oochymp

yeah, I was thinking the same thing, due to the differences in the presentation it's nice to have an official board league on each site Thanks for the thoughts, and I want to make clear that I don't intend to disappear entirely, I'm just not going to maintain anywhere near my current activity level

One interesting thing is the low number of tackles by those in the bottom of the list (of the bottom ten, only three had more than 30 tackles) For some, I'm sure that indicates a lack of playing time, but for some (guys like Awesome-o, 7th worst, or Samuel, 2nd worst) I think it indicates other skills, for Awesome-o a coverage ability doesn't leave receivers open very often, and for Samuel a potential for a big play the wrong way which deters QBs from throwing at him. This doesn't mean you can forgive poor tackling, but it does skew the numbers a bit, the number of players that fall in the bottom ten in this metric that have single digit missed tackles is kind of surprising, but somewhat explained by the low number of tackle opportunities, and it also drives home the fact that no matter what statistic you come up with, it can't be considered in a vacuum.

I have trouble believing I was the only one who voted for all four current leaders: Brady, Polamalu, Rodgers, Awesome-o

Peyton Manning Drew Brees Aaron Rodgers Tom Brady Phillip Rivers Ben Roethlisberger Tony Romo Matt Schaub Matt Ryan Josh Freeman

yeah, the best part of that one is the quick response

The one thing I don't understand with the push to make the NFL more popular in Europe is why was the NFL Europa closed if that market is one the league wants to use? Sure, it was still losing money, but it was starting to gain a foothold, and you're going to build support a lot better in the European markets if they have their own teams to follow.

couple of absolutely epic ones: and possibly the best one I've seen on there so far:

I really hope so, I think we should split him out wide on occasion, really screw with defenses

does this actually surprise anyone? he'd be coaching someone this year if we hadn't waited until February to fire him, and Jacksonville actually makes some sense as a landing spot for him, they've got a lot of the right pieces for Fisher-ball

Give Mallett credit, the media slammed him for saying he didn't have to talk about his drug use publicly saying he would tell teams, and apparently he did. That said, anyone who will 'concede' that they 'at least' experimented with drugs probably did a lot more, I don't think I'd want to take someone with a reputation as a partier and has admitted to drug use, especially a QB who needs to be a face of the franchise/leader type.

no, Mallett would not be my top choice, I just didn't feel like going in depth and he was taken with the pick we traded I honestly haven't looked at the QBs in this class enough to fully rank them Looking at it again, in this scenario I'd take Jones in the first and Dalton in the second, still leaves some holes on defense, but our offense would be set regardless of what happens with Britt (assuming we can get a veteran after the draft who can start now)

I'm not saying that would be the ideal, but it would be preferable to trading our first and second for AJ Green, I just don't think Green alone would have enough impact to justify the move, especially if it takes that much to move up three spots, and I do realize that the idea behind this mock is to be way over the top on trades and therefore it's not really meant to be entirely realistic

I'd love it if we moved up for AJ Green, but I don't think it'd be worth the cost, we'd be better off sitting where we are and taking Julio Jones and adding Mallet in the second

one recent thing that's come out about the legal wrangling is that the draft could be a casualty if the NFL loses the anti-trust case, and if you think about what the draft does to the market it does make sense. Basically the thinking is that the draft dictates where players go, meaning rookies can't play teams off each other at the negotiating table or play for a team they've grown up following, they can only sign with the team that drafts them, that treatment of the workforce could be deemed improper treatment of labor. Do I think it'll actually happen? No, there's some concern that if this particular law suit is treated as special it could become a new standard for the enforcement of labor laws, but I don't think the draft falls under that as there's no way it would really work in any setting outside of sports, so I don't think there's really any concern over this particular issue. But, there is a possibility of the right judge taking this as purely a labor issue and completely re-writing NFL procedure, and the draft poses a pretty clear problem in an anti-trust suit.

yeah, Munch has kinda distanced himself from the entire VY clusterfuck, I would still love to see VY back, but I'm a little more realistic, Vince had a little bit of support in the lockerroom, but most players had given up on him, so I don't see him returning

one other point in the debate, Leaf at least got better each year, granted it was only marginal and he still never approached decent, Russell got worse the more he played

this is not the draft to trade back into the first round for a QB, there's no way five QBs from this year's class should be drafted in the first round

Lewis Williams Johnson

I suppose, though it seems like players have a lot more to lose, although I guess you see it happen most often with the top picks, meaning teams that need a shot in the arm

I've always kind of wondered why teams didn't do this, the teams control the money, not the players

is he talking NFL? because he might be able to get a starting spot in the UFL

I think the PA will like some form of a rookie cap under certain conditions, they will want the money saved to go to veterans and they may want rookies locked in for four years rather than five (let the good players get out of their low rookie deal sooner) but I think the PA also realizes that this is something that needs to happen.

yeah, this is not a draft to have three QBs taken in the top five, though it'd be great for teams drafting 6-10, and I think the Pats almost have to trade up, they've got nine picks in this years' draft (six in the first three rounds) and they don't have a team they can really add nine players to, is it really worth drafting nine players when four or five might make the team rather than put a bunch of those picks into getting one of the top prospects?

you lost me with the Pacman comparison, I'd say the immaturity is similar to VY, though VY never got in trouble with the law, but Pacman was a special kind of stupid that you just don't see very often (and I think we can all be grateful for that)

this is something that absolutely has to be a part of a new CBA, it's gotten to the point where nobody wants to trade into the top ten because of how much they have to pay the rookies taken there, and that just shouldn't happen IMO, I also like the idea of guaranteeing that the savings will go to veterans, however that happens (whether it's raising the vet minimum or increasing benefits) rather than just adding it to the owners' pockets