Sign in to follow this  
BlueSky

2009 NFL Season Thread

Recommended Posts

Jim Caldwell said it was never the Colts goal to go undefeated.

I have very little respect for that attitude. I understand the perspective that you're simply playing for the championship, but I don't like it.

When you start the season, you're playing to go 19-0. When you lose the first game of the year, you're playing to go 18-1. Lose the second? 17-2. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Show me a person that PLANS on losses, and I'll show you a loser. And I feel this way about every sport. In hockey I want my guys to be trying to go 96-0.

I understand how unrealistic to impossible (depending on the sport) those expectations are. I don't intent to suggest I consider falling short of those goals to be failures, I just don't see any other way to approach it. I hate that saying it always conjures up a goofy Herm Edwards rant, but you really do play to win the game, each and every game. Not doing so just doesn't sit right with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1948 Cleveland Browns became the first unbeaten and untied team in professional football history. Look it up, it's a fact. :P

The AAFC was not the NFL. In fact the league was pretty much the Browns and a few subpar teams. Hardly the same as the Dolphins going undefeated in 1972.

I remember watching a documentary on that, can't remember the name or what it was mostly about (probably a random NFL Films show), but yeah, the AAFC was basically advertised as "PRO FOOTBALL featuring the CLEVELAND BROWNS! (plus some other guys!)," & the talent gap was wider than the Atlantic Ocean. So yeah, congrats on being the first, but the Dolphins were the best. :P

As for the Colts...I really don't care. Yeah, it would've been cool to see the Colts go for it, but they're just like any other team at this point of the season: Doing what they can to make it to the Super Bowl. Obviously Caldwell is a student of the Pre-Super Bowl Dungy strategy. So yeah, let them do what they want, the playoffs have basically turned into a crapshoot nowadays so who knows what'll happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell said it was never the Colts goal to go undefeated.

I have very little respect for that attitude. I understand the perspective that you're simply playing for the championship, but I don't like it.

When you start the season, you're playing to go 19-0. When you lose the first game of the year, you're playing to go 18-1. Lose the second? 17-2. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Show me a person that PLANS on losses, and I'll show you a loser. And I feel this way about every sport. In hockey I want my guys to be trying to go 96-0.

I understand how unrealistic to impossible (depending on the sport) those expectations are. I don't intent to suggest I consider falling short of those goals to be failures, I just don't see any other way to approach it. I hate that saying it always conjures up a goofy Herm Edwards rant, but you really do play to win the game, each and every game. Not doing so just doesn't sit right with me.

This is pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. If I were a Colts fan I would be pissed. You do indeed play to win the game. Plus, with a first round bye, the "we need to rest our starters for the playoffs" excuse just doesn't hold any water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell said it was never the Colts goal to go undefeated.

I have very little respect for that attitude. I understand the perspective that you're simply playing for the championship, but I don't like it.

When you start the season, you're playing to go 19-0. When you lose the first game of the year, you're playing to go 18-1. Lose the second? 17-2. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Show me a person that PLANS on losses, and I'll show you a loser. And I feel this way about every sport. In hockey I want my guys to be trying to go 96-0.

I understand how unrealistic to impossible (depending on the sport) those expectations are. I don't intent to suggest I consider falling short of those goals to be failures, I just don't see any other way to approach it. I hate that saying it always conjures up a goofy Herm Edwards rant, but you really do play to win the game, each and every game. Not doing so just doesn't sit right with me.

You're a fan. Caldwell's a coach. There's a reason why you two are in your respective roles.

These are probably Caldwell's goals at the start of the season:

-Get a playoff spot.

-Win the AFC South.

-Earn a first-round bye.

-Earn home-field advantage through the AFC playoffs.

-Get to the Super Bowl.

-Win the Super Bowl.

The Colts have earned the right to play their players for as long as they want to. They can't better or worsen their playoff positioning. The starters played into the 3rd quarter, which is more than they've played in the past when they were yanked early to rest.

What if some Jets player, in an obvious sign of frustration, took out Manning's knee....blows out his ACL and ends his season? Do you think Colts fans still would want all their starters playing?

It's not like the starters played one series and called it a day...they played over half the game. The starters aren't going to be rusty just because they sat out the final 20-25 minutes of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason has to do with our football experience, not the attitude differences I suggested. I've heard coaches preach the attitude I suggested, it's not an absurd one, and it's one I respect a heck of a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not realistic to expect undefeated seasons, but "well we didn't really wanna win anyway so nyah" was kind of a weak bailout on Caldwell's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will take some pressure of the Colts going into the playoffs to have lost a regular season game. I thought the Patriots suffered a bit in that Superbowl when they were playing for the undefeated season as well as the Superbowl, especially when the pressure was on.

I do kind of see the point with Caldwell saying it was never part of the plan, but it is a weird thought for a head coach to give voice to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick which coaches might be preparing for there last game with there current team thought.

