Around the League

Piston Pete · Post #181 » by **Piston Pete** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:15 am

Then likewise, you can't be that certain he won't succeed.

TSE · Post #182 » by **TSE** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:19 am

That's why my strategy takes into account BOTH options, to keep him or not to keep him. And if we keep him, to bust or not to bust. Those are the dynamics at play. You set the probabilities and the values for what you feel they are, and when I do that, the odds are well in our favor to trade Stafford. Everything lines up perfectly that way if you look at the big picture in how it will affect the franchise in terms of becoming an elite dynasty team.

That's why my plan is so foolproof. Keep the subjective stuff out of it, from an analytical and logical point of view. If you can use logic and common sense, and deduction, and rational thinking along with a creative mind, then you can make sure that every transaction you make is logically foolproof in theory. That way you won't win every move you make, but you will not take on any unnecessary risk exposure than you have to. Maximize your odds of total overall success with every decision as it relates to the overall franchise, and then leave the subjective stuff to serve as a bonus modifier or detractor based upon your evaluation skill. Mayhew gets caught in the middle of these 2 worlds colliding, and then it squeezes out some of the options from the consideration set that he SHOULD be examining when determining how to win a Super Bowl.

Bottom line, is I KNOW I have this stuff down to a science, and I KNOW what the best way to build a football team is for a team of our nature and shape, and it's not anything like what Mayhew is doing. Conclusion...Detroit, we have a problem.

Bartender · Post #183 » by **Bartender** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:55 pm

This will make some people mad, but according to ESPN, Jeff Backus is the best LT in our division

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth

TSE · Post #184 » by **TSE** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:26 pm

Why who do you think the best Tackle is? I thought that I heard recently that McKinnie might have a serious problem and that could make him a big liability for the future if he can't get healthy. Backus seems like the best LT in the division to me.

Bartender · Post #185 » by **Bartender** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:14 pm

TSE wrote:Why who do you think the best Tackle is? I thought that I heard recently that McKinnie might have a serious problem and that could make him a big liability for the future if he can't get healthy. Backus seems like the best LT in the division to me.

I agree that Backus is the best LT in the division... I was talking about the Backus haters that post here.

TSE · Post #186 » by **TSE** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:18 pm

Well the Backus haters will always have a good point. Backus IS a good football player, but he's old and makes a lot of money, and it's better to have great players in place of good, or superstar players in place of great. There exists room to get a better LT, a cheaper LT, and a younger LT, and LT is extremely important, so still lots of reasons to want Backus gone regardless of the notion that he's the best LT in the division.

Bartender · Post #187 » by **Bartender** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:11 pm

I would rather move Backus to LG then just get rid of him. Whether we replace Backus or not, we still have a huge hole at LG and by replacing our LG hole with Backus and drafting Okung, we fix two huge holes with one pick. Just the way I see it. What do you think, TSE?

TSE · Post #188 » by **TSE** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:28 pm

Hate the idea.

Manny Ramirez is arguably the strongest guy on the team (between him and Landon Cohen) and this is the year we really find out how he develops. He has the physical tools to be a Pro Bowl Guard. He needs nothing more than to refine his technique, and I'm anxiously waiting to see if he puts his game together. Putting Backus at Guard is exactly the type of thing that got us into this mess in the first place. My whole life we never gambled on prospects/young players at the proper times, and in other cases we played them but not quite long enough to see them through. In fact we had a few good players over the last 10 years that eventually became really great with other teams, and we would have found out they were great if we would have just showed some patience for once when a guy actually deserves patience. Instead we are overly patient with reject players that don't even deserve a job in the league let alone on our team. Good grief.

chrbal · Post #189 » by **chrbal** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:59 pm

TSE wrote: In fact we had a few good players over the last 10 years that eventually became really great with other teams, and we would have found out they were great if we would have just showed some patience for once when a guy actually deserves patience.

Like who?

TSE · Post #190 » by **TSE** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:16 pm

Sorry can't answer that offhand would have to dig around for the list which I know I've posted on some other board before but I don't have time to try and resurrect names from the past. But really it's not important enough to spend that much time on. The biggest problems with this team start with picking which guys should be here in the first place. Most of the guys that we lost out on were obvious draft picks that made more sense than all the picks we actually made. There all all kinds of stars in the NFL that would be on my team if I was drafting, because I never make an illogical draft pick. That is impossible for me to do. Yet NFL teams do it ALL the time.

chrbal · Post #191 » by **chrbal** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:21 pm

Its a shame that you don't think highly of yourself.
You really should go into politics.

TSE · Post #192 » by **TSE** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:23 pm

Well I do dabble in politics as well already, good call.

chrbal · Post #193 » by **chrbal** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:13 pm

A lot of your posts seem like political answers you'd see on cable news shows when someone doesn't want to answer anything.

