6 hours ago, mattwill said:

Sanders stands in the pocket? You have to be kidding. Sanders was lauded for his scrambling.

No he wasn't. The knock on Sanders is he'll stand in the pocket, hold the ball too long and take too many sacks. Now, the plus side of that is he will stand in the pocket pocket and deliver strikes in the face of pressure. His calling card is being a top end pocket passer.

15 hours ago, just relax said:

Age doesn’t matter in a long snapper, especially since they are protecting him by rule. I do recall one time last season when Carter went after somebody for hitting the LS. Might have been Green Bay. Good for him, fu to the ref who let it go. Lovato’s snaps were frequently 6” off. That’s a lot. Tough on Mann and a real distraction on the kicker if he sees the hold even slightly delayed because he’s going on the snap. Elliot took some heat last year for misses but he was not the only or even the primary culprit. @FranklinField Upper might bear me out.

@FranklinFldEBUpper

Quick thoughts on Howie and Lurie...Lowie..

I never really liked Lurie. Something about a B-list Hollywood producer who inherited his money and would have preferred to buy the Patriots...certainly rubbed me the wrong way. And the rumblings about him being involved in football decisions while publicly staying out of it...felt like we had an owner who wanted to meddle behind the scenes without taking the public accountability of the annoying owner/GM wannabes.

I know the franchise pivoted on his watch for the better, but I always (and still do, to a certain extent) credited more of that to AR and his rigorously detailed ground-up blueprint.

But I think he's really grown into something different. Lurie is responsible for Howie. Howie may walk on water right now, but he's made some bad mistakes over the years. Mistakes that typically get GM's fired. (Mistakes that kinda sorta did get him fired at one point).

He reinserted Howie when it wasn't popular, kept him around when it wasn't popular. Most GM's start making irrational, self-preserving decisions after a couple years because of their life cycle. In getting a "GM for life," it permits a vision for the franchise with every decision aimed at the wellness of the franchise. It allows for growth and learning from mistakes. I understand that Howie is the best GM in football right now, but if other owners had more patience and perseverance, there may be 10 other Howie-like GM's out there who instead were fired after their first few years.

I think the icing on the cake is how Lurie handled the tush push. I always saw him as prioritizing being liked by all and more of a politician. When he sensed that this play was important for his team, he got aggressive with the commissioner and other owners. I'm sure the coaches and players respect that too.

49 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

No he wasn't. The knock on Sanders is he'll stand in the pocket, hold the ball too long and take too many sacks. Now, the plus side of that is he will stand in the pocket pocket and deliver strikes in the face of pressure. His calling card is being a top end pocket passer.

Okay, let’s give you Sanders from the 2024 class and consider him an early round prospect given all the drama that caused him to slip in the Draft. That gives us one early round QB and two late round developmental QBs (like AJ Feeley? Or like Tom Brady? Who knows?).

How do you provide QBs of your description for 32 teams with QBs coming out of college at that paltry rate? At a rate of 3 QBs every 3 years it would take 32 years to get 32 QBs.

Your model simply will not sustain the NFL.

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Quick thoughts on Howie and Lurie...Lowie..

I never really liked Lurie. Something about a B-list Hollywood producer who inherited his money and would have preferred to buy the Patriots...certainly rubbed me the wrong way. And the rumblings about him being involved in football decisions while publicly staying out of it...felt like we had an owner who wanted to meddle behind the scenes without taking the public accountability of the annoying owner/GM wannabes.

I know the franchise pivoted on his watch for the better, but I always (and still do, to a certain extent) credited more of that to AR and his rigorously detailed ground-up blueprint.

But I think he's really grown into something different. Lurie is responsible for Howie. Howie may walk on water right now, but he's made some bad mistakes over the years. Mistakes that typically get GM's fired. (Mistakes that kinda sorta did get him fired at one point).

