Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/05/2019 in Posts

  1. 7 points
    It's Chris Russell's theory that zero chance Dan fires Bruce but Bruce retires. He goes about how fans won't get the red meat firing they want, etc. I can't speak for everyone else here obviously. But for me I can care less how Bruce leaves. Dan can rename Redskins Park -- Bruce Allen Park for all I care and run a heroes salute to Bruce as he departs for all I care. I just need him gone and a real personnel guy in place. And yes we'd still be stuck with Dan and heck I don't rule out at all that he screws up the next hire and keeps screwing up the organization -- it's probably even likely. But I'd at least give it a shot.
  2. 6 points
    Beal went to a party last Saturday night, didn’t get laid got in a fight. Ain’t no big thang.
  3. 6 points
    He's been #1 on my list since Gruden was fired. Both AP and Alex Smith know him well. Hopefully, Smith is whispering in Snyder's ear about Bienemy and AP is too. I'd remove Allen, keep Kyle Smith as our GM and let Schaffer continue to be our salary cap guru.
  4. 5 points
    I kicked Joey McIntire of NKOTB out of the bar i worked at in college bc he was a dbag.
  5. 5 points
    I just can't stomach this team with Bruce Allen. I dont like who he is as a person. Dan Snyder I dont mind that much, nerdy billionaire doesnt rub me wrong like that snake of person Bruce Allen. I can't root for this team with him as a part of it. I think a lot of fans are like me. From pimping out our cheerleaders to the unnecessary leak of Jays DIP video -- the guy has done too many nauseating things We just dont like the guy, hes an asshole, and its impossible to root for an asshole unless youre an asshole too. I really dunno how much simpler it can be made to Snyder. I think part of him gets that, which is why they hired the more likeable Doug Williams. But this is a case of addition by subtraction. Snyder just needs to work up the courage to tear off the bandaid -- get rid of the slime ball so we can all move forward.
  6. 4 points
    I got to meet John Oates, of the duo Hall & Oates; before his solo show here in Melbourne last month. I also saw Hall & Oates's saxophone player- Charlie DeChant. He lives in Orlando, so he came to see John play. No pics with Charlie, didn't want to disturb him; since he was a guest of Oates. Though Mrs. Dechant asked me to take a pic of Charlie, her and their friends.
  7. 4 points
    This my first post... So I googled the issue of which positions were the safest first round draft pick and read three articles. All three articles approached it from different angles and had different conclusions though you can sum up some common themes. At the end of the post I linked the three articles I looked at: My takeaways were this: 1. The safest 2 positions to draft in the first round are safety and interior O-Line 2. Linebacker is another safe position but isn't necessarily safer for top 10 compared to mid and late first round picks 3. RB, WR, and D-Line are the riskest positions with the highest bust rate. 4. QB is unique as it has a high rate of producing pro bowlers and a high rate of busts. In terms of the all or nothing results, cornerbacks also had this tendency but not to the same degree as QB. 5. Within the O-Line, interior O-Lineman are a safer bet than Tackles. In general interior O-Line is safer, but O-Line as a whole is significantly less risky than D-Line. 6. Things are different though when you analyze it from a value added perspective. Not all positions are equal. For example QB did well if you only look at expected value because the hits added the most value and while there were a lot of busts the hits were arguably the biggest wins of the draft. WR's and D-Lineman had the same tendency to a lesser degree. 7. If you want a first round WR, get an elite one. The ones in the top 5 (at least in the last 10 years) did significantly better than those choose later in the first round. 8. in general if you don't have an early pick, your best bet may be linebacker, safety, and interior O-Lineman. I am a huge Maryland Terrapins fan. In fact I am Maryland number 1, Redskins 2. In terms of the two running backs, I see McFarland as more of Chris Thompson 3rd down back. He is a decent route runner, okay, but not great hands, and is a very dynamic athlete. His athleticism is first round talent, but he is not a great everydown runner and doesn't have great hands so I would not use a high draft pick on him. Javon Leake is a better every down back. He has good top end speed (both Leake and McFarland are homerun hitters), but Leake has better vision and runs with a bit more power than McFarland. McFarland is the better route runner as his athleticism lets him get in and out of cuts at a high level. Leake may have better top end speed. If you want an everydown back go with Leake. If you want a third down back go with McFarland. Two other Terps in the draft worth monitoring are Antoine Brooks and Keandre Jones. Brooks is a great run support safety who plays really hard, but who is only serviceable in coverage. He is kind of the prototypical SS of the 1980's before the game became so passing oriented. That said