The OFFICIAL 2009 NFL Offseason Thread - What else comes in 3's? Firing OC's!

[RendeR]

Question for jags fans: Was Jones actually a good receiver or was he shyte? was it that they never had a decent QB or O-line or what is the real story with Jones?

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Report: Lions deal Cory Redding to Seahawks for Julian Peterson -
Detroit Lions: News, Blogs, Photos, Audio, Schedule & Stats - MLive.com

Lions send Cory Redding to Seattle for Julian Peterson

Wonder if this means the Lions shift away from going LB at 1 and getting a DT higher up.

I just don't see a Cutler to Detroit deal happening. The Lions only really have picks to give and can't afford to toss too many when they need so much. Denver is basically screwed if Cutler is traded. Reading Peter King on this, I'm not entirely sure it's all Denver's fault.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Wonder if this means the Lions shift away from going LB at 1 and getting a DT higher up.

I just don't see a Cutler to Detroit deal happening. The Lions only really have picks to give and can't afford to toss too many when they need so much. Denver is basically screwed if Cutler is traded. Reading Peter King on this, I'm not entirely sure it's all Denver's fault.

I think this means the Lions will likely go with a LT with the first pick and maybe try to get a DT with the 20th pick.

I don't think it's likely the Lions get Cutler either. The only way I can see it happening is if they swing some kind of three team deal where they send a pick to a team for a veteran QB and then ship that QB and maybe another pick to Denver for Cutler.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Shefter (who seems to be rarely wrong) on WEEI this morning pouring a lot of cold water on the Peppers to Pats deal.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Shefter (who seems to be rarely wrong) on WEEI this morning pouring a lot of cold water on the Peppers to Pats deal.

yay!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

They'll play him at OLB no question.

just saw this - I'm sure that would be their intent, but my comment was more like "unless he has the coverage skills to play OLB"

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well, Vrabel's coverage skills were mainly non-existent, so its not like its a huge drop off.

Realistically, he would probably replace Warren in the nickel package.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, Vrabel's coverage skills were mainly non-existent, so its not like its a huge drop off.

Realistically, he would probably replace Warren in the nickel package.

true.

and that wouldn't be so bad as long as they weren't paying him starting-money to be a nickel-rusher.

regardless, seems like it most likely won't happen, so that's cool

[Samdari]

Oddly, part of the reason Peppers wants out of Carolina so bad, is that he wants to be an OLB in a 3-4, a position he has never played. I guess he thinks if he does that the coaches will stop making annoying requests that he play the run?

No way Cutler goes to Detroit. The only way I see this happening is if they trade the #1 overall pick. Denver then lets Simms and Stafford fight it out? I still think Simms can be a starting caliber QB in the NFL, so I don't think they'd be totally screwed if Cutler left.

I think if Cutler gets traded, the only team that makes sense right now is the Browns. The sticking point will be who they get back. Cleveland wants to send Anderson, Denver wants Quinn. It would end up being Quinn, with Anderson sticking as a backup. Second choice would be the Jets. The #17 pick is actually probably fair compensation for Cutler, although I think Denver will ask for more.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Question with the Browns - why would the Browns not want to send Quinn, assuming they're set at QB with Cutler?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Question with the Browns - why would the Browns not want to send Quinn, assuming they're set at QB with Cutler?

Don't know. Just the talk centers around them offering Anderson. Maybe its just a negotiating ploy. Offer Anderson, so then their counter offer is Quinn, whereas if they offer Quinn, the counter would be Quinn and a pick?

Quinn for Cutler actually makes a lot of sense (to me anyway) for both teams. Don't know why this would not happen.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I think if Cutler gets traded, the only team that makes sense right now is the Browns. The sticking point will be who they get back. Cleveland wants to send Anderson, Denver wants Quinn. It would end up being Quinn, with Anderson sticking as a backup. Second choice would be the Jets. The #17 pick is actually probably fair compensation for Cutler, although I think Denver will ask for more.

Funny you should mention that, because the Browns are exactly the team I was thinking of in the possible three-team scenario with the Lions. The Lions send a pick to the Browns for Quinn or Anderson, and then ship that QB (and maybe another pick) to the Broncos for Cutler.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I really doubt Anderson somehow lands Cutler.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I really doubt Anderson somehow lands Cutler.

Like I said, Anderson + a pick. If not Anderson, than Quinn (and maybe a pick). If the situation were normal in Denver, I would agree. If it continues to go down hill between Cutler and the Broncos, however, than Cutler's value will decline because everyone knows that the Broncos' hands are tied. The Broncos are in a "win it now" mode. If Cutler isn't going to play for them, then they need to get some sort of veteran QB in return. There aren't that many available.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think the likelihood of Cutler ending up in Detroit is somewhere around say, 5%, or so.

I just don't think it's accurate to say "No way Cutler goes to Detroit" and then discuss scenarios that are apparently "more" likely -- the Browns trading Quinn/Anderson to the Broncos and the Jets trading #17 to the Broncos (the Lions have #20, don't forget) -- that are not at all that different than what Detroit could offer.

[Big Fo]

Steelers owner Dan Rooney has been named US ambassador to Ireland.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I just don't think it's accurate to say "No way Cutler goes to Detroit" and then discuss scenarios that are apparently "more" likely -- the Browns trading Quinn/Anderson to the Broncos and the Jets trading #17 to the Broncos (the Lions have #20, don't forget) -- that are not at all that different than what Detroit could offer.