He reinserted Howie when it wasn't popular, kept him around when it wasn't popular. Most GM's start making irrational, self-preserving decisions after a couple years because of their life cycle. In getting a "GM for life," it permits a vision for the franchise with every decision aimed at the wellness of the franchise. It allows for growth and learning from mistakes. I understand that Howie is the best GM in football right now, but if other owners had more patience and perseverance, there may be 10 other Howie-like GM's out there who instead were fired after their first few years.

I think the icing on the cake is how Lurie handled the tush push. I always saw him as prioritizing being liked by all and more of a politician. When he sensed that this play was important for his team, he got aggressive with the commissioner and other owners. I'm sure the coaches and players respect that too.

All good observations, but I believe you have left out one equally important one … Lurie has made the cash available to Howie (and to the players as a result) so Howie can manipulate the Cap. That qualifies as. Goose that laid the Golden Egg description.

25 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Okay, let’s give you Sanders from the 2024 class and consider him an early round prospect given all the drama that caused him to slip in the Draft. That gives us one early round QB and two late round developmental QBs (like AJ Feeley? Or like Tom Brady? Who knows?).

How do you provide QBs of your description for 32 teams with QBs coming out of college at that paltry rate? At a rate of 3 QBs every 3 years it would take 32 years to get 32 QBs.

Your model simply will not sustain the NFL.

I don't know what you are talking about. I was just responding to your assertion that McCord was the only classic pocket passer in the recent draft followed by your assertion that Sanders was known for his scrambling. Seems like you've been engaged in an ongoing discussion about QBs that I have not been following.

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

All good observations, but I believe you have left out one equally important one … Lurie has made the cash available to Howie (and to the players as a result) so Howie can manipulate the Cap. That qualifies as. Goose that laid the Golden Egg description.

That one goes beyond the scope of my understanding of accounting (which is zero) and the salary cap (which is average for an intense fan). Everyone mentions this, but I still don't entirely understand it.

My skepticism in it is that the NFL has 32 owners that are bona fide narcissists. They all want to win if for nothing else than their own ego. (In MLB, they all kinda sorta want to win, but some are just parking that franchise as an investment). Lurie is actually well below average in net worth for NFL owners. So it just seems odd to me that Lurie is both willing and able to provide more cash on hand for manipulating the cap and keeping talent than other owners.

I'm sure there's something to it, I just don't really understand.

1 hour ago, Freshmilk said:

I don't know what you are talking about. I was just responding to your assertion that McCord was the only classic pocket passer in the recent draft followed by your assertion that Sanders was known for his scrambling. Seems like you've been engaged in an ongoing discussion about QBs that I have not been following.

Fair enough. The conversation has been with @Alphagrand. The provenance can be seen in the posts below.

17 hours ago, mattwill said:

I didn't say it was simple. It definitely is nuanced. But what I hear when I read your words above is a concept much more than a reality. To illustrate, in the 2024 QB class how many of the QBs fit the model of a stand in the pocket, accurate arm who processes and distributes quickly? From the first row, the only one who might ... and I emphasize might ... fit that description is McCord, and he was thought of so poorly by the 32 NFL draft teams that he wasn't drafted until the 6th Round.

Same question for the 2024 Draft

And the 2023 Draft ... Ironically with McKee and McCord, the Eagles may have the two QBs that best fit your conceptual description.

19 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

It's not nearly as black and white as you're asserting (speaking tongue-in-cheek). It's a nuanced debate about how much athleticism is required to play QB in the current NFL. Some is required, of course -- but if I'm starting a team from scratch, I'll take the QB with an accurate arm who processes and distributes quickly over the one who relies on his athletic traits to get him out of trouble regularly.

Of the top 10 QBs in passing yards from last season, only Jackson would be categorized as elite athletically.

Top 10 in passing TDs I'll add Jayden Daniels in there, so that's two out of 10.

Total points scored last season it's the same two QBs out of the top 10.

