crying because his team once again couldn't cash the check his fatass mouth wrote.
Or he was crying because his team once again couldn't cash the check his fatass mouth wrote.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
You know I am always confused about how they rest blame with WR. The position has some of the least amount of impact on the field. If he is not running his routes 100 percent that is one thing but if the ball doesnt come his way, if the plays are not called for him, what more can a WR do?
Was he punching people in the huddle? I dont get it.
Was he punching people in the huddle? I dont get it.
[quote name='dmaul1114'] But I'd go Brees due to his record and IMO having a tad less talent around him than the other two.
[/QUOTE]
No way, Brees has the most talent around him of the three. Colston, Graham, Sproles, Moore, Meachem and Henderson all had more than 500 yards receiving. New England only had Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez and Branch over 500 yards receiving and Green Bay had only Nelson, Jennings, Finley and Jones over. NO is deeper than any team in the league at receiver.
[/QUOTE]
No way, Brees has the most talent around him of the three. Colston, Graham, Sproles, Moore, Meachem and Henderson all had more than 500 yards receiving. New England only had Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez and Branch over 500 yards receiving and Green Bay had only Nelson, Jennings, Finley and Jones over. NO is deeper than any team in the league at receiver.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
Yeah thats true but you can really punish him for a GM that actually got it right? Everyone wants more weapons on the team and most GMs fail to get them those weapons.
As much as I try not to push QB for playing in this pass happy era I think you shouldnt punish them for having good players on their team.
As much as I try not to push QB for playing in this pass happy era I think you shouldnt punish them for having good players on their team.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
The Saints by far are deepest at running back in the big three. Saints have Sproles (600 yards, nearly 7 yards a carry), Thomas (560 yards, over 5 a carry), Ingram (475 yards, 4 a carry) and Chris Ivory (375 yards, 4.5 a carry). Heck Thomas and Sproles both have over 1k yards + from scrimmage this year (ok ok, thomas only has 987). You're nuts if you think they don't have much at running Back.
GB has Starks (578 yards rushing, 4.3 a carry) and Grant (559 yards, 4.2 a carry). 484 yards receiving between the two of them.
New England has BenJarvus, Ridley, and Woody. Woodhead (351 yards, 4.6 a carry) and BenJarvus (667 at 3.7 yards a carry) Ridley (441 yards, 5.1 a carry). 316 receiving yards yards between Woody and BenJarvus.
I really don't see how you can say the Saints are weak at running back.
Eff the Saints. Man, I'd rather play the Packers in Lambeau for all 3 playoff games than have to go to New Orleans once to play the Saints.
I really hope the Lions (maybe) or the 49ers (maybe, since they are home, but highly unlikely) can beat the Saints so the Giants won't have to run into them.... assuming they can get by the Falcons (I like our chances assuming we can cover White and Jones since the Falcons are a different team on the road) and the Packers (OK, if we just make it to this game with this team then it has been a VERY good season).
If by some miracle the Giants get to the NFC Championship Game and the Saints are waiting for them just please don't let them hang 50 on us.
I really hope the Lions (maybe) or the 49ers (maybe, since they are home, but highly unlikely) can beat the Saints so the Giants won't have to run into them.... assuming they can get by the Falcons (I like our chances assuming we can cover White and Jones since the Falcons are a different team on the road) and the Packers (OK, if we just make it to this game with this team then it has been a VERY good season).
If by some miracle the Giants get to the NFC Championship Game and the Saints are waiting for them just please don't let them hang 50 on us.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']All I want is for at least one of the Super Bowl teams not to be a repeat of the past 5-6 years. At least one, that's all I ask. A 49ers-Detroit rematch on the NFC side would be amusing just to see how the handshake afterwards goes.[/QUOTE]
That is a possibility but probably unlikely, IMO. The two best teams in the AFC are Pittsburgh (2006, 2009, 2011) and New England (2008) and the two best teams in the NFC are the Packers (2011) and Saints (2010).
The best bet I guess would be that the Ravens get in. I'd welcome any match-up for the Giants and any other match-up involving the Lions, Broncos, Texans or Bengals. Even though the 49ers haven't been good for a while I still hate them since they used to crush everyone all the time going from Montana to Young and winning 5 SBs in 14 years.
That is a possibility but probably unlikely, IMO. The two best teams in the AFC are Pittsburgh (2006, 2009, 2011) and New England (2008) and the two best teams in the NFC are the Packers (2011) and Saints (2010).
The best bet I guess would be that the Ravens get in. I'd welcome any match-up for the Giants and any other match-up involving the Lions, Broncos, Texans or Bengals. Even though the 49ers haven't been good for a while I still hate them since they used to crush everyone all the time going from Montana to Young and winning 5 SBs in 14 years.
I'd prefer to see someone new in the SB as well.
Failing that I'd like to see NE vs GB/NO as it should at least be an exciting shoot out (I hate low scoring, defensive battles). Would love to see a SB that's like the GB/DET game from Sunday or the Rose and Fiesta Bowls yesterday.
Failing that I'd like to see NE vs GB/NO as it should at least be an exciting shoot out (I hate low scoring, defensive battles). Would love to see a SB that's like the GB/DET game from Sunday or the Rose and Fiesta Bowls yesterday.
- Status
bread's done