2011 NFL Season

[pmoehrin]

Right now I'd probably say the Cowboys have the best shot to win the division, but I wouldn't even give them 50/50 odds.

Based on what? Tony Romo's exceptional play in critical late-game situations?

I just think they are the best team in that division. They're also the only team to beat Washington, but like I said, I'm not going to the bank with them nor am I anyone else.

At this point I have ten times more confidence in the 49ers taking the West then I do the Cowboys taking the East.

[DCDuck]

Turner is a great runner. Not a high YPC, but definately can wear down a defense over the course of a game. In different era I would say he would make a great fullback, but no team uses a two back system anymore. They rather sub in and sub out halfbacks.

Fullbacks don't generally run, they lead block or receive passes out of the backfield. There are exceptions (Mike Alstott jumps to mind) but generally when a fullback shows the ability to run the ball consistently, he gets moved to tailback (a la Peyton Hillis).

As to Michael Turner, who was once heralded as the heir apparent to Tomlinson in San Diego, he's 29. And you know what happens to running backs once they hit age 30.

[DCDuck]

Right now I'd probably say the Cowboys have the best shot to win the division, but I wouldn't even give them 50/50 odds.

Based on what? Tony Romo's exceptional play in critical late-game situations?

I just think they are the best team in that division. They're also the only team to beat Washington, but like I said, I'm not going to the bank with them nor am I anyone else.

At this point I have ten times more confidence in the 49ers taking the West then I do the Cowboys taking the East.

They haven't shown me anything in their two wins that gives me confidence that they can suddenly turn on the switch and start beating teams consistently. Tony Romo has to put on the Superman cape just to make the team competitive. Heaven knows they can't run the ball. Miles Austin is hurt, Dez Bryant is inconsistent, and teams double Witten all game because everybody else in that receiving corps is mediocre at best, and everybody knows it.

[IceCap]

I'll just chime in and say that, to me, it seemed like Dallas was lucky to get that win against Washington.

[pmoehrin]

Turner is a great runner. Not a high YPC, but definately can wear down a defense over the course of a game. In different era I would say he would make a great fullback, but no team uses a two back system anymore. They rather sub in and sub out halfbacks.

Fullbacks don't generally run, they lead block or receive passes out of the backfield. There are exceptions (Mike Alstott jumps to mind) but generally when a fullback shows the ability to run the ball consistently, he gets moved to tailback (a la Peyton Hillis).

Pretty much which is why I said a different era. The Tampa Bay Bucs of the late 90's and early 2000's might very well be the last team we ever see run a two back system for a long time.

It sucks to because the fullback is all but dead now. A fullback now is bascially just a blocking tight end, or to put it another way a guy who doesen't have the hands to play tight end and is too slow to play halfback. You'll never again see a guy with the talent of a Jim Brown or a Larry Csonka ever play that position for a long time. I doubt that you'll ever even see a player get in the HOF as a fullback from this generation. Think Alstott is the last guy with a real shot. Maybe Tony Richardson but I doubt it.

[DCDuck]

Turner is a great runner. Not a high YPC, but definately can wear down a defense over the course of a game. In different era I would say he would make a great fullback, but no team uses a two back system anymore. They rather sub in and sub out halfbacks.

Fullbacks don't generally run, they lead block or receive passes out of the backfield. There are exceptions (Mike Alstott jumps to mind) but generally when a fullback shows the ability to run the ball consistently, he gets moved to tailback (a la Peyton Hillis).

Pretty much which is why I said a different era. The Tampa Bay Bucs of the late 90's and early 2000's might very well be the last team we ever see run a two back system for a long time.

It sucks to because the fullback is all but dead now. A fullback now is bascially just a blocking tight end. You'll never again see a guy with the talent of a Jim Brown ever play that position for a long time.

What are you talking about? Teams still use fullbacks. I know for a fact the Giants use one often (Hynoski), and other teams have them for run-heavy sets. Just because teams don't use them on every play doesn't mean that it's a "dead" position. What you're referring to is a "H-back", and even then, some teams still use that position in certain sets.

