Jump to content

NFL 2019


Maxx

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Meacon say “Feliz Navidad” said:

It was one game. You're 4-9-1. We'll re-visit this in a couple years when you're hiring a new head coach. 

5-9-1, and across the Offense we are way better than last year. Alright, not a difficult achievement to be better than the worst in the league but we have taken big steps forward and I think Kingsbury deserves some credit. Obviously he will ultimately be judged not on one year but several but I think he has shown his mettle a few times and last night was spot on from start to finish.

Our Defense has been the major problem this year. If we can start sorting that out in the Off-Season we'll be in much better shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adam said:

5-9-1, and across the Offense we are way better than last year. Alright, not a difficult achievement to be better than the worst in the league but we have taken big steps forward and I think Kingsbury deserves some credit. Obviously he will ultimately be judged not on one year but several but I think he has shown his mettle a few times and last night was spot on from start to finish.

Our Defense has been the major problem this year. If we can start sorting that out in the Off-Season we'll be in much better shape.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Seahawks currently have issues at the running back position, which benefited the Cardinals. Chris Carson left the game with a hip injury in the second, and his backup was already sidelined with a knee injury. That left Seattle without a decent running game. 

Now, 5-9-1 is a definite improvement over 3-13, but I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Kingsbury could definitely be a good coach with a team that needs improvement. But on the other hand, he could also be a one season wonder, or Steve Wilks could have just sucked more as a head coach. We'll have to wait and find out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so savvy, there's a ton of guys who probably offer the same production that Seattle could get (and who would cost less) but the magic of having Beast Mode in the Seattle backfield for a massive game on Sunday against SF? It's almost a no brainer. That C-Link crowd will be deafening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GhostMachine said:

You're also ignoring the fact that the Seahawks currently have issues at the running back position, which benefited the Cardinals. Chris Carson left the game with a hip injury in the second, and his backup was already sidelined with a knee injury. That left Seattle without a decent running game. 

Now, 5-9-1 is a definite improvement over 3-13, but I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Kingsbury could definitely be a good coach with a team that needs improvement. But on the other hand, he could also be a one season wonder, or Steve Wilks could have just sucked more as a head coach. We'll have to wait and find out. 

 

I'm not ignoring it at all, I did watch the game and am aware. Seattle do lean heavily on the run but they aren't a team built entirely around Carson, and we were without Kyler Murray for almost as long as they were without Carson. Nothing much against what you said in the second paragraph GM but as @livid kindly pointed out, we Cards don't get much excitement as it is so I'll take what I can get! And I think we're on the right track with Kingsbury and Kyler, they've won me round through this season after I was very dubious about ripping up the Rosen project after one season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just took umbrage with the “No one can say boo about Kliff now!” because it was a one game sample you were throwing out when 5-9-1 isn’t a reason for me to think he’s a success. I don’t mind you being excited and you should be. I only know what I see and have seen and I don’t think them beating Seattle is going to erase that. 

That said, I also realize it was almost immediately after the game, so it’s possible you were just on the post-game high and didn’t literally mean that that one game meant that Kliff belongs in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lamar Jackson (and other Ravens starters) won't play next week. He's got MVP and OPOY locked up. The game is basically meaningless as regardless of the result Tennessee needs to win at Houston. Yeah Oakland still has an outside shot but it's unlikely even without the Ravens basically gifting Pittsburgh a win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, damsher hatfield said:

Lamar Jackson (and other Ravens starters) won't play next week. He's got MVP and OPOY locked up. The game is basically meaningless as regardless of the result Tennessee needs to win at Houston. Yeah Oakland still has an outside shot but it's unlikely even without the Ravens basically gifting Pittsburgh a win.

I mean Rudolph the Red Hatted Reindeer and Duck Hodges are still the QBs, so let's not call this one for PIT quite yet

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL 100 team finishes naming its players tonight with QBs. Overall it's gotten most everything right, the omissions have mostly been in that area of "who do you take out for them?" The only real egregious absence is Terrell Owens from WRs. Seems like a deliberate decision by the league to punish him for daring to be his own person.

Also, one thing that's wild is the lack of Packers from those teams in the 1960s. Very similar to the Patriots dynasty of the 2000s and 2010s, plenty of players from both eras but almost all came from teams those dynasties beat up on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First the HOF and now the NFL shunning TO because he's a cocky, eccentric personality and a bit of a dick. Pretty high morals considering the team has the "probably murdered someone" combo of Ray Lewis and Marvin Harrison.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t agree with the people saying TO needed to go on instead of old era guys like Don Hutson, Raymond Berry, Elroy Hirsch, Paul Warfield.  The entire point of the list is to celebrate league history and that means including the best players from all eras.  If you’re basing it on numbers only it slants the list unfairly towards the modern era.

I do think TO should’ve been on the list but to me the clear guy to bump would’ve been Marvin.  Has nothing to do with the off-field stuff with either guy - Marvin is TO’s closest contemporary and TO had better numbers, plus didn’t have one of the best QBs of all time throwing to him for most of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy