Hungry5 posted:"Free Agency only requires 1 team to do something stupid to drive the market."
— Mike & Mike (@MikeAndMike) January 4, 2017
- Bill Polian pic.twitter.com/jgCRl1XSCq
We are hoping that guy isTed.
Not sure if this needs its own thread, but John Lynch has been named GM of the 49ers.
Too bad they couldn't name Aikman and Buck co-GMs.
In the WTF department, little wonder Wolf opted out of that schit show:
The #49ers are hiring FOX analyst John Lynch as their GM, source says. Out of nowhere.
Lynch was a stellar player and is a student of the game and super sharp... but brings zero experience leading an NFL football ops department
Ted was soooo close on adalius thomas. If only.
Hungry5 posted:Who decide who. You decide how much. You decide for how long. A couple of links to help you with the task at hand.
Restructured CM3- 10.7, cobb-8.8, cut shields , and starks = was 56.5 under, Signed Perry 8 mil, cook 4.5mil, hyde - 3 mil, lacy - 2.5, tretter 4mil, lang 7 mil. 29 mil under- draft pick 5 mil. So I come up with somewhere around 24 under cap
packerboi posted:Lynch was a stellar player and is a student of the game and super sharp... but brings zero experience leading an NFL football ops department
From ESPN:
The idea to hire Lynch was his own. He personally called Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan and volunteered for the job about a week ago.
Shanahan, considered the favorite to be named the Niners' next head coach, thought about Lynch, and the more he thought about it, the more he felt Lynch was a fit for the job. Lynch played for Shanahan's father, Mike, in Denver.
So this is a case of a head coach approving of his boss? Or will Shanahan be the chief overseer and Lynch is just a figurehead?
Reincarnation of Matt Millen?
PFT says the Whiners want to emulate what the Broncos have done with Elway. Lynch just needs to find a HOF QB to run the offense and finish his career there while also spending wildly and irresponsibly on defense. Sure the went to two SBs, won 1, can't argue with that success, but in the long term they're not in great shape.
Boris posted:You can rip on Polian all you want about "only" 1 Super Bowl win but his teams were almost always highly competitive & in the mix every single year.
Kinda like the Steelers, Patriots & Packers....always in the conversation.
Polian was an excellent personnel guy.
But winning a single Super Bowl (and getting to just 2) with the best QB in the game (Peyton Manning while he was in his prime) over 12-13 seasons as the Colts GM is simply not that great an accomplishment.
I mean, Manning got to 2 Super Bowls (and won one) in Denver in just 4 years and he was in serious decline at that point.
And the principal "conversation" Polian's Colts' teams were in with regard to the Patriots, was mostly, how come we keep losing to them in the playoffs?
Consequently, one can certainly understand Polian's unstinting praise of the GM who has led the Pack to 1 Super Bowl appearance in 12 years with Hall of Famers at QB every one of those seasons. If Polian were to criticize TT, he would open himself up to similar scrutiny.
I know you want to compare everyone to the Patriots.
Unfortunately, the other 31 teams don't have the same competitive advantage over the last 17 years or so. (Spygate, Deflategate, etc.)
It's hard to GET to a Super Bowl let alone win one. HOF QB or not.
A Super Bowl is a team achievement.
Unfortunately you're wrong. Polian was an excellent GM.
Serious question: is there a difference between losing a SB and losing a conference championship? Making a SB is more prestigious than conference championship, but ultimately you still haven't accomplished the goal. Is going 3-1 in the playoffs more accomplished than going 2-1? The point I'm getting at is that even the mighty Patriots went a decade, with a HOF QB, without winning a SB. Sure they made it to a couple in between, which is great, but not sealing the deal sucks no matter what stage it is. If the Seahawks punch it in and win that SB, I bet the discussion would shift to "Belichick is one of the all-time greats BUT he hasn't actually won it all in a decade despite having a HOF QB.