My top names would be Jim Zorn, Lovie Smith, John Fox, Jack Del Rio, and perhaps Eric Mangini, depending on what Holmgren wants to do in Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bengals and Cardinals are both in the playoffs in the same season. If Hell isn't frozen over, it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dat say gun' beat dem Saints?

The Cowboys.

Holy cow, the Bucs too.

I'm playing kickball, then my phone gets like 5 texts at once saying they won. I didn't believe it. But IMO, the Rams need a QB before a certain lineman from Nebraska.

D Line is almost as big a need, and there's no QB sitting around who looks like a "once in a generation" prospect in the manner than Suh is.

One more Ram loss, and I begin debating whether I get a Suh jersey or a customized "House of Spears" jersey.

Rams need a QB more, but you don't pass on a guy like Suh. My take is that I really want Jimmy Claussen, but I also really want Suh. There's a lot of good QBs who fall into that 2nd-3rd round projection.

If the Rams get the first pick, without question, you draft Suh, and grab that QB in the 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) round. If something happens in the final week that knocks 'em into the 2nd position and Suh goes off the board, well no worries, the decision was made for them to take Claussen.

Either way, we can't lose. Except for one more football game that is. (But I'd much rather win it. Draft picks be damned.)

Is it worth picking Suh with the number 1 overall pick, and hoping there is still a good QB available with the 33rd overall pick? Seems to me that Rams are the only team who could have the overall number 1 pick that could pick a QB number 1. Of the others who will have an early pick, virtually all of them made a big QB move reasonably recently. The Raiders might be an interesting team to watch in the draft re QBs. But conceivably you could get down to the 8-10 region before a QB moves off the draft board.

The Rams might well find themselves in a similar state of mind that the Lions did in 2009. Do they go for the best player on the board, or look to sure up the vital QB position first? I think its less risky for the Rams to wait for a QB, as the QB class is reputedly deeper in 2010 than it was in 2009. But at the same time, would you wanna be the executive that passed up the opportunity to have the nest Peyton Manning on your roster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1948 Cleveland Browns became the first unbeaten and untied team in professional football history. Look it up, it's a fact. :P

The AAFC was not the NFL. In fact the league was pretty much the Browns and a few subpar teams. Hardly the same as the Dolphins going undefeated in 1972.

1. It was pro football.

2. The NFL accepted 3 AAFC teams into their league. Why would they take in three teams from a subpar league?

3. The Cleveland Browns won their first NFL game at the home of the then defending champions. Then the Browns won the NFL title in their first season in the league. How many teams have won the NFL championship in their first season in the league?

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1948 Cleveland Browns became the first unbeaten and untied team in professional football history. Look it up, it's a fact. :P

The AAFC was not the NFL. In fact the league was pretty much the Browns and a few subpar teams. Hardly the same as the Dolphins going undefeated in 1972.

1. It was pro football.

2. The NFL accepted 3 AAFC teams into their league. Why would they take in three teams from a subpar league?

3. The Cleveland Browns won their first NFL game at the home of the then defending champions. Then the Browns won the NFL title in their first season in the league. How many teams have won the NFL championship in their first season in the league?

I rest my case.

Actually, your case has already been dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Caldwell said it was never the Colts goal to go undefeated.

I have very little respect for that attitude. I understand the perspective that you're simply playing for the championship, but I don't like it.

When you start the season, you're playing to go 19-0. When you lose the first game of the year, you're playing to go 18-1. Lose the second? 17-2. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Show me a person that PLANS on losses, and I'll show you a loser. And I feel this way about every sport. In hockey I want my guys to be trying to go 96-0.

I understand how unrealistic to impossible (depending on the sport) those expectations are. I don't intent to suggest I consider falling short of those goals to be failures, I just don't see any other way to approach it. I hate that saying it always conjures up a goofy Herm Edwards rant, but you really do play to win the game, each and every game. Not doing so just doesn't sit right with me.

You're a fan. Caldwell's a coach. There's a reason why you two are in your respective roles.

These are probably Caldwell's goals at the start of the season:

-Get a playoff spot.

-Win the AFC South.

-Earn a first-round bye.

-Earn home-field advantage through the AFC playoffs.

-Get to the Super Bowl.

-Win the Super Bowl.

The Colts have earned the right to play their players for as long as they want to. They can't better or worsen their playoff positioning. The starters played into the 3rd quarter, which is more than they've played in the past when they were yanked early to rest.

What if some Jets player, in an obvious sign of frustration, took out Manning's knee....blows out his ACL and ends his season? Do you think Colts fans still would want all their starters playing?

It's not like the starters played one series and called it a day...they played over half the game. The starters aren't going to be rusty just because they sat out the final 20-25 minutes of the game.

My counter-argument is that the Colts have taken the 'rest the starters' route several times and made quick exits from the playoffs, so it's clearly not a slam-dunk decision. Players always talk about getting in a rhythm and I think it applies to the season as well as a single game. These guys are the sharpest there is, but the rust can build quickly if they don't play.

