Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

653 Pro Bowl

About Jakuvious


  • NFL Team
    Kansas City Chiefs
  • MLB Team
    Kansas City Royals

Other Information

  • Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Job
    Middle Management....for now
  • Xbox/PSN/Steam/Other
    Xbox: Jakuvious
  1. Deepest Team Rankings

    I feel like some of these rankings just confirm the concerns that I voiced earlier in the thread, that it's going to praise teams with mediocre starters but equally mediocre backups. I'm singling out RB because I think it's a fairly straightforward position group to analyze, there's less players involved, and I think it's a mostly agreed upon position in terms of rankings. And I went with ones I think are clear cut, too, because I almost included Philly/New England, too. But, IMO, if we're ranking these three teams 8+ at RB, there's a flaw with the system. And I believe it's around the way depth is graded here. But just looking at these three, each of these teams had bad running games last year. Plain and simple. Oakland was the best, at 25th in the NFL, and they're the one of the three that made a major (and I use that term generously) addition at the position group with Doug Martin. The Lions did acquire Kerryon Johnson, but we're being reserved with rookies, per you. But basic point, these were bad running games last year, and each team currently has more or less the same guy atop the depth chart. Cincy still has Bernard/Mixon, Detroit still has Riddick/Abdullah, Oakland still has Lynch. Now I'm a big Theo Riddick fan, and I know some love Joe Mixon next year, but as it stands, I think it is safe to say that all of those players are average or below average starting RBs. Good contributors, but average at best starters. None of them are better than Bell, Gurley, Johnson, Hunt, McCoy, Howard, Ingram, Kamara, Elliott, Lewis, Fournette, Gordon, Freeman, Collins, Henry, Ajayi, and maybe a few others (if we want to quibble over a few there, I'm fine with it, but point stands, average at best.) So I'm assuming each of these guys got 3's for their starters? Because they could not have been worse than a 3, to hit 8 or above. I'd disagree with that, first of all, because some of these are definite 2s for starters, IMO, but that's beside the point that these are units that absolutely are getting higher scores because their backups are equally mediocre as their starters. Because Doug Martin is as bad as Marshawn Lynch, they get a 3+5. Or maybe it's for Jalen Richard? I don't know. Because Mixon is as unproven as Bernard is mediocre, they probably get a 3+5. It just seems like a method that rewards stacked mediocrity. If money is off the table, I would never in a million years take Lynch/Martin/Richard/Washington over Le'Veon Bell, Conner, Toussaint, and Ridley. Bell's greatness outweighs the fact that Martin is slightly closer to proven mediocrity than Conner. I'd take LeSean McCoy, who is great, with some mediocre backups in Ivory and Jones, over Detroit's 4 mediocre RBs. I get that depth is the point of the thread, but it just feels like a quantity over quality approach, at a glance. You'll get graded higher with a bunch of mediocrity than with a bit of greatness. It leads to things like the set above, and the Jets being one of the 6 teams rated 8+ at QB, the Ravens being a top TE team, etc. I honestly think you'd get a better ranking if you just graded the unit as a whole out of 10, and weighed depth personally, rather than separating the two and setting a standard for grading depth that is partially weighted by the quality of the starters. I also just straight disagree with some, to be honest. The Jets and Packers both being 8+ in QB seems confusing for opposite reasons. I assume the Packers get 5 at starter, but man they're screwed if Rodgers goes down, so your depth scoring chart should have that as a 1. On the flip side I assume the Jets got a 5 in depth since not much changes if their starter gets hurt, but how one of their QBs is currently an average or better starting QB to get it to 8+ confounds me. I'd really like to know what you see at TE for Baltimore to put them at 8+, given you're being conservative on rookies. Not sure if I missed some addition at CB for the Bucs that puts them up there. Did Hargreaves take a leap? Not seeing the hate for our OL either. Or the Rams OL, for that matter. Though maybe that's just a side effect of there being 11 low graded OLs. Everyone gets crapped on for depth there?
  2. Deadpool 2

    Just got out of seeing it. Quite enjoyed it. Was a bit weird tonally in spots, with them trying to get Deadpool some actual plot and character development. It turned out okay, but the stretches of seriousness felt a little odd at times, for me. And I wasn't a big fan of the kid. Otherwise really liked it. Domino was spectacular. I loved the parachuting scene all over. Brolin was amazing again. Some fantastic cameos and call backs to the original and to other movies. I'm not sure whether I'd say it was better or worse than the first. It's a tough comparison to make objectively, because I do think it suffers from no longer being new. Deadpool felt completely unique, Deadpool 2 is still that, but the original already did it, so the impact of that is somewhat gone. Had the same feeling with GOTG 2. Same with the second Kingsmen. So I feel like Deadpool 1 seems better to me, but I think that's just timing.
  3. 1984 49ers vs 1985 Bears

