RealFantasy AFC South Discussion and Breakdown

Who wins?

  • Texans

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tactlenecks

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Colts

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

JerBear

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,582
Leeds, ME
Phragle was in charge, but I have the table layouts.  If you want to add snap counts send them along and I'll update tables.
 
[tablegrid= AFC South Totals ]   Texans
JerBear (7) Jaguars
Turrable (8) Tactlenecks
Scoops/Phragle (9) Colts
MarcSullivaFan (19) O Total 27.5 58.5 6.5 30.1 D Total 65.2 49.9 68.9 -8.5 ST Total 29.9 65.6 38.2 19.2 Total 122.6 174 113.6 40.8 W Total 185.69 504.66 34.22 156.7 [/tablegrid]
 
W Total = Weighted Total. QB times 10, K & P divided by 10. 
 
Player breakdowns following to prevent layout screwups.  Will add polls later in the week.
 

JerBear

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,582
Leeds, ME
[tablegrid= AFC South Offense ]Pos Texans
JerBear (7) Rat Jaguars
Turrable (8) Rat Tactlenecks
Scoops/Phragle (9) Rat Colts
MarcSullivaFan (19) Rat QB1 Matt Ryan 10 Peyton Manning 43.3 RGIII -6.4 Matthew Stafford 14.8 QB2 - SUPP         Tyrod Taylor 1.4                       RB1 Frank Gore 12.1 Stevan Ridley 4.8 Shane Vereen 7.5 Pierre Thomas 11.8 RB2 Marcus Lattimore NA Joique Bell 15.1 Christine Michael 1 Mike Gillislee 0.5 RB3 - SUPP Jeff Demps 1.2         Robert Turbin -0.1 FB Michael Robinson 0.6 Orson Charles -0.8 Brian Quick 1.7 Joel Dreesen -6 TE Jermicael Finley -2.8 Owen Daniels -0.4 Zach Miller 7.4 Anthony McCoy 0 TE2 - SUPP Michael Hooman -11.2     Taylor Thompson 1.4     WR1 Brandon Lloyd NA Andre Johnson 19.8 Percy Harvin 0.7 Eric Decker 16.9 WR2 Anquan Boldin 17.9 Justin Blackmon 0.7 Quinton Patton -0.3 James Jones 2.9 WR3 Josh Cribbs 0.2 Brian Hartline 12.7 Leonard Hank. -0.9 Lance Moore 3.4 WR4 - SUPP Nick Toon -4.2 Jermaine Kearse 3.9         WR5 - SUPP Greg Salas -0.7                               LT Branden Albert 10 Bryant McKinnie -20.7 Lane Johnson 0.2 Luke Joeckel -6.1 LG Ben Jones -2.5 Justin Blalock 6.8 Ben Grubbs 13.9 Donald Thomas 1.2 C Nick Mangold -0.2 Eric Wood -5.1 Daniel Kilgore 1.4 David Baas -0.4 RG John Jerry -2.9 Marshal Yanda 10.7 Clint Boling 5.9 Brian Schwenke -11 RT Reid Fragel NA Brennan Williams NA Sam Baker -14.4 Marcus Gilbert -0.7 OLine - SUPP     Lamar Holmes -32.3 AQ Shipley -14 Ryan Lilja NA OLine - SUPP             Brian Waters 2.9                   QB Total   10   43.3   -5   14.8 Skill Total   13.1   55.8   18.5   29.4 Oline Total   4.4   -40.6   -7   -14.1 [/tablegrid]
 