The final 8 teams in the playoffs last season were PHI, KC, WSH, BUF, LAR, DET, HOU, BAL. I'll add Hurts to the list, so that's 3 out of the top 8.

Mahomes and Josh Allen are both very athletic -- but they are elite QBs because they both have ++ throwing arms, IMO.

None of the above even includes Joe Burrow or Justin Herbert, who are pretty much universally recognized as top quartile NFL QBs.

57 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

That one goes beyond the scope of my understanding of accounting (which is zero) and the salary cap (which is average for an intense fan). Everyone mentions this, but I still don't entirely understand it.

My skepticism in it is that the NFL has 32 owners that are bona fide narcissists. They all want to win if for nothing else than their own ego. (In MLB, they all kinda sorta want to win, but some are just parking that franchise as an investment). Lurie is actually well below average in net worth for NFL owners. So it just seems odd to me that Lurie is both willing and able to provide more cash on hand for manipulating the cap and keeping talent than other owners.

I'm sure there's something to it, I just don't really understand.

It isn’t so much accounting as it is cash flow.

I think to a large extent you are correct that MLB owners are a much more passive group than NFL owners, but I think that there are certainly NFL owners who are much more competitive than others and Lurie falls into the competitive group.

The normal cash flow all the owners have to live with is the amount that thecollective bargaining agreement mandates that they must spend. No owner can spend less than that … and it’s a big number

If you look at the Eagles dead cap number, which is up over $70 million right now, that $70 million is over and above the minimum that each team must spend. But $70 million for a person who’s worth 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 billion is not a huge amount of money, and if you need cash in a pinch, you can borrow it.

However, I believe that Lurie understands that he is going to need to be that liquid, and as a result structures his business plan accordingly. Other owners probably are not that proactive.

So, what we have is a proactive general manager supported by a proactive owner. The result is $100 million worth of additional cash made available than otherwise would be necessary

What does everyone think about the following?

The NFL would be in Seventh Heaven if all 32 teams went into Week 18 with identical 8-8 records.

What say you?

43 minutes ago, mattwill said:

What does everyone think about the following?

The NFL would be in Seventh Heaven if all 32 teams went into Week 18 with identical 8-8 records.

What say you?

It would certainly seem to imply that all games had importance in week 18, which equals ratings which equals money, so I would tend to agree.

Kind of a delayed post. I saw a bunch of people downplaying Saquon talking about the Eagles being a top 5 all time team.

From an outside perspective, I don't think any of them will ever understand just how dominate this team was at the end when it mattered most. I don't think they realized how this team evolved into the monster that destroyed the best of the NFC and then destroyed a dynasty from the first whistle.

I don't think they understood that Kellen was holding back the beast. They saw the claws in Barkley but they didn't see the brutality of the defense and the fully fury of this team until it was way too late.

They'll likely never understand what a beauty this team was but we'll know. We'll know they destroyed the two best teams in back to back games and we'll have the images of the defense wrecking the Chiefs over and over.

The dagger was an exclamation that should have also served as a warning. The muzzle was fully off Hurts. They'll downplay his efforts but they're about to get a first hand lesson in humility.

39 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

It would certainly seem to imply that all games had importance in week 18, which equals ratings which equals money, so I would tend to agree.

To play devils advocate, if every single team couldn’t even top .500, I think I would lose interest in the overall product and watching other teams.

Hard to say. Are all the teams 8-8 because it’s ultra-competitive? Or does everyone just suck?

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

What does everyone think about the following?

The NFL would be in Seventh Heaven if all 32 teams went into Week 18 with identical 8-8 records.

What say you?

I think that is a worst nightmare scenario for the NFL. No villains, no underdogs, Marcus Mariota QBs on every team, secondary ticket market has no juice, no talk of one ticket costing thousands of dollars. No reason to get the popcorn ready.

27 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

To play devils advocate, if every single team couldn’t even top .500, I think I would lose interest in the overall product and watching other teams.

