|
Post by Moo on Mar 20, 2009 9:06:03 GMT
Story on nfl.com this morning involves trades between Cleveland (who have a spare QB), Detroit and the Jets. Essentially Denver would get a QB and a 2nd rounder, Cleveland would get a couple of draft picks to help their depth and the Jets would get a QB that they need.
Join us next time, when there's a rumour of the Raiders getting involved with some magic beans.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 20, 2009 11:40:46 GMT
Another good reason for the Dolphins to pull the trigger on the trade - to stop the Jets getting him.
Facing Brady and Cutler four times a seasonn wouldn't be too much fun.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 20, 2009 13:53:10 GMT
Totally agree. I hope Detroit get him. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by DC on Mar 21, 2009 0:00:49 GMT
Lions don't have a QB for Denver, though. I don't think that's an issue. With the Lions no longer hunting a QB in the draft any of the top 4 or 5 are supposed to be "good". Denver can then pick up Leftwich for free and use the draft pick to get the LB they need.
|
|
|
Post by elth on Mar 21, 2009 22:16:34 GMT
I'm not entirely sure the Broncos think Leftwich is an adequate replacement for Cutler...
|
|
|
Post by DC on Mar 21, 2009 22:58:13 GMT
He just needs to fit in the system. I don't think Leftwich is particularly deficient to warrant overlooking, not for a team that's going to need a steadying head.
|
|
|
Post by hornet on Mar 23, 2009 13:19:06 GMT
Cutler would be a great pickup for the Jets. I like him - he's a quality quarterback, and excellently chippy.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 23, 2009 13:46:38 GMT
*edit* I swore and didn't need to. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) It would make an interesting AFC East, fo'sho'.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 25, 2009 3:20:22 GMT
"Defensive players on the ground who haven't been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback are now prohibited from diving or lunging at the Quarterback's lower legs."
Jesus Christ, put Tom Brady in a fucking skirt already.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 25, 2009 9:37:21 GMT
I read that and knew it would get a comment. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Question: How would that defender in that situation influence a play other than causing injury? If he has hold of a leg, does that count as a sack or "in the grasp"? (I don't even know if "in the grasp" is still about, I remember it from ages ago.) Isn't the holding the leg thing like when you have an annoying puppy trying to rip the bottom of your jeans off while you're walking about? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 25, 2009 10:22:23 GMT
The best thing for a defender to do when faced with a QB who has the ball is whatever-it-takes-to-knock-the-snot-out-of-them. Supposedly if you have a hold of a QB then the referees are supposed to blow their whistles and call "in the grasp" - of course, sometimes they forget, Baby Manning escapes three players, throws a pass that a receiver catches with his helmet and you lose the superbowl, but hey.
Some of the nonsense that went on last year with players being penalised for breathing on Quarterbacks was nonsensical, but of course the NFL looked at those incidents and decided they hadn't gone far enough. I've little argument with the new Hines Ward rule to protect defenders because it doesn't actually stop Hines Ward from blocking, but the way the QB protection is going the NFL may as well just have Brady and the defenders play laser tag.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 25, 2009 10:41:08 GMT
It's like the breathing on keepers rule in "soccer". I agree it's starting to get silly. But the way the NFL is played now, it's so fast and brutal that there has to be an element of protection for all players. It just so happens that the most important player on the team is the QB and he gets all the attention and the biggest "X" on his chest. I'm not sure what to make about the "lower leg" rule, TBH, as I'm not sure how likely that sort of injury is to happen again. It might be a rule that is going too far. It's going to mean that a player who has been blocked next to the QB is basically a dead body and can't try to sweep a QBs legs over to disrupt the QB. What happens if a QB decides to scramble? Can the dead body then try to trip the QB by grabbing at his feet?
|
|
|
Post by hornet on Mar 25, 2009 13:54:22 GMT
Well, there was Carson "Carlton" Palmer the year before who got injured in a very similar way due to a very similar incident. I'm sure there have been others. Defenders are rapidly running out of places they're allowed to hit the quarterback and as always the Jets are ahead of the curve by making sure they've got nobody on the roster who can get to the QB in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 25, 2009 14:09:25 GMT
And no quarterback either.
|
|
|
Post by hornet on Mar 25, 2009 14:12:28 GMT
It's the taste of a new generation.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Mar 25, 2009 14:15:57 GMT
Eventually people are going to notice our love of the outside corner blitz with a delayed Will backer rush between the end and the corner and we wonm't be reaching the QB either.
Our dline wouldn't scare Tony Eason.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 25, 2009 14:20:12 GMT
I doubt that. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Speaking of which, where's my Tony Eason playing cards, s1ut?
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 31, 2009 7:21:29 GMT
:tumble:
And in other news, I'm sick of reading all of these so-called-experts and their mock drafts. If only I knew of a real expert or two who could come up with a mock draft of their own.
Shame.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Mar 31, 2009 11:55:01 GMT
I like how the experts keep trying to boost this seasons crop of kids, despite earlier in the season pointing out that it was possibly the most piss poor crop in the last few years.
I'd take Crabtree regardless of his fitness because, barring a couple of the LB's that are closer to tweeners, absolutely nobody else is particularly astounding.
Meanwhile I'd be happy to leave the kid on the bench for a few seasons just to learn the game.
I'd burn everything in sight to get to him now I've seen him play.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Mar 31, 2009 12:32:08 GMT
You weren't one of the experts, DC. :checkit:
Meanwhile, this is exactly why rookies' salaries need to be restricted somewhat. How can you justify giving an OT a huge package when he hasn't played in the NFL and it being considerably more huge than a starting LT for an established and successful team? Am I right in thinking that the salaries for those drafted are kinda structured anyway and out of the hands of the owners? Is there much wiggle room, I guess I'm trying to ask?
|
|
|
Post by elth on Mar 31, 2009 16:17:26 GMT
There is unlimited wiggle room, there's no set salary structure apart from a minimum.
The catch is that rookies don't have to accept anything you offer, and if they hold out you essentially waste your pick.
I've always wondered why teams don't just draw up the contracts they think are appropriate for players of a certain level, say their top ten choices, and then offer the deals to those players - first to sign up to an agreement gets picked first overall. Houston did that to an extent with Mario Williams, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Apr 2, 2009 7:35:12 GMT
From the NFL.com site is this article asking where three experts think that Cutler will end up. Each of the three have submitted their likely scenarios, with the Broncos offering Cutler + #12 to Detroit for their #1 and #20 picks, with Denver then going for Mark Sanchez and not Matthew Stafford (who is the projected #1 in most mock drafts I've seen).
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Apr 2, 2009 11:03:28 GMT
There was a story on Yahoo the other day about how the Niners weren't interested in Stafford any more, because he wouldn't answer their psychologist's questions about his parent's divorce. :cab:
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Apr 2, 2009 11:07:15 GMT
I doubt Stafford will be there anyway. Where are they? #10?
It's really amusing, TBH, how many experts have so many different opinions on the same subject and are so willing to stand by those choices, until they see more tape on everyone. It's a job I'd like to do.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Apr 2, 2009 11:15:33 GMT
Also worth remembering that the Niners are the folks who passed on Aaron Rodgers to take Alex Smith.
|
|