Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Holy Schneikes

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Holy Schneikes

  1. Kalso didn't "voluntarily" retire in his prime to serve his country. He was fulfilling his ROTC obligation. That doesn't make Kalso's sacrifice any less, but it is a meaningfully different scenario. Tillman was a fairly unique guy who made a fairly unique decision. I also disagree that he was not a good football player - he was. He wasn't a HOF worthy NFL player though and he shouldn't be in the Hall as a player.
  2. They can pull the tag any time before the deal that goes along with it is signed. After it is signed, like Hankmoody said, Cousins is going to get that money from the Skins or another team they trade him to. The only other possibility is that Cousins signs a different deal with either team (obviously not going to happen with the Skins). I can't imagine the Skins will be dumb enough to do this AGAIN.
  3. To the folks concerned about Howard's situation this year... How much worse is it going to be than last year? From week 3 on (when he began to start), he was the #7 RB. On a 3-13 team with 3 different starting QB, all of whom sucked pretty badly, with very few good receiving options to open things up for him, he still managed to put up 5.2 YPC - good for 2nd in the league behind McCoy. When Jeffery, the only really good skill position player they had, went out at the end of the season the team sucked harder than ever, but Howard's numbers went UP. There is no guarantee he will repeat his success this year, but from a team and supporting cast perspective, there is a whole lot more room for them to get better than to get worse.
  4. The risk is real, but it is low. If he has a mediocre/slightly bad season, he won't get top dollar, but almost certainly someone will give him at least as much as his extension would have netted him in new guaranteed money. Cap will go up, and even a bottom half guy will command $30M in guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Similarly, if he has a bad injury, his price will go down, but how much? It's not like a back who shreds his knee and is forever "damaged goods". Unless he tears up his throwing shoulder or something crazy, it will drop him but not down to nothing. Too many teams need serviceable QBs. If he has a truly AWFUL season that indicates he's not really a viable starter going forward, yeah, he might end up regretting passing on the longer term deal. But that doesn't seem to be his mindset and it would really have to be a very bad season before it would drop him out of the range the Skins essentially offered him.
  5. They never countered, and I don't see why they would. The Skins (still) seem to be in denial and Kirk's team recognized that fact. Why bother when you have a perfectly good guarantee sitting right in front of you? All of the motivation to make a deal was on the Skins' side and if they never presented anything close to reasonable (especially until VERY late in the game), why bother to counter? I'm sure they talked about what it would take, but no formal offer was made because it was always fairly clear the Skins weren't going to seriously over-pay - which is would have taken to get the deal done. In their minds, the offer the Skins threw out there was AMAZING. But given the actual situation, it was mediocre at best. It was a bridge too far.
  6. I find this whole thing fairly fascinating. On one hand, I tend to agree that Cousins is NOT a top 3 or 4 type QB. He may not be top 10. So I understand not backing up the armored car to secure his services forever. On the other hand, even given that, it seems like the Redskins have badly bungled this. Even if EVERYONE agreed Cousins was not an upper echelon guy, the Skins still totally lowballed him in 2015. In theory, offers in the past shouldn't impact value going forward, but that's gotta stick in the back of Kirk's mind. Then they tag him, which by definition indicates that he's an upper echelon guy. I think they kind of assumed "everybody hates the tag, so we'll use it as a tool and nothing else". But the tag was PERFECT for Cousins and his team was smart enough to recognize it. I've always said that the tag isn't nearly as bad for players as it is made out to be, at least in certain cases. He got paid for one year (fully guaranteed) in 2016 about as much as they were looking to guarantee him for his whole extension originally. And now he can do it all over again in 2017 (only better). The Skins are now offering reasonable franchise money, but they handed over so much leverage early on that it only makes sense for him to sign if they significantly OVER-pay him which they don't want to do. They were trying to have their cake and eat it too, but got burned. They could have let him go or slightly overpaid him in 2015 (or 2016). They didn't believe he was a franchise guy in 2015 based on their offers, but used the franchise tag anyway and set themselves up for a lot of pain. I doubt Kirk WANTS to play on a year by year basis, the Skins just made that his best financial option and now don't want to deal with that reality. So he's already guaranteed 24M in 2017. So the Skins offer really boils down to 29M new guaranteed money (with unknown total money) for 5 additional years which is very reasonable, but something he could equal or eclipse fairly easily next year. Carr just got 40M in real guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Luck got 44M. Osweiler was guaranteed 37M at signing on a 4 year deal. So despite their claims of this massive of this massive record breaking deal (which from one perspective it truly would be), it doesn't take into consideration the reality of the existing guarantee. Oh and BTW, unless the Skins team gets even worse than they have been to date, no tag makes sense in 2018. Allen talks about a 3rd tag as if it is some kind of real bargaining chip they have, but Kirk would be thrilled to play for 35M guaranteed for one year in 2018 under the franchise tag again (79M in three years for a guy they don't want to give a lot of money to?). Not sure who they are trying to fool with that. Even the transition tag would be about 29M - about the same as the net guaranteed money of his 5 year extension offer. May as well get all of that money in one year too and then start again...