    I kind of feel like the difference has basically just been the Patriots. The Patriots are in 8 of those 12 one score games, and none of the 7 that weren't one score. Non-Pats superbowls since '99 have been 4 out of 11 one score games. The fact that the Pats dynasty has no blowout wins is weird, historically. Every other major dynasty had at least one where they kinda just steamrolled somebody.
  4. 1984 49ers vs 1985 Bears

    I'd argue the bigger deal was San Fran abandoning the run game. Those 67 yards came on just 10 carries by their RBs. While Montana had 29 attempts for 160 yards, two "rushes" for 0 yards, and was sacked 7 times. Penalties didn't help them either. But they were successful enough when running, they just chose to pass instead and failed terribly while doing so.
  5. Ultimate Specialty Players 2018

    Henderson was a UDFA. As were most of the top pure returners. Greg Stroman might be the closest you get to a guy drafted mostly just to return kicks. Though I've seen at least a few outlets praise him as having potential to at least be a slot corner at some point. Just some serious size/strength issues. Anyone higher I can think of was drafted with the definite expectation of contributing on O or D. The rest were basically UDFAs. Which is fairly standard, I think. You don't invest the draft pick if you don't think you can turn them into something more worthy of a roster spot. Having a good return man can be great, but they have to be spectacular to warrant an active roster spot without being able to play some O or D.
  6. Browns finalizing trade to send Jamar Taylor to Cardinals

    The only person Terrance Mitchell is capable of making expendable is Terrance Mitchell.
  7. Your Team: What are you most looking forward to?

    Patrick Mahomes, no question. Skill positions are stacked. Maybe the most talented offense Andy Reid has had. And we have a young gunslinger taking the starting job. It will be exciting.
  8. ***Spoiler Thread*** Avengers: Infinity Wars

    It's really just good writing for the universe as a whole. Because ultimately it all adds up to the strongest villain attacking at the weakest time, which will make it all the more fulfilling and satisfying when they regroup to win. We've seen solo movies botch that kind of arc/development. Awesome to get it over the course of a few years worth of movies.
  9. So you don't think Reed will lead the league in yards.
  10. Deepest Team Rankings

    Quick clarifying question, here. The bold, and the bullet points there, make it seem as though you're grading depth as a measurement of the gap between the starter and the depth. Would that not favor a team that has two mediocre players at one position, as opposed to a team that has a great player and a mediocre one? Because the former would have it's starter graded lower, but there'd be no drop off in event of injury. The latter would have a more highly graded starter, but they'd be punished for the fact that their backup, while good depth, is nowhere near as good as the guy ahead of him on the depth chart. Wouldn't it make more sense just to grade the quality of backups as opposed to grading it as a function of the difference between starter and backup? Otherwise, a team with a top tier starter and mediocre backup might be 5 at starter and 1 at depth, while a team with a mediocre starter and a mediocre backup might be 3 at starter and 5 at depth. Putting them higher. And I'm all for praising depth, but at several positions I'd rather one star than two mediocre guys. And this may not be how you've done it, it's just kind of the impression I get from the sections I quoted.
  11. ***Spoiler Thread*** Avengers: Infinity Wars

    Can verify, read it all, not as interesting as one would hope.
  12. ***Spoiler Thread*** Avengers: Infinity Wars

    To further add to this, even if Odin wouldn't have interfered with him collecting the stones for a bit, he CERTAINLY would've stepped in the second Thanos got involved on Nidavellir. One of the Nine Realms, and without it's own internal protectors (like Earth has with the Avengers.) I could see Odin not caring about Xandar or maybe even Nowhere, and maybe just sending Thor to help if he went for Earth, but he definitely would've stepped in on Nidavellir. Thanos taking action really coincided with a number of substantial weakenings of universal protectors, honestly. Odin would've intervened at some point. As powerful as Doctor Strange is he wouldn't have a reputation at this point to rival the Ancient One. And it's safe to presume that Thanos was monitoring Earth after the first Avengers, and you have a pretty public weakening of the group there too. At a glance, Xandar's Nova Corps may have looked like the biggest resistance left. But that's more the kind of threat that a Chitauri army can handle.
  13. This is America

    Just what we expect from ET. When there's moderating to be done, he leaves the thread
  14. This is America

    Like the video from a quality standpoint, generally a fan of the message, despise the music, but I don't really think I'm who would be expected to like that music anyways (not a genre I normally go with) Doubt I could get into further detail on anything without stretching the rules, so I'll leave it at that.
  15. That has it's own flaws too, really. It's much harder for Mahomes to improve on what the Chiefs O did last year than for Smith to improve on what the Redskins O did last year. If the Chiefs stay pat ranking wise (6th in points, 5th in yards) Mahomes probably had a better year than Smith if the Skins also stay pat rankings wise (16th in yards and points), for instance. Smith had a better year last year than Mahomes, so Mahomes is really trying to replace a better performance, making that a bit harder for him. I'm glad we moved on, but I'll still admit Smith was an MVP candidate for like half a season last year, and for good reason.