JerBear

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,582
Leeds, ME
[tablegrid= AFC South Defense/Special Teams ]Pos Texans
JerBear (7)
Rat Jaguars
Turrable (8)
Rat Tactlenecks
Scoops/Phragle (9)
Rat Colts
MarcSullivaFan (19)
Rat DE1 Kamerion Wimbley -4.9 Elvis Dumervil 27.4 Calais Campbell 41.7 DeMarcus Ware 12.6 DE2 Robert Mathis 31.4 Shaun Phillips 6.6 Shea McClellin -28.4 Cliff Avril 9.1 DE3 - SUPP             Jason Babin -5.3 DT1 Linval Joseph 9.9 Randy Starks 28.8 Fletcher Cox 14.8 Desmond Bryant -0.9 DT2 Paul Soliai 11.1 Kendall Langford 2.6 Dan Williams 8.4 Red Bryant 7.1 DT3 - SUPP     Damon Harrison 34.8                           ILB1 Derrick Johnson 15.4 Curtis Lofton -7.2 Sean Lee 8.7 Pat Angerer -10 ILB2 Brian Urlacher NA London Fletcher -28.4 Desmond Bishop 1 Jordan Hill 1.9 ILB3 - SUPP     Kion Wilson -2.1     Casar Trayford -6.2 OLB1 Zach Brown -3.9 Wesley Woodyard -5.8 Jamie Collins 2.3 Bruce Carter -9.8 OLB2 Chase Thomas NA Sean Porter NA Jason Worilds 9.5 Kevin Burnett -2                   CB1 Brandon Browner 2.8 Tim Jennings -0.1 Sam Shields 0.4 Morris Claiborne -6.6 CB2 Stanford Routt NA Asante Samuel -0.2 Chris Culliver NA EJ Biggers -11.7 CB3 Ras-I Dowling NA Coty Sensabaugh 0.8 Davon House -2.6 Adam Jones 5.2 CB4 - SUPP Brandon Ghee 4.9 Ron Brooks -2.8 William Gay 11.1     FS Dwight Lowery -1.6 Thomas DeCoud -16 Rahim Moore 0.2 Earl Thomas 7.5 SS Tyvon Branch 0.1 Donte Whitner 11.5 Phillip Thomas NA Tavon Wilson 0.6 S - SUPP         Charles Woodson 1.8                       K Josh Scobee 25 Blair Walsh 29.5 Adam Vinatieri 13 Rob Bironas 19.2 P Tim Masthay 4.9 Thomas Morstead 36.1 Matt Bosher 25.2 Chris Kluwe NA                   Line Total   47.5   100.2   36.5   22.6 LB Total   11.5   -43.5   21.5   -26.1 DB Total   6.2   -6.8   10.9   -5 ST Total   29.9   65.6   38.2   19.2 [/tablegrid]
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Texas have some huge holes in the secondary, and at WR and offensive line.
Jaguars have problems at offensive line, linebacker, and secondary. They have a good front 4 though. All in all I think both teams have glaring holes but also huge strengths. Somewhat of a studs and duds build. I give the edge to Manning who is going to have to score quite a few points with that defense.
 

JerBear

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,582
Leeds, ME
My secondary is terrible.  The WR are pretty bad but not the worst, mostly held up by Boldin.  My OLine, while it grades out low is pretty solid in pass blocking, except my horrendous reach at RT which didn't pan out...yet.
 
Manning will tear my secondary apart unless I get quick pressure, possible with Mathis against his terrible tackles but highly unlikely.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
The biggest problem with the Jaguars is their terrible tackle situation combined with one great guard, one above average one and a center who is inconsistent. Yes, Manning, will help that situation with his quick releases. But we have seen what happens to Manning when he faces a tremendous pass rush consistently (with 4 guys). The Jags would be a great regular season team, no doubt. But when they face a team who can play physically with their receivers and get after Manning with their lack of a running game I just don't see them going far especially considering they don't have much of a defense. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
We've seen what Mathis alone has done to Manning. They matched up this year and Mathis got a hold of Manning's arm while he was throwing and it was knuckleball city after that.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
phragle said:
We've seen what Mathis alone has done to Manning. They matched up this year and Mathis got a hold of Manning's arm while he was throwing and it was knuckleball city after that.
 
Exactly - sometimes people put all this importance on one position. I get that it's the most important but when his O-Line gets dominated Manning, like Brady, and frankly all other QB's, folds.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
SMU_Sox said:
 
Exactly - sometimes people put all this importance on one position. I get that it's the most important but when his O-Line gets dominated Manning, like Brady, and frankly all other QB's, folds.
 
One position? They have arguably the best QB in the league with plenty of options (Andre, Hartline, Owen Daniels, Bell, Blackmon for a few games). Along with Ridley and solid interior O-Lineman. That's a very good offense. And with that D-Line they have plenty of players to win this division. Manning has had much worse defenses and won before. 
 