Hard to say. Are all the teams 8-8 because it’s ultra-competitive? Or does everyone just suck?

Given that athletes continue to get better and better, I would expect the NFL would say ultra competitive.

The fans of the teams who are consistently above .500 would say, "this sucks!” The fans of the teams who are consistently below .500 would say it was exciting and suspenseful.

The advertisers would say, "how big is the audience?”

29 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I think that is a worst nightmare scenario for the NFL. No villains, no underdogs, Marcus Mariota QBs on every team, secondary ticket market has no juice, no talk of one ticket costing thousands of dollars. No reason to get the popcorn ready.

Why would the secondary ticket market have no juice? If the final game of the season is a play-in game with everything on the line I would expect ticket demand to be high.

With that said, what percentage of the NFL’s revenues come from either primary or secondary ticket sales? When a ticket sell for a thousand dollars, how much of that does the NFL get?

22 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Given that athletes continue to get better and better, I would expect the NFL would say ultra competitive.

The fans of the teams who are consistently above .500 would say, "this sucks!” The fans of the teams who are consistently below .500 would say it was exciting and suspenseful.

The advertisers would say, "how big is the audience?”

Being more athletic alone doesn't make for a better game. The NBA is the poster child for that. More athletic, yet more boring.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

Okay, let’s give you Sanders from the 2024 class and consider him an early round prospect given all the drama that caused him to slip in the Draft. That gives us one early round QB and two late round developmental QBs (like AJ Feeley? Or like Tom Brady? Who knows?).

How do you provide QBs of your description for 32 teams with QBs coming out of college at that paltry rate? At a rate of 3 QBs every 3 years it would take 32 years to get 32 QBs.

Your model simply will not sustain the NFL.

Nor college. Thus the evolution of the spread offense and read option

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

To play devils advocate, if every single team couldn’t even top .500, I think I would lose interest in the overall product and watching other teams.

Hard to say. Are all the teams 8-8 because it’s ultra-competitive? Or does everyone just suck?

Under that scenario, I would tend to believe it’s a bit of both, although at 8-8, I would replace "suck” with "mediocre”.

Who is talking to?

https://x.com/1kalwaysopen_/status/1931484405538914583

37 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Being more athletic alone doesn't make for a better game. The NBA is the poster child for that. More athletic, yet more boring.

I agree completely. The quality of individual play is considerably elevated, but the entertainment value of that elevated play is considerably deflated. The players are in another stratosphere athletically, and as a result Joe Average Fan is less and less able to identify with the exploits of the players.

What appears to also have been lost is almost all appreciation of the team sport aspects of the game.

37 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Under that scenario, I would tend to believe it’s a bit of both, although at 8-8, I would replace "suck” with "mediocre”.

Is it mediocre, or is it the strengths of the respective Offenses and Defenses cancelling each other out?

48 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Being more athletic alone doesn't make for a better game. The NBA is the poster child for that. More athletic, yet more boring.

Athleticism doesn't make the NBA more boring. It's the shift to being more reliant and focused on 3 point shooting.

6 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I agree completely. The quality of individual play is considerably elevated, but the entertainment value of that elevated play is considerably deflated. The players are in another stratosphere athletically, and as a result Joe Average Fan is less and less able to identify with the exploits of the players.

What appears to also have been lost is almost all appreciation of the team sport aspects of the game.

I wouldn't even say the quality of the individual play is all that elevated either. Just my own opinion.

You wouldn’t say that Steph Curry is the best shooter of all time?

You wouldn’t say that Tom Brady is the GOAT?

You wouldn’t say that Simone Biles is the greatest gymnast of all time?

You wouldn’t say that the big three of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are three of the four greatest men’s tennis players ever … with Rod Laver being the fourth.

A whole swath of Olympic sports have never been better.

Sports all across the spectrum have never been played a as consistently high a level.

JMO