Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 10,835 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149659
    wv
    Participant

    in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149608
    wv
    Participant

    Saw a stat on the Patriots.   Over last ten years, they have had 18 first or second round picks.

    Of those picks on 1 made a probowl, and that was QB Mac Joens who made it one year.

    Zero first team all-pros.

    Zero players signed by Pats to a second contract.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: the new political tweets thread (4/4 2022) #149598
    wv
    Participant

    Just a reminder of what Noam thinks of the Republican Party.   At the 5:09 mark, or so.

    in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149578
    wv
    Participant

    Rams locker room at So-Fi, rated D+ (bout the seven minute mark)

    in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149570
    wv
    Participant

    Bears GM, was once the the Chiefs scouting director when they drafted Mahomes.

    “…There are QBs who are artists, and there are QBs who are surgeons….”

     

    in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149557
    wv
    Participant

    Spags from five years ago.

    in reply to: Rams sign Robinson to a 1 year #149529
    wv
    Participant

    Excellent.   Wish it was a two year deal.

    Need Kupp and Higby to get healthy.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: Rams tweets etc. … 2/16 – 2/25 #149528
    wv
    Participant

    Where would Andy Reid rank if someone else had drafted Mahomes?

    Belichick never won a super bowl as a head coach without Brady.

    It gets tricky ‘ranking’ head coaches.

    I always thought it was significant that Joe Gibbs won super bowls with three different QBs.   Though, the QB position is probably more important now than it was in Gibb’s day.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: 1969 #149509
    wv
    Participant

    Some rams highlights in the first few mins, in this vid.

    wv
    Participant

    Yeah, i saw a Mel Kiper vid, where he says he doesnt know what to think of Michigan’s QB.

    I had never heard Know-it-all-Mel say anthing like that, before.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: Rams tweets etc. … 2/16 – 2/25 #149485
    wv
    Participant

    Umm…..how many attendees at the Ram games were actually Ram fans?

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: 1969 #149456
    wv
    Participant

    The Uniforms, though.  The uniforms.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149437
    wv
    Participant

    RG3 (who played for shanahan) has some interesting things to say, here.

    in reply to: different science stuff #149433
    wv
    Participant

    Interesting.

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149432
    wv
    Participant

    Concerning next season.   So, if i had to pick between the Chiefs, or — the other 31 teams?    ….man, i dunno.   Normally, i would never favor one team over the field, but….the Chiefs look poised for a three-peat.   I mean, they probly wont lose much at all this offseason.  Maybe one guy in the secondary, i think.   And they will probably upgrade their WR corps.

    I guess, I’d still pick the field.   Bills, Bengals, Ravens, Browns, Lions, 49ers, Rams, Packers…

    But, I dunno.

     

    w

    v

     

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149431
    wv
    Participant

    in reply to: around the league tweets etc. … starting 2/5 #149420
    wv
    Participant

    Brady.  First half of the vid probly aint worth watchin, but the second half was good, i thought.   Brady is quite ‘old school.’   Team first.

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149419
    wv
    Participant

    Steve Young thinks the next ten super bowls will be won by quarterbacks who can run.

    Interesting that Young must consider Stafford to be a running QB. I wouldn’t put him in that category myself.

     

    Yeah, i was a bit surprised Steve Young put things in such black and white terms.   I would have agreed with him, if he had just said something like “with the new rules changes the QB position is more important now, than ever before, and an elite QB who can also run, is more valuable than an elite QB who cant run”.    Or somethin close to that.

    I mean, Brady could still win in this new era.  And Stafford, obviously.  And what is Joe Burrow btw?   Is he a pocket guy, or something else?   Steve Young said you need to have a QB nowadays who can get 60 yards or more, in playoff games.  Is Burrow a 60 yard-guy?

    I think i would agree that maybe its ‘harder’ now for a non-running-QB to win a super bowl, than say, in Trent Dilfer’s day or Kurt Warner’s day.   But i still think it can be done.  I mean Purdy came within a hair of doing it a few days ago.

    Despite the rules changes, i still kinda think its a mistake to limit discussions to whether a particular QB  ‘can win a super bowl.’    Still seems to me, you have to look at what the rest of the team looks like.   If you have the 85 Bears defense, and an all-star cast on offense, then thats one context.   If you have the 97 Rams personnel, then thats a different context.

    Given enough surrounding talent, I would think about half the QBs in the NFL can ‘win the super bowl.’

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149412
    wv
    Participant

    Steve Young thinks the next ten super bowls will be won by quarterbacks who can run.

    in reply to: Books #149409
    wv
    Participant

    Btw, at the 28 minute mark, Greg C, is tickled by one particular play the Chiefs called.   He doesnt know how the Chiefs knew SF would be in man to man coverage on this play.

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149397
    wv
    Participant

    Lotta talking heads blaming Shanahan for the loss, and crowning Andy Reid as the best ever, etc.

    But, put Mahomes on the 49ers, and how does Reid look, and how does Shanahan look?

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149396
    wv
    Participant

    SF fires their DC.

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149394
    wv
    Participant

    mirriam webster

     

    Dynasty

    1
    a succession of rulers of the same line of descent 
    2

    : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

     
    Sports Dynasties
    Dynasty has been in use in English for over 600 years, for most of that time referring to a ruling family that maintains power through succession. Around the beginning of the 19th century, the word developed the figurative sense “a group or family that dominates a particular field for generations.” Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons. The sports use appears to have begun in the early 20th century. An article in The Washington Post in 1905 refers to “John T. Brush’s baseball dynasty,” and by 1912 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that “if players were free agents at the end of every two years, baseball dynasties such as those built up by the Cubs, Athletics, Detroits and Giants would not be possible.”
    Dynast and dynasty both descend from the Greek verb dynasthai, which means “to be able” or “to have power.” Dynasty came to prominence in English first; it has been part of our language since at least the 14th century. Dynast took its place in the linguistic family line in the early 1600s, and it has been used to describe sovereigns and other rulers ever since.

    Etymology

    Middle English dynastia, dynastie “power, sovereignty, succession of rulers,” borrowed from Medieval Latin dynastīa, going back to Late Latin, “rule, power,” borrowed from Greek dynasteía “arbitrarily exercised political power, lordship, rule,” from dynástēs “holder of political power, lord, ruler” + -eia y-entry 2 — more at dynast

     

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149390
    wv
    Participant

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149366
    wv
    Participant

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149365
    wv
    Participant

    So this Mahomes guy, is pretty good, I’d say.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149364
    wv
    Participant

    Guess who is favored to win the Next super bowl?   According to Vegas….. 49ers.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149357
    wv
    Participant

    Good lord.  49er fans have to be wretched, and inconsolable.

    smile

    w

    v

    in reply to: super bowl reactions … during & after #149333
    wv
    Participant

    49ers up 10 to zip.    Pretty dull, so far.

     

    w

    v

    in reply to: Rams tweets etc. … 2/7 – 2/14 #149281
    wv
    Participant

    On the Puka comment about video games.

    I am old, so i remember all the stories about the 70s Raiders and such.  And stories about Babe Ruth,  Billy Martin and Mickey Mantle and such.  Lawrence Taylor.  Ya know.  Players just getting drunk the night before games, etc and so forth.

    But i wonder if such types of players exist anymore?   I dunno if that kind of conduct could exist in today’s NFL.    I suppose video games are about as bad as it gets nowadays.

     

    w

    v

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 10,835 total)