[pmoehrin]

Turner is a great runner. Not a high YPC, but definately can wear down a defense over the course of a game. In different era I would say he would make a great fullback, but no team uses a two back system anymore. They rather sub in and sub out halfbacks.

Fullbacks don't generally run, they lead block or receive passes out of the backfield. There are exceptions (Mike Alstott jumps to mind) but generally when a fullback shows the ability to run the ball consistently, he gets moved to tailback (a la Peyton Hillis).

Pretty much which is why I said a different era. The Tampa Bay Bucs of the late 90's and early 2000's might very well be the last team we ever see run a two back system for a long time.

It sucks to because the fullback is all but dead now. A fullback now is bascially just a blocking tight end. You'll never again see a guy with the talent of a Jim Brown ever play that position for a long time.

What are you talking about? Teams still use fullbacks. I know for a fact the Giants use one often (Hynoski), and other teams have them for run-heavy sets. Just because teams don't use them on every play doesn't mean that it's a "dead" position. What you're referring to is a "H-back", and even then, some teams still use that position in certain sets.

Compare how much team use fullbacks in running plays to 30 years ago. Its not even close. Its been reduced to a specialty position.

There are no great fullbacks out there right now, because if you have the speed you become a halfback and if you have the hands you get moved to tight end. If your going to rank the positions as far as importance goes on the offensive side of the ball, fullback would rank dead last, no question about it. There's teams that invest more in their thrid string halfback then they do their starting fullback.

It's pointless to invest heavily in a fullback uness you decide your going to run the ball 40+ times a game every game and no team does that now.

[DCDuck]

Turner is a great runner. Not a high YPC, but definately can wear down a defense over the course of a game. In different era I would say he would make a great fullback, but no team uses a two back system anymore. They rather sub in and sub out halfbacks.

Fullbacks don't generally run, they lead block or receive passes out of the backfield. There are exceptions (Mike Alstott jumps to mind) but generally when a fullback shows the ability to run the ball consistently, he gets moved to tailback (a la Peyton Hillis).

Pretty much which is why I said a different era. The Tampa Bay Bucs of the late 90's and early 2000's might very well be the last team we ever see run a two back system for a long time.

It sucks to because the fullback is all but dead now. A fullback now is bascially just a blocking tight end. You'll never again see a guy with the talent of a Jim Brown ever play that position for a long time.

What are you talking about? Teams still use fullbacks. I know for a fact the Giants use one often (Hynoski), and other teams have them for run-heavy sets. Just because teams don't use them on every play doesn't mean that it's a "dead" position. What you're referring to is a "H-back", and even then, some teams still use that position in certain sets.

Compare how much team use fullbacks in running plays to 30 years ago. Its not even close. Its been reduced to a specialty position.

There are no great fullbacks out there right now, because if you have the speed you become a halfback and if you have the hands you get moved to tight end. If your going to rank the positions as far as importance goes on the offensive side of the ball, fullback would rank dead last, no question about it. There's teams that invest more in their thrid string halfback then they do their starting fullback.

But it's not a "dead" position because teams still have dedicated fullbacks. As recently as a few years ago we had Lorenzo Neal and Tony Richardson, and we still have LaRon McClain and Mike Sellers today. And most telling, they still give out Pro Bowl selections to fullbacks. If it was as irrelevant or trivial a position as you suggest, they wouldn't keep giving out selections for them.

[NEW.ERA]

John Kuhn, Lawrence Vickers, John Conner and Ovie Mughelli are other ones that come to mind that play a vital role in some teams offenses. Really it's all on the team and what they want. Mike McCarthy loves blocking TE's and fullbacks (though he only kept one FB this year) still I don't think the FB position will ever die at the pro level, college level hard to tell, but anyways they'll end up converting a TE or a bigger RB.

