"NFL Football is Back!" 2011 Season Thread

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran, just so you know... the Falcons are going down.

[rah]

Playoffs may be starting but Chicago fans get the new year starting on a positive note.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-jerry-angelo-out-as-bears-gm-20120103,0,3365211.story

The Chicago Bears won four division titles and reached a Super Bowl in 11 seasons under Jerry Angelo, but ultimately a track record for poor drafts will mark his legacy.

The Bears sent out an internal email Tuesday morning announcing that Angelo, who had a contract through 2013, is no longer with the organization. The decision came two days after the Bears finished 8-8, the fourth time in five seasons the franchise has not reached the playoffs.

The Bears announced a 4 p.m. news conference and in it they said team president Ted Phillips fired Angelo, eliminating speculation whether or not he retired.

The status of Lovie Smith already has been addressed. According to the team's website, Smith will remain as head coach and that he will continue to evaluate his staff.

Whether that involves embattled offensive coordinator Mike Martz remains to be seen. Presumably, Phillips and chairman of the board George McCaskey will be heard from. When business ended Monday, it appeared only the fate of Martz was in serious doubt. Now, plenty more is on the table.

While Angelo pulled off a bold trade to acquire quarterback Jay Cutler in 2009, his drafts have failed to strengthen the organization. First-round draft picks have delivered little and even on defense most of the core players were brought in through free agency or were drafted for a different coaching staff. Running back Matt Forte was selected to the Pro Bowl this season, the first offensive player drafted by Angelo to make the NFC all-star team.

Rumors circulated early last month that Angelo would retire at the end of the season. In a long conversation with Angelo before Sunday's season-ending 17-13 victory at Minnesota, he made it clear he was already mapping out the offseason ahead. But it turns out the decision on when he would depart wasn't his to make.

Angelo performed a shakeup in his front office two years ago that some viewed as an effort to cast blame on others while also creating a landing spot for his longtime friend Tim Ruskell. Pro personnel director Bobby DePaul and college scouting director Greg Gabriel, who Angelo hired when he took over in 2001, were ousted. Ruskell, who had been let go as general manager of the Seattle Seahawks, was hired and given a larger title as director of player personnel. It's difficult to say what the future holds for him now. Is Ruskell attempting a power play?

The Bears were usually thrifty in free agency with one major exception, the record-setting contract they gave defensive end Julius Peppers in 2010 to re-energize Smith's defense. Peppers, even at a solid level, couldn't do it alone on defense this season when the Bears began to show age. It will be interesting to learn how McCaskey feels about the roster and the schemes on both sides of the ball.

When McCaskey took over for his older brother last year, he said he wanted to let football people make football decisions, but was also clear that he wanted to learn about the processes and be involved when appropriate. The public has been crying for change for sometime but never louder than the last few weeks as a once-promising season disintegrated with an unprepared backup quarterback playing in place of Cutler. This could be the first in a series of moves where McCaskey breaks from family tradition in the football business with an aggressive approach at rebuilding.

The Bears headed off speculation about Smith, though, by posting on the Web site that he will remain as coach. That means there could be another arranged marriage atop the organization unless they are planning to hand full personnel control to Smith, something that seems unlikely. The Bears paired a new general manager in Angelo with an existing coach in Dick Jauron in 2001. It produced one playoff season and two poor ones, and the feeling from the start was Angelo wanted to start over with his own coach.

Will the Bears be headed down that path again? Answers should come this afternoon.

bmbiggs@tribune.com

[SlowwHand]

The Giants were 32nd in rushing yards. So you're saying Eli is an elite QB? Thanks, Sloww. I knew you'd see it my way.

Rushing ATTEMPTS, Al. Not rushing yards. They're not the same thing. Why don't you try reading what I write and be in less hurry to run your mouth?
Impossible task for you, isn't it?

[Al B. Sure!]

Rushing ATTEMPTS, Al. Not rushing yards. They're not the same thing. Why don't you try reading what I write and be in less hurry to run your mouth?
Impossible task for you, isn't it?

Why don't you try using your brain first?

Rushing attempts mean nothing because when they did run, the Lions did pretty well. They averaged 4.3 yards per attempt. The Giants kept running and running (well, not really. 22nd in rushing attempts is still back-end) but they sucked it the hell up. 3.5 yards per attempt.

So what does that mean, genius?

That means the Lions were the BETTER running team than the Giants. That means the Giants had to rely on the pass more than the Lions did. That means Eli meant more to the Giants than Stafford did.

In fact, the Giants ran for 1427 yards to the Lions' 1523. They were more productive per carry AND ran for MORE YARDS!!!!


Apparently, a Texan using his brain is impossible.

[SlowwHand]

You're still missing the point because you still can't wait to argue. As another point, I wasn't particularly talking to you.
You don't have to feel compelled to respond to me, especially if you don't take the time to read and think it through.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're still missing the point because you still can't wait to argue. As another point, I wasn't particularly talking to you.
You don't have to feel compelled to respond to me, especially if you don't take the time to read and think it through.

Are you ****ing trolling me? I refuse to believe your cognitive skills are this bad.

Stafford is supposed to be elite because the Lions couldn't the run the ball. Lions ran the ball better than the Giants did.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm not subtracting QB rushes (which were usually called passes) from the rushing numbers and giving it to the QBs but neither Eli nor Stafford run much so it's not really relevant.