  7. The exact concussion concern scale: 1 not a big deal. 2 not that big a deal 3 not a huge deal, but a little concerning 4 Houston, we have a problem 5 This probably means football isn't for you anymore 6 Too late, the 5th one scrambled your brain so much that you don't recognize the 6th one is one too many Seriously, of course there is nothing magic between 5 and 6, but it most definitely DOES matter how many you get, and every additional one is worse - especially during a relatively short period of time. People WERE freaking out about the 5th one, and rightfully so. And now people are freaking out about this one. That doesn't mean he can't or won't come back. But every one makes it more likely he won't, and eventually the league or team doctors etc will step in and make the decision for him.
  8. I was initially outraged. I thought it was just another self-aggrandizing moment by a prima-donna athlete. I didn't think it was the appropriate protest. I felt it was disrespectful. But the thing is, there are very rarely protests that are 100% appropriate and effective at the same time. The whole thing still makes me queasy, and I don't really "support" the action. It's hard to say "I love America" ans then basically indicate the opposite by disrespecting the American anthem. Either you love it, or you don't. That doesn't mean you can't hate things ABOUT the country and still love the country - but is sitting through the anthem making that statement? Not to me. But I don't hate the whole thing as much as I did at first. I think the guy is mostly sincere about what he is doing, which is more than a lot of folks can say.
  9. I came in for this reason. That fro is MAGNIFICENT. Seriously. This white dude is not being sarcastic in the least, so jealous.
  10. Splitting hairs I guess, and I can't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that NFL players can be cut for any reason simply because teams don't even have to GIVE a reason. In this case, his performance will make any questioning of the reasoning for the cut difficult at best. But even if he was the best player in the league, they could still cut him if they wanted to and not say a word about why, even if it were obvious.
  11. Fair enough. We agree on most of that. I just very often see people talking about free speech as if that means you can't be let go because of what you say... There are written rules and there are unwritten rules. And the post you responded to may well be referring to a very similar situation. The "rules" would likely not be very specific in either case. And in Kap's case, they are likely to be tougher in general because of the very public nature of his job.
  12. Folks always seem to confuse these issues. There are considerable differences between... What is legal Yep, he's legal alright What is right Not for me to say... What is against the rules Probably not against any specific rule What you can get fired for In many states, nearly anything What you can get released from an NFL team for Pretty much anything You can apply the same questions and get the same answers for releasing a public statement saying that you support the legalization of raping children. It's legal and isn't breaking any specific rule, but it could easily get you fired and/or released from an NFL team. I'm NOT trying to equate the two positions, just saying that just because something is legal and within the rules, doesn't mean it can't have repercussions.
