2016 NFL Playoffs

[bosrs1]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well yeah, but Robert Kraft's a good owner. I'm desensitized to Spanos' stupidity

I mean don't get me wrong. The move to LA is a terrible idea! He gains nothing from it, and he could put whatever money he'd have to spend to get there to work on a serviceable replacement for Qualcomm. I may not have any allegiance to San Diego, but I have been following their stadium situation for over a decade at this point. And yeah, the blame's all on Dean on this one. Not the city of San Diego.

 

To me though? It's always been about Chargers football. San Diego's a great market, and I do wish they had stayed/not sabotaged every attempt to work something out. I would be lying if I told you my allegiances were connected in any way to the city though. I considered dumping the team when they left, and it just didn't feel right/real. Had they re-branded upon moving to LA? Sure, at that point there's nothing left for me to hang on to. They're still the Chargers though, and yeah. I just can't drop them. They're the team I've pulled for, for as long as I've been following the NFL. For better or for worse.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I mean you're not alone. About 19% of the Chargers fan base is with you so you're in the minority, but you're clearly not the only one sticking with them. Being in SD I guess I see the SAN DIEGO Chargers fan side of it more in person, and I know of no one in SD personally and very few via the web who are still rooting for the Bolts now that they've relocated to a rival city. The vast majority of the 19% from what I've seen are those like yourself, who are remote Chargers fans who had lesser or no ties to San Diego. Even the remote fans I've talked to with ties to SD are less likely to hang around then to stay with them.

[IceCap]

I don't blame anyone who's from San Diego dumping them, honestly. They, through their elected representatives on the city council, have been toyed and screwed with by Dean Spanos for over a decade. The city's been a tremendous home for the team, and I hate seeing them leave it.

 

6 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

...his stupid pissing match with AJ was more important to him than anything else.

I'm going with "anyone" in the choice between "anyone vs AJ Smith" myself.

[infrared41]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don't disagree. I just thing that, as a body of work, Schottenheimer's Chargers were on the right track. You don't replace the coach unless you know you have THE guy who will take them to the next level.

 

 

Tell me about it. The Browns hired 114 year old Bud Carson to replace Marty. He went 9-6-1 in 1989 and the Browns made the AFC title game (lost to Denver...again) and he followed that up by getting fired during the 1990 season while the Browns were going 3-13. So in 1991, Art Modell hired some defensive coordinator named Bill Belichick. No idea whatever happened to him. 

[BBTV]

57 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Looking to watch some championship football in Philly are ya?

 

 

 

It's the only way that'll happen so gas up the mayflower trucks and send them to foxboro. 

[IceCap]

55 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

That 14-2 season was one of the most deceptive records in recent memory. The truth is, the Chargers played against only three other playoff teams that entire regular season. One of them was the 13-3 Ravens, who had the best defense in the league. The other two were the Chiefs (twice) and Seahawks, two mediocre teams who went 9-7 and backed their way in.

 

You can only play the teams put in front of you. This isn't the NCAA where teams stack their schedules with cupcake teams.

Marty did the job he was given nearly perfectly. 

 

As far as his conflicts with management...the 49ers are a more recent example of what happens when ownership sides with management over a coach. Firing Marty was another case of Dean making the worst decision in a given situation. 

[habsfan1]

I lol'ed when I saw this. Well done!

 

Brady T, the five time, five time, five time, five time, five time champion...

 

 

 

[Kramerica Industries]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

Tell me about it. The Browns hired 114 year old Bud Carson to replace Marty. He went 9-6-1 in 1989 and the Browns made the AFC title game (lost to Denver...again) and he followed that up by getting fired during the 1990 season while the Browns were going 3-13. So in 1991, Art Modell hired some defensive coordinator named Bill Belichick. No idea whatever happened to him. 

 

Fun fact - after the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1990, Bill Parcells resigned from the head coaching job with the team. Now, eyeballing the timeline, it sure would seem like Belichick would've been a logical replacement.

 

He wasn't. Ray Handley, who was the offensive coordinator for that Giants team, was named to the post instead. He went 14-18 over two years and was fired. One of the reasons why Belichick didn't get the job? The Giants GM at the time, who had actively sabotaged previous opportunities for Belichick to get a head coaching job elsewhere in the NFL, didn't feel he had the right "qualities" to handle the job.

 

Now, granted, his run in Cleveland wasn't the greatest (though I know he had an 11-5 season in there somewhere), but, heh, total misfire in that particular evaluation. That GM, George Young, died in December 2001, so, I guess, thankfully for him, he ducked out just in time before Belichick's Patriots started winning all those Super Bowls.