This isn't meant to let McCarthy off the hook for losing in the playoffs, it just means it's dam hard to win a SB. Even Belichick has a hard time with it, he's one dumb Darrell Bevell decision away from being .500 in SB appearances.
In the past ten seasons, only one team has won more than one SB. Have the Giants been the best team in football during that stretch?
Grave Digger posted:Serious question: is there a difference between losing a SB and losing a conference championship?
Serious answer: yes.
Lombardi just flipped over in his grave.
I'm not arguing about it, I'm curious about everyone's position. So you think it's more prestigious or better in some way to lose in the SB than it is to lose in the conference championship? I'm of the opinion that losing in the playoffs is losing no matter where it is. I guess winning the conference championship is a little more gratifying, but not much more gratifying than knocking off two teams we weren't supposed to beat (NYG and DAL).
Every win is gooder than non wins
I know you like playing the contrarian so I suspect you already know this but conference title game losers are afterthoughts on the season. Sometimes Super Bowl losers are remembered as much as the winners. We all remember the Bills losing four straight correct? Who did they beat in the conference title games?
I will add an addendum to this however. No one will forget the colossal choke job against the Hags. Packer fans for sure won't and I still hear it brought up by national analysts so I guess you have that going for you.
I guess using the Bills as an example...people would generally consider getting to the SB , even without winning it, more prestigious than losing the conference championship...especially if you did it 4 consecutive times.
IL_Pack_Fan posted:In the past ten seasons, only one team has won more than one SB. Have the Giants been the best team in football during that stretch?
10 years is the wrong measure.
The Giants were the most successful team between 2007 & 2011 when they won 2 Super Bowls. They went into a downward spiral thereafter, and thus fired their head coach.
Now, the Green Bay Packers have not been to a Super Bowl in 6 seasons. Have they been one of the BEST teams during that stretch?
Have to make it to the SB in order for a shot to win it. Hard to see anything positive out of losing in the conference championship.
The Packers had a solid one year plus stretch of being the absolute best, with the run to the Super Bowl championship and the following 15-1 regular season. Aside from that they've been good, but underperformers.
You don't have to evaluate purely on Super Bowl wins, or even where you lose in the playoffs. The regular season does mean a lot. In the McCarthy era we've earned what, two first round byes? That's a little thin, every year 1 in 8 teams gets one. I guess since McCarthy hasn't been around for 16 seasons yet 2 byes isn't that bad. But when you consider the quality of QB, and the sheer incompetence of some franchises, especially in our own division... they should have done better.
The Packers, mostly the offense of course, are great at times but there are just too many of these slow starts, the R-E-L-A-Xes and the Run the Tables. But they let too many bad teams stick around after jumping on them. They have too many no-shows against subpar division opponents. Great teams relentlessly pound lesser teams all season long and coast to byes and HFA.
One Super Bowl is a fair result for how this team has been in the TT/MM era. It could've easily been two, but it also easily could have been zero.
If the question is who has been the best over the past 15, 10, 5, or even 1 years it's no question. It's been the Patriots. Brady is inferior to Rodgers pretty much across the board, aside from the ol' chip on their shoulders which I'd consider to be close between the two. But he's had the superior organization around him top to bottom.
I'm definitely lamenting the post-Rodgers era a lot more than I am the post TT/MM era. The former won't be beat. But the latter? There's room for improvement.
I think GB was certainly one of the best teams in 2011 (**** you Dom). I think they were the best team in 2014. I think they have to be viewed as overachievers in 12,13, 15 thanks in large part to Aaron. Not sure where I stand on the 16 Packers yet because of 4-6. But it's hard to call them anything but one of the best teams after beating NY and Dallas. But again, **** you Dom.
Regarding losing in the conference title or SB. Losing a SB is the single greatest kick to the nuts there is. But losing is losing. You don't take any measure of honor or accomplishment away from losing either.
A week after the game I've reached the conclusion it's going to be an interesting offseason between Ted and Clay. Clay's contract says $15.2 million in 2017. $4.1 million in dead money. I think Ted is going to ask Clay to accept a fairly aggressive cut in pay. And if Clay refuses there is a real chance Ted tries to trade him or even release him outright and free up another $11 million in cap space and use some of that to ensure Perry stays put.