Mathis also had help from the Colts secondary. There literally isn't a single player on the Texans that could cover Andre with Schaub throwing him the football. He'd have 250+ receiving yards with Manning. 
 
I don't think this team is a Super Bowl favorite but it'd be very tough to argue that they wouldn't be division winners. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
In response to SMU: It's just a really bad match up. Any team that's dangerous off the edge is going to have a chance vs Jags. However I do think Manning pulls it out. He gets the ball out so quickly.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
No arguments here, DDM, just a note that if that line went up against a dominant front 4 with physical corners I think they'd be Bronco'd in the SB style. You can talk all day about good offenses but when the D-Line wins the battles and the corners beat up the receivers that offense will shut down. I feel like a broken record here but I feel like defense gets underrated by the general public and here by a lot, not all, users. SEA was a fucking underdog to DEN but opened a favorite. A dominant front 4 that consistently wins every battle is going to put a huge burden on the QB and the skilled players. Can Manning handle that? Yes - but when he fails in the playoffs is there a consistent theme? Yes. Typically 1) he faced pressure, and 2) his WR's were off on their timing from a physical secondary. Does that recipe get to most QB's? Yes. Say hi, TB. 
 
The Texans don't have enough good pass rushers to consistently get to Manning. Mathis can be double teamed.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I completely agree with that. Another reason why I think they'd be unanimous division winners. I don't think the Texans can say they are anywhere close to those Seahawks. Both they and the Tacticalnecks are offense heavy. If these teams want to win shootouts they aren't going to take down Karachi. The Colts have a great secondary but not nearly enough pass rush and Josh Freeman. The Jags would likely be Division Champs but would lose games to any strong Ds (with competent Os).
 
Like I mentioned before, I don't think this team would be Super Bowl favorites. Probably bow out early like most Manning teams, though by no fault of his own. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
SMU_Sox said:
No arguments here, DDM, just a note that if that line went up against a dominant front 4 with physical corners I think they'd be Bronco'd in the SB style. You can talk all day about good offenses but when the D-Line wins the battles and the corners beat up the receivers that offense will shut down. I feel like a broken record here but I feel like defense gets underrated by the general public and here by a lot, not all, users. SEA was a fucking underdog to DEN but opened a favorite. A dominant front 4 that consistently wins every battle is going to put a huge burden on the QB and the skilled players. Can Manning handle that? Yes - but when he fails in the playoffs is there a consistent theme? Yes. Typically 1) he faced pressure, and 2) his WR's were off on their timing from a physical secondary. Does that recipe get to most QB's? Yes. Say hi, TB. 
 
The Texans don't have enough good pass rushers to consistently get to Manning. Mathis can be double teamed.
You know the Seahawks had a great game in the SB right? They don't play like that every week. The Colts put up 34 on them this year.
 
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I completely agree with that. Another reason why I think they'd be unanimous division winners. I don't think the Texans can say they are anywhere close to those Seahawks. Both they and the Tacticalnecks are offense heavy. If these teams want to win shootouts they aren't going to take down Karachi. The Colts have a great secondary but not nearly enough pass rush and Josh Freeman. The Jags would likely be Division Champs but would lose games to any strong Ds (with competent Os).
 
Like I mentioned before, I don't think this team would be Super Bowl favorites. Probably bow out early like most Manning teams, though by no fault of his own.
 
What? We don't even have an offense. We have shitty WRs, no RT, no center, no experienced and healthy QBs, and the two players our offense needed - Harvin and Vereen - were both out for significant time.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
phragle said:
What? We don't even have an offense. We have shitty WRs, no RT, no center, no experienced and healthy QBs, and the two players our offense needed - Harvin and Vereen - were both out for significant time.
 
You're right your team is pretty bad on both sides of the ball.
 
I was blinded by the RG3, Vereen Harvin, and Zach Miller core, which is pretty solid. They just can't stay on the field. especially this year. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
 
You're right your team is pretty bad on both sides of the ball.
 