 

 - come to think of it, the Patriots won their last six regular season games that year, and obviously all three playoff games. Think we may have just found out the root of all their success over these past 15 years...

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

Fun fact - after the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1990, Bill Parcells resigned from the head coaching job with the team. Now, eyeballing the timeline, it sure would seem like Belichick would've been a logical replacement.

 

He wasn't. Ray Handley, who was the offensive coordinator for that Giants team, was named to the post instead. He went 14-18 over two years and was fired. One of the reasons why Belichick didn't get the job? The Giants GM at the time, who had actively sabotaged previous opportunities for Belichick to get a head coaching job elsewhere in the NFL, didn't feel he had the right "qualities" to handle the job.

 

Now, granted, his run in Cleveland wasn't the greatest (though I know he had an 11-5 season in there somewhere), but, heh, total misfire in that particular evaluation. 

 

 

Good stuff. I'd totally forgotten about the Giants hiring Handley instead of Belichick. If memory serves, there was some talk back then about it being a pretty bad decision. You could have had Bill Belichick but instead you took Ray f-ing Handley. Can't get 'em all right, I guess. 

 

With regard to Belichick's run in Cleveland, it seemed to me that he was definitely taking the team in the right direction. I want to say he went 6-10 in his first season in 1991, 7-9 in the next two, and then in 1994 he coached a team that had no business being 11-5 to an 11-5 record, a wildcard playoff berth, and a win over...you guessed it...New England in the playoffs. Of course, the wheels came off in 1995 with the news of the move, etc., but you could see that the guy knew what he was doing.

 

Belichick's biggest problem in Cleveland was that the media hated him. The print media here bashed him every chance it got and the idiot sports talk show hosts would spend entire shows talking about Belichick being an ass. And thanks to the media, the fans ended up hating him too. Fans and the media here were used to coaches like "blue collar, hard working" Marty Schottenheimer or his predecessor, "lovable" Sam Rutigliano. (Bud Carson wasn't here long enough to make an impression) They weren't about to put up with a guy like Belichick and his "New York attitude." It was ridiculous. 

 

I remember having many a debate with fellow Browns fans about Belichick. I liked him and thought he was a good coach, but most Browns fans wanted no part of him because of his personality. Now whenever Belichick's tenure here comes up, you'll hear a lot of Cleveland fans lamenting the fact that the Browns were "this close" to being New England. Can't get 'em all right, I guess. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

Now whenever Belichick's tenure here comes up, you'll hear a lot of Cleveland fans lamenting the fact that the Browns were "this close" to being New England. Can't get 'em all right, I guess.

Well the Ravens, anyway

[Brass]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

I remember having many a debate with fellow Browns fans about Belichick. I liked him and thought he was a good coach, but most Browns fans wanted no part of him because of his personality. 

 

Which sounds weird because usually that's an attribute that is loved by the hometown team and despised by outsiders, at least to the best of my knowledge. I love Belichick's seemingly anti-media attitude (how the team performs > how a guy answers a question in a press conferece), but I can understand why some people might find it unbearable.

[BBTV]

Bud Carson was one of the best DCs ever. People forget (or never knew) he was the D.C. Of the Eagles defense after Jeff Fisher and lead them to the 1-1-1 ranking (run, pass, scoring). Bias aside, The 1991 Eagles defense was legitimately the best single-season defense I've ever seen, including the 85 bears and 2000 ravens. They obviously had insane talent,but Bud Carson has to get some credit. 

[infrared41]

48 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

Which sounds weird because usually that's an attribute that is loved by the hometown team and despised by outsiders, at least to the best of my knowledge. I love Belichick's seemingly anti-media attitude (how the team performs > how a guy answers a question in a press conferece), but I can understand why some people might find it unbearable.

 

The logic at the time was Belichick is a jerk so he must be a bad coach. For reasons passing understanding, there has always been a faction of Browns fans who feel that anyone involved with the team needs to be an affable "hard working, blue-collar Joe" who is just like they are. Keep in mind that the Browns are an organization that once believed bringing in players and coaches who had a connection to the area was a viable personnel plan. The whole Belichick thing was just one of the many examples of how this franchise has never been able to get out of its own way. 

[infrared41]

1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Bud Carson was one of the best DCs ever. People forget (or never knew) he was the D.C. Of the Eagles defense after Jeff Fisher and lead them to the 1-1-1 ranking (run, pass, scoring). Bias aside, The 1991 Eagles defense was legitimately the best single-season defense I've ever seen, including the 85 bears and 2000 ravens. They obviously had insane talent,but Bud Carson has to get some credit. 