I don't like "playing the contrarian", I just don't always agree with the 50 Drunks on X4 opinion. It's just interesting to me that some feel the season is somehow more successful because you made it to the SB than if you lost in the playoffs. The original point was that Belichick went a decade without a SB win, including two SB losses, 3 conference championship losses, 2 division round losses, 1 wildcard loss, and missed the playoffs once, but people seem to feel it was a successful stretch because he simply appeared in two SBs. This isn't to say Belichick wasn't successful, I think it was a highly successful stretch as he had his team in contention every year, but it's just hard to win a SB. McCarthy gets dogged out though because it's been 6 years since a SB win including a 2 conference championship losses, 3 division round losses, and 1 wildcard loss. I think this is a successful stretch as we are in contention every year, but it's just hard to win a SB. Same logic can be applied to Thompson's methods, his team building gets criticized but the team is constantly in contention.
chickenboy posted:Grave Digger posted:Serious question: is there a difference between losing a SB and losing a conference championship?
Serious answer: yes.
The adults are talking....sit over there & be quiet
Well for me and maybe I am in the minority I just enjoy the ride and enjoy a deep ride in to the playoffs. How much the loss hurts depends on the game.
I wish people realized how incredibly hard it is to make a Super Bowl. Everything has to align perfectly just to GET to one and winning one is incredibly difficult.
Everything has to align. Front office, coaching staff, having the right players at the right time in the right system, staying healthy, and having some luck along the way etc. The Colts were brought up before. I think Polian is one of the best GM's the NFL has seen but he was kind of like TT in that he could find crazy good offensive talent but his defenses weren't all that great. Really good at times but never on the par of the offense.
SteveLuke posted:IL_Pack_Fan posted:In the past ten seasons, only one team has won more than one SB. Have the Giants been the best team in football during that stretch?
10 years is the wrong measure.
The Giants were the most successful team between 2007 & 2011 when they won 2 Super Bowls. They went into a downward spiral thereafter, and thus fired their head coach.
Now, the Green Bay Packers have not been to a Super Bowl in 6 seasons. Have they been one of the BEST teams during that stretch?
Why wouldn't we want to evaluate teams over a longer stretch rather than a shorter one? That downward spiral is exactly what I want my GM to avoid.
Some wins are better than others, just like some outs are better than others.
IL_Pack_Fan posted:SteveLuke posted:IL_Pack_Fan posted:In the past ten seasons, only one team has won more than one SB. Have the Giants been the best team in football during that stretch?
10 years is the wrong measure.
The Giants were the most successful team between 2007 & 2011 when they won 2 Super Bowls. They went into a downward spiral thereafter, and thus fired their head coach.
Now, the Green Bay Packers have not been to a Super Bowl in 6 seasons. Have they been one of the BEST teams during that stretch?
Why wouldn't we want to evaluate teams over a longer stretch rather than a shorter one? That downward spiral is exactly what I want my GM to avoid.
Agree that I want my GM to avoid a "downward spiral."
But I think we have a different definition of that phrase.
If someone had told me right after the 2010 Super Bowl victory that the Packers would not return to another Super Bowl during the next 6 seasons even though Aaron Rodgers continued to be the best or one of the best QBs every one of those 6 seasons (2 MVPS during that span), I'd have responded that they must have gone on a downward spiral.
6 years later, I still feel that way.
chickenboy posted:I know you like playing the contrarian
Jesus ****.
Peter King of The MMQB and Sports Illustrated tells Bill Michaels from Radio Row "Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson needs to make a bold statement this off-season and sign a cornerback, even if it's going to cost a ridiculous amount of money." - Radio Joe
===============================================================
Not signing shiny big-name free agents is a bold statement.
Peter King is a dumbass. Not because of that statement.
Because he picked the Pack for the SB this year?