Are You Ready for Some Football - Week 8

[Imran Siddiqui]

Faulk??? He was considered an excellent snd versitile back when he was traded from Indianapolis to the Rams.

He was dealt wasn't he? An excellent and versatile back was obviously not considered that great by the Colts at the time.

I would say in the Rams case, the talent was already there. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the year Faulk became their running back, their offense became explosive. I mean, we've seen how the offense hasn't been as good without Faulk.

It hasn't been as good, but it definetly has been pretty damned good. The Rams right now look amazing on O and Faulk is no where to be seen.

I'm not sure you could make the case the 'talent was there' for the Rams. They brought IN the talent. Sure they had Bruce, but the rest of the 'stars' were signed or drafted. It isn't just the head coach that helps with that, the coordinators have a HUGE say (especially with a coach like Vermeil).

And I'm not about to place the blame on all those players non performance on the coaches.

I think more than 50%, at least, fail due to the failures of their first head coach.

[SlowwHand]

Tell you one thing, my opinion of Michael Vick has bottomed out.
Now he's telling the Falcon's he'll return sometime in December.
Wimp. Hell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now he's telling the Falcon's he'll return sometime in December.
Wimp. Hell.

Yes, because McNabb, who had the same procedure and returned early has really looked like the same player since he's been back .

Vick is smarter than McNabb, that's for sure.

[SlowwHand]

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

I picked up a stick in the yard smarter than you... so?

And you say that and would love to have him as your QB, and you know it .

McNabb may suck this year, but he's a better QB than Carter, anyday.

[SlowwHand]

Imran, you've been drinking again, haven't you?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I picked up a stick in the yard that was smarter than McNabb.
Is that the comparison your really want to use?

I picked up a stick in the yard smarter than you... so?

And you say that and would love to have him as your QB, and you know it .

McNabb may suck this year, but he's a better QB than Carter, anyday.

And yet, relatively speaking, I should have picked Carter in the first round.

ACK!

[reismark]

Here's my opinion on Vick: He's absolutely right. If the Falcons were 5-2 or 3-4 instead of 1-6, I think Vick would have been back on the field by now. The truth is that not even Vick can save them now - there's just too many problems with the rest of the team that his absence have exposed. If the season is lost, then there's no ****ing value whatsoever in rushing him back.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[Faulk] was dealt wasn't he? An excellent and versatile back was obviously not considered that great by the Colts at the time.

Right, excellent backs are never traded are they? Dickerson, Ricky Williams, Jerome Bettis. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but teams do trade away star players from time to time.

The Colts traded him cause they wanted Edgerrin James and to unload a heap of money and while doing do, they got the Rams 2nd and 5th round draft choices. I think the Colts made out quite well with the deal, and I think they also knew about Faulk's potential.

He was their leading rusher and receiver in his last year with them and since his move to the Rams, he's put up similar numbers to that year. Sure they're a little better than what he got in Indianapolis, but they are quite similar.

Do you still not think Indianapolis knew Faulk was a great back? I don't know about you, but if I had one player who had the most receptions, receiving yards and rushing yards for my team by far, I sure as hell know that that player is of excellent quality and very valuable. And when I learned he was traded, I was very happy for the Rams as well knowing they just got an excellent addition to their offense. It was no surpirse to me what Faulk did when he began playing for the Rams.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not sure you could make the case the 'talent was there' for the Rams. They brought IN the talent. Sure they had Bruce, but the rest of the 'stars' were signed or drafted. It isn't just the head coach that helps with that, the coordinators have a HUGE say (especially with a coach like Vermeil).

Looking at the history of the building of the Rams, you are correct that much of the top talent was drafted or aquired before that marvelous year. But they had Hakim, Bruce, Prohl, Warner (though they had no idea he could run the offense at the time), and mostly the same backups from before. They got Trent Green (who became injured before the regular season), Faulk (an excellent pick up), and Holt (from the draft I think). And certainly the coaching staff is part of the equation for who is picked up.

So they did make some great off-season moves to pick up the talent they needed, but with a season schedule like they had, and all the weapons they had, I'm not going to call Martz a genius. They dominated in the regular season the same way Nebraska or Miami dominates in their college seasons. The other teams just couldn't match up with their speed.

Once the Rams got to the playoffs, they struggled to win games. They struggled to get by Tampa and had a very close and exciting game against the Titans. This tells me that while they were an excellent team, they weren't the Bears of 85 of the Niners of 89 who both danced all over the other teams in the season and the play-offs.

Good as they were, and make no mistake, Martz is an excellent OC and coach for getting his talent to the Super Bowl, I'm not going to be able to call him a genius just for the work he's done with the Rams. When he came in, certainly he had a hand in picking up the extra talent, but with all the weapons the Rams have, any coach could be made to look good. Just look at Barry Switzer and the Cowboys team he inherited. If Martz can continue to do well, then maybe I'd call him a genius.

You know, there's another coach who does quite well with his offenses year after year and some people call him the mastermind, but I'm not about to call him that considering the talent he's been able to work with. As great as a coach as Shanahan has been, he's also had the offensive talent to pull it off.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think more than 50%, at least, fail due to the failures of their first head coach.

Then we'll have to disagree on that one. I'm not about to say that most players said to have potential and later fail do so because of their first head coach.

[badams52]

Did any one else notice that the Raiders, who are starting their back-up quarterback, are STILL favored in a road game at Detroit? Didn't we learn anything from the Broncos playing in a similar situation against Baltimore a couple of weeks ago? At least the Bronco's weren't favored.

I guess that says something about how people feel about Detroit's abilities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, a good football discussion, me likey .

Right, excellent backs are never traded are they? Dickerson, Ricky Williams, Jerome Bettis. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but teams do trade away star players from time to time.

I would say in everyone of those cases the RB was percieved as a 'problem' or overrated. Especially with the Ricky Williams case, the Saints saw him as overrated and a problem player. That is why they drafted McAllister. I don't know why Dickerson was dealt.

And was Bettis a star before he was traded? I don't remember that.

I think generally star backs are not dealt unless the dealing team thinks they are overrated or just not worth it.

He was their leading rusher and receiver in his last year with them and since his move to the Rams, he's put up similar numbers to that year. Sure they're a little better than what he got in Indianapolis, but they are quite similar.

I'm sure Indy believed him to be not as good as the numbers. At the time I thought it was a boneheaded move. Sure the Colts picked up James (and maybe were thinking about Williams), but they had to think something was wrong with Faulk if they dealt him for so little (comparatively).

I mean, it'd be like the Ravens trading Jamal Lewis to the Lions in order to get the #1 pick in the draft so they could draft a star RB (pick one). Unless the Ravens wer down on Lewis, it doesn't make sense.

--
More later

[SlowwHand]

Players get traded when they're over-valued by the team seeking them.
See Herschel Walker to Minnesota.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Players get traded when they're over-valued by the team seeking them.
See Herschel Walker to Minnesota.

So, Faulk was overvalued by the Rams?

ACK!

[SlowwHand]

Did they give up what was given for Walker?
If yes, then yes.

[Tuberski]

Nobody is that stupid............except Red McCombs.

ACK!