Basically kizer sucked but then hogan sucked more. I wouldn't have done it either, don't need to shake his confidence. Then again I wouldn't have drafted him anyway and would've picked watson instead of making that trade so what do I know.

Edit: My pony got scoooooooooped

he's great in coverage, but Marcus Peters is a whiny, cowardly punk.

constantly talking trash, chirping and gesticulating from the sidelines, but he shirked at least three tackles on bigger men and the only contact I saw him make all game was the cheap shot on Carr.

he's the gobby little punk who starts fights when he's out with his bigger friends and then disappears when the fists start flying

You can get away with it if you have talent and he does

I'm always reminded of what a ridiculous person Deion Sanders was, he'd miss the first month of the year for baseball and openly called not tackling a "business decision" and was basically a one-man marketing campaign but he was also one of the best cover men of all time so he was never even close to unemployed

The defenses he played on were more than good enough to cover for him in the run game so it didn't matter that he didn't want to tackle.

deion was so ****ing awesome.

talking of deion, man those pregame and postgame shows you fellas have to deal with are exceptionally awful. just 5 guys shouting over each other with things like DIS FOOTBALL PLAYER IS A FOOTBALL PLAYER MAKING FOOTBALL PLAYS IN DIS NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

I remember watching Skysports Monday Night Football and loving the minimalist way they broadcast the game

british sports commentary is fantastic. for some reason I just love the word choices they use

yeah i mean they talk just as much bollocks but at least its normal words spoken normally rather than PASSION ENERGY EXCITEMENT, THIS IS EXCITING I AM EXCITED YOU CAN TELL BY MY RAISED VOICE LOUD NOISES

best analysis show ive ever seen for any sport was uk channel 4's nfl coverage. the main man was a yank named mike carlson and they'd give him about 20 mins before an mnf game to make points and illustrate them using game footage. he was brilliant. was insightful and able to convey his passion for the game without screaming. now works on bbc coverage of the london games but doesn't get nearly as much time to do good work cos gotta hear what [random C list celebrity in attendance] thinks of the game

i am pretty sure nfl countdown or whatever it's called would achieve triple ratings for a tenth of their budget if they got rid of everyone and just had mike carlson with a telestrator

Yeah the closest we ever got to that was ESPN's NFL Matchup which aired at hilariously terrible TV times (like 3AM and 730AM Eastern Sundays). It was a great show until like 2009 when Hoge and Jaworski started to become more like ESPN caricatures of themselves.

Deion Sanders gets paid to talk. Think about that for a second.

What I'm hearing is that they might keep the analytics guys, but bring in someone like Scot McLoughan to handle the personnel side. I think that would be pretty awesome.

Yeah, this. They're basically doing what the Raiders did, only harder.

I don't think the argument was over how much Rodgers is worth, it was over how much Kaep is worth.

lol

I caught a little bit last night... 'Marshawn was trying to do good, but it went wrong.' os

His lack of tackling is why I was happy Rod Woodson was the one who got picked on the 75 year team.

The 100 year team gets picked at the end of 2018 and I fear that somehow Deion's cult has strengthened since he retired and somehow that decision may get reversed

Caveat here is that I loved watching Deion play - he was so ****ing exciting

You can put Rod Woodson on any all-time team you like but in 50 years no one will remember him while Deion will remain a widely known legend.

Well yes, that was my point. But I care far more about things like the 100 yr team than about what random strangers may believe about players they never saw in 50 years time

this. Deion GOAT db

interesting, as a former player I find their percentage based, constantly adjusting model to be the best in theory. of course, it's useless until week 9 or so and I don't know how it correlates to the betting markets, but on a position group by position group basis it's pretty good imo

FO are indeed pretty weak quantitatively. Compare to, say, the guys on APBR or war-on-ice that actually had quant PhDs and got hired by NBA and NHL teams, respectively. They correctly determined, e.g., that you need to use penalized regression on WOWY data due to the considerable collinearity that exists in having the same players on the court/ice a lot. It's a theoretically-sound approach to estimation for data that has this problem. On the other hand, I've never seen any comparable appreciation for the state of the science coming from FO.

That said, it's all relative. I still use FO a lot because there just isn't much else out there for NFL advanced.

Vet minimum.

Well also run support is like the least important part of a cornerback's game
That would be good; their approach to acquiring picks has been sound but their actual talent evaluation maybe not as much (although it hasn't been as bad as their critics want you to think, either). They do have to do a better job of hanging onto their own good players (even if Haden is overrated, I didn't understand cutting him, and letting Pryor walk and signing Britt instead seems like a pretty serious mistake now).
Let's not go nuts.

Ok, name a HOF DB who retired 60+ years ago.

In 50 years Rod Woodson will have been retired for 64 years.

People think that Woodson will be remembered in 50 years? Nah. No chance.