Jump to content

NFL News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Leader said:

Peter Bukowski -   This is why people who would rather be the Bucs and be crappy for long periods of time between Super Bowls are just wrong.

The Packers have been the most consistent franchise East of Foxborough for the last two decades but let’s talk about wasting primes and not wanting to be great. It’s really hard to be really good for a really long time.

The people who saying things like “I’d trade 10 years of good seasons for a Super Bowl” are all under 30. And that’s fine. That’s their experience. But like no Brewers fan is saying that same thing because they haven’t been consistently good for the last 20+ years.

We can easily settle this too. Over the last 10 years, which franchise has been more successful:

One is 60-100 with 1 playoff trip and 8 losing seasons but has a Super Bowl

The other is 105-53-2 with 8 playoff trips, 2 losing seasons and no Super Bowl.

Put another way: The Packers "only" have 2 Super Bowl wins in the Favre/Rodgers era. 25 years, 2 wins.

That's more than 18 other teams have in their entire existence. More than half the league.

Vikings and Bears fans would kill to have such failures.

The biggest folly in this classic debate of “consistency” vs “all-in” is that people on the all-in side debate from the position that going all-in ensures a Super Bowl. It doesn’t. There’s no magic button here. But simply because Tampa Bay won one, everyone arguing for this applies this sort of logic.

If you asked me if I would trade 5-10 years of irrelevancy for 1 SB next year, I would say yes, of course. But you would have to guarantee me that in advance. Simply going all-in doesn’t guarantee that.
 

Tampa Bay was either one less Aaron Jones fumble, or one more Kevin King pass deflection away from not winning that game. It is absurd to think that they did anything that guaranteed anything. There simply isn’t a template for winning super bowls. 
 

Edited by Isherwood
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Isherwood said:

If you asked me if I would trade 5-10 years of irrelevancy for 1 SB next year, I would say yes, of course. But you would have to guarantee me that in advance. Simply going all-in doesn’t guarantee that.
 

How about if the same deal was offered, but you were then fast forwarded to the year after you won the SB, so all you had to look forward to was the looooong period of 5-10 years of being rubbish.  It's all about where you are along that timeline. At the start, it looks good, from then on, awful...........and maybe you didn't even have the SB as a warm memory of that first year, because all-in guaranteed nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Good point .. that guy is so clearly a stud and game changer out there on the field.

That's the whole point. I'm not trying to be snarky, but you can't simply go by a set of numbers on a chart in every situation when you're drafting talent. Players matter. White is a difference maker who transcends the typical trends against drafting a 1st round ILB, especially in the top 10. The Bucs don't win the SB last year without him. He was the MVP of the Super Bowl (even though they gave it to Brady for basically doing nothing). White was a home run pick for Tampa. 

I think overall, the article points out some interesting concepts and general guidelines to live by, but there are obvious exceptions to be made.

I also like how the article basically says that WR is the most valuable position in the draft after QB/LT/EDGE. I doubt that view is shared by many on this forum given past sentiment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

That's the whole point. I'm not trying to be snarky, but you can't simply go by a set of numbers on a chart in every situation when you're drafting talent. Players matter. White is a difference maker who transcends the typical trends against drafting a 1st round ILB, especially in the top 10. The Bucs don't win the SB last year without him. He was the MVP of the Super Bowl (even though they gave it to Brady for basically doing nothing). White was a home run pick for Tampa. 

I think overall, the article points out some interesting concepts and general guidelines to live by, but there are obvious exceptions to be made.

I also like how the article basically says that WR is the most valuable position in the draft after QB/LT/EDGE. I doubt that view is shared by many on this forum given past sentiment...

You're literally ignoring an enormous caveat they explicitly pointed out. These are not stupid people that wrote the article. They literally said it doesn't matter if the player is "good" or not when examining this dataset.

The obvious counter is that a couple good seasons from an ILB doesn't outweigh the potential 2 decades of QB play that potentially COULD have been available.

Obviously they don't factor in who was available at each pick, either, but the critiques you bring up were already addressed within the article and explained away.

*Edit - To your point though. I agree TB is likely very happy with their pick. I think a more robust article would somehow "normalize" the lost value score by looking at which positions were subsequently picked. i.e. mathematically account for who was available by looking at the next 5-10 picks or so.

In White's case, a QB was the very next pick, so the GMs "lost value" potential is likely maximized, however. 

Edited by incognito_man
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2021 at 9:18 AM, packfanfb said:

That's the whole point. I'm not trying to be snarky, but you can't simply go by a set of numbers on a chart in every situation when you're drafting talent. Players matter. White is a difference maker who transcends the typical trends against drafting a 1st round ILB, especially in the top 10. The Bucs don't win the SB last year without him. He was the MVP of the Super Bowl (even though they gave it to Brady for basically doing nothing). White was a home run pick for Tampa. 

I think overall, the article points out some interesting concepts and general guidelines to live by, but there are obvious exceptions to be made.

I also like how the article basically says that WR is the most valuable position in the draft after QB/LT/EDGE. I doubt that view is shared by many on this forum given past sentiment...

You watched the super bowl? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren Sharp -    # of first half drives ending with TDs

39 GB
38
37
36
35
34
33
32 NO
31 BUF, TB, IND, TEN
29
28 BAL, KC
27
26 CLE
25 LAC
24 SEA, DET
23 LV, ARI
22 PIT, MIN
21 ATL, CAR, SF
20 PHI
19 DAL, MIA, CHI, HOU
18 LAR, CIN
17
16
15
14 NYG, JAX
13 WAS
12 NYJ, NE
11 DEN

  • Andrew Brandt  -   But the Packers didn’t draft a receiver...

 

Edited by Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...