  13. I really like that post and I agree with you on many fronts. The league DOES care or at least wants to appear that it cares, or the rule wouldn't be in place at all. Some of the fans care as well, and I'm sure some of the players care too. So a lot of people have strong feelings on this. I also agree that folks who believe in the RR are likely to believe in affirmative action in general (although I do think there is a significant difference in that collegiate affirmative action tends to be in place because there is significant under-representation of certain segments compared to the general population - that is NOT the case here). My main issues are that many proponents aren't being honest with themselves about the goals and the reasons behind the rule. And many of the ones that are honest about them still have trouble defining what the actual goals should be. You can't solve a problem unless you clearly define what the problem is. The reason I mention other minorities is simply to try to force proponents to clarify those reasons and goals for themselves and others. Given the fact that AAs are actually over-represented in the head coaching ranks right now compared to the general population, that clearly isn't a milestone proponents are satisfied with. The only other alternative is what I have been harping on - that in terms of skin color, percentage-wise coaches should look like the players. If THAT isn't the goal, what is? Is there some magic percentage that is acceptable? If so, what is the basis for it? So without reasonable answers to the questions above I am forced to assume roughly equal percentages are the real goal. I have already stated the reasons why I don't think that goal makes sense. Vastly different required skill sets primarily. And I haven't heard any real reasons why that SHOULD be the goal. I just hear that it's a bad look otherwise. And it brings me back to the other minorities which become problematic. If the goal is to make the coaches and executives look like the players, why include Latinos and now women? There certainly isn't a problem there by the assumed guideline. There are no women players and there are no women head coaches. There a few Latino players and one Latino head coach. Asian Americans need not apply. So which is it? Do we want coaches to look like players or not? If so, why? If not, what is the goal? When have we solved the problem? I realize you said you were done with the topic and I respect that, but those are questions I would have for anyone who sees the current situation as a serious problem.
  14. But that is the unwritten goal. If the league achieved 50% Asian coaches and no African American coaches, do you think everyone would be satisfied? The whole "issue" is based on percentage of African American players vs percentage of African American coaches. So the rule may say any ethnic minority qualifies, but that isn't the real point or the real goal, whether folks acknowledge that or not. Can't have it both ways. If it doesn't relate to racial breakdown among players, mission accomplished - there are a higher than expected number of minority head coaches compared to the general population. If it does, the only discrepancy is African American coaches. All the other ethnicities probably round down to zero head coaches.
  15. We are just coming from very different angles on this. I don't care if a coach is a former player, because the two occupations have almost NOTHING to do with each other in terms of actual requirements for the job. Because of that I don't think the ratio of AA players and AA coaches need to be correlated AT ALL. There is no under-representation. None of the math you present is relevant to me because I strongly disagree with the underlying premise - that because a certain percentage of players happens to be of one race, the people COACHING those players have to be of the same race (or have the same racial breakdown). Should the trainers have the same racial breakdown? Equipment managers? Sideline reporters? As for the players, to be blunt about it, I don't much care what they think. Their anger is not going to get to the point where they decide they don't want their 5M/year paychecks. And I'm not actually convinced they even care about it. If a coach is good, a player will play hard for him no matter what color he is. I know some of the general public cares about this "issue", but again - are they going to stop watching the NFL because the percentage of black coaches dips below 70%? To me, the current situation really only looks bad if you aren't looking at it very logically. Let's flip the script for a minute. Just take pro players and their race out of the equation for the sake or argument. Now you just assume that the general population is more less equally capable of being an NFL coach. So you would expect that African Americans would be be represented in the NFL coaching ranks by right around the same percentage as they occur in the overall population - roughly 13%. But by your logic, that naturally occurring percentage would be increased to 68%. By what natural ability do you think African American people in general are 5 times better than Caucasians at coaching football? I can't for the life of me think why that would be. And again, something you haven't really responded to is how to handle other minorities. There are very few people of Asian descent in the NFL. Should they be barred from the coaching ranks? If we are matching ratios, they wouldn't represent one coach out of 32. Women? there are no female players, but I'd bet a woman could be a fine coach. These are the ridiculous natural consequences of assuming the the coaching ranks should have the same percentages as the coaching ranks. And if equal percentages AREN'T the goal, what is and why? What is the arbitrary percentage match we should be striving for?