 

No argument that Bud Carson was a great DC. That's why he was hired by the Browns. He just wasn't a very good head coach. Don't forget that Bud was also the DC for the 70's Steelers. 

 

I'll agree that the '91 Eagles defense was pretty great, but I can't put a team that went 10-6 and didn't even make the playoffs on the same level as the '85 Bears, 70's Steelers, or 2000 Ravens (all SB Champs, by the way.) Sure, Rich Kotite was your coach and that probably didn't help, but c'mon. 

[BBTV]

They were 10-6 because their qB tore his ACL in the 1st game and his backup Jim McMahon went down shortly after and they had a guy who was literally working at a construction site (pat Ryan) start a MNF game. That defense won games by scoring more than the offense. Eric Allen said that they used to meet and talk about laterals after picks and anything else they could do to score points because the offense couldn't. 

 

I get your point, but I disagree and encourage you to watch a couple of those games if they're available. The QBs that season were Jim McMahon, Brad Goebel (really?), Pat "construction site" Ryan, and Jeff (not Jack) Kemp. 

 

IIRC that was the body bag game year. 

[infrared41]

17 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

They were 10-6 because their qB tore his ACL in the 1st game and his backup Jim McMahon went down shortly after and they had a guy who was literally working at a construction site (pat Ryan) start a MNF game. That defense won games by scoring more than the offense. Eric Allen said that they used to meet and talk about laterals after picks and anything else they could do to score points because the offense couldn't. 

 

I get your point, but I disagree and encourage you to watch a couple of those games if they're available. The QBs that season were Jim McMahon, Brad Goebel (really?), Pat "construction site" Ryan, and Jeff (not Jack) Kemp. 

 

IIRC that was the body bag game year. 

 

Did a little research on the '91 Eagles defense and watched some video. I withdraw my objection to its greatness. Them mothers could play. 

[Unocal]

The 1991 Eagles weren't #1 in scoring defense (Dome Patrol Saints allowed 33 fewer points)

[infrared41]

6 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

The 1991 Eagles weren't #1 in scoring defense (Dome Patrol Saints allowed 33 fewer points)

 

Pretty sure BBTV said the Eagles were the #1 scoring defense the year before (1990) Bud Carson took over as DC. 

 

 

 

 

[Sykotyk]

On 2/9/2017 at 8:20 PM, infrared41 said:

 

Good stuff. I'd totally forgotten about the Giants hiring Handley instead of Belichick. If memory serves, there was some talk back then about it being a pretty bad decision. You could have had Bill Belichick but instead you took Ray f-ing Handley. Can't get 'em all right, I guess. 

 

With regard to Belichick's run in Cleveland, it seemed to me that he was definitely taking the team in the right direction. I want to say he went 6-10 in his first season in 1991, 7-9 in the next two, and then in 1994 he coached a team that had no business being 11-5 to an 11-5 record, a wildcard playoff berth, and a win over...you guessed it...New England in the playoffs. Of course, the wheels came off in 1995 with the news of the move, etc., but you could see that the guy knew what he was doing.

 

Belichick's biggest problem in Cleveland was that the media hated him. The print media here bashed him every chance it got and the idiot sports talk show hosts would spend entire shows talking about Belichick being an ass. And thanks to the media, the fans ended up hating him too. Fans and the media here were used to coaches like "blue collar, hard working" Marty Schottenheimer or his predecessor, "lovable" Sam Rutigliano. (Bud Carson wasn't here long enough to make an impression) They weren't about to put up with a guy like Belichick and his "New York attitude." It was ridiculous. 

 

I remember having many a debate with fellow Browns fans about Belichick. I liked him and thought he was a good coach, but most Browns fans wanted no part of him because of his personality. Now whenever Belichick's tenure here comes up, you'll hear a lot of Cleveland fans lamenting the fact that the Browns were "this close" to being New England. Can't get 'em all right, I guess. 

 

The problem is, Belichick then wasn't Belichick today. He didn't get the rope he has today back then. Which is understandable. He wasn't a 'big name' coach at the time. He was a good coordinator, but there's a lot of them who suck as a head coach. Belichick's biggest issue was that, though he knew what he was doing, he couldn't articulate it to the fans and media WHY he was doing it. He was very defensive with talking with anyone why he did what he did.

