NFL - NEWS & NOTES

Flattening out my overall excitement... I contend that this team needs a year to gel and get used to each others tendencies. 2020 is really when I expect this team to shine. At their ages, shown above, I expect a lot out of this group of young men. The ones listed above have already shown signs of what they can become in this league.

 

What the Holy Fudge Tunnel does 2002 have to do with the conversation? That's 17 years ago, Cat. Are they bringing back Tim Couch and Kevin Johnson and Courtney Brown? Teams build off what they did the YEAR BEFORE, not what they did a decade and a half ago.

And this has ZERO to do with being "right" and everything to do with an individual fans' optimism. What are you crapping in their stew for? Let them enjoy the moment.

 

The reason why I was so upset when the Bears lost to the Eagles is windows in this league open and shut fast for most teams. If you're the Patriots it's different. For most everyone else...you seemingly need to strike when the iron is hot because the future is so unstable. Wasting opportunity is never good.

Just over the past 6-8 seasons we've seen a few teams have some success with the assumption that their window was probably open for a few seasons....only to see things happen and that window comes crashing shut.

Based on depth, talent level, and age of the core.....I expect the Bears to be good for a few seasons here. I think most fans probably expect the Chiefs to have a really good run. But things happen.

That's why you gotta applaud when teams make aggressive trades....like when the Bears got Mack or the Brown got Beckham. That's a case of their GMs knowing that yes they have a good young team that could be good for a while but at the same time they need to make moves that also pay off right now. It's even better when those players you acquire are young themselves and will stick around a while.

 

This move actually makes a lot of sense and will probably go under the radar as a quality get for the Titans.

 

It's a good move for them based on their situation. QB health is a concern there.

But they also traded for a guy that has health concerns the last three seasons....one of which he missed the entire season.

 

Between Mariota and Tannehill now the Titans should be able to string together a full 16 game season of QB mediocrity.

 

It'll be interesting to see the Dolphins plan for 2018... Can you get into position to get one of the top two QBs using #13, #48 and a 2020 first rounder?

 

Well said. This is exactly why Bears fans were upset at how this season ended, and are nervous over this offseason's moves. It seems the team hasn't yet done much to address depth needs, and lost two defensive starters. My fear is always injuries - I don't think Chicago is deep enough to deal with injuries to significant or multiple players. For example, Eddie Jackson likely makes the difference in that playoff game. Nothing is ever guaranteed in the NFL.

 

They already did that last season with Mariota and Gabbert.

The difference is they will pay extra to be mediocre next season because Tannehill is gonna be a highly paid backup.

 

Bingo. I'm a fan of Mariota, but recognize his health issues. I don't think Tannehill ever had a situation in Miami that was conducive to his success, but he certainly wasn't elevating the team's play. We'll see if Mariota can stay healthy and exceed recent ho-hum production, or if Tannehill needed a change of scenery. If that was the case, though, I wouldn't think Tennessee would be the right "scene"...

 

It gives them the kind of passer that they can transition to if Mariota has an extended absence without tipping the apple cart.

I think Marcus has only missed more than two games in a season once in his career, so having a viable back-up with starters experience that can whether the storm for a couple games is a smart move.

Plus, if Mariota continues to struggle to the point that it looks like he will not be the answer you can attempt to preserve what little trade value he has left by dealing him before the deadline and rolling with Tannehill to close out what would most likely be a bottom 10 finish, giving you a chance to take a crack at a new passer in 2020.

You would get an extended look at a passer that has shown some upside in some bad situations and maybe he shows enough to warrant a contract that puts him as the starter for a couple of seasons while they sort out their next move at quarterback.

The return on Marcus would probably be similar to what was given up for Tannehill, so it's the kind of move that presents some interesting possibilities. Low risk on the short term with the possibility of a longer return, but if not it doesn't present a cap or draft problem to recover from.

 

The early rumor mill has them tanking for 2020.

 

It's not like the fan base isn't used to them sucking, but it's usually the kind of sucking that has them pluckily cheering for a few surprise wins. If they're tanking in a "top 5 draft pick" style, especially after last year... living down here is going to be even more miserable than usual.

 

It's so hard to tank in the NFL..even if you do it right, you have to get lucky that a player is available that is worthy of a high pick. These drafts are so fickle, you don't know until all the underclassmen have declared in January.

I like both Haskins and Murray better than Herbert, who is the only Senior to this point worth talking about. Someone is bound to emerge over the 2019 season, but right now it's Herbert, and Juniors Fromm and Tagovailoa, neither of which are guaranteed to declare for the 2020 draft...though they would be wise to as Lawrence will almost assuredly declare for the 2021 draft.

Herbert is going to have to make a big leap forward for me to put him in the conversation with Haskins and Murray...Tanking may not be a wise solution.

 

I still don't understand how this became a 3 hour argument yesterday, but it got me thinking...This is a legitimate question.

What and who give a team the credentials to be called a contender and/or a favorite to make the Super Bowl..

In this case, I know it isn't Browns fans...and it sure as hell isn't a couple of Bears fans..but seriously, who and what do you have to do to have credible talk pre-season without being ridiculed for it?