I was blinded by the RG3, Vereen Harvin, and Zach Miller core, which is pretty solid. They just can't stay on the field. especially this year. 
 
Kinda like smokescreen?
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
7 of those were from a blocked kick. Also - dude, that's the outlier. SEA routinely shut teams down. Pointing to one of their worst games...
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
No arguments here, DDM, just a note that if that line went up against a dominant front 4 with physical corners I think they'd be Bronco'd in the SB style. You can talk all day about good offenses but when the D-Line wins the battles and the corners beat up the receivers that offense will shut down. I feel like a broken record here but I feel like defense gets underrated by the general public and here by a lot, not all, users. SEA was a fucking underdog to DEN but opened a favorite. A dominant front 4 that consistently wins every battle is going to put a huge burden on the QB and the skilled players. Can Manning handle that? Yes - but when he fails in the playoffs is there a consistent theme? Yes. Typically 1) he faced pressure, and 2) his WR's were off on their timing from a physical secondary. Does that recipe get to most QB's? Yes. Say hi, TB. 
I don't necessarily disagree with this. The problem is that there's too much parity in this exercise, where (so far) there's only been one way to acquire talent and the draft evens out the talent curve. Seattle's defense was stacked in a way that it would be impossible for any team to be in this RFP exercise - they had 17 players who played 450 snaps on defense, and per PFF 16 of them were +2.4 or better. It's certainly possible to construct a defense that would shut down Turrable's Jags; I'm just not sure anyone did.
 
(And yes, this is just another way of saying that you guys who drafted towards the bottom and missed out on the elite QBs got boned)
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Well, i appreciate you saying that. I think my defense would give his offense a run for their money due to our ridiculous front 4 and 2 physical corners in Webb and Rhodes. But yeah, it isn't perfect.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
Well, i appreciate you saying that. I think my defense would give his offense a run for their money due to our ridiculous front 4 and 2 physical corners in Webb and Rhodes. But yeah, it isn't perfect.
If you had all those guys healthy, maybe, but if we're talking playoffs you probably don't have Rhodes (missed the last three weeks with ankle injury), Johnson at < 100% after Cannon's leg-whip, and Webb not quite as effective this year post-ACL surgery. Of course, the Jags wouldn't have Daniels or Blackmon. Tough to evaluate a sport of attrition like football when you've only got 30-man rosters.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Rhodes could have played but the Vikings benched him because they didn't want to risk further injury in a nom competitive year.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
 
You're right your team is pretty bad on both sides of the ball.
 
I was blinded by the RG3, Vereen Harvin, and Zach Miller core, which is pretty solid. They just can't stay on the field. especially this year. 
 
Yeah. I would have committed to tanking once it was clear RG3 wasn't healthy. Anyone that got hurt would have been IRed to help lose and ensure heath in 2014. Sean Lee, RG3, Percy Harvin, Dan Williams, Shane Vereen, Rahim Moore, Sam Baker, Quinton Patton, Desmond Bishop, and Phillip Thomas would have landed on IR. I would have tried to showcase Tyrod Taylor if he is good. Hopefully playing from behind can help him look good.
 
SMU_Sox said:
7 of those were from a blocked kick. Also - dude, that's the outlier. SEA routinely shut teams down. Pointing to one of their worst games...
 
You brought up the best game so I felt it was fair to bring up the worst game. My point is you can't assume a SB type of defensive performance will ever happen again. That was a rare performance.
 
Super Nomario said:
I don't necessarily disagree with this. The problem is that there's too much parity in this exercise, where (so far) there's only been one way to acquire talent and the draft evens out the talent curve. Seattle's defense was stacked in a way that it would be impossible for any team to be in this RFP exercise - they had 17 players who played 450 snaps on defense, and per PFF 16 of them were +2.4 or better. It's certainly possible to construct a defense that would shut down Turrable's Jags; I'm just not sure anyone did.
 
