The Official NFL Thread

I hate when people use the rings as a way to judge players, especially in football. There is not a single thing marino could do to change the way the running game or defense played. Nothing. He could have literally been 3 times as good as he was (impossible) and it still would not have made the defense or running game better.
The same thing applies with Mcnabb from Philly. I put him right up there with Brady and Manning (aside from the injuries the past few seasons, which i attribute to taking to many hits ibn a pass happy offense). Its not his fault that the first 5 years of his career he had James Thrash, Na Brown and Todd Pinkston to throw the ball to as wideouts. Its also not his fault he had a pass happy coach calling pass plays 65% of the time and who thought that a short pass was the same as calling a running play.

the only comparison between marino and kobe are as skillful players, kobe ringless - he would still be a great individual PLAYER, same as marino... comparison stops there, marino was a classier guy, kobe has terrible character and worse sportsmanship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by md1198p

Its not his fault that the first 5 years of his career he had James Thrash, Na Brown and Todd Pinkston to throw the ball to as wideouts.

---

LOL!

That may have been the worst wideout starting tandem ever...

I don't know how those fools even have jobs... even as backups.

And of course don't forget "Fred Ex".

The biggest loudmouth in the game who had ZERO to back it up with.

How he could talk trash and produce as much as my toe jam is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

LOL!

That may have been the worst wideout starting tandem ever...

I don't know how those fools even have jobs... even as backups.

And of course don't forget "Fred Ex".

The biggest loudmouth in the game who had ZERO to back it up with.

How he could talk trash and produce as much as my toe jam is beyond me.

---

The fact that he was still extremely productive is one of the most amazing jobs i have even seen from a QB. Look at what he did in 2004 with TO, over 30 TD's and only like 8 INTS, it was amazing. And that was only really in 14 games that year, he sat the last 2 out because home field was clinched. And last year he was off to his best season ever, with Reggie Brown (receiving stud in the making IMO) and Stallworth, before he got hurt. If they actually run the ball like they did with Garcia, with the awesome O-line they have, and Mcnabb stays healthy, there offense may be the best in football next year.

Since we are on a Marino topic, lets compare the 2004 colts to the 1984 fins. Both were pass happy teams led by a hot qb. Both produced record breaking seasons. Manning broke Marinos 1984 record in touch downs.

The differences I see:

Colts had a more two dimensional team with an actual run game.

Colts had suspect d.

Fins had no run game and a suspect d.

The defense in the 80's was still wild west. When did stickum get banned?


Most of these posts are great reads. I am enjoying the friendly disagreements. Does anyone know how many times Montana and Marino played each other and the scores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindwarper

The differences I see:

Colts had a more two dimensional team with an actual run game.

Colts had suspect d.

Fins had no run game and a suspect d.

The defense in the 80's was still wild west. When did stickum get banned?

Most of these posts are great reads. I am enjoying the friendly disagreements. Does anyone know how many times Montana and Marino played each other and the scores?

---

There are many similarities. And some notable differences.

The Colt's had more of a running game last year than the 'Phins had in 1984... I'd agree with that... but not a whole lot more. Let's not kid ourselves here... the Colt's have a one dimensional offence.

And both D's are awful. The Colt's just happened to get *hot* (or really what I mean is average) at exactly the right time. Even a bad defence can be average for a three game stretch.

Now the differences.

Era and opponents/division.

The game has seemed to evolve into a more pass happy game as of right now. It was more "smash mouth" in the 80's. Both teams played in very different eras.

Without evaluating who had the easier/harder division and/or conference, it's just suffice to say that the opponents were very different than they were this year.

In some ways, the two teams are mirror images of one another. In other ways, the times were quite different.

If one could transport the '84 Phins to last year... it would be interesting to see how they would have done in the Colt's place.

I would also add...

The games that the 'Phins lost in the 80's is what many people remember.

But there was one game of note that they won in the 80's.