Here's the thing, I hear all the time... Don't talk until you actually win something. Well, this is a sports board. If we as fans can't talk before winning, then the sports boards all over the internet would be shut down to the majority of fans.

I have talked up the Browns in the past, simply because I am a self proclaimed homer and I get emotional when other fans cut on them for no reason.

This is different. They HAVE proven certain things on the field to give ALL Browns fans a sense of hope for the upcoming season, not just the homers.

So, if we could have an intelligent conversation about legitimacy factors of being a contender/favorite for the Super Bowl, it would be appreciated. I am sincerely interested in this subject since it was brought up in the heat of argument yesterday.

 

lol... the definition says it clearly...



In seriousness that definition makes all 32 teams contenders, BUT people then whip out the phrase, "serious contenders", which is where the debate/argument starts.

I think and in my opinion, this can be looked at objectively in determining what a serious contender may look like. Too me a serious contender would be a team that actually has a chance at winning it all. That alone can leave out quite a few obvious teams and it also implies that there are group of teams that legitimately can be considered, serious contenders.

Having said that and in all fairness and in a personal perspective, which is important to point out, because a lot of this boils down to personal conjecture, a serious contender would have to have some proof positive that they are legitimate and statistically improving and capable of going all the way.

When you look at teams like the Patriots or Chiefs you see obvious 'traits' do to the fact of successful improvement and in the case of the Patriots (a dynasty) that have a past history that is un-arguable. On the other side of the coin there is the 'up and comers', because that's what its all about... lets see who can knock the King off the hill. So, in my opinion Cleveland has shown enough to me personally to be considered a serious contender as it stands right now in March do to their last years performance (improvement) and this years off-season moves. I could also argue, based on what I saw last year that the Bears can be considered legitimate contenders also, along with Seattle, Minnesota, Green Bay and Los Angeles... and so on and so forth.

Its a debatable subject in March and guess what else???? ( (((THATS WHY THEY PLAY THE GAMES) ))) , lol !!!!!


PS ~ if I didn't or did mention your team that doesn't mean a thing and Folgers coffee works!

 

I think for the majority of NFL teams the talk should be about contending for a playoff spot. Only a 1/3 of the teams will achieve that. The Browns have two very good franchises in their division that are going to challenge them to make the playoffs. Talking about winning Super Bowls is premature until you've established you can make the playoffs. Just my opinion.

p.s. Don't think for one second the rest of the NFL isn't watching all this Browns coverage and taking it personnally, especially those teams in Pittsburgh and Baltimore. It's one thing to walk into the stadium as an underdog. It's an entirely different scenario to walk in as the media darling. They are going to get their opponents best shot in 2019.

 

Well this is awful...
Reports: Cops Investigating Tyreek Hill For Allegedly Breaking Three-Year-Old Son's Arm
https://deadspin.com/reports-cops-investigating-tyreek-hill-for-allegedly-b-1833334466

 

Terrible news...

 

The don't talk until you actually win something thing is crap. I don't understand it. It comes with fans getting cocky and feeling superior after their team wins a championship. A Browns fan has just as much right to talk about anything football related as a Patriots fan. The team you are a fan of doesn't make you inferior/superior to any other fan....and doesn't exclude you from any conversation.

That's one. Also, I would just like to say being a homer isn't wrong. Being a blind homer isn't wrong. That's fine if that's the fan you are. There are all types of fans. I know plenty of Bears fans that are huge homers. It just happens to be that most Bears fans that frequent this message board don't happen to be. We're a bit more grounded...and again, that isn't wrong. You are who you are.

The sensitivity thing I don't get at all. Does it really change anything in your life when someone says your team sucks? The Bears have sucked more often in my lifetime than they've been good....it's never really bothered me when other fanbases point it out. Every Cub fan has had to endure some of the biggest shit from other fanbases. Try living in Chicago when your the team you bleed blue for hasn't won a World Series in nearly 100 years and the team you hate that just happens to play baseball in the same city finally won one. Talk about torture....that was bad. But you endure. Because true fans....real diehard fans....love their team just as much when they lose as when they win. Getting mad when someone says something negative about your team is silly....getting defensive over every comment is useless.

What it means to be a contender in sports isn't strictly what the definition of the word says. It's one of those things where the word means something different to everyone I'm guessing but to me....simply making the playoffs doesn't make you a contender. Because every year....in every sport.....there are teams that make the postseason because they got lucky or some other teams got unlucky. And when they finally play in the postseason they typically get revealed to be who they really are. And then there are teams that are there because they really are that good and those teams are typically the ones that make it to and win the Superbowl.

Then you have teams that tend to be really great regular season teams but bad playoff teams. Like the Chargers. Did anyone give them a serious chance at beating the Patriots? After what's transpired over the last 10-15 years. How many times have we seen a really good Chargers team just completely go to shit in the playoffs? And how do you call them a contender when you can predict like clockwork just exactly when their bubble is gonna pop?

That's what separates contenders from pretenders for me. Every season and every time come playoffs you can with some accuracy point to the teams that have a real shot...and the teams that are just there. That doesn't mean there can't be surprises...because there certainly can. But I think, like the word elite, the word contender takes on a new meaning in sports terms.