Unofficial 2013 NFL thread.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Unofficial 2013 NFL thread.

Just weeks away from pre season. How do you think your team will do this year? I saw the improvement last year of the Redskins from prior years, now if RG stays healthy, and we beef up our offensive line, we should do as good if not better than we did last year. RG simply cannot play like Vick and expect a long career. He has the talent which is why he has a price on his head. He needs to settle down, and have better plays that allow him more time in the pocket.

 

Oh and Brian Sapient, September 9th is my Birthday and the Skins will be playing your Eagles and Bob Spence and I will be watching it.

 

Oh and my deepest sympathies to Patriots fans for the Pats picking up Fleebow.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I am actually cautiously

 I am actually cautiously optimistic about the Jets. I don't think they have a prayer of making it to the Superbowl, however they have made some good changes. Getting rid of Tebow, replacing most of their coaching staff, and putting some new blood in the O-line. While they have received a lot of criticism among the talking heads for trading Revis, I think that was actually a really good decision. The Jets have a really strong defense with or without Revis- he only played two games last year and the Jets defense did just fine. Cromartie is a great CB and is able to handle the best receivers in the league. It would be nice to have both, but the reality is that the money Revis wanted is better spent on fixing up the areas where the Jets fail. They have made a few decisions that have me scratching my head, such as letting Dustin Keller walk when he wasn't asking for very much money.

Last year it seemed like they were more interested in getting splashy headlines, this year it seems like the staff is seriously working on improving the team. I think the team has slid too far to expect a chance at the Superbowl, but I think it will be at least a +.500 year. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised by Sanchez, because he isn't as terrible as everyone thinks right now. While he made his share of mistakes the last couple of years, I think he unfairly gets too much blame for the Jets troubles. The plight of the QB, we tend to give them too much credit and too much blame. I look for the Jets to go back to playing hardcore physical football on both the offense and the defense. The offense will go back to being run heavy with play action and when Santonio Holmes gets healthy (hopefully sooner rather than later) the occasional deep bomb. Clearly, one of the biggest remaining weakness on the Jets is the absence of good receivers. 

Now for my money, I have placed it on the Redskins, so Brian you are going to have to tolerate me rooting right alongside you. At 40-1 odds, I think it is a bet that just can't be passed up. Even without RG3, the Skins were able to play competitively last year and I haven't seen anything that suggests they will do anything but improve. If it wasn't for the media attention that RG3 draws, Alfred Morris would be the name on everyone's lips. The kid is phenomenal and the RG3/Morris duo is a combination that will continue to challenge the best defenses. The Skins better enjoy it while they can, because both players are extremely underpaid. When they have to renegotiate those contracts, it is unlikely the team will be able to afford both of them. (Morris is currently paid the minimum salary of $480k) I imagine the reason the odds were so high is because of RG3's injury, but I don't think it will play a huge role and hopefully this experience will settle him down a little so he doesn't take unnecessary hits for an unneeded yard. 

My predictions-

Pats walk away with the AFC East. Short of some disaster with Brady getting a severe injury, the AFC East is going to be really weak this year.

In the AFC North I expect the Steelers to improve upon their lackluster showing last year. I think the division is going to be very competitive as I see the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers as being fairly evenly matched. It is hard to pick which one is going to come out in the lead. If you put a gun to my head, I pick the Bengals. The Browns are still the Browns, new owner or not. 

I predict the AFC South is going to be won by the Colts. I think the Texans might be the stronger team, but their schedule is much more difficult than the Colts. If the Texans beat the Colts in both games they play against each other they will probably win the division, but I think it is far more likely they go 1-1, in which case the Colts are a clear favorite. The Texans play Seattle, Baltimore and San Fran back to back then later in the season play New England and Denver. That is five games they could lose any time. The only A-list teams that the Colts face are San Fran and Denver. 

