beanfigger

2 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

He wasn't drafted by them, but Marshawn Lynch was a top 10 pick and you cannot convince me that he was not the driving force of their offense in their Super Bowl runs. 

That's right, and the team that drafted him kept looking for replacements because of poor play. He needed to get shipped off to get a chip on his shoulder and go beast. Perhaps we should let another team draft Zeke the same way and wait to scoop him up after he is discarded? That what you're saying?

And even more to my point, the Bills drafted arguably one of the top two or three most dominant RBs of his time, and they are currently suffering through the longest playoff drought in the league. Don't draft a RB! Wait to pick one up...like Seattle did...

37 minutes ago, ALPHA said:

Ok lets play the top 10 game.

Since 2008 how many cornerbacks or left tackles drafted top 10 have turned their teams into contenders? 

There have been very few cornerbacks taken that high recently. Even so I can find a CB (Peterson) and Safety (Berry) both taken in the top FIVE in that time span and both heavily contribute to contending teams in the city they were drafted today. Tackles are one of the most common position groups taken that high, so my guess is that you'll find many examples of turnarounds and the opposite just because the sample size is so high. Turnarounds tend to come when passing games and passing defenses (rush) are addressed early.

I just can't remember the last time a RB was drafted that high and was a true asset to a contender on the team that drafted him (even thinking way further back than 2008) outside of Lewis (taken a year AFTER CB McAllister at ten, and Starks at ten the year before...). I can think of examhples from just about any other position that gets drafted that high, including DBs.

30 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

 

So Schenn gets 3 game suspension next year for charging Oshie. 

http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2016/04/26/brayden-schenn-suspended-3-games-next-season-for-head-shot-on-tj-oshie/#more-105678

 

I thought he should have been suspended for the series after trying to take out Kuznetsov's ACL in game 4. Pretty nasty stuff, all of it.

http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2016/04/21/the-nhl-should-review-brayden-schenns-cross-check-to-evgeny-kuznetsovs-knee/

Odd for him, too. You guys definitely got to him. Most Flyers fans don't care much for Schenn, but that has nothing to do with plays like this, which again are rare for him.

Im excited to see a team that is rebuilding show enough heart to get into the playoffs from a huge early-season hole. And they didn't give up after falling down 3-0 to the best team in the league, either.

We have a young star defender in Gostisbiere to go along with many of the other top prospects in our minor league system, mostly more defenders. What worries me is that we seem to be moving towards a top defensive team, but we just went through an entire six-game series in which we could only muster six measley goals. Giroux without any other scorers is like the NBA's Nash in his prime if he was surrounded by garbage scorers.

All this Zeke talk, can someone go back and look for the last time a team took a RB this high and contended with that RB? I guess the Saints won a SB with Bush, but I think we all know the real reason they became a great team at that time. I don't even think Bush was their starter that season. Only other team I can think of is...us with Jamal. I just don't think we have that kind of team defensively to replicate that success.

We tookTunsil in ESPN live mock just now. Ramsey and Jack gone before us, Bosa was still on the board.

7 minutes ago, bcavanagh said:

So what if Zeke's career was close to mirroring APete..would you draft him 6th? I'm guessing most of us would..so if Ramsey and Tunsil are gone, we should go Zeke! I've been watching a lot of film on him and he's going to be a star from day one...I would draft mainly defense from there obviously...

If a career mirroring AP led to a winning franchise, then yes. The Vikings have leaned on and built their team around their star back, and if you draft a back in the top ten, that is usually the case, and they have one playoff win during his career (9 years).

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

In this case, pretty much yes, considering there really is no precedent. 

As the first appeal showed us, they pretty much attempted to make a case that this falls in line similar to PED usage, but as I said, I don't buy that and neither did Judge Berman.

This most recent judge did accept the PED comparison as reasonable. Like you said, all subjective.

2 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Draft Day is a documentary not a fictional movie now, apparently. That's a new one.

You don't remember when the adopted Native American and former pro baseball catcher who once took down Al Capone ran the Browns that one April?

18 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, lets be real here... a full year suspension is exponentially too harsh and serves no purpose, particularly given what has transpired in the last 24 months.

You can't logically claim that deflating footballs intentionally and lying about it is a bigger detriment to the reputation of the league and the integrity of the sport than domestic violence or even steroid usage, so punishing it 3 or 4 times harsher than that makes the NFL look incompetent. Those are the kinds of decisions that ultimately cost people their jobs.

And that's even if you can definitively prove that footballs were intentionally deflated and that he didn't cooperate... just doesn't come anywhere near rising to that level.

I mean even the punishments in the BountyGate scandal, which certainly rises way above the "integrity of the game" aspect that people preach in regards to DeflateGate, were viewed as too harsh, and that was basically a year long suspension for a bunch of people for organizing a program of compensation for intentionally injuring other human beings over several years (basically assault).

That's why a year long suspension never made any sense and was likely never a consideration. It just never rose anywhere near that level.

This has nothing to do with domestic violence. The NFL, though it should do what it can to make sure its employees are not criminals, has absolutely no responsibility when it comes to crimes committed outside the game. They have been forced to, and I'm not complaining, implement ways to punish individuals for crimes committed in the real world beyond what the justice system, who IS responsible for those actions, seems necessary.

This is a violation of league rules. If they believe this occurred, it is cheating. Just because you personally believe that it was just a little cheating, that still means it's cheating. It was cheating in the conference championship game in order to earn a place in the ultimate title game in American sports.

