nfoligno

I just think there is such a difference between last year and this year. Last year, I think many tend to forget, DA actually was set to start the season as our #3 slot WR, but went down late in camp with an injury. If not for that injury, DA would have started in the slot game one, but due to the injury, Knox got the call, and did well with the opportunity. I believe it took a few weeks, maybe a bit more, for DA to get healthy again, but by that time it was too late. Knox had established himself and earned the right to be on the field. The problem was, Turner just didn't utilize many WRs. He had two starters (Hester and Bennett) and neither were going to be benched in favor of DA at that time. Hester was the coache's golden boy (and you could actually argue we needed some amount of experience out there) with Bennett opposite, and Bennett was playing the #2 role fairly well giving Cutler a reliable target. And then you had Knox stepping in and stepping up in the slot. The only other WR we would have active was Davis, but he was purely a special teams player, and not even given looks on offense. So the real issue was that we simply didn't use more than 3 WRs, and DA's late camp injury knocked him to #4. There just was not a place for him in Turner's WR poor system. Now with Martz, whether DA is the #1 or #4 WR, he is going to get on the field. It looks like he is at least the #3, so I have no doubt he will see plenty of action. I personally still believe DA is best on the outside. I think Knox would be great in the slot, as would Hester, but regardless how it plays out, all three should see plenty of action. Whoever our 4th WR is could see a solid amount of action as well. Hell, with Martz, our 5th WR may see action. Just another example of the huge difference between Martz and Turner.

also draft status 'could' account for some of the offensive decisions like how grossman was penciled in as starter for such a long period of time without real competition. same could be said why thomas left and benson stayed or why d. manning was considered a starter at safety when his accomplishments didn't justify his status if one wanted to argue those points. if gilbert remains on this team without a fantastic amount of improvement this season it could also point to draft status rather than talent. In general, isn't this something you see with every team in the NFL? Teams often push and prioritize their draft picks, especially the high ones. Further, higher draft picks are often given more time to develop than lower ones. I am not sure how much we can slam the current staff for this. Grossman- You will find most every team pushing a 1st round pick QB. I was very anti-Grossman, yet at the same time, I am not sure how much we did different from what other teams have done. TJ/Benson - I would say this is absolutely how many teams would have handled this. In fact, TJ benefited from similar in AZ where a veteran (forget his name) outplayed the young TJ, but due to his draft status, TJ kept being used. Especially when talking about a top 10 pick, you have invested so much that you are forced into a situation of pushing that player. DM - Personally, I think this is more Lovie than Angelo. I think Lovie simply loves athletes, and DM is considered one of our top athletes on the defense. Gilbert may not make the team, but it would not surprise me if he did. 3rd round draft picks do not traditionally get cut after one season, especially ones that were considered raw to begin with. I do not always like it, but simply can't rip Angelo too much here as this is something you see with every team in the league.

Gilbert - I still want to know who the hell thought it'd be a good idea to play him a DE? "He's big, he's slow, let's move him to the outside." And Marinelli's a d-line genius? With Gilbert, I think this is yet another example of where we took an athlete that lacked a true position, and tried to plug him in based on team need rather than where he is ideally suited. Look at what we did last year. He was considered a DE (thought to replace Wale) then moved to DT when we traded for Gaines, only to be moved back to DE after we let both starting DEs go and received positive news on Harris in terms of injury. I am not sure if he is out of position, but Gilbert is a player drafted due to athleticism, but is very raw, and I question how we are developing him.