The AFC West- How can you not like the Broncos? Peyton Manning, need I say more? The man is going to the playoffs, period. And really, there isn't a lot of competition in his division. Add in that they picked up Montee Ball in the draft, who imo is going to be a great HB. A lot of focus has been on his running skills, which are great, but he also has great receiving skills. In 2011 he played with Russell Wilson at Wisconsin had over 300 receiving yards and 6 receptions for touchdowns, while still rushing for almost 2000 yards and 33 touchdowns. I know it is always dangerous to try to translate college success into the NFL, but I think Ball is the real deal. Peyton Manning with a HB that can rush consistently and has good hands should be a potent combination. Manning will be able to maximize Ball's talent and if they start him, I think Ball is going to have some amazing rookie numbers. The cherry on top is getting Welker from the Pats. I think it is very likely that the Bronco's go to the Superbowl. I don't think Manning has ever had an offense as well balanced as this years.   

The NFC East, as I said above I am going with the Redskins. The Cowgirls are still a mess, the Iggles are a disaster. The Giants are one of those hit and miss teams, capable of random brilliance and being a complete clusterfuck, so you never know when they start going on a rush. I just think the Skins are going to be too strong as long as RG3 remains healthy. 

The NFC North, I think the Packers remain strong and probably win the division, although it will be with difficulty. I don't see them making the Superbowl, although their team is certainly good enough that it is a possibility. The Vikings are Adrian Peterson. If he can pull another 2,000 yard year they will be competitive. But the reality is that they are a one dimensional team and apparently seem to be ok with that. The Bears? They are a solid team, but not great. I think they probably slip a little from last years performance. I think the Lions are going to improve a lot. They have a lot fewer problems going into the season than they had last year and despite their poor performance last year, the team has natural talent. Will it be enough to get them to the playoffs? I doubt it. 

The NFC South, I am going to go out on a limb here and put my bet on the Panthers. They have put a lot of work into their defense and Cam Newton is setting out with something to prove. I think the Falcons have stalled and the Saints aren't going to get themselves together. It should be a very competitive division.

The NFC West, the Seahawks and the 49ers are going to provide some great football. I lean slightly towards the 49'ers taking the division, but I will be surprised if both teams don't find their way to the playoffs. You have two great teams that are young up and comers with two QBs that are immensely talented. With their explosive offenses, I will be watching every game these two teams play.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now for my money, I

Quote:
Now for my money, I have placed it on the Redskins, so Brian you are going to have to tolerate me rooting right alongside you.

Uggg, damn it, I hate it when you humanize yourself to me. It makes me want to stab you less. STOP IT!

Collins did do a good job filling in for RG3. Depth is a really hard thing in the league today, but when you have it and the  back ups are as good as the starters you do well.

Quote:
The AFC West- How can you not like the Broncos? Peyton Manning,

Yea, but he is getting up there. I'd say any aged Hall of Fame QB can do well injury free. But his neck, even though the docs oked him, still scares the shit out of me. My X named our prior cat after Manning, but when we went to the vet we gave the vet the girl's spelling "Payton". What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, do you care, no.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
My turn!

                  

 

                          The Patriots need a hardnose   running back,  so why not  T-bow? St Thomas of Brady turns 36 on August 3 {our saints Day} but I cannot see T-bow-wow replaceing him in 3 years or so.  St Thomas of Brady will be showing up for work in his 40's,  with Bishop Bella of Chek's blessings. Tebow's celebrating a TD is realy no different then a lot of other "believing" type NFLer's celebrating their TD's. The HYPE around Tebow comes from "hype masters" NOT Tebow. Think about it,  does Tebow actualy talk about himself? 

 

 

                         I can see {and have been saying for  2 years} Tebow is a damn good runner; effin' lousy thrower but he can run  a football down  feild.  Under Bishop Bella of Chek  maybe he can turn into an NFL quarterback in 5 years; Saint Thomas will still be the starter,  so I can see a running back untill then  and a  2015 draft choice being the starting QB in 2018  or 19. Tim Tebow will be an all-pro running back.

 

 

                        Patriots in the Super Bowl 2014, against the Washington  First Nations,  (somebody has to loose).  RG eye eye eye has certainly proven he can do the job and learn fast;  for this season  eye eye eye will be less Vick and more RG.  This should be a hellava year for the D.C. first nation team.  Payton Manning  &  Andrew Luck will have good years,  St.Thomas has taken both to the woodshed before, he'll do it again.  Gi -aints &  Boy-cows plus the egglets & bungles    are on the down turn. The Saints are not the 'aints and the Packers can Pack in a good game;  but not enough for eather beyond the playoffs. I'm betting S.F. is far more flash then pan-out.  Flacco and the Ravens are unpredictable in the playoffs, so I don't see a repeat.