Bountygate is a fair comparison (though it was less cheating and more terrible on the field conduct), and there were people suspended for a year, and more. That was also the controversy that led to Payton being guilty by ignorance, something that Belichick was mind-bogglyingly never accused of. He should have gotten what Payton gotten IF the NFL had done enough to prove this occurred. Brady should have gotten what Vilma got IF the NFL had done enough to prove he was involved.

The NFL didn't do enough to prove what was already obvious to everyone else, so the four games still bothers me. It would still bother me even if they had done enough to prove it, just for the opposite reason.

I still think four games is the biggest joke. The league obviously believes, like me, that a violation like this is egregious and deserves a big punishment. They proved this with the punishment they levied on the team. Therefore, if they could have shown Brady was directly involved, nothing short of a full year suspension is enough.

However, there's the rub. They did not do enough to "prove" he was involved. We all know he was, but that's not enough in what has become a courtroom battle. A destroyed cell phone cannot be the brick wall that causes them to throw up their hands and say, "Well, we tried."

The four game suspension is lazy. It's saying, "We know you did it, even though we won't work hard enough to definitively prove it." That may be enough in many cases because this was not a legal battle to begin with; it was a business dispute. The problem is that this was so high-profile and destined to be drawn out and dragged into the courtroom, so the NFL needed to do more.

A full year or nothing were the only two options, in my mind. Four games is just dumb and meaningless. Nobody wins here, least of all the entire NFL.

13 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

OK, good. I don't want any hard feelings from a forum lol. After reading @beanfigger reply I thought perhaps I came across too harsh and a bit rude in the form of an attack so I wanted to make it clear that wasn't my intention.

I never thought you did anything wrong. I just thought it was funny that you criticized him, then criticized him for criticizing. Nobody was wrong or over the line.

Couple Netflix horrors recently:

Hush is pretty great. Home invasion movie, but the intended victim is deaf and mute. Nice twist on the old story, and good from a solid young director.

Final Girl, not to be confused but the metta gem The Final Girls, is fairly disappointing, to say the least. I couldn't help think of all the ways it could have been done better while I was watching, and Breslin is terribly miscast as a trained assassin.

3 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

How are they weak? You say they're weak but explain how they are weak. I could say you're rationale is weak. If I qualify that statement by then saying that your rationale is weak because you failed to elaborate on why the points regarding SF & CLE are weak. You need to debunk someone's argument if you want to successfully challenge it. 

One thing that gets on me is criticizing without explanation. I'd love to agree with you but if you don't give me reasons and rationale that I can use to form an opinion, I simply won't. 

To be fair, he didn't criticize until you pushed him to, after you criticized his post. His original statement was just expressing disagreement. Sometimes it's ok to simply say "I disagree."

How happy would I be if we were forced to deal with this "dilemma"!

Ramsey is my choice, but the margin is razor-thin. If we are going all in for this season (foolish), then Tunsil is the better pick. DBs rarely have a huge, positive impact right out of the gate the way elite linemen can.

Man, it is great either way. Please let just one of them slip, let alone both.

18 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Gotta love narcissism concealed through the guise of one's perceived sense of logic. 

We should be grateful one like that humbles himself enough to come down from his pedestal above to educate us.

As for this whole thing, I just hope we can all go back to ignoring it like we were doing months ago. It's just annoying and frustrating. NFL politics and campaigning.

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Ummm... what? Straight face and all, do you actually believe a word of anything you just said?

100% of the legal process had absolutely nothing to do with football deflation, cheating, Tom Brady, or the Patriots. That whole concept ended like 16 months ago... that's just fodder for fan boys to debate over what did or didn't happen and what was or wasn't proven.

The legal process that has occurred after that cares nothing about any of that. Its 100% about Roger Goodell's responsibility and power granted in the CBA, and whether he violated that power. 

That's the irony of the whole thing... the entire legal fight is about Roger making sure everybody knows that he did what he was granted power to do (right or wrong doesn't matter), and simultaneously, he's negotiating with the Union to voluntarily give up said power.

That is a little shortsighted. Sure the judges were not concerned about did he or didn't he, but the fight was about punishing a specific rule violation. Just because the union was forced to appeal it another way doesn't negate the fact that the league was trying to uphold that punishment for the violation they felt occurred.

I think the whole contract restructure when everyone knew this was coming sets a bad precedent. In this post, I am NOT implying that I feel one way or the other about whether the accused in this particular case deserves suspension. However, I do feel strongly that anyone who is suspended deserves to lose the checks from the contract that is in place when the suspension is dealt. This could start a bad trend.

What was this all about again?

On a serious note, the Browns will probably get destroyed on an historic scale Week 5 when he returns.

(bump...)

On April 21, 2016 at 5:16 PM, usmccharles said:

 

Sidenote, has anyone watched the second season of DareDevil?  The first season was better than i expected, but i still have problems buying in on the blind guy. 

Seems like a big problem. "I like Batman, but have real problems with the rich guy." "Superman would be much better without that alien dude." "I think I would really like Spiderman if it wasn't for that Spiderman."

(Obviously, I'm making jokes. It just sounded weird in my head when I read you post. I know what you mean.)

3 hours ago, Dewy101 said:

Does it matter now? Lol

Not really, but my guess is it did matter to the Eagles who they believe will go number one. Otherwise, they may not have made that aggressive trade.

I'd take that haul and run. Nice class.

On April 19, 2016 at 8:37 PM, KDUBB44 said:

They're taking Goff and I honestly don't know why people are thinking it's Wentz. They traded a s@!tload of picks for the 1st, would make no sense to draft an unproven FCS qb.

Flacco be like, "What you tryna say?!?!"

I don't know that meetings are such a determining factor. We have a limited number available, and nine picks through six rounds to think about. We can't interview every possibility.

My Phillies stink, but not as bad as I once thought.