2009 NFL Off Season Thread - Page 60 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

transplant99 · 06-30-2009, 11:53 AM

Different look at bang for your buck for NFL teams.

No surprises at the top for sure...and the bottom feeders show how incompetant the teams have been run.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/29/more...ns-and-losses/

Clever_Iggy · 06-30-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

No surprises at the top for sure...and the bottom feeders show how incompetant the teams have been run.

Pretty much a useless article/blog. All the teams spend relatively in the same ballpark and the top teams obviously win more games versus the bottom feeders... I could have probably guessed this information off the top of my head and nailed the top 10 and bottom 10 in order (or roughly so).

...and it's just another example of how useless my (former*) team the Raiders are.

* - once (if?) Skeletor dies, I'll be back.

Bobblehead · 06-30-2009, 12:08 PM

In a league with such a limited number of games, the list pretty much goes according to Hoyle. The teams that win the most are at the top and vice versa.

I think where the benefit to a list like that is the teams that don't follow the strong correlation. I'm just not sure how to figure the outliers - I THINK the Bucs did well, since they only had 38 wins and they paid less per win than the Seahawks, but maybe it was that the Seahawks did poorly.

Also, teams with the fewest wins also have the highest draft picks, and those guys are expensive. Along with the classic issues of guys taking lower salaries to be on a team with a chance at the Super Bowl.

So while I'm sure there is a huge amount of smart management related by this list, there are a bunch of other variables that make me question whether there is a whole lot of worth to the list.

But it is interesting.

transplant99 · 06-30-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Pretty much a useless article/blog. All the teams spend relatively in the same ballpark and the top teams obviously win more games versus the bottom feeders... I could have probably guessed this information off the top of my head and nailed the top 10 and bottom 10 in order (or roughly so).

...and it's just another example of how useless my (former*) team the Raiders are.

* - once (if?) Skeletor dies, I'll be back.

You really should of written it then...you would of made money for doing so.

rubecube · 07-02-2009, 12:00 AM

Holy crap. Just saw footage of Romo at a golf tournament today and he looks FAT. Like Kyle Wellwood fact. I think this kind of backs up some of the questions about his conditioning.

OILFAN #81 · 07-02-2009, 12:12 AM

Man I can't wait for the end of August and the NFL to start. Real football will be back! I'm anxious for it to start.

rubecube · 07-02-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Man I can't wait for the end of August and the NFL to start. Real football will be back! I'm anxious for it to start.

Time to make you jealous. Guess who gets to go to the Colts/Titans game in Nashville on October 12?

burn_baby_burn · 07-02-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Holy crap. Just saw footage of Romo at a golf tournament today and he looks FAT. Like Kyle Wellwood fact. I think this kind of backs up some of the questions about his conditioning.

Maybe its sympathy weight for Jessicow. The two of them must be eating too many chicken fried steaks.

Clever_Iggy · 07-02-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Maybe its sympathy weight for Jessicow. The two of them must be eating too many chicken fried steaks.

LOL.

I saw the same bit about Romo golfing with Tiger... I didn't notice one way or the other.

rubecube · 07-02-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

LOL.

I saw the same bit about Romo golfing with Tiger... I didn't notice one way or the other.

Could've just been the shirt he was wearing, but he looked chunky.

troutman · 07-02-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Real football will be back! I'm anxious for it to start.

Soccer?

burn_baby_burn · 07-02-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Soccer?

Thats a curse word in these parts.

OILFAN #81 · 07-02-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Soccer?

Lol!

NFL!

OILFAN #81 · 07-02-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Time to make you jealous. Guess who gets to go to the Colts/Titans game in Nashville on October 12?

Nice! You should have fun. I've never been to Nashville myself. I'll be going to a Colts game this year as well.

Bobblehead · 07-02-2009, 08:12 PM

I just read today that the 49ers almost didn't take Patrick Willis in the '07 draft. A bunch of the coaches (including Singletary) were worried that he was too small and would not be able to hold up in an NFL schedule.