 

 

                        Patriots and the D.C team in the Super Bowl;  Cardinals and Chargers might surprise us but not into February 2014.   And I reserve the right to deny anything I've written here.   Good luck in 2013.  btw the CFL season starts next weekend.

 

 

                  

 

 

 

                 

 

 

                      

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                  

 

                          The Patriots need a hardnose   running back,  so why not  T-bow? St Thomas of Brady turns 36 on August 3 {our saints Day} but I cannot see T-bow-wow replaceing him in 3 years or so.  St Thomas of Brady will be showing up for work in his 40's,  with Bishop Bella of Chek's blessings. Tebow's celebrating a TD is realy no different then a lot of other "believing" type NFLer's celebrating their TD's. The HYPE around Tebow comes from "hype masters" NOT Tebow. Think about it,  does Tebow actualy talk about himself? 

 

 

                         I can see {and have been saying for  2 years} Tebow is a damn good runner; effin' lousy thrower but he can run  a football down  feild.  Under Bishop Bella of Chek  maybe he can turn into an NFL quarterback in 5 years; Saint Thomas will still be the starter,  so I can see a running back untill then  and a  2015 draft choice being the starting QB in 2018  or 19. Tim Tebow will be an all-pro running back.

 

 

                        Patriots in the Super Bowl 2014, against the Washington  First Nations,  (somebody has to loose).  RG eye eye eye has certainly proven he can do the job and learn fast;  for this season  eye eye eye will be less Vick and more RG.  This should be a hellava year for the D.C. first nation team.  Payton Manning  &  Andrew Luck will have good years,  St.Thomas has taken both to the woodshed before, he'll do it again.  Gi -aints &  Boy-cows plus the egglets & bungles    are on the down turn. The Saints are not the 'aints and the Packers can Pack in a good game;  but not enough for eather beyond the playoffs. I'm betting S.F. is far more flash then pan-out.  Flacco and the Ravens are unpredictable in the playoffs, so I don't see a repeat.

 

 

                        Patriots and the D.C team in the Super Bowl;  Cardinals and Chargers might surprise us but not into February 2014.   And I reserve the right to deny anything I've written here.   Good luck in 2013.  btw the CFL season starts next weekend.

 

 

                  

 

 

 

                 

 

 

                      

I am sorry, but I see nothing about Fleebow that says he will be anything but a back up, and out of the league in 3 or 4 years. I can remember the hype over Heath Shuller and all he did was flip teams more than a place kicker.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
An Jeffrick. I wouldn't mind

And Jeffrick. I wouldn't mind seeing a Skins Pats SuperBowl, just to have that friend rivalry win or lose. I'd actually get a laugh knowing you have Fleebow. Talk about a downgrade. Shit man, it is like the Pats are mixing filet mignon with dog chow.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I thought that teebow

I thought that teebow whatever guy was good. He was all you guys could talk about a year ago.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I thought that

Vastet wrote:
I thought that teebow whatever guy was good. He was all you guys could talk about a year ago.

Who is "you guys". His fans liked him, and some in the sports pundit community did. I thought he was going to be a flash in the pan, which turned out was the case. He will never be anything more than a second string or third string QB. I would never start him. I am surprised he got picked up again. I never liked him at all, regardless of the god crap.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You could put the crappiest

You could put the crappiest QB behind a Hall of Fame line with Hall of Fame receivers and a Hall of Fame running back and make him look good. That might win you a couple of games, but it wont make you a consistent team.

 

I often wonder how well Montana could have done in the NFC EAST back in the 80s, which was the toughest division. The 9ers back then were playing in a very weak division. I think Montana would have done well even as a QB in the NFC EAST back then. But Fleebow from the start was inconsistent and whatever success he had was more because of the team around him. I have seen players of every position hyped when drafted only to fizzle or remain back ups. Fleebow will never rise to the level of a Montana or Manning. He'll be lucky if he stays on any team, from what I have seen of him so far.

I have been watching this game since I was a kid. And the players that make a difference are not always the ones hyped . They are the ones that can be surrounded by a young inexperienced team and build from there. Bret Farve and Joe Theisman come to mind.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet wrote:I

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I thought that teebow whatever guy was good. He was all you guys could talk about a year ago.

Who is "you guys".

Everyone in this topic, yourself included.
I never said or implied any of you liked him, but he literally was all you guys could talk about for weeks, so he was clearly having an impact.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I thought that teebow whatever guy was good. He was all you guys could talk about a year ago.

Who is "you guys".

Everyone in this topic, yourself included. I never said or implied any of you liked him, but he literally was all you guys could talk about for weeks, so he was clearly having an impact.

That was about everyone pining after his god crap, not his actual lack of talent.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Tebow is neither as good

 Tebow is neither as good as his fans think he is- which is the case for most College QB's from big schools, I remember when everyone here in Ohio was convinced that Troy Smith was the next Manning/Brady and Smith went on to get beat out for the Ravens starting position by a non-Heisman winner from the University of Delaware- Joe Flacco. It is just the reality that QBs from big schools that win championships tend to be overrated by their fans, mostly because for the big schools the fans have been following them for 3-4 years and watching them win almost every game and become convinced they are unbeatable. It is quite a shock when the college QB runs into much stronger opponents in the NFL where skills that made them look phenomenal suddenly are average. Tebow comes from one of the schools with the biggest fan bases and he broke records while winning games. 

However, Tebow is not as bad as his detractors think he is. He definitely has raw athletic ability, even though he clearly is not ready to lead a top NFL offense. In a team like the Jets he was a mess because of the whole Sanchez problem and the constant drama of "are they going to put Tebow in?" and the constant news stories about Tebow. He was a huge distraction even though he only played two or three snaps a game at most.

I think with the Patriots he might do ok. At the very least, there is no chance he will be competing for the first string, so he can relax and take the opportunity to learn from one of the best QBs of all time. If Brady and Belichick can't fix his throw, no one can. I have also heard speculation that the Pats might switch him to TE since they don't have a lot of depth in that position right now, which he certainly has the size for. I don't know if he is any good at catching or not .

I think it is a good gamble for the Pats. They picked him up dirt cheap (minimum salary plus $1.5 mil in conditional bonuses) so either he will work out and Belichick will find some potential in him, or he will sit on the bench which is pretty much all any of Brady's backups do anyway and the Pats lose virtually nothing. I would bet against Tebow being the guy who takes over when Brady retires, but I wouldn't rule out him improving his skills and being traded to another team to become a starter. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Miami will fail miserably

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Miami

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.

That last one is a bold statement. I am not saying Huston is a good or bad team, but even the expert prognosticators get it wrong. It still can be a crap shoot ultimately. I've seen teams have crappy starts make the Superbowl and other teams that start out well lose in first round or even fail to make the playoffs.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I remember when

Quote:
I remember when everyone here in Ohio was convinced that Troy Smith was the next Manning/Brady and Smith went on to get beat out for the Ravens starting position by a non-Heisman winner from the University of Delaware- Joe Flacco. It is just the reality that QBs from big schools that win championships tend to be overrated by their fans, mostly because for the big schools the fans have been following them for 3-4 years and watching them win almost every game and become convinced they are unbeatable. It is quite a shock when the college QB runs into much stronger opponents in the NFL where skills that made them look phenomenal suddenly are average. Tebow comes from one of the schools with the biggest fan bases and he broke records while winning games.

Exactly, and have seen stuff like this since I was a kid, not just with my team, but it is part of the history of college and the draft, and with every position as well. The truth is most players drafted wont end up starters and have an average of 3-5 year career. Heath Shuller was supposed to be the Skins next Theisman. What a waste of money that was. Heath started with other teams but never rose to top QB status.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I remember when everyone here in Ohio was convinced that Troy Smith was the next Manning/Brady and Smith went on to get beat out for the Ravens starting position by a non-Heisman winner from the University of Delaware- Joe Flacco. It is just the reality that QBs from big schools that win championships tend to be overrated by their fans, mostly because for the big schools the fans have been following them for 3-4 years and watching them win almost every game and become convinced they are unbeatable. It is quite a shock when the college QB runs into much stronger opponents in the NFL where skills that made them look phenomenal suddenly are average. Tebow comes from one of the schools with the biggest fan bases and he broke records while winning games.

Exactly, and have seen stuff like this since I was a kid, not just with my team, but it is part of the history of college and the draft, and with every position as well. The truth is most players drafted wont end up starters and have an average of 3-5 year career. Heath Shuller was supposed to be the Skins next Theisman. What a waste of money that was. Heath started with other teams but never rose to top QB status.

 

The Bears and the Bills are going all in with the idea of using sabermetric style analytics to make personnel decisions, it will be interesting to see if it helps them make better draft choices and avoid the hype that surrounds certain players. The system works well in baseball, but football is a different beast. In many ways a single superstar player in football can drive an entire team in a way that is impossible in baseball.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.

That last one is a bold statement. I am not saying Huston is a good or bad team, but even the expert prognosticators get it wrong. It still can be a crap shoot ultimately. I've seen teams have crappy starts make the Superbowl and other teams that start out well lose in first round or even fail to make the playoffs.

Well as a prediction... every expert who makes a claim that X and Y teams will play in the Super Bowl before even the first game of pre-season, are making a bold statement.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.

That last one is a bold statement. I am not saying Huston is a good or bad team, but even the expert prognosticators get it wrong. It still can be a crap shoot ultimately. I've seen teams have crappy starts make the Superbowl and other teams that start out well lose in first round or even fail to make the playoffs.

Well as a prediction... every expert who makes a claim that X and Y teams will play in the Super Bowl before even the first game of pre-season, are making a bold statement.

 

Now if you really want to go bold, predict the New York Yankees wining the Superbowl.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I remember when everyone here in Ohio was convinced that Troy Smith was the next Manning/Brady and Smith went on to get beat out for the Ravens starting position by a non-Heisman winner from the University of Delaware- Joe Flacco. It is just the reality that QBs from big schools that win championships tend to be overrated by their fans, mostly because for the big schools the fans have been following them for 3-4 years and watching them win almost every game and become convinced they are unbeatable. It is quite a shock when the college QB runs into much stronger opponents in the NFL where skills that made them look phenomenal suddenly are average. Tebow comes from one of the schools with the biggest fan bases and he broke records while winning games.

Exactly, and have seen stuff like this since I was a kid, not just with my team, but it is part of the history of college and the draft, and with every position as well. The truth is most players drafted wont end up starters and have an average of 3-5 year career. Heath Shuller was supposed to be the Skins next Theisman. What a waste of money that was. Heath started with other teams but never rose to top QB status.

 

The Bears and the Bills are going all in with the idea of using sabermetric style analytics to make personnel decisions, it will be interesting to see if it helps them make better draft choices and avoid the hype that surrounds certain players. The system works well in baseball, but football is a different beast. In many ways a single superstar player in football can drive an entire team in a way that is impossible in baseball.   

At risk of derailing the thread, you accept here that what may work in one instance may not in another. Superstar players can carry a team, but I have also seen a bunch of no name players gel over a couple of seasons and dominate over time. So if everything is case by case and one size does not fit all, which is the reality of life, then why should economics be treated any differently?

I can remember as a kid in the 70s the Skins spotty at best and only 1 Superbowl which they lost to the Dolphins. Lots of hyped players during that time, but no absolute dominance. Then Gibbs comes in and builds a team from nothing with a bunch of no names, two years later they beat the same Dolphins in the Superbowl. The same could be said with the Packers and Farve. Before that staff and players were shook up, they had been a doormat for most of the 80s.

 

Life really is a crap shoot, and while work matters, luck has a part to play too. There are probably many people in your life if a day here or conversation there, or not meeting certain people, your life could be completely different.

 

There are good principles in just about every economic ideology, just like you can pick good things about a team that runs on a passing game, vs another that has a running game, then still other teams that dominate through defense. I have seen all styles of play both win and fail, and long term what I see isn't one size fits all, but balance and depth.

 

I like my economics like my football, GENERALLY SPEAKING, not left not right but center and balanced. Usually you can go with a trick pony for a while (star player) or (play scheme), but just like going to prison young, you can lift weights and dominate, but eventually if you have a life sentence, you get old and someone else knocks you off your perch.

 

And just like football, if a Star player can affect the team, so can lopsided economies. And right now we have a global economy that is great at making money for the few, but the cost is at the workers expense where they end up in sweat shops for slave wages.

Which is ironic because for you, a fan like me, of the NFL, it is totally lost on you the salary cap, and the fact that the profits are shared with the less fortunate teams. So socialism does work, you simply are stuck in Stalin's vision of it which is not what the founders set up which WAS, in the form of a Constitution, an ANTI MONOPOLY LAW.