Giants:
411 rushes for 1427
617 passes and sacks for 4734
1028 scrimmage plays for 6161
Eli: 60% of called plays; 76.8% of yardage

Lions:
356 rushes for 1523
699 passes and sacks for 4781 (Stafford's numbers; not including Shaun Hill's)
1055 scrimmage plays for 6304
Stafford: 66.2% of called plays; 75.8% of yardage

Stafford's attempts and sacks accounted for a greater percentage of Detroit plays from scrimmage but he was less productive than Eli who accounted for more of his team's yardage.

This is because Eli averaged 7.67 yards per drop-back while Stafford averaged only 6.84.

If we're going to ascribe QB value based on sheer numbers of passes called vs. runs (which is ****ing stupid), then Stafford out-performed Eli. If we're talking who was actually more productive (and who accounted for more of his team's yards!), then Eli is the man and Sloww NEEDS TO ACCEPT THAT!!!!

[SlowwHand]

Are you ****ing trolling me? I refuse to believe your cognitive skills are this bad.

Stafford is supposed to be elite because the Lions couldn't the run the ball. Lions ran the ball better than the Giants did.

They ran the ball LESS is the point, you braindead P.O.S.
Go argue with the writers of the articles. No wonder you can't get a girl, a job or anything else that requires the ability to communicate.
NONE of what I posted was about your damned Giants, so get Eli's dick out of your mouth, again.

[Al B. Sure!]

They ran the ball LESS is the point, you braindead P.O.S.
Go argue with the writers of the articles. No wonder you can't get a girl, a job or anything else that requires the ability to communicate.
NONE of what I posted was about your damned Giants, so get Eli's dick out of your mouth, again.

They ran the ball less but did more!!! The Giants ran the ball more but did less!!! Not per carry but in absolute terms! (Lions rushing yards > Gaints rushing yards).

Stafford drop-backs were a greater percentage of Lions' plays but he averaged much less per drop-back and consequently, accounted for a SMALLER percentage of team yardage than Eli did.

Eli > Stafford if we're going by pass:run ratios.


Hell, what this tells me is that it's possible the Lions would have been better off running the ball a bit more rather than having Stafford sling it while Kevin Gilbride should have been calling more Eli passes. It's tough to say for sure because there's a lot of factors but just from looking at run vs. pass yardage, the Lions were a better running team than the Giants and the Giants were a better passing team than the Lions.

Giants: 3.5 per rush; 7.67 per drop-back
Lions: 4.3 per rush; 6.84 per drop-back

[-Jrabbit]

Did it ever occur to you that this talk about Stafford does not actually diminish any other QB? Eli has a Super Bowl, albeit only due to one of the most improbable catches in history (the sticky helmet play). Why do feel so compelled to bring up his name whenever any other QB is praised? Can't you pull your mouth off his dick long enough to see that?

OK, so Eli is godlike in his mad QB skillz.

Happy now?

[Al B. Sure!]

Did it ever occur to you that this talk about Stafford does not actually diminish any other QB? Eli has a Super Bowl, albeit only due to one of the most improbable catches in history (the sticky helmet play). Why do feel so compelled to bring up his name whenever any other QB is praised? Can't you pull your mouth off his dick long enough to see that?

OK, so Eli is godlike in his mad QB skillz.

Happy now?

Sloww gives credit to Stafford for something but doesn't give the credit to Eli for the same thing but more.

I realize now he said other people were saying it and he didn't expressly say he agreed or not but still, Chicago Bears apolyton site is boring with no discussion.

[Al B. Sure!]

Antonio Brown was the first player in NFL history to get 1000+ yards receiving and 1000+ yards returning.

Crazy that that 6th round pick the Steelers got for Santonio Holmes turned out just fine for them. (Technically, the Steelers got a 5th rounder which they used to get Bryant McFadden and a 6th rounder that became Brown)

[-Jrabbit]

Sloww gives credit to Stafford for something but doesn't give the credit to Eli for the same thing but more.

I realize now he said other people were saying it and he didn't expressly say he agreed or not but still, Chicago Bears apolyton site is boring with no discussion.

The point is, he said nothing about Eli, positive or negative.

[SlowwHand]

It's not "the same thing, only more", Al.

The articles on the Lions were about their rushing attempts. It didn't say they sucked when they rushed the ball. It was more of a reference to Best being hurt and Stafford carrying the team.

What you keep trying to turn it into is that since the Giants sucked when rushing (your words, not mine), that somehow it equates to the same thing.
It doesn't.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not "the same thing, only more", Al.

The articles on the Lions were about their rushing attempts. It didn't say they sucked when they rushed the ball. It was more of a reference to Best being hurt and Stafford carrying the team.

What you keep trying to turn it into is that since the Giants sucked when rushing (your words, not mine), that somehow it equates to the same thing.
It doesn't.

Stafford accounted for 75.8% of Detroit yardage; Eli accounted for 76.8% of Giants' yardage. THAT IS MORE, SLOWW!!!

Stafford averaged 6.84 yards per drop-back; Eli averaged 7.67 yards per drop-back.

What part are you not understanding? Eli meant more to the Giants than Stafford did to the Lions.