Just watched the Cards and Kolb. They got a long ways to go for their 1st team O. They must really love the guy though considering how much they paid and what they gave up. They must have been planning the trade for months and even thinking about when they drafted Peterson. I was just thinking, if they were going to trade DRC, why not just draft Gabbert, keep DRC and keep the extra draft pick? If I'm Az, I'd rather have DRC, Gabbert, and the pick I'd traded, than Kolb, Peterson, and one less premium pick and that huge salary tied up in a basically unknown QB. Unknown as for how good he really is. Rather gamble on a rookie salary with Gabbert. keep the DB who has already proven himself and the draft choice.
Honestly, we're Dolphins fans on a Dolphins message board and so I get to ***** about the things the Dolphins did that I didn't like (which this off season, seems to be everything...they're on a really weird streak). But if not, I'd be talking about that Kolb trade more because to me it was the SINGLE WORST move in all the off season thus far, for any team. No draft pick, no trade, no free agent signing was worse than that Kevin Kolb trade. It was dumb and it's going to get Ken Whisenhunt fired. Or at least, it should.
You can get better and still have a worse season for any number of reasons. The opposite can also be true. Generally speaking, I think most teams do get better in the offseason. Thanks to the draft, the talent base of the league is generally on an upswing. It's just that some teams get, for a lack of a better word, betterer than others do. Free agency defections, retirements and coordinators getting head coaching jobs elsewhere are really the only basis for saying a certain team got worse, imo. At least until the injury bug really kicks in.
So ... before I vote, let me get one thing straight: Is this about the teams that got worse talent-wise or about the teams that will get worse record-wise? Because that's not the same, not at all. I have no idea how anyone could, say, take a look at Cleveland and think that they haven't become a much better team, but I could still see them win less than five. I don't think I can come up with even close to 16 teams that have gotten worse talent-wise. I can, of course, name 16 teams that I think might finish with a worse record than they did in 2010, although, frankly, I'm not sure what this little excercise would signify.
It's just for fun, just for sh!ts and giggles, something to chew the fat over. Not trying to split the atom or develop a cure for people being ******ed enough to be Jets fans. CK said it is up to us, if we want to pick 16 we think could have a worse record, or 16 who have less talent.
Are you trying to tell me that there's no scientific point? Speak clearly, man! Seriously though, I'm just wondering what to make of the results. Never mind that I find Miami's number astonishingly low (even for a fan board), I quite fail to see how, for instance, Pittsburgh ends up with so many votes.
I did not vote for either one. I'd consider Pittsburgh about same or slightly better. I was surprised to see the Giants get that many votes. IMO they are a solid #2 for the NFC East.
I left it up for interpretation on purpose. But there is something to be said for the old saying, "You are who your record says you are". The point of the exercise was just that if you're going to assume the Dolphins got better then you're assuming about 16 other teams got worse, and I want to know which teams. It's perspective builder. You can't really evaluate whether the Dolphins got better or worse in a vacuum.
Well that is your opinion and you're welcome to it... but I disagree about being a worse team than we were last year. 1. Is it your belief that Henne will be even worse this year? I dont believe hes going to breakout, but I dont think he'll be worse either. 2. The new offense is a valid concern, especially with the short install time 3. I dont see how this makes us worse on the field. Maybe in public relations or in the media. 4. Again, I dont see how this makes us worse on the field 5. Completely disagree with the offensive line being worse. IMO, with the additions of Pouncey and Carey to the interior OL, we vastly improve the interior OL which really struggled for us last year. I think we are worse at RT than last year, but IMO the upgrades at Center and RG outweigh the downgrade at RT 6. While I'm hesitant to really be down on this position relative to last year, we do have more unknowns at that position. The "knowns" we had last year were unspectacular, but we did know what we had. The position depends on a rookie. If DThomas breaks out, and Bush is used like the versatile player he can be, we very easily could look back at the end of the season and see that we upgraded at the position. But it is just as likely that DThomas struggles in his rookie year and Bush does nothing and/or gets hurt. 7. Pass rush likely to backslide? Not sure I see why that would occur. We kept everyone in our front 7, minus Cowder (who we replaced with a better pass rusher)... and our young players in the front 7 are only getting better. The addition of Odrick should help the pass rush as well. 8. That is fair. If they dont handle it well and mentally collapse, then yes that could send the season spiralling. However, I would not count having a front loaded schedule towards this team getting worse in the offseason... as it is not related to their offseason moves. Additional: 9. We upgraded our MLB position over Crowder IMO. I know you're not so high on Burnett... but I am. And IMO, we upgraded pretty well there. Other improvements not from offseason moves: - Similar to #8, these are not offseason moves... but we have a very young core of players who are only getting better with more experience. Guys like Vontae, Smith, Misi, Clemmons, Soliai, Wake (not so young, but young experience wise), Hartline, Langford, Bess, etc. - Marshall appears to be in better shape with more quickness and explosiveness, which I think should be an improvement over last year. I dont think we've vaulted ourselves up the ranks this offseason, but I certainly dont feel like we've got worse either. And I dont feel that disagreeing with your assessment should be considered "not being objective"...