The GM (McCloughan) gave an emotional speech and won them over.

Pagal4321 · 07-02-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I just read today that the 49ers almost didn't take Patrick Willis in the '07 draft. A bunch of the coaches (including Singletary) were worried that he was too small and would not be able to hold up in an NFL schedule.

The GM (McCloughan) gave an emotional speech and won them over.

Seems strange for them to say he's small.

Would they still have gone LB? Because the next two LB's were Timmons and Beason, who are both studs. After that is Posluzny, who would have been a reach at #11.

But it sure makes you think just how would the draft have been affected if the 49ers DIDN'T take Willis. Thanks for the insight, it's always cool to hear managements thoughts on the draft after it's already done.

For all that care,here's a ling to the 07 draft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NFL_Draft

Bobblehead · 07-02-2009, 09:18 PM

Yeah, it is just neat hearing what the thoughts were at the time.

edit: And would they have gone LB? No idea, but they traded last year's 1st rounder to the Pats so the could get OT Joe Staley, and they just gave Staley an long extension. I'm glad they seem to be trying for some stability on the O-Line, something that has been missing for years.

It is funny looking at the draft. Jamarcus Russel still seems like a rookie, but so many other guys from that draft have been pro-bowlers and are impact players who seem like they have been around forever.

Pagal4321 · 07-03-2009, 02:47 PM

Looking back at that 07 draft, you see alot of impact players went in the first round. Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Adrian Peterson, LaRon Landry, Patrick Willis, Marshawn Lynch, Michael Griffin, Dwayne Bowe, Jon Beason, Anthony Gonzalez, Joe Staley.

That's quite the talented group, with 6 of those players going to the Pro Bowl already. Really interesting to see some of the kids you can label as busts already. Gaines Adams, Adam Carriker, Justin Harrell....and I'd even go as far as to call Russell a bust, but that may be a bit premature.

As you can see, I'm a huge draft nut, so these kinds of things interest me.

Sainters7 · 07-03-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

That's quite the talented group, with 6 of those players going to the Pro Bowl already. Really interesting to see some of the kids you can label as busts already. Gaines Adams, Adam Carriker, Justin Harrell....and I'd even go as far as to call Russell a bust, but that may be a bit premature.

By no means am I an expert, but I saw that one coming a mile away. I can't believe he went first over-all. That's an interesting list of names you mentioned, especially when you compare it to the highly-touted '06 draft class, which for the most case has been a bust(at least in terms of the Top 10). '07 was supposed to be a step back if I remember correctly, and clearly its been the exact opposite.

That just goes to show you how unpredictable the draft can be...and its also a strong argument on why rookies should not be signing multi-million dollar contracts without having played a single down.

Pagal4321 · 07-03-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sainters7

By no means am I an expert, but I saw that one coming a mile away. I can't believe he went first over-all. That's an interesting list of names you mentioned, especially when you compare it to the highly-touted '06 draft class, which for the most case has been a bust(at least in terms of the Top 10). '07 was supposed to be a step back if I remember correctly, and clearly its been the exact opposite.

That just goes to show you how unpredictable the draft can be...and its also a strong argument on why rookies should not be signing multi-million dollar contracts without having played a single down.

The 06 draft OVERALL I think was alot deeper than the 07 draft. They hyped up first round picks haven't panned out AT all. Bush, Young, D'Brick, Vernon Davis, Michael Huff....all complete flops, in my opinion. I think it's funny that Mario Williams has made a pro-bowl and Bush has not. Really shows that a huge gamble by Houston paid off in the end, as they got Slaton eventually, who seems to be a great player.

But there are very solid players taken everywhere from the first to the seventh in the 06 draft. DeMeco Ryans in Round 2 is a stud, Youboty and Spitz in Round 3 are starters for their team, Leon Washington, Brandon Marshall, Max Jean-Gillies and Owen Daniels in Round 4? Marques Colston in the 7th? Just crazyness as to how deep that draft was.