 

If I could force Dumbby Snothead to sell the Team to Nick Hanour, I don't know how he'd be as a winning owner. But I would certainly trust him more to pay the field crew and beer sellers and hot dog sellers much better than most rich people.

 

So basically when everyone has a say, everyone does better, just like minority NFL team owners who have crappy teams for decades.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.

That last one is a bold statement. I am not saying Huston is a good or bad team, but even the expert prognosticators get it wrong. It still can be a crap shoot ultimately. I've seen teams have crappy starts make the Superbowl and other teams that start out well lose in first round or even fail to make the playoffs.

Well as a prediction... every expert who makes a claim that X and Y teams will play in the Super Bowl before even the first game of pre-season, are making a bold statement.

 

Now if you really want to go bold, predict the New York Yankees wining the Superbowl.

Well the Yankees have better odds than the Jaguars or Raiders 

FWIW, the current Vegas odds on digital's bet- both teams making it to the superbowl with a Texans win would run in the area of 585/1. That isn't including the exact score, so yeah a bold prediction.

If you really want to be bold, go for the Jaguars playing the Cardinals in the superbowl with a Jaguar win. $1 will win you $1,023,491. Of course, you are probably better off using you $1 bill as toilet paper. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:At risk of

Brian37 wrote:

At risk of derailing the thread, you accept here that what may work in one instance may not in another. Superstar players can carry a team, but I have also seen a bunch of no name players gel over a couple of seasons and dominate over time. So if everything is case by case and one size does not fit all, which is the reality of life, then why should economics be treated any differently?

It shouldn't be treated any differently. My entire argument in economics is based on the idea that one size does not fit all and everything is a case by case basis. Furthermore, that the people best suited to make a decision about the best course of action are the people who run a company. That is precisely why I oppose regulations. Regulations, by definition, attempt to make things "regular", in other words, to make things the same among several companies. One recent example we have discussed is Walmart vs. Costco. Walmart pays their employees little, Costco pays their employees more. The two companies have different approaches to selling more or less the same items. I oppose regulations that would force Walmart to be like Costco and pay their employees more. You are the one who wants Walmart to be the same because you have a moral cause you think government should force. 

Any regulation forces companies to do the same action or remove the ability to choose to do a certain action. I think companies (and people) should be generally free to make whatever choices they want, good or bad. Government should only intervene in the extreme situation of a company doing something like hiring hitmen or vandals to destroy their competitors.

 

Brian37 wrote:

There are good principles in just about every economic ideology, just like you can pick good things about a team that runs on a passing game, vs another that has a running game, then still other teams that dominate through defense. I have seen all styles of play both win and fail, and long term what I see isn't one size fits all, but balance and depth.

I never said that there were not positives to socialism, communism, RBE or any other economic system. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just picking out the positive effects as attempts at mixed economies have demonstrated many negatives. In many ways, I think it would be better to go straight up socialist than attempt to mix a socialist and capitalist system. One good example is healthcare. The attempt to mix the two is a complete disaster, we would be better off with a single payer system. With the mix, we get many negatives of both systems and few of the positives from either.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I like my economics like my football, GENERALLY SPEAKING, not left not right but center and balanced. Usually you can go with a trick pony for a while (star player) or (play scheme), but just like going to prison young, you can lift weights and dominate, but eventually if you have a life sentence, you get old and someone else knocks you off your perch.

Going down the middle of the road is the surest way to make sure you get hit. The middle for the sake of the middle is absurd, especially since the "middle" is an evolving definition and more often than not simply a phrase used by people afraid of taking a stand or too ignorant to have an informed opinion on a topic. There is no "middle" between Keynes and Hayek, they have two completely different and opposing theories on how a capitalist economy works. At least one is wrong, possibly both.

To some extent you can have a capitalist system mixed with socialist elements, however you don't have real socialism, certainly nothing like what was imagined by Marx. That is why me and iwbiek can agree on so many small issues, even though we are about as far apart ideologically as is possible. You can have a well balanced football team, but if the QB is playing a pass play and the receivers are playing a rush play you have a disaster. Balance can work, but it has to be well thought out and intentional. The middle for the sake of the middle or compromise is a disaster.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

And just like football, if a Star player can affect the team, so can lopsided economies. And right now we have a global economy that is great at making money for the few, but the cost is at the workers expense where they end up in sweat shops for slave wages.