TSE · Post #194 » by **TSE** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:08 pm

A lot of times when people feel that way, the problem is because people often ask bad questions that don't spark the answers they hope or intend to hear. Stupid questions get stupid answers, and vague questions gets vague answers. Remarkable and brilliant questions will force me to give brilliant answers in return. I give people what they ask, somebody says they have a question, well I answer that question, and not necessarily anything more. Depends on the situation. If the situation qualifies for it, then naturally I will offer to the question poser an amended question that will result in me giving them an epiphany of a response that directly answers that which they were intending to learn with their inadequate question. It shouldn't reflect negatively on me if the next 100 people just want to ask me the question of what cereal I like. If that's the questions you want to ask, that's up to you, but don't act like I have nothing interesting to say because I'm talking about cereal all the time. It's not my choice to talk about cereal, i'm merely obliging out of common courtesy.

I'm a resource to provide all kinds of fantastic answers and posts, and the community here should feel free to at any time to take advantage of that option and communicate with me in a logical and professional manner. But if you just want to keep asking lame questions about why I like corn flakes, then we can keep having conversations about menial things where nothing groundbreaking is ever discussed. I'm not really looking to be active on sports boards anymore, I consider myself halfway retired from Internet posting. I'm pretty much limiting my posts to just replying when necessary and making comments from time to time just so you don't get worried and think I forgot about all you guys.

Liqourish · Post #195 » by **Liqourish** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 1:52 am

McNabb traded to Redskins. Which is actually good for us. Means Redskins aren't likely to draft a QB with their 1st pick. Meaning Bradford is more likely to think about signing a deal with St. Louis pre-draft. Redskins getting Bradford was really our only obstacle for getting Suh @ 2. Does Bradford really want to drop down to the Browns? I'd take the #1 money before the team changes their minds.

Bartender · Post #196 » by **Bartender** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 4:00 am

Makes no sense to me! Why would Philly trade McNabb to a divisional rival and why would Washington give a 1st round tender on Jason Campbell if they don't play to use him? They could have put a 2nd or 3rd round tender on him and some team might of bit and Washington gains an extra draft pick OR they save money.... regardless, it makes no sense giving Campbell that high of a tender if they wanted to replace him.

Liqourish · Post #197 » by **Liqourish** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 11:51 am

Well to be honest, Bradford not going to St. Louis was the Lions only chance of moving down. Lions could have dangled Bradford at #2 for Washington, Buffalo, Cleveland, Seattle to fight over. Now Bradford is a lock to go #1. I don't see any team moving up to take Jimmy Clausen at #2. He's going to drop.

That leaves the tackles.

TSE · Post #198 » by **TSE** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 3:23 pm

Bartender wrote:Makes no sense to me! Why would Philly trade McNabb to a divisional rival and why would Washington give a 1st round tender on Jason Campbell if they don't play to use him? They could have put a 2nd or 3rd round tender on him and some team might of bit and Washington gains an extra draft pick OR they save money.... regardless, it makes no sense giving Campbell that high of a tender if they wanted to replace him.

I have to agree. Didn't like the trade for Philly and it's a small price to pay for WAS for a chance to have a solid QB to give them a shot to do whatever the rest of their team is worth (which I still have some issues with, I've just hated how bad they've blown their opportunities to bring everything together).

TSE · Post #199 » by **TSE** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 3:28 pm

Liqourish wrote:Well to be honest, Bradford not going to St. Louis was the Lions only chance of moving down. Lions could have dangled Bradford at #2 for Washington, Buffalo, Cleveland, Seattle to fight over. Now Bradford is a lock to go #1. I don't see any team moving up to take Jimmy Clausen at #2. He's going to drop.

That leaves the tackles.

And TB trading for Suh is still open, which is the first trade we should hope to make anyhow. Although my gut tells me that the best deal for us at the last minute is going to be trading the 2 pick to somebody a little bit farther down. If the dynamics at the top don't play out where we can fall back 1-4 spots only, then look for that bigger deal from somebody else.

Bartender · Post #200 » by **Bartender** » Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:10 pm

TSE wrote:
Bartender wrote:Makes no sense to me! Why would Philly trade McNabb to a divisional rival and why would Washington give a 1st round tender on Jason Campbell if they don't play to use him? They could have put a 2nd or 3rd round tender on him and some team might of bit and Washington gains an extra draft pick OR they save money.... regardless, it makes no sense giving Campbell that high of a tender if they wanted to replace him.

I have to agree. Didn't like the trade for Philly and it's a small price to pay for WAS for a chance to have a solid QB to give them a shot to do whatever the rest of their team is worth (which I still have some issues with, I've just hated how bad they've blown their opportunities to bring everything together).

Don't get me wrong... great move by Washington. I just don't think it made any since to give a 1st round tender on Jason Campbell. That's extra money and a potential 2nd or 3rd round draft pick they missed out on to keep him as the backup.