  16. 1. Players at what level? Pro? College? High School? I think the required skill set to actually perform your job is HIGHLY relevant. Just because coaches are often former players at some level doesn't really mean they HAVE to be. Running fast isn't a requirement for being a good coach, but it IS a requirement for being a good NFL player at most positions. I think the overall percentage of former NFL players in the coaching ranks is dropping (for good reasons). In 2014, the most recent I saw, it was 19%. Not really far off from 16%. 2. You left out the other minorities. Women are considerably more underrepresented than AAs. How many Jewish head coaches are there? Does it matter? Does mixed race count? At what percentage? Do we need to see a family tree? Do all of the percentages in the playing ranks have to be duplicated in the coaching ranks? 3. The Lions weren't right about their actual selection. They were right about the process being broken. But it's a good point - using the Lions as an example of a team that was right about anything is challenging.... 4. Proof is in the puddin. The token interviews are why this thread got started. I guess that doesn't prove they are inevitable, but the SPIRIT of the rule is not enforceable. Only the technical details. So if a team doesn't happen to see a viable minority candidate - Hell even if they are are downright evil racists - they are going to bring someone in just to meet their obligation and move on. You can't prove whether a team is seriously considering a guy or not. 5. Doing nothing would be better than doing something that isn't working and doesn't make sense. The only thing that would "work" would be to require teams to actually hire minorities at some pre-defined ratios - which makes even less sense to me.
  17. There are 5 African American coaches out of 32 in the NFL - about 16% of the league. African Americans represent about 13% of the American population. By that standard, African Americans are over-represented, racially. The only way for this to be seen as a problem is to assume that the best players are the best coaches. If you make that assumption, given the fact that the majority of the best players are African American, most of the head coaches should be be African American. I don't really think that assumption is valid however. It's a different skill set. In fact, it's a VASTLY different skill set. It's a skill set that is probably pretty much equally balanced between the races. I am a Pittsburgh fan, and fairly liberal. I think culturally, it would be a great idea to give new folks a chance whenever possible. But the Rooney rule was destined to "fail". It was never very logical. Why just African Americans? Should teams also be required to interview an ethnic minority? A woman? A religious minority? Can you combine a few categories and interview a black, jewish, hispanic female and knock everything out all at once? The token interviews we have seen is what a rule like this will inevitably lead to. The Lions were right back in 2003. They knew who they wanted and everyone else knew who they wanted as well - including all of the minority potential candidates. So they reached out to minorities for token interviews and unsurprisingly got rejected (and fined). The league doesn't need a rule. If it needs anything on the diversity front, it needs a culture shift.
  18. Very possible. My point is though that waiting isn't going to help. He may never be what he once was, but I think he's still pretty fast in a straight line, and he won't be forever.
  19. So many folks in local media (I'm in DC market) bashing RGIII for a bad decision. But he really didn't have any good options. Bad situation yes, bad decision probably not. Dude got 7 mil guarantee to potentially start, Chase Daniel got guaranteed 12 mil to be a backup. Everybody is saying he should have gone somewhere to be a backup are making the assumption that that was an option on the table, but I'm not sure it was. I'm guessing most teams would rather have a cheap, older, stable backup than Griffin. A guy with a little less flash, but who they can count on in a pinch to know the playbook, make the reads and execute the offense. Griffin ain't that guy. Plus, he's 26. If he goes and sits for a year or two, he's going to START his career again at 27 or 28? Part of his appeal is his athleticism and the prime window for that is closing fast. If I were him I'd go for any starting gig I could get at this point even IF he could get a cush backup gig, which I doubt. He's already done the sit and learn thing last year, and most of the year before that. I have some empathy for Griffin. He's made some mistakes, but who hasn't? It's not like the guy is a thug. He seemed a bit arrogant in his approach to many things, but the kid had never experienced anything but over the moon success in his life and he didn't know how to handle failure. Sure, some would have handled it better than he did, but not that many. If he comes out a little humbler this time, it will be easy for me to root for him. Many are bashing Cleveland as well, saying it was a horrible fit. I totally disagree on that too. They risked virtually nothing on a guy who at one point was a considered an up and coming stud. If there is a 2% chance he'll be viable starter forward, it was a great deal for them. They've got tons of cap, no long term implications and lots of excuses for failure. It makes sense with or without a QB investment at 1.2. If they like a guy, he can hopefully sit a year and learn. If they don't they can take a project QB later and ride with Griffin for a year or two. If he's good or even OK, they can continue the experiment. If he sucks, well, they'll get another premium pick next year. Win-win.