a strong safety who excels in run support and who would be a good special teams contributor can win a roster spot even if their coverage skills are only serviceable. You won't find a player who plays with more intensity than Antoine Brooks. Keandre Jones is a smallish Linebacker with decent, but not amazing athleticism who also plays the game really hard and is a good character guy. He lead the Terps in disruptive plays and is decent in pass rush, run support, and coverage. The issue with him is maybe he doesn't do any of them at an elite level. That said if you are looking for depth at linebacker he should be a decent option and like Brooks should be a solid special teams contributor. One last Terp to be aware of is Tyler Mabry. He probably is a well rounded TE who was a decent blocker and decent pass catcher though elite at neither. If I could only pick one of those 5 guys, i'd probably go with Javon Leake because I think he potentially could be an every down starter at RB which would give him the most value. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2441018-which-positions-are-the-safest-riskiest-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2017/04/nfl_draft_which_positions_are.html https://www.footballperspective.com/which-positions-are-the-safest-to-draft-in-the-first-round/
  8. 4 points
  9. 4 points
    It includes "foil wins"--teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB. Didn't you wonder what that column meant? Or were you too quick to dismiss anything that didn't prop up Kirk to even notice it or wonder what it meant...because you obviously didn't know. And did you even bother to see if it's possible to have 10 games a season against teams that either had a winning record or "Foil" teams? (for the record, 8-7-1 is a winning record as well). Don't worry, I'll do the work for you: 2009 (9 games) Wins (4): Cowboys 11-5 49ers 8-8 (Foil Win) Ravens 9-7 Cardinals 10-8 Losses (5): Bengals 10-6 Vikings 12-4 (twice) Steelers 9-7 Cardinals 10-6 (playoffs) 2010 (10 games) Wins (8): Eagles 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs) Jets 11-5 Giants 10-6 Bears 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Falcons 13-3 (playoffs) Steelers 12-4 (Super Bowl) Losses (2): Bears 11-5 Falcons 13-3 2011 (9 games) Wins (8): Saints 13-3 Bears 8-8 (Foil Wins) Broncos 8-8 (Foil Win) Falcons 10-6 Chargers 8-8 (Foil Win) Lions 10-6 Giants 9-7 Raiders 8-8 (Foil Win) Losses (1): Giants 9-7 (playoffs) 2012 (12 games) Wins (6): Bears 10-6 (twice) Texans 12-4 Rams 7-8-1 (Foil Win) Vikings 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs) Losses (6): 49ers 11-4-1 (twice, once in the playoffs) Seahawks 11-5 Colts 11-5 Giants 9-7 Vikings 10-6 2013 (5 games) Wins (2): Ravens 8-8 (Foil Win) Chicago 8-8 (Foil Win) Losses (3): 49ers 12-4 (twice, once in the playoffs) Bengals 11-5 2014 (11 games) Wins (6): Dolphins 8-8 (Foil Win) Panthers 7-8-1 (Foil Win) Eagles 10-6 Patriots 12-4 Lions 11-5 Cowboys 12-4 (playoffs) Losses (5): Seahawks 12-4 (twice, once in playoffs) Lions 11-5 Patriots 12-4 Bills 9-7 2015 (9 games) Wins (4): Seahawks 10-6 Chiefs 11-5 Vikings 11-5 Redskins 9-7 (playoffs) Losses (5): Broncos 12-4 Panthers 15-1 Cardinals 13-3 (twice, once in the playoffs) Vikings 11-5 2016 (13 games) Wins (8): Lions 9-7 (twice) Giants 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Texans 9-7 Seahawks 10-5-1 Vikings 8-8 (Foil Win) Cowboys 13-3 (playoffs) Losses (5); Cowboys 13-3 Falcons 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Titans 9-7 Redskins 8-7-1 Grand Total: 78 games in 7--er, 8 seasons. My guess is, not only did you not understand what "foil wins" were (or even notice they were included), you also didn't consider playoff wins and losses in the equation...nor did you take into account that when you finish in either 1st or 2nd place as often as the Packers have, you will have a ****load of winning teams on your schedule. Nor did you bother to even see if it's possible for the Packers to have 10 games against winning teams in multiple seasons. You just got over-eager because you thought you would (finally) get to prove me wrong and posted before actually thinking anything through. Don't worry...it happens regularly with several others here on ES as well. But I get it...my saying 7 years instead of 8 years and claiming I'm employed by Dan Snyder negates all of the above. So you got that going for ya. Feel free to respond with the laughing reaction thing again lol...it never bothers me. When people who disagree with me do that, I usually take it as a sign that I've won the argument.
  10. 4 points
    The Republican argument that the impeachment effort is not bipartisan is stupid. How many republicans have said on TV that what the President did was wrong? How many said it was disturbing? The fact that none of them put their money where their mouth (or where their country is) is the only reason this isn't a bipartisan effort.
  11. 4 points
    Here's hoping that when Haskins is 31-32 yrs old he's at least where Cousins is in terms of sacks....
  12. 4 points
    SIgn me up for Bienemy. He's top of the list for me. Give him Guice/McCLovin/Haskins/stud TE in draft/Bryce Love/Harmon and lets go.