(And yes, this is just another way of saying that you guys who drafted towards the bottom and missed out on the elite QBs got boned)
 
I think any team with two good edge rushers will give them problems. Manning i great when he's standing, but once he gets hit he starts to fall apart.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
I think any team with two good edge rushers will give them problems. Manning i great when he's standing, but once he gets hit he starts to fall apart.
Manning got by all year with a JAG at LT because he's so quick getting rid of the ball. I think as long as the interior OL holds up (and the Jags' interior is pretty good) and the receivers can get open fairly quickly, Manning can compensate for edge pressure. Neither of those happened in the Super Bowl.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
I had Sunday ticket and routinely watched the Hawks. While the SB was their opus they had many shut down performances throughout the year. 
 
Held Carolina to 7, SF to 3, Ten - 13, STL - 9, ATL - 10, the fucking Saints to 7 and 15, NYG - 0 and dominated more than the 0 would indicate if that's possible.
 
SEA held opponents to an average of 14.3 PPG. I pointed to a game they held an opponent to 8. You, OTOH, pointed to their worst game where they let up 34 points total but only 27 of them were on the D. Which game is closer to the mean? Come on. They held 3 opponents to less than 8 points and one of those teams was the Saints - an offensive juggernaut (I know, on the road). But to say I was using an extreme example is incorrect imho. Sure, it was one of their better games but it wasn't their best. See what they did to the Giants. 
 
They held the Giants to 181 total yards. 4 sacks. 5 interceptions. Rushing average of 1.8 YPC. 4.0 YPA. 3.4 Yards per play. Now that's a game.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
I guess what I am saying Phragle is that you underestimate how good the SEA D was this year. You like to argue, so do I. I get that. But there comes a point where we should be able to agree on something pretty reasonable. Their SB performance? They dominated so many games this year on D that it wasn't that rare. 
 
The SB was their 3rd best game by DVOA % on D. Indy's was their 2nd worst. But their best games are closer to their average than their worst games statistically, make sense?
 
so if -dvoa to positive dvoa was distributed they would have some kurtosis but almost exclusively to one side. Or - please stop fucking my grandmother and look at my maths.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
SMU_Sox said:
I guess what I am saying Phragle is that you underestimate how good the SEA D was this year. You like to argue, so do I. I get that. But there comes a point where we should be able to agree on something pretty reasonable. Their SB performance? They dominated so many games this year on D that it wasn't that rare. 
 
The SB was their 3rd best game by DVOA % on D. Indy's was their 2nd worst. But their best games are closer to their average than their worst games statistically, make sense?
 
so if -dvoa to positive dvoa was distributed they would have some kurtosis but almost exclusively to one side. Or - please stop fucking my grandmother and look at my maths.
 
I like to debate. I think everyone learns from it. I don't see any value in pissing matches.
 
I can tell you that I absolutely do not underestimate their defense. I'm in love with their defense. It's awe inspiring. I study it. I think it's the best defense I've ever seen constructed - better than the early 2000s Ravens or Bucs. But holding the greatest offense ever to 0 legitimate points or even a chance to compete, in a neutral stadium and in decent weather. I don't want to call it luck, because they were going to dominate anyway, but a lot of things went their way.
 
I've studied the SB about 10 times. Sometimes I even put it on in the background to help me fall asleep. Decker didn't even try, Thomas was injured early in the game, OJ and Welker were physically overwhelmed, Manning refused to stand in the pocket, they got behind and were forced to throw (average TTT 2.4 seconds), and it was over. Denver didn't even score until Seattle called off the dogs, and at that time Manning had a sweet 44.4 rating.
 
When you said this "if that line went up against a dominant front 4 with physical corners I think they'd be Bronco'd in the SB style." For one, you're not giving Seattle nearly enough credit. They are much more than just "a dominant front 4 with physical corners." For two, you can't assume even Seattle would do that again. Petey even said after that he didn't expect that kind of dominance and described it as an "avalanche." It was by far the most impressive and one sided beating I've ever seen given the quality of the opponent. It was rare.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
Sorry for being MIA all season. Really glad the Manning pick covered my ass--don't know what I was thinking with Woodyard, and Blackmon was obviously a bust. No idea why I didn't take a left tackle earlier; this team was one blindside hit away from being 2-14. On the plus side, 8 TDs from Bell was a nice surprise, and the Manning to Johnson dragons would have been spectacular. I think stacking the offense for Peyton did enough to make this both a playoff team and a fun as hell Madden team, but based on the dump Manning took in the Super Bowl I don't really have much confidence that we could have made a title run.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
1. Jags - Manning carries them through the division despite needing to throw quickly
2. Texans - A good team that matches up well and probably goes .500 against the Jags, but can't quite keep for the rest of the schedule
3. Colts - Not a good team, but they do have a healthy starting QB and good pass defense
4. Tactlenecks - Too many important injures, no QB, committed to tanking
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
phragle said:
1. Jags - Manning carries them through the division despite needing to throw quickly
2. Texans - A good team that matches up well and probably goes .500 against the Jags, but can't quite keep for the rest of the schedule
3. Colts - Not a good team, but they do have a healthy starting QB and good pass defense
4. Tactlenecks - Too many important injures, no QB, committed to tanking
 
