Originally posted by celestialdemon
Just a little trivia to throw out there. No team who has had the league leader in passing yards has ever won the Super Bowl.
its almost like someone just said that...
oh wait they did!
Originally posted by Smasandian
There is a reason on why a QB who has led the league in passing (not TD's) have never won a Superbowl.
Originally posted by Pezmerga
Ok fine I'll put it this way.
Who would you rather have, Jerry Rice in his prime or Emmit Smith in his prime? to ME the great WR's are great on their own. Of course a good QB helps their stats, but a Great RB needs a good O-line to block for him.I'll take Rice. Putting together a great O-line and plugging a decent RB back there will be enough for me.
I of course still agree you need a good Running Game to compete. I just think you can get by without a Star at RB. Of course football has alot of variables so it's kind of hard to generalize.
I do agree that you dont need an all star RB to make it to the Superbowl.
I would just rather have an good RB instead of a similiar talanted WR.
I would choose Smith over Rice if I wanted to win a SB, but its hard because Rice is considered the best WR to ever play the game while Smith sometimes isnt considered the top 5. But I would still choose Smith.
Seems McFadden will be a Raider after all. Jerry Jones's own words unless of course he is lying...
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/columnists/randy_galloway//index.html
Nah, they paid a ton of money for Turner.
I dont think they'll get him.
That article makes complete sense. Draft picks get a shitload of money nowadays and could seriously screw up your cap space for years and because they havnt even step foot on a NFL field its a risky gamble getting a top 5 pick for 2 first rounders. Especially considering that McFadden is a RB and could be injured in the first game, or be done 3 years from now.
I dont have a problem getting McFadden if he comes after 10th pick, or we already have a top 5 picks but Felix Jones and a huge RB class this year makes more logical sense to keep hold on that 20ish pick for another RB. He might be even more effective than McFadden and will cost 30 mil less.
Smart move in my opinion. They have the team to easily contend this year, why screw up the future.
Pacman on the otherhand, I'm iffy. Will he be a change man, or will he not. I dont know. Personally, I dont really care if he is on the team or not but giving up a 6th round pick to see if he might turn out to be good is not much of a gamble. Just cut the ****er as soon as possible if he ****s up and do not give him a huge contract, or a contract that will **** up the small amount of space the Cowboys have left.
My focus for the time being is the NFL Owners meeting down in Florida. The popular topic is cheating, of course, but the serious topic is the league's financial future.
The CBA expires after the 2010 season. I have heard it mentioned that it only takes 9 owners to vote against it, but of more concern is the whispers that certain owners (we won't mention any names *cough JerryJonesDanielSnyder cough* here) are really pushing for a salary cap-free league. That's right, turning the NFL into Major League Baseball.
I know it's in its early stages of discussion, but if, somehow (and I wouldn't push it past a few big-market guys), the salary cap is extinguished, then I hope NFL audiences like seeing Dallas, Washington, NY Jets, NY Giants, and New England Patriots in the playoffs year after year, because that's what it's going to be when these teams turn into the Yankees.
And teams like Buffalo, Jacksonville, & Carolina, get ready to become the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL. 3-13 for 4 years in a row. Teams will have to be like the Oakland Athletics (draft & manage well) just to get a chance to compete once out of every three years or so.
But at this point, it's still an "if."
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Seems Pacman Jones may not be a Cowboy just yet. Talks have stalled between the Titans and Cowboys and the Titans maybe looking at other teams.
Yea if you look at an old post from march 28th youd see the news that the titans rejected the offer.
Two fairly big rule changes have come out of the owners meetings. There is no longer such thing as a force out, either you get 2 feet in or you dont. There is also no longer a 5 yard face mask, only a 15.
Originally posted by forumcrew
Yea if you look at an old post from march 28th youd see the news that the titans rejected the offer.Two fairly big rule changes have come out of the owners meetings. There is no longer such thing as a force out, either you get 2 feet in or you dont. There is also no longer a 5 yard face mask, only a 15.
So basically you can get pushed out of bounds while in the air and it wont be called a catch?
Originally posted by forumcrew
Two fairly big rule changes have come out of the owners meetings. There is no longer such thing as a force out, either you get 2 feet in or you dont. There is also no longer a 5 yard face mask, only a 15.
Just as long as they keep Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder locked in the broom closet during these meetings, I'm cool with most of their talk.
About these rule changes, I like it. I think the more subjectivity you can take out of the game and replace it with definitiveness, the better. DB's already have it tough as it is. They can't breathe on a guy without getting a flag.
Now if they could only take the subjectiveness out of those damn pass interference/defensive holding/illegal contact penalties.
Originally posted by Smasandian
So basically you can get pushed out of bounds while in the air and it wont be called a catch?
correct. I believe the only exception listed was if a player is "carried out of bounds" So I guess if you were about to land inbounds a defensive player couldnt catch you and then run and drop you out of bounds to prevent it from being a catch lol. But yea I also like the rule because its one less judgement call a ref has to make.
Originally posted by forumcrew
correct. I believe the only exception listed was if a player is "carried out of bounds" So I guess if you were about to land inbounds a defensive player couldnt catch you and then run and drop you out of bounds to prevent it from being a catch lol. But yea I also like the rule because its one less judgement call a ref has to make.
For argument sake.
Couldnt that be the same as pushing the guy out of bounds also?
I dont have a problem with the old rules.
Originally posted by Smasandian
For argument sake.Couldnt that be the same as pushing the guy out of bounds also?
I dont have a problem with the old rules.
Yea it could be similar, all I know is the wording said the only exception was if a player was carried out of bounds. I am assuming this is an exception that will pretty much never ever get called in a game but has to exist just so there isnt a loophole to the rule.
This definitely helps the defense but I could see some interference penalties called from this as well with defenders not even going for the ball and just thinking they are gonna blow the guy up and take him out of bounds and lighting him up too early.