I don't support the current global economy. I oppose nearly ever economic law in existence around the world. If you don't like the current economy, you should support me rather than the people who created it. Or support a real Marxist, RBEer (is it RBEer or RBEist?), Fascist (by which I mean fascist economics-not Nazi's), or someone who has a cohesive idea of an economic system. What we have now in our country and pretty much everywhere in the world is middle of the road compromise that you say you support. Countries vary on which side of the middle they are on, but none follow a complete economic theory. Most of that is simply political reality that people have opposing positions and are willing to compromise, so compromise is often the road to political power. Unfortunately, the road to political power has nothing to do with what is best for a country or the best way to run things.

Especially when you talk about the global economy, my side has no political force at all. Even our "free trade agreements" do not have free trade. The global economy is more highly regulated, taxed and less free than our local economy. Ever try to ship an item across the border? It is much harder than crossing a state line. Yet despite my side losing every election for over 100 years, you still blame my economic ideology for the problems we have. It is laughable. You blame laissez-faire capitalism and people on the right wing blame Marx. You are both wrong in different ways for the same reason.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Which is ironic because for you, a fan like me, of the NFL, it is totally lost on you the salary cap, and the fact that the profits are shared with the less fortunate teams. So socialism does work, you simply are stuck in Stalin's vision of it which is not what the founders set up which WAS, in the form of a Constitution, an ANTI MONOPOLY LAW.

I never said socialism doesn't work. I have no problem with socialism, I have a problem with coercion. If you want to voluntarily join a socialist organization, good for you. I wouldn't describe the salary cap as socialist, there is still a gigantic paygap in the NFL- it really is no different than what every corporation does when they assign a set budget to a particular department head for hiring. But semantics aside the NFL instituted the rule with the goal of making the NFL more competitive across the board. As an organization it works well for them because it makes the games closer scoring which attracts fans and makes everyone in it more money. That is a decision they came to as a private organization and the employees of the organization are free to accept it or go somewhere else. I would have a huge problem with the government telling all sports organizations that they have to implement a salary cap.

I wonder how you justify your support of the NFL when you are so opposed to MONOPOLIES!!!! The NFL is probably the closest thing to a MONOPOLY that has ever existed in this country. I'm surprised you haven't come out in support of the government breaking up the NFC and AFC into separate leagues. 

There is a fundamental difference between a private voluntary organization implementing rules and a government using legal force to make them implement a rule. I fully support the right of any private organization to implement any rules they want, even if I don't agree with the rules. Starbucks recently implemented a rule that they don't want smokers smoking in front of their stores. I oppose government ordinances that ban smoking in certain areas, but if Starbucks wants to, fine. I used to play chess on the patio at a local Starbucks with a group of guys and sometimes smoke a cigar or two. They implemented the rule, so I will no longer give them my business. Maybe they will pick up more business to replace mine, maybe they wont. It is their choice, their property. That is very different from the government fining my local hole in the wall bar for letting people smoke inside even though everyone who works at the bar smokes and the owners want to allow smoking.

It might surprise you to learn that I am a big fan of credit unions. I do almost all of my banking exclusively at credit unions, which *gasp* are non-profit. I don't know why, but apparently a lot of people are still fans of commercial banks. Whatever. You bank where you want, I will bank where I want. How many times have I suggested to you that if you are so worried about the pay gap, start a restaurant that doesn't have a paygap? If you, or anyone else wants to start a company that pays every employee the exact same amount or whatever method you want to use to determine pay, more power to you. I am not going to stop you. Your business will either make money or not and there will be no law I support that will stop you from doing as you see fit.

My problem comes in when you get on your high horse and come along and tell me or some other business owner how they should run their business. If it is just advice, fine, I will take it or leave it. What bugs me is when you come along and demand that there be a law telling me to do this or do that, or don't do this and you use the weight of the government to force me to comply as a condition of being in business. My employees want to form a voluntary union? No problem go ahead. But don't tell me that I can't fire every person in the union if we fail to come to an agreement I find acceptable. And don't tell people I want to hire that they must join the union as a condition of working for me.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

If I could force Dumbby Snothead to sell the Team to Nick Hanour, I don't know how he'd be as a winning owner. But I would certainly trust him more to pay the field crew and beer sellers and hot dog sellers much better than most rich people. 