Ha! Nice try. There's no way you're worse than the Colts. (Sorry MSF) I'm sure you want that higher draft pick, but i'm not buying it.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Ha! Nice try. There's no way you're worse than the Colts. (Sorry MSF) I'm sure you want that higher draft pick, but i'm not buying it.
 
You can have your opinion and I'm not going to argue for 1000 posts, call people biased jerks, or ask Matt Waldman his opinion.
 
For me it's simple. Harvin went down in the offseason and RG3 would have been IRed by any team other than the Redskins IRL - and certainly IRed by us no later than week 2. We're in no better spot than the Colts when Manning went down, so we're tanking. In addition we had terrible injuries to other players as well; Sean Lee, Dan Williams, Shane Vereen, Rahim Moore, Sam Baker, Quinton Patton, Desmond Bishop, and Phillip Thomas. No way Tyrod Taylor can lead that team to wins. This is a 1 win team at best.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
phragle said:
 
You can have your opinion and I'm not going to argue for 1000 posts, call people biased jerks, or ask Matt Waldman his opinion.
 
For me it's simple. Harvin went down in the offseason and RG3 would have been IRed by any team other than the Redskins IRL - and certainly IRed by us no later than week 2. We're in no better spot than the Colts when Manning went down, so we're tanking. In addition we had terrible injuries to other players as well; Sean Lee, Dan Williams, Shane Vereen, Rahim Moore, Sam Baker, Quinton Patton, Desmond Bishop, and Phillip Thomas. No way Tyrod Taylor can lead that team to wins. This is a 1 win team at best.
 
You really just can't help yourself can you. You always have to add some passive thinly veiled insult. It's not really becoming.
 
You can blab all you want the Colts had Josh Freeman at QB. Your argument is invalid.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
You really just can't help yourself can you. You always have to add some passive thinly veiled insult. It's not really becoming.
 
You can blab all you want the Colts had Josh Freeman at QB. Your argument is invalid.
No I really can't. I'm well know for swinging at meatballs. But you can at least admit you got a little out of control right?

You're right freeman really is irrelevant. A team that's tanking will never lose to a team that isn't. So unless Msf is also tanking there isn't much to talk about. As of now I have a zero win team.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
phragle said:
No I really can't. I'm well know for swinging at meatballs. But you can at least admit you got a little out of control right?

You're right freeman really is irrelevant. A team that's tanking will never lose to a team that isn't. So unless Msf is also tanking there isn't much to talk about. As of now I have a zero win team.
 
I don't do anything slightly. So, yeah I argue my point to death and beyond. Sue me.
 
So you're argument is that you've convinced your entire team to not try to win games. Yeah. That's bulletproof.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,873
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
I don't do anything slightly. So, yeah I argue my point to death and beyond. Sue me.
 
So you're argument is that you've convinced your entire team to not try to win games. Yeah. That's bulletproof.
I think the real argument is that the offense simply suffered too many injuries to be effective in any way, and the defense, while competent, would not be stout enough to keep the team in the game. The Colts may have a crappy QB, but he had a decent line and some weapons to work with. We were running out a hobbled QB with Zach Miller and...not much else for most of the season. That team simply wouldn't be able to score points.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
So you're argument is that you've convinced your entire team to not try to win games. Yeah. That's bulletproof.
 
I don't have to. I just have to put in a shitty QB, run simple schemes, IR everyone that breaks a nail, and sell off nonessential pieces. Tanking is a real thing, ESC.
 
