Discussion in 'Sports Talk' started by Timsup2nothin, Dec 26, 2018.
my point exactly
I hope most mock drafts are wrong. Particularly about teams taking Quarterbacks in the first round.
None of the QBs in this draft are particularly good other than Kyler Murray, and the Cardinals shouldn't get him unless they can acquire at least acceptable trade value for Rosen. I honestly see the Giants getting tricked by the Bucs pretending they want Murray (yes I think he'll still be on the board at #5), and the Giants sacrifice a truckload of pics to the Bucs to get their guy. It should be pretty similar to what Colts did to the Jets for Sam Darnold or what The 49ers did to the Bears for Trubisky.
I don't think the Broncos should take a QB at #10 either. Too many other players that can legitimately improve the team more than a mediocre QB (which they already have in Flacco)
Flacco is washed up, and has been since winning the SB. He pulled off the epic fleece on Baltimore by snagging a SB win in his contract year.
I don't think he was washed up, I think his fleecing of Baltimore left them unable to stay competitive. I think Aaron Rodgers is demonstrating that no quarterback can win if they are getting paid that kind of money. If his talent isn't enough to make up for the cutting corners everywhere else on the roster that is required then I doubt anyone else is going to be talented enough.
I think I've mentioned before the rumors that Brady forgoes salary increases and offers to take pay cuts in order to keep/acquire good players on the team.
Getting a playmaker at #10 gives the better chances of winning games than any QB in the draft other than possibly Murray.
I think it would be more accurate to say "He got epic leverage on Baltimore by snagging an SB" - it put the organization into a lose-lose situation. If they let Flacco walk, and he shows that the SB year was no fluke, it's bad. Then there is what acutally happened - they decided not to risk the first scenario and discovered the SB season *was* a fluke.
First, as someone who hikes I was initially confused by those initials - 'WTF does the Bureau of Land Management have to do with the NFL?' but then the light bulb lit.
As a general thing, I wish the NFL would make the same deal with their players that the NBA did - You (players) don't bring politics to the games, but feel free to be as poltical/activist as you wish at all other times. And no, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I think I've mentioned before that the more likely reason that Brady plays for ten million plus below his market value is because the Cheatriots are giving him off the books compensation to circumvent the salary cap. It's the Cheatriot way.
And having the endorsement deals that he does have and a wealthy wife probably doesn't hurt either. But I'll agree he's probably getting something under the table.
Is there anyone who has played through two NFL contracts that can legitimately say "I need the maximum money"? I think not, so the whole "well, rich wife, big endorsement deals" argument sort of falls flat for me. Then the clincher, IMO, was when Gronkowski signed on to be the sixth highest paid tight end in the league. By my estimate there were thirty-one teams willing to make him the highest paid tight end in the league, which, as at the time he was by far the best tight end in the league was appropriate. But there he was, fitting handily under the cap in Cheatriot town for the duration of his career. Now that he's retired anyone want to bet whether he draws a million dollar salary as a consultant somewhere in the Kraft empire for the next several years?
For a lot of those other players there's a lot of pride involved. I honestly don't think that's the case with Brady. He's already won and is already considered my many to be the GOAT. But not dismissing the under the table possibilities.
I think you greatly underestimate the allure of winning games and ultimately championships... As you've pointed out... they don't need the money... they literally have enough money to buy just about whatever their heart desires... so its not about the money... its about getting what money can't buy, at least not outright... and that is greatness, championships, records, legacy. I can definitely buy the idea that some guys are willing to give up a salary increase to chase the brass ring instead and become legends of their sport instead of "highest paid". To say nothing of the value of not uprooting your family, having to sell your dream home and relocate... Money just isn't everything... and the more you have the less important it becomes.
I mean to me its self evident... I get job offers all the time to make twice what I currently make, but it would mean I'd be missing my kids games, missing time with my family, on the road for hours a day, losing too much autonomy, etc... its just not worth it.
Gronk did not play remotely near “best tight end in the league by far” quality of standards during his time with that contract.
The other 31 teams in the NFL should, if anything, be relieved that they did not make that huge mistake.
When he wasn't injured he actually did. That may say more about the rest of the tight ends in the league than it says about him. There is not a "receiving" tight end that was markedly better than he was as a receiver, and there was not a "blocking" tight end that was markedly better than he was as a blocker. Putting those two things together made him worth more than anyone else out there at the time.
Notice how the only players who seem to be affected by this "just happen" to play for the Cheatriots? And unless I missed something Gronkowski's home is in Buffalo so relocation doesn't seem to be an issue.
Gronks performance this last year (while he was signed to the new contract) he was awful if he’s supposed to be “best tight end in the league by far.”
So, which tight end do you think would do better on a team with no wide receivers?
He was clearly a shadow of his former self that year. Why do you think he retired?
I didn't say it was his best year. The question was, who would have been better? Most receiving tight ends get a huge benefit from coverage, because the defense looks at them as the third option. There is some guy on the outside with "take it to the house" written on the bottom of his shoes where you see it while you chase him. There's another wide receiver on the other side who would be doubled if not for the guy with the shoes. Then there's some tight end. No other tight end draws double coverage pretty much ever*, but since Gronkowski was the only threat the Cheatriots fielded for most of the season that doesn't apply to him. There are some challengers if we go 'all time,' like Tony G and Antonio Gates, who were well past their prime by then, or outright retired, and old timers like Kellen Winslow, but there was no one on an NFL roster that would have been better under those circumstances.
*Jimmy Graham gets doubled, but Jimmy Graham is excluded from conversations about 'best tight end' because when you say block he thinks you mean the thing sliced cheese comes from.
Gronk was getting triple covered by the end of his last few seasons. In fact, that sole TD the Pats scored in the Superbowl was set up by Gronk catching a bomb near the goal line in triple coverage. He's virtually unrecoverable, bad knees and all.
Separate names with a comma.