Board index » Word on the Street... » Sports




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 8288
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.

_________________
Sweep the leg!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
bmacsmith wrote:
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.



Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
edzeppe wrote:
bmacsmith wrote:
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.



Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.

the only team that undervalued him was SD, which was understandable considering he'd hurt his throwing shoulder the season leading to his free agency.

wikipedo wrote:
After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees took the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the type of money a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive.

After the Chargers refused to increase their offer, Brees met with other teams. The New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins were interested. New Orleans made an offer that included $10 million in guaranteed money the first year and a $12 million option the second year. Miami was unsure if Brees' shoulder was completely healed and did not offer the money Brees was seeking. The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:05 am
Posts: 8045
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
wikipedo wrote:
The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.


:shake: :x

_________________
Always up for a trade
http://db.etree.org/TooBigaManTooSay/list


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
#9: Denver BroncosImage
Record: 93-67 (.581) (6th)
Playoff Appearances: 4 (T13th)
Playoff Wins: 1 (T21st)
Consistency Rank: 1st


Perhaps one of the more curious cases of the decade resides in Denver. Not only did the Broncos have a regular season record that came close to the elite, no team was more constant in winning, evidenced by their #1 ranking in consistency. The Broncos are one of five teams to suffer only one losing season, and they are the only team to never win less than seven games in any year. The reason why they don’t rank higher is obvious—the postseason. Garnering only one playoff win is a strike, as well as being ridiculously close to making the playoffs four more times (in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009).

All of this consistency, for better or worse, can almost completely be attributed to one constant factor: Mike Shanahan, the man who led the Broncos to the promised land in the 1990s. While Shanahan made some excellent transactions during his tenure (like trading Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey), he also made some mindblowingly bad ones (like signing Daryl ‘IHOP’ Gardener to a huge contract).

Eventually, owner Pat Bowlen tired of the status quo, and Shanahan was shockingly fired in 2008, replaced by Bill Belichick protégé Josh McDaniels. McDaniels proceeded to shake up the roster greatly (such as trading away Jay Cutler), and big changes were expected by many, both positive and negative. The end result? The exact same scenario that Shanahan found himself in at the end of his tenure. McDaniels will risk the wrath of Broncos Country if, for one, the consistency isn’t broken in the right direction.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
I was going to say denver seems high.

I had them 10th :roll:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
edzeppe wrote:
I was going to say denver seems high.

I had them 10th :roll:
People might say the same thing about who's going to be #8, as well.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
NE
INDY
PITT
PHILLY
GB
NYG
BALT
TENN

the teams remaining and the order i'd guess they fall.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
bmacsmith wrote:
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.



Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.

the only team that undervalued him was SD, which was understandable considering he'd hurt his throwing shoulder the season leading to his free agency.

wikipedo wrote:
After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees took the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the type of money a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive.

After the Chargers refused to increase their offer, Brees met with other teams. The New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins were interested. New Orleans made an offer that included $10 million in guaranteed money the first year and a $12 million option the second year. Miami was unsure if Brees' shoulder was completely healed and did not offer the money Brees was seeking. The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.

Miami undervalued him twice. God I wanted to draft him so bad. :x

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
NE
INDY
PITT
PHILLY
GB
NYG
BALT
TENN

the teams remaining and the order i'd guess they fall.

After the Super Bowl:
Indy
NE

:wink:

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
aprilfifth wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
NE
INDY
PITT
PHILLY
GB
NYG
BALT
TENN

the teams remaining and the order i'd guess they fall.

After the Super Bowl:
Indy
NE

:wink:

no the pats will still have more.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
yeah i think pats are team of the decade regardless.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
Broncos are definitely too high, and this reflects the fear I had that consistency would be too heavily valued. As a Texans fan I know first-hand the meaningless of consistently mediocre or barely above mediocre seasons.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
um, i think the rankings have been very spot on.

the top 10 teams (don't know the exact order yet obvi) are all certainly worthy of their position.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
I just don't think consistency is that big of a deal, certainly not equivalent to playoff appearances or playoff wins. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs each of 10 years, or a team that went to the CC game 3 times, the superbowl one of those times, and had 4-12 seasons the rest of the decade?

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Buffalohed wrote:
I just don't think consistency is that big of a deal, certainly not equivalent to playoff appearances or playoff wins. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs each of 10 years, or a team that went to the CC game 3 times, the superbowl one of those times, and had 4-12 seasons the rest of the decade?

which team are you talking about exactly?

call me biased, but the broncos always played the pats well, and for that i considered them a strong team this decade. and wouldn't you know it, they've come out as a top ten team?!!!

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:59 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
So your argument is basically that they played well in some games, so they should be in the top 10. Gotcha.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 10347
Buffalohed wrote:
So your argument is basically that they played well in some games, so they should be in the top 10. Gotcha.


Why don't you take a stab at ranking them?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
In a van down by the river
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:15 am
Posts: 33031
uglyduckling wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
So your argument is basically that they played well in some games, so they should be in the top 10. Gotcha.


Why don't you take a stab at ranking them?


L-O-L

_________________
maybe we can hum along...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
uglyduckling wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
So your argument is basically that they played well in some games, so they should be in the top 10. Gotcha.


Why don't you take a stab at ranking them?

hell no, i don't know nearly enough about the details of the past 10 years

i just dont think consistency is that great if it doesn't get you to the playoffs

ive complimented GHs rankings a couple times already

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » Sports


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:33 am