[pmoehrin]

But it's not a "dead" position because teams still have dedicated fullbacks. As recently as a few years ago we had Lorenzo Neal and Tony Richardson, and we still have LaRon McClain and Mike Sellers. And most telling, they still give out Pro Bowl selections to fullbacks. If it was as irrelevant or trivial a position as you suggest, they wouldn't keep giving out selections for them.

I'm not saying they don't exist and aren't part of the game. I'm saying the position's importance has declined drastically, because the running game's importance has declined drastically. Less then 50% of your plays are runs now, so many plays come with a 3 wide out set and its usually the fullback that gets taken off the field for those plays.

I'm also just looking at how much money staring fullbacks make and that's all I need to know about how important the position is. The only two positions that make less then them are punters and kickers. (I'm also only including starters, so I'll save you the time and say that kickers make the most money on average, but if were only talking about starters, its QB)

Even McClain who's probably your best fullback in the league and was drafted as being a big time fullback was only a fourth round pick. Its not a position teams invest heavily in anymore and consequently your not going to get the talent level you once had at that position.

[DarkJourney]

The Niners are not the most talented team in the world but they're giving max effort for Harbaugh. You can see it in the way the play now.

[Dexter Morgan]

Jets suck, my fantasy team sucks, oh and my baseball team was eliminated a few days ago. GO LEAFS GO!

Not to start anything here but this is the exact reason why I dislike Jets fans a lot. Especially Under 30 year old Jet fans. You guys are way too in the moment and overreact to everything. After week 2 all I heard around this area in NY was how good the Jets looked. Suddenly they lose three tough road games against three possible playoff teams and all I hear is Jets suck. Granted they looked bad in those games but there's no way a team that has been to back to back championship games sucks. They're still a 10 to 11 win playoff team and you all know it.

I'm not under 30 and I know a bad team when I see one. And where exactly in NY did you hear all these Jets fans pumping up the Jets after escaping with a victory in Week 1 vs. the Cowboys and beating up on the Jags team who for some reason had Luke McCown under center. Maybe you haven't watched a lot of NFL football, but what a team did the 2 previous seasons has no barring to this year. The change over in the NFL is unlike any other sport. You can go from worst to first and first to worst in an instance.

[Dexter Morgan]

This is now an official statement: The Jets have played in two consecutive AFC Championship Games DESPITE OF Mark Sanchez.

The Jets have far bigger problems than Mark Sanchez. God forbid they block anyone for him. Even today he completed over 60 percent of his passes and threw 2 touchdowns and no turnovers.

[pmoehrin]

The Niners are not the most talented team in the world but they're giving max effort for Harbaugh. You can see it in the way the play now.

The last six quarters they have played might be the best six straight quarters anyone has put together in the NFL so far this year. 69-6 going back to the second half of the Eagles game last week.

[BlueSky]

So this game would be going the same way in Tampa? My point is not to blame the schedule but to say it's really not plain and simple. SF may be better today, and if that's what you meant, fine, but the Niners are not "just a better team" than TB. No way.

See, here's the thing about the NFL: there are no 7-game series. Whoever is the better team from first whistle to last whistle is all that matters.

True, but the original issue was cause and effect (MNF followed by long trip), not results. To say the Niners are just better than Tampa Bay based on this game doesn't make sense. In fact, though I hope it doesn't happen, I wouldn't be shocked if the Bucs beat the Saints next week or at least keep in very close.

Thank you, Packers, though you are now free to start losing a few because nobody wants to go to Lambeau in the playoffs.

As for Andy Reid, he's the Bobby Cox of football. A lot of close but few or no cigars. But do you go in another direction or just keep hoping one of those shots pays off?

[Saintsfan]

On Reid, I think part of a coaches job, whatever sport, is about creating a culture of winning and going as far as possible. To me that's where Reid has fallen down over the years.