Man, I just don't know. It seems like everytime there is a call for a vote, it gets more complicated. What I think the general (not unanimous) opinion is: - 1 keeper - This is one of the few things we voted on last season. - Allow 1st round keepers. Not my vote, but I seem to be in the minority on this one. - Lose a round ahead of where you draft. I think this is what the majority felt, though I am not fully sure how it works with the 1st round aspect. I am not sure there are many 1st round keepers, so many it doesn't matter (right now). Or maybe if you keep a 1st rounder, it will dictate where you pick in the draft, for example, if you keep you 1st, you pick 1st, which means you pick last in the 2nd round. Make sense? - I think the random ordering of the draft started to win out after early calls for draft order to be based on last year. Discussion of using preseason games or other methods didn't gain traction, and simply keeping it with a random selection seemed to preferred. - Install a new payout for the team that puts up the best one week score (starters). - Increase buy in by $5 to $25. - For payout, winner of best score gets $25. The remaining money is split 60/30/10, which is what I believe was the payout last year. I am not saying this for fact, but what I believe the general opinions were in the end. At this time, we really just need to set the rules in stone (for this year at least) so we can move forward. Final Question. Do we have our 10? Last I saw, we were sitting at 9. I can't recall who, but someone who played last year said he was not sure if he was going to play again (not Pix). I think we need to get a final word from that owner, and if he is out, invite one more to keep our number at 10.

This was something I had wondered about too. I know that in the past, coaches (around the league, not just ours) do not expect to see a ton of blitzes in the first pre-season game. I remember there was a preseason game last year (can't recall the two teams) and one coach was talking to reporters about how pissed he was at how the other team played. I am not sure if it is an un-written rule or what, but you simply do not usually see loads of blitzing in the first preseason game, and when you do, it is often a carry over effect from the past. I remember some years ago, I took my wife to a Stars/ Blackhawks game, and there was a fight in the first 30 seconds. She asked what could have happened to already piss off the players, and I said it was something from a previous game that simply carried over. I think that is the case here. Even if the blitz is a part of SD's scheme, to not only see blitzing but as much as we did sure does seem to point to Rivera trying to stick it to the guys who fired him. Yes, I realize he was not technically fired, but the fact that we choose not to re-sign the DC of the defense that carried us to the SB is close enough. So to me, it is a bit hard to judge the OL too harshly, YET. This was their first game action with 4 new faces in new positions, learning a new system. No way we should have expected them to look great, but then throw in (a) facing a 3-4 defense which we likely have not spent a lot of time preparing for and ( blitzing on, I believe I read, 6 of the first 8 snaps. Well, I just think we were far more likely to see some problems. With all that said, I was concerned when I read about how Forte looked awful in blitz pickup, but then read that we actually did pickup the blitz fairly well, but that one that was missed early on simply stood out. I read that on both of Cutler's completions, part of what allowed the plays to happen were solid blitz pickups when SD sent a S blitz. So one got through, and it was a big one, but as often as they blitzed, we may not have done as poorly as some initially indicated.

I disagree AZ, Not too long after martz was hired, he said he had watched film and felt Hester would similar to Az Hakim, and that he could be scary good in that role. That role by the way was as a slot WR. Later, a reported asked Lovie, referencing Martz comments, about Hester's role, and Lovie flat said Hester is their starting WR, end of discussion. I think it was one day later when Martz had altered his story and also said Hester was their starting WR. Point is, Lovie didn't defer to Martz then. Why should be believe he would now? Sure, I agree that by and large Martz will have control over the offense, but disagree when you imply Lovie isn't part of the picture. In particular when it comes to Hester, Lovie has shown he is very much part of the picture.

Yup. I mean, even if the pulled hammy is bad, it is far from season ending, so this has red shirt all over it.