They were the only team to defeat the '85 Bears. This was a team that for all practical purposes looked unbeatable. And I have a hard time believing that the Bears were not motivated to play this game.

Not only did Miami beat this juggernaut, but they beat them decisively. In Chicago I think.

The Phin's went on this year to lose in the AFC title game to the New England Patriots... and this is why you play the game... because nothing is guaranteed. But I to this day think that it was only the Dolphins that year who stood any chance of beating the Bears in that Superbowl. But we'll never know.

One of the great Superbowl matchups that never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

There are many similarities. And some notable differences.

The Colt's had more of a running game last year than the 'Phins had in 1984... I'd agree with that... but not a whole lot more. Let's not kid ourselves here... the Colt's have a one dimensional offence.

And both D's are awful. The Colt's just happened to get *hot* (or really what I mean is average) at exactly the right time. Even a bad defence can be average for a three game stretch.

Now the differences.

Era and opponents/division.

The game has seemed to evolve into a more pass happy game as of right now. It was more "smash mouth" in the 80's. Both teams played in very different eras.

Without evaluating who had the easier/harder division and/or conference, it's just suffice to say that the opponents were very different than they were this year.

In some ways, the two teams are mirror images of one another. In other ways, the times were quite different.

If one could transport the '84 Phins to last year... it would be interesting to see how they would have done in the Colt's place.

---

umm...in 2004 James had like 330 carried for over 1500 yards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by md1198p

umm...in 2004 James had like 330 carried for over 1500 yards.

---

Ohh... I was refering to last year when then won the championship.

Yea... when they had James they had a GREAT running game... which underscores just how bad their defence had to have been that year.

Is it just me or do the phins tend to beat the "unbeatable" or better teams as their only few wins per season lately in the last few years? I know they ended the Patriots, Bears, and a 5 game win streak from the Broncos...strange

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snakespy

Is it just me or do the phins tend to beat the "unbeatable" or better teams as their only few wins per season lately in the last few years? I know they ended the Patriots, Bears, and a 5 game win streak from the Broncos...strange

---

No... it's not your imagination.

When a team comes by that can potentially go unbeaten, the alumni from that unbeaten team usually show up and press on the players the importance of winning the game.

I know that it happened the last time the situation came up.

so whos gonna pick up Tank Johnson?

He's not even that great is he?

Never heard of him being a standout player.

If that's true... why would any team want to incur the drama?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

He's not even that great is he?

Never heard of him being a standout player.

If that's true... why would any team want to incur the drama?

---

He's been pretty good, and he's only been in the league two years after being taken in the middle of the second round. Still has good talent and a lot of upside if he stays out of trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spamjedi

so whos gonna pick up Tank Johnson?

---

raiders lol... j/k, I heard maybe the cowboys...whoever gets him gets a steal cause they can pay him a lot less since he is a trouble maker, put a clause in that they don't have to pay if he gets into more trouble etc, it's win win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

raiders lol... j/k, I heard maybe the cowboys...whoever gets him gets a steal cause they can pay him a lot less since he is a trouble maker, put a clause in that they don't have to pay if he gets into more trouble etc, it's win win.

---

It may turn out good for whatever team picks him up.

Or it may turn out bad.

Some guys can literally be a cancer on the team (i.e. TO). Other guys may not be so bad, but the team may grow to rely on them being there (i.e. Ricky Williams) and when the player "disappears" (for whatever reason... Barret Robbins before the Superbowl) it can be a distraction and even force a change in the teams gameplan.

And what had struck me lately about some of these players is that they don't seem to learn from their bad experiences. They make the same mistake again (i.e. "PacMan" Jones).

Some of these athletes have been catered to so much in their life where they liteally think that the rules of society somehow don't apply to them.

So I think that it's kind of a crapshoot... you may get a steal or you may get a disruptive cancer (worst case scenerio).

And yea... I'd write the contract as such that if he screws up once... he's gone.