  20. Football is dangerous and crippling in the long term for many players. We've known that for years. We know more now and have better evidence for it now than we used to, but it's not a new phenomenon. So what's going to kill it? Folks are still interested in playing, despite the risks because they ostensibly enjoy it and it comes with a very high financial upside that might not otherwise be possible. It's unlikely to become illegal, because people opt to do highly dangerous activities all the time - as the saying goes, "It a free country.". People still start smoking for example, which is likely a much bigger risk to your health overall. People do other even more "extreme" sports often just for fun, but also for the entertainment of others. You are more likely to die riding a horse than playing football. You are just as likely to have long term frailties resulting from gymnastics as your are from football. That doesn't even start to approach boxing or MMA. The GOAL in those sports is to beat someone unconscious, and MMA is getting more popular every year... When you ask an athletic 18 year old male if he'd give up 10 years of his life for a 10 year career in the NFL with all this it brings, I suspect you are always going to get enough yeses to fill the rosters, and the risks don't really seem to be THAT clear cut. Ask when they are 40 and struggling to get down the stairs and you may get a different answer to "was it worth it", but that's not really what is going to happen. Consumers are more interested in football now than they have ever been, and the trends are still going up. So that doesn't seem to be at risk. There could certainly be more protection requirements implemented or other things of that nature, but that's true of a lot of sports and other activities. Whether you are a fan of government regulation or not, it happens. And there will also very likely be more and more CYA for the NFL. Anything they can do to make it look like they care about the long term health implications they will likely do. But THEY certainly aren't going to try to make any changes that have big impacts on the bottom line. That includes anything that will drop interest level to a significant degree. So it's not going to be outlawed, there will always be guys interested in playing, and a lot of folks are willing to watch and pay. All of which leads back to the original question - "What's going to kill it?".
  21. Those aren't really comparable. One of those guys was the best player at his position by a mile for a year in the NFL. The other guy did almost literally nothing in the NFL.
  22. It's bye week season. A few guys on bye, maybe a guy or two injured and Michael is looking like a decent option. At least for me. Could get you zippy, but so could a lot of other options.
  23. As previously discussed, the issue is that it potentially detracts from other causes that need the funding and the attention more than breast cancer. Personally, I don't get my jollies hoping to prevent breast cancer victims or survivors from enjoying the sight of pink on football players. If a family has a charitable donation budget for a year and it goes to breast cancer research, maybe nothing goes to lung cancer research that year. Of the millions of people who could conceivably be impacted by an awareness campaign, maybe MORE of them could be saved by shifting the focus to areas fewer people know about. I doubt anybody is complaining just to be an #######. I am proposing a change in focus because I think it could make a bigger impact on people's lives. Or save more of them. Cam has it right. His dad died of cancer but that particular form of the disease is not popular or profitable enough, so there is no allowable campaign for it.
  24. Agreed SKINS. Michael is on his last chance, probably even with most of the die-hards. If he can't make it happen very soon, all value will be gone. And you are absolutely right that a highly touted rookie will have a much longer shelf life at this point, no matter how little they've shown so far.
  25. That statement just tells me how unaware you are. Unaware of what? Maybe I should have qualified "all diseases". I'm thinking of things like lung cancer, heart disease, ALS, etc. September is prostrate cancer and ovarian cancer awareness month. Lung cancer awareness month is November. Pancreatic cancer is also November. All are in the middle of the NFL season. How many folks know about those compared to the folks that know about breast cancer awareness month? How many know the colors associated with them? There are probably a few dozen types of cancer alone that have colors associated with their awareness campaigns. And of course there are many more for other serious conditions and diseases. How many can the average person name? How many know the color or month for heart disease which kills 600,000 people per year (about 15 times as many lives as breast cancer)? Now how many folks DON'T know that pink is the color for breast cancer awareness? Breast cancer research also receives more research funding than any other type of cancer. Pancreatic cancer kills about as many people in the US as breast cancer every year. The 5 year survival rate is shockingly low. It receives about a 6th of the funding used for breast cancer research. Lung cancer kills 4 times as many per year and receives less than half the funding. I'm not a doctor, but I'm not uninformed either. I've lost separate immediate family members to pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, and multiple myeloma. I've also lost immediate family to heart disease. I'm guessing most of us have. I'm not at all saying "don't acknowledge breast cancer awareness month". I'm DEFINITELY not trying to downplay the devastation a disease like breast cancer can cause. I'm saying why not put SOME of the breast cancer emphasis on OTHER devastating diseases... Pink has worked REALLY well and I hope it continues to work well, but not at the expense of additional research for every other deadly disease.