Yes, because all you worry about is what people say while you ignore what they do. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Amazon-com-Salaries-E6036.htm

Note that Amazon has a huge PAY GAP! The tech people make salaries in the $75-100k+ range, meanwhile the warehouse and customer service workers get paid $11-$14 an hour. Eeeeeeeeeevil Walmart pays $8-$19/hour with the average being a little over $15/hr. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/warehouse-worker-salary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm

Of course, to be fair, Nick probably has nothing to do with setting workers wages in Amazon, he only made billions off of it. Let us take a look at the company he owns completely, Pacific Coast Feather.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Pacific-Coast-Feather-Salaries-E8320.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=true

Now we don't have a lot of information from Pacific Coast, it is a small company, and nothing for their low entry level workers, but we do have a few comparable positions. Look at "junior buyer" an entry level management position. Rich generous Nick with his billions and billions pays....... $31-34k. Fair enough. My first management job paid $26k but with inflation and all, that is probably a pretty fair rate. An eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Walmart that screws all its workers over pays.....$34-44k. The difference is even larger for the higher up buyer positions. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/GD/Salary/Walmart-Stores-Salaries-E715.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=true&filter.jobTitleFTS=buyer 

Are you sure that Nick would pay the low level workers so much better? The evidence suggests that he pays right around the prevailing wage in all of the businesses he owns. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15751
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My entire argument in

Quote:
My entire argument in economics is based on the idea that one size does not fit all and everything is a case by case basis.

HA, that is utterly laughable. The part you miss is TIMING AND SELF INTROSPECTION. I really wish I could believe you. But after years of your "I am not a Libertarian" even though you act like one, you must think I am a fool?

After I give you names of people you should aspire to be like, who agree with me, you scoff.

It is funny, I just had a conversation at work with my co workers over loud neighbors, and currently I have neighbors who act like you, "I paid for this house so I can be as noisy as I want anytime I want". You have the same simplistic "entitlement" attitude they do, forgetting, like they do, that what you do affects others.

My co workers sided with my neighbors saying they play loud music all the time. Funny thing at work, they have no problem playing their hip hop music all day, and it is only the repetition that bothers me, not any individual song, but as soon as I put on my ABBA, they act like I murdered their family. You behave the same fucking way about taxes and government.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:HA, that is

Brian37 wrote:

HA, that is utterly laughable. The part you miss is TIMING AND SELF INTROSPECTION. I really wish I could believe you. But after years of your "I am not a Libertarian" even though you act like one, you must think I am a fool?

Where have I ever said I am not a libertarian? I am not a member of the party, but I identify closely with the movement, vote and give money almost exclusively to libertarian candidates. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

After I give you names of people you should aspire to be like, who agree with me, you scoff.

Why should I aspire to be like Warren Buffett, Suze Orman or Nick Hanauer? They lead lives that I decided long ago are nothing like what I want. Remember "one size does not fit all"? Yet you keep insisting that I should be just like those people? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is funny, I just had a conversation at work with my co workers over loud neighbors, and currently I have neighbors who act like you, "I paid for this house so I can be as noisy as I want anytime I want". You have the same simplistic "entitlement" attitude they do, forgetting, like they do, that what you do affects others.

I have an entitlement attitude? lol Perhaps you ought to get a job doing stand up comedy. I don't think we have ever discussed noise ordinances before, but your assumption that I am against them is incorrect. As per your usual, you attempt to fit me into the caricature you have created in your head that has no basis in reality.

 

Brian37 wrote:

My co workers sided with my neighbors saying they play loud music all the time. Funny thing at work, they have no problem playing their hip hop music all day, and it is only the repetition that bothers me, not any individual song, but as soon as I put on my ABBA, they act like I murdered their family. You behave the same fucking way about taxes and government.

I am completely missing what playing loud music has to do with taxes at all. If anything, taxes are like loud music in that they are unwelcome and annoying and imposed on you by selfish people that think you should pay so they can live the lifestyle they want. 

So do you want to go up and read the rest of my post above, or did you just stop at the first sentence?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X