It should be low risk to whoever picks him up. Sign him to a one year deal, if he messes up once cut him. If he gets his act together you just got a good starter.

No sign him to a multi year contract laden with incentives, but at base pay and little signing bonus. If he has a great year, you don't want to renegotiate a contract. Is Tank a free agent or is he on the waiver line? And I think he would be a good fit with the Raiders. We like trouble makers that perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spamjedi

It should be low risk to whoever picks him up. Sign him to a one year deal, if he messes up once cut him. If he gets his act together you just got a good starter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindwarper

Is Tank a free agent or is he on the waiver line? And I think he would be a good fit with the Raiders. We like trouble makers that perform.

---

Free agent, I'm pretty sure, since he was cut. Also, the Raiders have a good enough defense imo to not have to bother with him, even if they DO like the troublemakers.

I dont mind saying that Detroit who runs a very similar tampa2 could be a nice fit, for Tank he could then play against the Bears twice a year. That would give us 3 possible probowl level tackles, assuming Tank is as good on a different team as he was on the bears.

Who knows, maybe he is beyond help, and will never clean up.

monro - good point, Raiders had the #3 defense last year... but who do they have at DT? terdell sands, not really great....warren sapp? he's old and has lost 50lbs, so he may be playing defensive end this year... displacing tyler brayton, unless burgess holds out then it will be him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

monro - good point, Raiders had the #3 defense last year... but who do they have at DT? terdell sands, not really great....warren sapp? he's old and has lost 50lbs, so he may be playing defensive end this year... displacing tyler brayton, unless burgess holds out then it will be him.

---

Warren Sapp is old. But if we go off the most recent history, he had 10 sacks last year... which is GREAT for a DT. And the games that I saw... he did a good job against the run.

That being said... he won't last forever. But he was REALLY good last year.

If he comes into camp this year with the dedication to the game that he has shown... he may even be better this year than last... which would be amazing considering his age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

Warren Sapp is old. But if we go off the most recent history, he had 10 sacks last year... which is GREAT for a DT. And the games that I saw... he did a good job against the run.

That being said... he won't last forever. But he was REALLY good last year.

If he comes into camp this year with the dedication to the game that he has shown... he may even be better this year than last... which would be amazing considering his age.

---

that many sacks for that age is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal... but he lost 50lbs, will he lose strength too? obviously he will be faster, I just threw it out there since it would probably make more sense for him to play end being slimmer and faster, hell he might still be able to battle the o-guards being slimmer

He may lose a bit of strength, but i bet he's gained a step as well. That's a lot of weight to take off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

that many sacks for that age is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal... but he lost 50lbs, will he lose strength too? obviously he will be faster, I just threw it out there since it would probably make more sense for him to play end being slimmer and faster, hell he might still be able to battle the o-guards being slimmer

---

From what I read... all the weight that he lost was fat. He never really trained hard in the offseason and watched what he ate. It's my understanding that this offseason that he did. So he shouldn't lose any strength... just gain quickness. But of course being 50lbs lighter will make it easier for the guards to push him around... but well worth the tradeoff I would think.

And that many sacks for his age is great... but what makes it even greater was that it was done at defensive tackle. Tackles just don't usually get that many sacks being surrounded on all sides by blockers. It's much easier for a defensive end to sacks because of less double teams and the ability to do a speed rush around the outside.

He played at end when the Raiders played the 3-4. It didn't go well. I don't think that Sapp makes a good 3-4 end. I'd be surprised if they put Sapp at end.

The reason why I think he's a great tackle is because he is a short little explosive powder keg. Being shorter has it's advantages... namely leverage. There are in fact times when smaller is better. He has always been quick off the ball. Combined with his strength and understanding of leverage, he has carved out a pretty good career for himself.

He may trim down... but nobody will ever confuse him with a Jason Taylor type (i.e. quick around the corner, tall-lean, and all arms)