 

And it all came to a head with Kosar. Not just that he got rid of Kosar, but how he basically threw him under the bus for WHY he had to get rid of him, despite fans not exactly seeing that. So, we went with Testeverde. Who wasn't bad. His longevity in the NFL as an emergency starter proved it. But, he wasn't the future of the franchise.

 

So, we go 11-5, and things were looking good. We won against New England (coached by Parcells, the teacher to Belichick the student). But, got hammered by the Steelers the next week (we had the second best record in the AFC, had we beat Pittsburgh once in the regular season, we'd have been 12-4 and Pit 11-5 and we would've been #1 seed in AFC playoffs). So, things looked up. Eric Turner on defense, etc. But, who is our QB? Some rookie Eric Zeier. Had a good game against Cincinnati, and that was about it.

 

Cutting Kosar saddled Belichick with the responsibility to find someone better. And he failed. That's why Modell wanted to 'start fresh' in Baltimore. If not for the move, I'm sure Belichick would've been around for at least another year or two in Cleveland to try and keep building on it. Especially with the 95 season being a trainwreck at the end because because of the move. Without the move, we probably would've finished 8-8 at worst. But, he would've had to develop the future franchise QB quickly with Zeier being a hole-plugger rather than the future star.

 

In reality, Belichick fell into Tom Brady the way Dick Vermeil fell into Kurt Warner. It was never planned to have them become the star. You wouldn't gamble with '5-time Super Bowl champion, 4-time Super Bowl MVP' potential by hoping to snag them in the 6th round. So, it was clear nobody, not even New England, saw it coming. And Belichick's 'greatness' has been intertwined with that immeasurably lucky happenstance. If he had only Testeverde and Zeier, Belichick wouldn't have won five Super Bowls as a head coach.

 

On 2/9/2017 at 11:07 PM, infrared41 said:

 

The logic at the time was Belichick is a jerk so he must be a bad coach. For reasons passing understanding, there has always been a faction of Browns fans who feel that anyone involved with the team needs to be an affable "hard working, blue-collar Joe" who is just like they are. Keep in mind that the Browns are an organization that once believed bringing in players and coaches who had a connection to the area was a viable personnel plan. The whole Belichick thing was just one of the many examples of how this franchise has never been able to get out of its own way. 

The regionalism thing is a problem.

 

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

Pretty sure BBTV said the Eagles were the #1 scoring defense the year before (1990) Bud Carson took over as DC. 

 

My mistake:

 

1991 team was #1 against rush, pass, and total defense - not points allowed.  Guess that would be hard when your inept offense keeps throwing picks and giving the opponent the ball already in FG range.  I knew it was 3 categories, just got the 3rd one wrong.

 

Per wikipedia (I know, I know):

Statistics site Football Outsiders ranks the 1991 Eagles as the greatest defensive team in their ranking's history.^[1] Says Football Outsiders, "The 1991 Eagles completely lap the field in terms of defensive DVOA. Only the 2002 Bucs had a better pass defense, and only the 2000 Ravens had a better run defense, and the Eagles were much more balanced than either of those teams.

"It's crazy to imagine how few points the Eagles might have given up if they were playing with a halfway-decent offense instead of losing Randall Cunningham to a torn ACL in the first game of the season. The Eagles were stuck depending on an over-the-hill Jim McMahon for 11 starts, plus Jeff Kemp for two and Brad Goebel for two. McMahon actually wasn't half bad ... but the other two quarterbacks were awful, especially Goebel who had no touchdowns with six interceptions. And the running game was dreadful, with 3.1 yards per carry as a team.

"Still, the Eagles were fifth in the league in points allowed, and first in yards allowed by nearly 400 yards – and the team that was second in yards allowed is also on that top-ten defenses list, the 1991 New Orleans Saints. The Eagles allowed 3.9 yards per play, where no other team allowed fewer than 4.5. As bad as their running game was, their run defense was even better, allowing 3.0 yards per carry. Three-fourths of the starting defensive line was All-Pro (Reggie White, Jerome Brown, and Clyde Simmons). Linebacker Seth Joyner and cornerback Eric Allen made the Pro Bowl as well."

 

 

  

[2001mark]

MMQB today/this week is Peter King & Tom Brady 1-1, including 2 part podcasts later in the week.  

 

I wonder what the Patriots could get in trade for Jacoby Brissett if they seem to want to hold on to Jimmy G.  4th rounder?  3rd?  Word is that Belichick seems to think Jimmy is the type of guy he'd trust in the playoffs, yet they can't possibly opt for 3 active QBs again yes?  That's not their style, at all.