Bio not provided
@Nate Dunlevy @pjdonald Week 4 has 8(!) more inter-conference matchups. Seattle (I hope) and NO should take care of business, and maybe Dallas, but the 11-3 gap could well widen next week.
The Kaepernick angle is the one that fascinates me though. Can you say "flavor of the week"? I assume you're going to write a piece this week on what the Colts actually did to contain him and get them to ditch the read-option. Or what defensive adjustments were made after the Niners' scoring drive.
1 year, 2 months ago on Eyes in the Backfield: 49ers
This is kind of funny reading the Monday after. No shame in being wrong on this one, as pretty much everyone, wearing blue or not, was. However, the comprehensiveness of your negativity (e.g. "weak AFC" does indeed look goofy now.
Jason Cole on Yahoo up with some absurd blather today about the Colts losing the tiebreaker to Minnesota. Whatever dude.
2 years, 11 months ago on The Tie Breaker
Correct, the Colts have clinched the tiebreaker.
Come on Nate, that was a really sloppy post. Definitely has some core truth, but your numbers are poor.1) Orlo was 18/24, 177, 0/1 through the Mayo pick. That's 78.02) Not sure why you cherry-picked Painter's 11/15, 156, 1/1 from last week, and ignored his final 2 passes - an incompletion and a pick. But even so, the rating for the stretch you chose was 94.8.
So a) there's no question that Orlo's good (158.3) was better than Painter's good (94.8), andb) that Orlo's bad (78.0) was better than Painter's bad (54.2 for your non-picked Carolina stats, or 64.3 for the rest of his season)
Yes, we all realize that the 4Q numbers yesterday and last week were a mirage, but let's get them right. I didn't even watch the 2nd half, so my opinion that Orlo looks better than Painter is not biased by the garbage stats. And doesn't Orlo get credit for the 19 play 1Q drive?
I also realize we're choosing between 2 shades of bad here, and that the relative degree of bad is largely irrelevant in this disaster of a season. But let's not pretend that at least after one week, the new shade of QB competence is not the wretchedness of the prior one.
2 years, 11 months ago on Amoral Victory
@pierrezombie@DougEngland OK, that's a good point. Doesn't change my overall opinion, but it's worth considering. IMO, the injury risk is in the next 6 months. If Manning is healthy by April, I think it's pretty likely he'll not be a health risk before the end of his contract.
3 years ago on Tuesday Open Thread: The Bright Shimmer
@DougEngland Why? All you have to know by April 20, 2012 is whether PM can play this year? I agree that those decisions about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years will have to be made, but that's for the Spring of 2013, 2014, or 2015.
Mightynike's got it pretty well as I would put it, but let me just add a few thoughts.
For simplicity, let's say Luck is going to be one of the following quarterbacks who were drafted in the top 2:Leaf (complete bust)Carr (journeyman)Palmer (long middling career)McNabb (long, capable career)Manning (HOF)
I don't know what the odds of each of those ought to be, but it's somewhat bell-shaped. 5/15/60/15/5? Or maybe you want to spread out the tails a little bit: 15/20/30/20/15? Or maybe you want to even skew it toward the favorable side a bit (i.e. "Manning" a more probable outcome than "Leaf").
But regardless, this notion that Luck is going to be Manning is just incredibly presumptuous. It's much more likely he will be Palmer or McNabb. And as nike says, the chance to win in 2012 and 2013 is unquestionably better with Manning.
I think it can work for 2 years. I'm not going to raise any violent objection if they opt for one over the other - I think any of the 3 options on the table right now are viable. But I think "Both" is the best option. This drumbeat (call it the Kravitz Stampede, tee hee) that doing anything but dumping Manning and going all in on Luck is the only sensible course is nothing but preening arrogance.