Sorry, but I do not agree that your question leads to your answer. Yes, I would choose NO because they won a SB rather than Buffalo, because they did not. But just because a team loses in the NFC Championship, that does not mean they will win the SB, nor does a SB loss mean a team will not win one thereafter. You use Buffalo as an example. How about Phily? 3 years in a row they went to the NFC championship, and they lost every time. Then they won, and lost the SB. Those championship losses sure didn't seem to help Phily. I guess that is the thing here. Is there some sort of correlation you know of between losing the championship game and then winning the SB? Sure, there might be a couple examples, but enough to make it a rule? The only team I saw in the last ten years that lost the NFC championship game and went on to win the SB was NO, who lost the championship 3 years ago, and then won this SB this year. In the AFC, you have the Steelers and Colts, but to me, that is more about top tier franchises that were simply at that level for many years. Heck, the Steelers lost the SB in '96 and won in 2006. Is there a correlation. I guess that is the thing for me. I don't buy the correlation. We are in the NFC. How many teams in the NFC that lost the Championship game went on to win the SB? NO did three years later. So what. Phily (3), Minny (2), GB, Atlanta, Carolina all lost in the championship game, and none have a lombardi since then to show for it. So if there is not a correlation between losing the NFC championship and then winning the SB, I question the rationale for thinking it better to lose at that level rather than to simply do as good as your team possibly can, even if that means coming up short in the SB. Would you rather be the Lions, who have NEVER been to the SB? I guess you can say they have never lost a SB, but I have a feeling if you pulled aside any Lion fan right now and asked, "Hey, even if you know you would lose, would you be happy if your team made it to the SB this year?" I am thinking 99 out of 100 would say hell yea they would take the SB appearance.

I'm with you. For me, the favorite part of keeper leagues is how you draft, particularly later in the draft. For the most part, the first 5-7 or so rounds of any FF draft are going to be about the same. Some players taken higher than others, but for the most part, the same players are selected. What is fun for me is the players you start taking later in the draft. The sleepers and potential keepers. You start taking rookies or 2nd year player who did little to nothing their rookie year. You take players coming off injury or who moved to a new system few think they play well in. In other words, you start taking bigger risks. The early part of my draft was not much to write home about, but mid to late, I picked up Mendenhall, Hakeem Nicks, Rothlisberger and Brent Celek. I am surprised Rothlisberger fell that far, but the other three were the exact type I like to go after for keeper potential. I don't have a problem with owners keeping higher picked players, but that is also why I like to add the one round ahead rule, as it adds a level of strategy and makes an owner think twice. As I said in the past, at the end of the day, you feel what you have done in the past is likely the best way, and this is how my local FF league did it for about a decade.

I'm not sure there is a person who isn't worried about Omiyale, staff included. Early reports out of camp talked a lot of struggles. He was getting flagged for false starts and simply getting beaten. In the last week though, I have heard numerous reports that give a bit of hope. One thing to remember is, while we have all talked about how RT is his natural position, he has not played RT before. He was a LT in college, and that is also where he played in Carolina when he filled in for an injured Gross. But he is a more natural OT than OG. He may need some time to adjust, but it is not nearly the adjustment of moving from OT to OG. Anyway, he has not had a false start called against him in over a week. Per the staff, who had been pretty critical, he has been looking much better in terms of both pass and run blocking. His run blocking especially has looked improved. We have quite a few ?s on the OL, and Omiyale leads the way, but it does appear there has been improvement and positive signs. Contrast this with last year when, despite nothing but poor reports, he was handed the starting OG position.

Thanks for the diff perspective. Like I said, I will rent the game first, and give it a try before spending the coin to buy the game. It may be that Madden on the Wii is simply not as good as on playstation, but at the same time, you work with what you have. Madden on the Wii may be better than no Madden at all. I'm getting a bit tired of bowling and golf anyway. Besides that, one of my favorite aspects of Madden was the GM aspect in the franchise as opposed to actuall game play anyway. I love roster moves, the draft, and working players stats up.