  13. 4 points
  14. 3 points
  15. 3 points
    I hate the way she comes after progressives like they are false promises and fairy tales. Ok, they are ambitious, hard chance of passing Congress, but constantly reiterating that people like Bernie are trying to get voters by giving them free stuff, she might as well be reading the same talking points as Fox on that one, shes doing their work for them instead of having an honest conversation on why those proposals are in the table in the first place. Instead of attacking the GOP for leading their voters away from left programs on BS reasons, she is attacking left programs for not being supported by the right. If she gonna swing on folks like that, swing on the folks that actually are full of ****.
  16. 3 points
  17. 3 points
    I get the point of the article but some of the points are off in it IMO. Cerrato and Bruce have in common the drinking buddy part and the incompetent owner above them, that's true. Dan is the biggest problem by a mile. That's true, too. And I go to battle with some on this point...Dan hiring buffoons in my world is a much worse condemnation to Dan than saying he has hired good people and just ruins them. I don't believe either Vinny or Bruce were good hires that would thrive elsewhere. Vinny hasn't touched a job since. And I'd put money that once he leaves here, anyone of us here would have a better shot getting a GM job than Bruce. Bruce's style of dysfunction and Vinny's were very different: Vinny-Dan weren't equally nontransparent as Bruce-Dan as the article purports. Vinny even did a radio show for awhile, taking calls from fans directly. Can you imagine Bruce doing that? Vinny also had Dan coming out of the cave at least once in awhile, doing annual predraft pressers among other things. Night and day as for the transparency issue. And I think Bruce has oddly done even more to damage Dan with the fans for that reason. Vinny was likable, splashy, some sleaze, incompetent and the team came off that way. Bruce on the other hand: unlikeable, political, boring, mega sleaze, incompetent. Both disasters but totally different flavors of it IMO. Bruce to me has done more to damage the brand. Boring and mega sleazy doesn't sell the same as splashy and sleazy. One way leads to anger and frustration the other to indifference and fans checking out. I made this point on another thread but I think part of the reason why the NY Giants aren't bleeding fans the way the Redskins are is even though though they lose, they got stars, they are at least a little interesting nationally. Bruce avoids stars like the plague. Also Bruce's overtly political style and condescending tone in his rare public appearances coupled with his dumb malapropisms have made the Redskins much more unlikeable and hopeless feeling than they were under Vinny. I used to say Bruce was slightly better than Vinny. I've changed my mind. The record is better under Vinny. Dan for his many faults at least seemed a little checked in. Most importantly, they weren't as unlikable as they are now. I get why Vinny beat Bruce as the better GM in a radio poll. If you get rid of Bruce, and Dan hires another figure head type as opposed to a top personnel type to run the team, fans I think will check out some more. I think the difference as to Dan between then versus now is that fans are fed up and are wise to the game. It won't be just about removing Bruce but what he does next. The issue to me as to Bruce right now in the context of Dan is how important is it to him to maintain his best friend? How much money is he willing to lose? It's like watching a captain veering straight into the Titanic with a wide smile on their face and wondering why is he given a hard time about it. The fascination to me is how much is he willing to push things with the fans? In the past he would cave eventually but thus far he seems unwilling to do it. It's wild to watch. So for me I am interested in watching what happens with Bruce for this reason. How far is Dan willing to go, how much is he willing to lose? I hear Bruce is charming one on one. I had my own small exposure to Bruce on that front a couple of times. But is he that charming? In the 2 small conversations, the best I can explain it is he's very outgoing and effusive. Makes you feel like he's your friend even though he doesn't know you. It's not hard to deduce from that experience that he makes Dan feel really good about himself. I don't personally think Bruce is a bad guy. I just think that's the absolute wrong profile to run personnel. In short, you want a politician doing political type of activities not running a football operation.
  18. 3 points
    Do they even bother calling double dribbles anymore?
  19. 3 points
    Because some of us don't have your artistically baroque sense of spectacle and just want something more pragmatic and direct- like running them through a woodchipper to fertilize the Arizona desert.
  20. 3 points
    should we do a Sober Eli thread for the rest of the year?
  21. 3 points
    Harvard Law grads like Scalia? I think what he was really saying is "If you love America, keep your kids away from higher education so they'll continue to vote for us". The anti-intellectualism that has been brewing for decades in the Republican party is now full go.
  22. 3 points
    i notice i'm the only one here really advocating for multiple forms (classical and contemporary) of extended torture as a necessary consequence for the shenanigans these hooligans have perpetuated sometimes i feel like i'm the only one here who really gets people sometimes i feel like a motherless child
  23. 3 points
    Playoffs are at stake. Young players up for the pressure?
  24. 3 points
    NFL Division Leaders...
  25. 3 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00