 
Scoops Bolling said:
I think the real argument is that the offense simply suffered too many injuries to be effective in any way, and the defense, while competent, would not be stout enough to keep the team in the game. The Colts may have a crappy QB, but he had a decent line and some weapons to work with. We were running out a hobbled QB with Zach Miller and...not much else for most of the season. That team simply wouldn't be able to score points.
 
I agree, but saying we're tanking is something ESC can't argue with, which is all I care about at this point. Arguing with him is nauseating.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
 
I don't have to. I just have to put in a shitty QB, run simple schemes, IR everyone that breaks a nail, and sell off nonessential pieces. Tanking is a real thing, ESC.
 
I agree, but saying we're tanking is something ESC can't argue with, which is all I care about at this point. Arguing with him is nauseating.
Maybe you guys have the worst team, but I don't think the "we'd tank once we realized we couldn't win" is a valid argument. Why wouldn't everyone who isn't one of the top squads do it, too?
 
In real life, teams rarely overtly tank because individual head coaches / GMs are trying to keep their jobs. I don't think we should exploit our job security here.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
Maybe you guys have the worst team, but I don't think the "we'd tank once we realized we couldn't win" is a valid argument. Why wouldn't everyone who isn't one of the top squads do it, too?
 
In real life, teams rarely overtly tank because individual head coaches / GMs are trying to keep their jobs. I don't think we should exploit our job security here.
 
We are all Jerry Jones. This is what I would do IRL so I don't see the problem. I think taking advantage of down years is rarely properly executed early in a GMs tenure, and this is our first year. RG3 was obviously not healthy, and I wouldn't have played him. Last thing we need is another knee injury from playing when he isn't healthy. At that point it's all about next year.
 
Everything the Redskins have done so far is the exact opposite of the right decision. That doesn't mean they have to affect me. I wouldn't have played him in the '12 playoffs, they did. I wouldn't have benched him in the pre-season, they did. I wouldn't have played him in the regular season, they did. They haven't been right yet.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
Seriously, man. You're rage quitting the season and trying to put a bow on it and sell it as strategic managing. That is another level of self righteousness.
 
NFL Teams, Head Coaches and GM's do not tank a season because things don't go their way. There's no such thing as properly executing a down year. 
 
BTW, I'm legitimately flattered that I cause you physical discomfort. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Look at it however you want. I simply don't think arguing with you is worth my time.
 
You're the Vietcong of message boarding.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
I mean if you know much about military history (it's a passion of mine bro) that can be an amazing compliment. I took your meaning as he comes Iin waves of shitty arguments. That's a great disservice to the VC lol. Tangent over. Dorkdom engaged.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I'm fine with him tanking and will rank his team as though it did. But I think tanking can have a negative impact on a franchise as a whole. Tanking this year (and therefore probably firing his entire coaching staff) will cause his team to be slightly worse than it would be on paper next year. A brand new coaching staff and a upset fanbase makes it tough to succeed in year one, and I'll probably vote that way next year. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,391
NH
I honestly think it lessens the validity of what we're trying to accomplish here. What would Goodell do if a team were throwing out practice squad teams and getting rolled every week? Dock their first round pick? This isn't the NBA. For someone who said they are taking this seriously, tanking seems like an insult to the whole process and an insult to the other teams in the league. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I honestly think it lessens the validity of what we're trying to accomplish here. What would Goodell do if a team were throwing out practice squad teams and getting rolled every week? Dock their first round pick? This isn't the NBA. For someone who said they are taking this seriously, tanking seems like an insult to the whole process and an insult to the other teams in the league. 
 
Oh please. Houston and Atlanta tanked this season. Indianapolis tanked for Luck. 
 
Owners have been given opportunities to explain how Player X, who didn't play much in real life, was actually a key player for their RFP team. That goes both ways. Shutting down RG3 is a defensible call. So is IR'ing everyone else who gets hurt in real life once the first round pick and most important player (i.e. the QB) went down. 
 
"Validity"? "What would Goodell do?" "Dock a first round pick?" The only insult here is your continued assault on common sense.