I disagree the slippery slope argument here is that much of a stretch. And yes, I realize how much the slipperly slope argument can be stretched. I remember back in school when I was on the debate team, every argument (and I do mean every) would somehow lead to nuclear war. It was ridiculous, but that is how the arguments went back then. Jaywalking would lead to nuclear destruction To me though, the logic for not reaching the SB is simply a closer peg to not making the playoffs at all. If the argument is, as I read it (less with you) that it is pretty much a SB or bust rationale, then what is the point of making the playoffs at all if you are going to get bounced early? Look, I get your argument about the SB loser jinx. For me though, I simply feel you strive to get as far and deep as you possibly can. If you look at the history of the NFL, there are only so many teams that have won the SB, and numerous who have never even reached it that far. Sure, it hurts to lose it, but to say you were not even good enough to get there is pretty bad as well. At the end of the day, we simply disagree, and I think we can leave it at that. If this were the offseason, we could have fun debating the issue more, but right now, I think we have better things to discuss, like the greatness of Lovie Smith

Huh? Omiyale has been at RT since the start of OTAs. In fact, the most recent reports I have read say he has been doing better. He hasn't been hit with the false start penalties of late, and his blocking seems to be improving as well.

Sting, One question/clarification. I believe you are voting to lose the round before you selected the player, but at the same time, are you saying you think we should allow 1st round keepers? Just trying to clarify. I agree one player does not make or break your team. You can have the best FF player, but if the rest of your team is garbage, you are not going to win. For me, the issue about 1st round keepers is more about fairness. Last year, for example, whoever was lucky enough to have the computer spit out a high pick was able to get players like AP, MJD, etc. Sure, even these picks can flop (Forte) but the point is, the ability to draft these players was due to the draft order and nothing more. After the 1st round, no one can say they didn't have a chance to draft whoever. Take Ray Rice for example. If you really wanted him, and didn't get him later, you couldn't complain because push comes to shove, you could have taken him with your first pick. That is why I usually don't like the option to keep 1st round players. Anyway, that is how I feel, but regardless, if you could clarify your position on this.

I don't know. I have never been Drake's biggest fan, but as much as I used to attack him, now I wonder. One. While none of our WRs developed into big time stars, I would argue we have seen a pretty fair amount of development out of our young WRs. Gage and Wade both developed pretty well. Gage did better elsewhere, but injury was his key reason for departing. Berrian developed into a solid WR for us. Bradley didn't, but injury held him back and he failed to develop with two other teams after us (KC/TB). Hester didn't become Steve Smith, but went from being drafted as a DB and lacking much college WR experience to being a pretty good WR. Bennett was solid last year, and Knox was very good. We have not been spending top picks on WRs, yet we have actually seen some development of young WRs. Two. Remember what Angelo said. "Its all about the QB." It is one thing to see young WRs develop when you have Payton Manning or Brett Favre as your starter, but when you are running through 2 or 3 QBs per year, none of which are that good, it is a lot harder to see a high level of development. Three. The system may have also played a big part in holding WRs back. Turner may have been a bigger QB killer than Drake To further the 2nd point, look at how much the young WRs developed last year. Hester was on pace for around 1,000 yards if not for injury last year, and Bennett, in his firs year on the field, produced pretty solidly. Then there was the rookie that gave solid production. Simply adding a legit franchise QB seemed to payoff pretty well in terms of the young QB. Now put the 2nd and 3rd points together, and look at the reports thus far out of camp. Hester has been looking great. Knox seemed to have taken another step up and is playing great. DA, who has been in the league but is inexperienced, has looked very good for us. Iglesias, prior to the injury, was standing out in practices. And that doesn't count Bennett. That is why I hold back on ripping Drake. The addition of a legit QB and legit OC seem to have made a big difference, which just makes me thing the problem was more about the QB and OC/system than about the position coach.

Thanks to both of you. I just found out I can rest games now with my online blockbuster subscription. I might try to rent last years version (assuming they don't have the new version) but will not be running out to buy it. Thanks for the feedback.