As for the Saints, I can only hope that this loss is the wake-up call the Dallas loss should have been. Especially following the Redskins game, I think they concluded that they could do anything, make any mistake, and come back and win. It would seem not. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1948 Cleveland Browns became the first unbeaten and untied team in professional football history. Look it up, it's a fact. :P

The AAFC was not the NFL. In fact the league was pretty much the Browns and a few subpar teams. Hardly the same as the Dolphins going undefeated in 1972.

1. It was pro football.

2. The NFL accepted 3 AAFC teams into their league. Why would they take in three teams from a subpar league?

3. The Cleveland Browns won their first NFL game at the home of the then defending champions. Then the Browns won the NFL title in their first season in the league. How many teams have won the NFL championship in their first season in the league?

I rest my case.

1. pro football in a minor league immediately post WWII, a time when pro football, even the NFL, was less than parity-ridden.

2. Why would they take three teams from a subpar league? They took the 3 largest untaken markets. The NFL lost Cleveland when the Rams moved to LA. San Francisco gave them another west coast team. and the AAFC Baltimore Colts folded after 1 season in the NFL. They used it as a way for easy expansion of the NFL.

3. That Browns team was actually pretty good, but it has nothing to do with going undefeated in a weaker league the previous season.

nowhere near the accomplishment of the 72 Dolphins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dat say gun' beat dem Saints?

The Cowboys.

Holy cow, the Bucs too.

I'm playing kickball, then my phone gets like 5 texts at once saying they won. I didn't believe it. But IMO, the Rams need a QB before a certain lineman from Nebraska.

D Line is almost as big a need, and there's no QB sitting around who looks like a "once in a generation" prospect in the manner than Suh is.

One more Ram loss, and I begin debating whether I get a Suh jersey or a customized "House of Spears" jersey.

Rams need a QB more, but you don't pass on a guy like Suh. My take is that I really want Jimmy Claussen, but I also really want Suh. There's a lot of good QBs who fall into that 2nd-3rd round projection.

If the Rams get the first pick, without question, you draft Suh, and grab that QB in the 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) round. If something happens in the final week that knocks 'em into the 2nd position and Suh goes off the board, well no worries, the decision was made for them to take Claussen.

Either way, we can't lose. Except for one more football game that is. (But I'd much rather win it. Draft picks be damned.)

Is it worth picking Suh with the number 1 overall pick, and hoping there is still a good QB available with the 33rd overall pick? Seems to me that Rams are the only team who could have the overall number 1 pick that could pick a QB number 1. Of the others who will have an early pick, virtually all of them made a big QB move reasonably recently. The Raiders might be an interesting team to watch in the draft re QBs. But conceivably you could get down to the 8-10 region before a QB moves off the draft board.

The Rams might well find themselves in a similar state of mind that the Lions did in 2009. Do they go for the best player on the board, or look to sure up the vital QB position first? I think its less risky for the Rams to wait for a QB, as the QB class is reputedly deeper in 2010 than it was in 2009. But at the same time, would you wanna be the executive that passed up the opportunity to have the nest Peyton Manning on your roster?

The Draft is really NOT that deep with early first round QB talent, but it is deep with later 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round QB talent. And it's for that reason I'd feel comfortable taking Suh. Don't get me wrong, the Rams have to come out of this draft with their franchise QB. But the way the draft boards are shaking out, I just don't think they have to do it with the first pick overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of buffoonery makes Mercury Morris a LOSER.

Wrong again, Dirty Curty. Mercury Morris is awesome.

Suh's the best player available, Rams should take him without a second thought. As for a franchise quarterback, why not just sign Kyle Orton and the horseshoe permanently lodged up his ass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the 48 Browns were better then the 72 Fins. I'm just sick of them saying their the only undefeated in the history of pro football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the 48 Browns were better then the 72 Fins. I'm just sick of them saying their the only undefeated in the history of pro football.

Well...if you want to go that route, there are a bunch of undefeated indoor teams over the last decade. Although we could treat the case of the '72 Dolphins being the only undefeated pro team as being the only undefeated major league team..

Also, that NFL champions Browns team was less the AAFC Browns and more an AAFC all star team from what I have read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Draft is really NOT that deep with early first round QB talent, but it is deep with later 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round QB talent. And it's for that reason I'd feel comfortable taking Suh. Don't get me wrong, the Rams have to come out of this draft with their franchise QB. But the way the draft boards are shaking out, I just don't think they have to do it with the first pick overall.

Not only should you feel comfortable with the Rams taking Suh...but after watching Chris Long a couple games this year, the Rams would be idiots not to take him. I don't know what light went off in that boy's head this year, but he has really come on strong. He and Suh on the same line (assuming Suh plays in the NFL the same way he did in college) = nightmares for the NFC West, or should.

Plus...after three wins, one against the Saints--sorry, Russell :D --for all I care, the Rams can have him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this