Okay I get it you are a football guru and you think the Dolphins will suck this year because they didn't do everything how you would do it. Edit: Did you see Ronnie last night? If so you shouldnt think we downgraded.
I voted based on teams that didn't add any new talent, are getting older or lost talent and didn't quite replace it.
I'm trying to figure out how the Patriots downgraded more than we did? Or how New England downgraded at all, for the matter.
I think we got worse during this off season too. We have no full time RB, no real QB, and a QB coach with no experience at the position. This is a train wreck and Sporano should have been out on his unholy a$$ already. If we see 500 ball I will be amazed. All we do is keep rebuilding and rebuilding and rebuilding and rebuilding and rebuilding and rebuilding and rebuilding with no results to show for it. New faces on the O line, new faces in every offensive position, same result just you watch. Sporano sucks. After this year you will see that he's nothing more than a glorified line coach, and that's all he ever was.
Again, I think the odds are better that we'd win 7 games again than they would win 14 or better. Maybe they didn't downgrade more than us, but their margin for error is much smaller (if they want to get 14 wins again).
How are we worse b/c "we have no real QB"? By your definition, we had "no real QB" last year. So how are we worse now b/ of it?
I don't think people believe the Jets are worse than the Bengals. More people believe the Jets got worse. I voted for both, but I can see where someone may think the Bengals will just be as bad as they were last season and not any worse.
I know that nobody thinks the Jets are worse than the Bengals. At least I hope not. But still, I have a hard time that 3 people could think the Jets got worse, but not think losing Carson Palmer and their 2 best WRs won't make the Bungals a worse team. Also the Cedrick Benson uncertainty has to be accounted for. That will be a very bad team.
That's certainly true, no arguing against that. I personally wasn't going based off of record, which could be why I didn't choose New England. Talent wise, I don't think they have downgraded which is why I was confused to see so many votes for them.
So 3 seasons of rebuilding a 1-15 team where nearly every player had to be changed, and then going 25-23 with one playoff appearance and a division title is "sucking"? Do you think any Green Bay fans where saying the same thing about McCarthy when he took over a 4-12 team and in his first 3 seasons went 27-21 with one playoff appearance and one division title? I bet the ones that did feel pretty ****ing stupid now. What about Saints Fans? Do you think they said the same thing when Sean Payton took over a 3-13 team and in his first 3 season went 25-23 with one playoff appearance? I bet they too feel pretty ****ing stupid. To no one in particular: Anyone who believes that ANY coach can take a 1-15 team and in 3 seasons do much better than Sparano has done is pretty ****ing stupid.
Speaking on my own opinion here. My doubts on Sparano stem mainly from what I perceive to be a lack of competence in being an NFL head coach. I don't think he is able to manage a game well, adapt his game plan if the other team does something expected, and has zero time management skills. He doesn't have the killer instinct that I would like to see in a coach. This could fall squarely on Henning's shoulders, but I felt too many times we were playing for field goals, and not trying to "win" the game. As the head coach, however, he is also responsible for the plays run on the field and the roster management. Overall, I don't think he has shown me any promise that he can take this team to the next level.
Jimmy Johnson won a Superbowl 3 seasons after going 1-15. I can tell you who looks pretty ****ing stupid now, and it's not JJ or me.
I agree that Sparano makes mistakes. However, I'd bet that for every mistake he made last season ANY other 3 year head coach made too. Hell, even BB made a few boneheaded calls last season that may have rivaled anything Sparano did, but he's overlooked because of what he's done there. It took BB how many years before he was able to become a winning HC? I'm not saying Sparano doesn't need to improve, I'm saying that to give up on him under these circumstances after 3 seasons is just dumb.
No, you just look angry. And it's obvious you haven't a clue about what my post meant. lol Dan Marino went to the Super Bowl his first year as a starter. Tom Brady won a Super Bowl in his first year as a starter. Should we use that fact to judge all QB's too? lol Do you think we can get some team to give us their entire draft for Reggie Bush? Are you really going to use an exception rather than a rule in order to make a point? How many times do you think something like JJ's Cowboys happened in NFL history? Now, how many times do you think a coach needed more than 3-5 seasons in order to turn a 1-15 team around? Some people win the lottery. Do you think you're next?
Granted, I didn't think about Johnson and the 'Boys. Probably because the luck that was involved in him being able to get that team by trading Hershal Walker to for an entire draft of another team still baffles me. However, this changes not ONE thing about my point. Have fun though. lol
Most years about 85% of those with records of 10-6 or better go down. About 40% of those 9-7 to 6-10 go down. About 15% 0f those 5-11 or worse go down. Considering those percentages, my prediction is that the following teams will have lesser records next season. NE ATL BAL PITT CHI NYJ IND KC NYG TB JAC OAK SEA TEN WAS CIN