This is my opinion, and far from factual. When Martz first came on, he talked about Hester being "scary good" and talked about him out of the slot, saying how similar he was to Az Hakim. Lovie was quick to counter that point and say Hester was a starter, and immediately after that, Martz referred to Hester as a starter. Thus I think Martz likes Hester in the slot, but Lovie has forced him do otherwise. With that said, (a) Hester appears to be having a great camp, and while he likely will never be a truly elite #1 WR, in this offense, he may better fit in the #1 WR role. He has excelled in camp, and this could truly be a breakout season for him. ( I have read nothing to base this on, but simply something I think we will see. When we have two WRs on the field, Hester will be one of them, likely with Knox opposite. When we add a 3rd WR (DA), Hester will move into the slot. By doing this, Lovie is happy because Hester is always on the field, but Martz gets to move Hester into the position he feels he best fits. Further, moving Hester will make life more difficult for defenses who may try to game plan against him. Again, that is simply what I think will happen, but it would seem to make sense.

Confused. You said you would strongly advise sports games on the WII, then seem to bash the same. Did you mean to say you would strongly advise against? Trust me. You are preaching to the choir. The WII has been a blast to play with the family (5 and 8 year old kids). Golf, bowling and yard darts are among the family favorites. For me personally, not so much. Really wished she would have gotten me the P3 instead, but nope. So the madden isn't worth it on WII?

Has anyone played Madden on the WII? I am a lifetime Playstation guy, but my wife bought me a WII. In her mind, it was the better system because the kids can play it too. I didn't have the heart to tell her (as this was a gift she was excited to get me) that I have never owned a Nintendo, and frankly, the games I usually like are not really available for the WII. Anyway, I know Madden is available for the WII and was wondering if anyone has used that system for the game.

Oh, I realize he left with Rivera, or are you saying that Rivera allowed DJ to develop the players differently than Lovie does? Hey, I do agree Lovie and the scheme are part of this. Okay, maybe I should just stick with the OL side, and also avoid Marinelli and go general. I think our OL was pathetically coaches for years. I think Tice is doing a great job thus far of actually developing our OL. I think the DL is very similar in many ways. Since DJ and Rivera left, I do not feel like we have done a good job of developing our young DL. This may not be due simply to the position coach, but due also to the DC and HC. Still, in general, the thought process still applies. Coaching held back our OL for years, and now I fear it is doing the same to the DL.

As you said, it is personal for you, and there is little point in arguing it. It just blows my mind to hear this.

So if you are not going to win the SB, tank the whole season. I mean, no point in going to the playoffs if you can't win the SB, right? Sorry, that thought just kills me. Do you think you suddenly become great? No. You often have to work your way up. You get some success, build and that success, and then win it all.

Yes, Marinelli was supposed to be some great DL coach, but frankly, I didn't see it. Not that I am there. But honestly, when I hear the players on the OL talk about Tice, they are specific about all the small things and details he works on with them. I simply don't recall much of that with Marinelli. I'm not trying to knock him as a DL coach, but I simply didn't see much different between him and the previous coach. No doubt the system is a big factor. Preaching to the choir on that one. But I think it is more than that. I simply think our DL developed better under Don Johnson, and that was under the cover two as well. For all the hype of Marinelli, I just never felt we saw much. Players spoke well of him, but it just seems very different from what I hear from players about Tice taking over.

Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. I just don't understand this argument. Winning the SB is the ultimate. No question. At the same time, it is one hell of an accomplishment to get there. If you asked the players from that 2006 team if they wish they never beat NO and didn't even reach the SB (hindsight 20/20) I bet you every one of them would say as sick as they were to have lost, they would never prefer to not make it to that level at all. The logic just doesn't hold because if you follow it, would you rather simply not even make the playoffs if you are not going to win the SB?

As asked in the other post, what does winning the SB have to do with what you said? From what I can tell, nothing in your either/or involves winning. You simply said you would rather not make it to the SB at all rather than lose. We all want to win, but last I checked, you can't win if you don't show up. By your logic, would you rather simply not make it to the playoffs at all if you are not going to win the SB? And yes, for the record, I am old enough to remember when the Bears won the SB.