I think Francona talked about how many of the Red Sox this year were into personal achievement and not team achievement. That's been the Eagles problem it seems like from the outside. And yes when you've got great players that will get you 10 wins (or 90 in baseball) but it doesn't hold the team together when the heat is on. Personally I think if the Eagles don't make the playoffs this year, Reid has to take responsibility this year.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

True, but the original issue was cause and effect (MNF followed by long trip), not results. To say the Niners are just better than Tampa Bay based on this game doesn't make sense. In fact, though I hope it doesn't happen, I wouldn't be shocked if the Bucs beat the Saints next week or at least keep in very close.

Thank you, Packers, though you are now free to start losing a few because nobody wants to go to Lambeau in the playoffs.

As for Andy Reid, he's the Bobby Cox of football. A lot of close but few or no cigars. But do you go in another direction or just keep hoping one of those shots pays off?

Other than head-to-head games, how could you ever ascertain if one team is better than another? Or am I missing some context?

[BlueSky]

True, but the original issue was cause and effect (MNF followed by long trip), not results. To say the Niners are just better than Tampa Bay based on this game doesn't make sense. In fact, though I hope it doesn't happen, I wouldn't be shocked if the Bucs beat the Saints next week or at least keep in very close.

Thank you, Packers, though you are now free to start losing a few because nobody wants to go to Lambeau in the playoffs.

As for Andy Reid, he's the Bobby Cox of football. A lot of close but few or no cigars. But do you go in another direction or just keep hoping one of those shots pays off?

Other than head-to-head games, how could you ever ascertain if one team is better than another? Or am I missing some context?

Now I just wonder if you guys are serious or just chain-yanking, because as I'm sure you're all smart enough to know, any team's performance in any particular game in influenced by many factors. If Al Davis hadn't died, do the Raiders really go into Houston, where the Texans just punched Pittsburgh in the gut, and get a win? Maybe, but I think the emotion helped them play better, just like the Texans probably played better against Pittsburgh because it was the Steelers and not "just" the Raiders.

(Cue someone to shriek, "Now he says the Raiders only won because Al Davis died!" Noooo, but that did figure in the outcome, to a degree that can't really be measured.)

Do you seriously think that the Niners are a better team in general than the Bucs? That if they played 10 times on a neutral field SF would win the majority? We'll never know but I'd take the Bucs myself.

[cameroncrazie07]

Jets suck, my fantasy team sucks, oh and my baseball team was eliminated a few days ago. GO LEAFS GO!

Not to start anything here but this is the exact reason why I dislike Jets fans a lot. Especially Under 30 year old Jet fans. You guys are way too in the moment and overreact to everything. After week 2 all I heard around this area in NY was how good the Jets looked. Suddenly they lose three tough road games against three possible playoff teams and all I hear is Jets suck. Granted they looked bad in those games but there's no way a team that has been to back to back championship games sucks. They're still a 10 to 11 win playoff team and you all know it.

I'm not under 30 and I know a bad team when I see one. And where exactly in NY did you hear all these Jets fans pumping up the Jets after escaping with a victory in Week 1 vs. the Cowboys and beating up on the Jags team who for some reason had Luke McCown under center. Maybe you haven't watched a lot of NFL football, but what a team did the 2 previous seasons has no barring to this year. The change over in the NFL is unlike any other sport. You can go from worst to first and first to worst in an instance.

First of all don't play that card with me buddy, and if you somehow are older than 30 you certainly don't act like it. And trust me I went to the Cowboys-Jets game week one and coming out of that stadium and listening to the radio afterwards all I heard was how great the Jets played down the stretch, and how this is why they're a Superbowl contender.

[slightly shotgunned]

Do you seriously think that the Niners are a better team in general than the Bucs? That if they played 10 times on a neutral field SF would win the majority? We'll never know but I'd take the Bucs myself.

Save the speculation for BCS rankings. In the NFL, you don't ever have to be the better team in general, you just have to be the better team that week. Were the Giants really better than the undefeated Patriots? It doesn't matter. The Giants have the ring, the Patriots do not.