I don't think he goes to Detroit without a third team getting involved (although I do buy the 3 way scenarios you mention).

How does Detroit currently have anything similar to Quinn or Anderson? Their QBs would appear to have no trade value.

Or anything like the 17th pick in the draft? The #1 is way too high, and the 2.1 way too low.

I am sure they could somehow end up with Cutler, if someone else were a part of the deal. I just don't see anything currently with Detroit that makes sense for both teams in a Cutler deal. I think the Browns, Jets (and Tampa, and SF) do, among teams that would appear to be in search of a QB.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think the Lions have 1.20 from Dallas.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't think he goes to Detroit without a third team getting involved (although I do buy the 3 way scenarios you mention).

How does Detroit currently have anything similar to Quinn or Anderson? Their QBs would appear to have no trade value.

Or anything like the 17th pick in the draft? The #1 is way too high, and the 2.1 way too low.

I am sure they could somehow end up with Cutler, if someone else were a part of the deal. I just don't see anything currently with Detroit that makes sense for both teams in a Cutler deal. I think the Browns, Jets (and Tampa, and SF) do, among teams that would appear to be in search of a QB.

The only scenario I ever thought was possible (and mentioned in my original post and subsequent post) was a 3 way scenario. That's been made super clear.

That's how this whole thing got started originally. It was leaked that the Lions and Bucs where angling for Cutler through a 3 way deal with the Patriots involving Cassel.

And, yes, the Lions have 1.20 from the Cowboys through last year's Roy Williams trade.

[stevew]

The Lions should have made a play for Derek Anderson. Him to Calvin would be the recipe for a successful 7-9 season.

[lordscarlet]

Cutler to the 'Skins?

Do Skins want Cutler?
By John Keim
Examiner Staff Writer 3/18/09

The Redskins reportedly have entered talks about a three-way trade to acquire Jay Cutler and jettison Jason Campbell. Getty Images Source says Washington has serious interest in QB
The Redskins have serious interest in Denver quarterback Jay Cutler, an NFL source said Tuesday, and have entered talks about a possible three-way deal to acquire him.
Two NFL sources confirmed the possibility of a three-way trade, with Kansas City being mentioned by one source as a possibility.
The Redskins, through a team spokesman, denied interest in Cutler. However, a league source was adamant that Washington has shown interest.
“They’re trying to do something,” one NFL source said of the Redskins.
“Whether or not it materializes is another matter, but [Redskins owner Dan Snyder] is on this hard. They don’t trust Jason Campbell.”
Cutler is involved in a dispute with Denver after the Broncos had discussions about trading him to New England for quarterback Matt Cassel.
First-year Broncos coach Josh McDaniels met with Culter this past weekend. Afterward, Cutler said he could not trust McDaniels and wanted to be traded.
Denver has said they don’t want to trade Cutler for draft picks, meaning the Redskins or the third team would have to surrender at least one top player. The Redskins could also end up with Denver tight end Tony Scheffler, who is represented by the same agent as Culter — Bus Cook.

Fueling the speculation is the close relationship between former Denver coach Mike Shanahan and Redskins executive vice president Vinny Cerrato. Shanahan, who traded several times with Cerrato while with Denver, could provide the endorsement needed for Cutler.
Also, after the season Cerrato gave Campbell a tepid endorsement as Washington’s quarterback of the future. Campbell is entering the last year of his contract and the Redskins have not had discussions about extending his deal.
Redskins coach Jim Zorn has praised Campbell publicly this offseason.
The strong-armed Cutler, 25, made the Pro Bowl this past season after throwing 25 touchdowns and 18 interceptions. In three seasons he’s tossed 54 touchdowns and 37 interceptions. In 16 games this past season, Campbell threw 13 touchdowns and six interceptions.
Cutler signed a six-year, $48-million contract in 2006. Campbell has a base salary of $2.5 million this season with a cap number of $7.5 million.
Examiner columnist Rick Snider contributed to this report.

www.dcexaminer.com >> Sports

[Bad-example]

That would serve Cutler right. Pack him off to the Foreskins. I am sure his whining will play great there.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

That would serve Cutler right. Pack him off to the Foreskins. I am sure his whining will play great there.

At least he'd have a shot at making the playoffs in Washington =)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

At least he'd have a shot at making the playoffs in Washington =)

He'd have a shot in Denver as well up to the point where they begin to choke in December.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Shefter (who seems to be rarely wrong) on WEEI this morning pouring a lot of cold water on the Peppers to Pats deal.

Peppers makes too much so unless he's willing to take a BIG pay cut, there's no way the Pats can afford him and extensions to Wilfork and Mankins and still have some semblance of depth.

[Fighter of Foo]

Re:Cutler

18-24 Teams should be interested in him, so speculating on how/why team X could get him is useless.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Don't know. Just the talk centers around them offering Anderson. Maybe its just a negotiating ploy. Offer Anderson, so then their counter offer is Quinn, whereas if they offer Quinn, the counter would be Quinn and a pick?

Quinn for Cutler actually makes a lot of sense (to me anyway) for both teams. Don't know why this would not happen.

Because Cutler is legitimately good and Quinn isn't.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Re:Cutler

18-24 Teams should be interested in him, so speculating on how/why team X could get him is useless.

Thanks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Because Cutler is legitimately good and Quinn isn't.

what better a "legitimately good" qb that refuses to play for your team a qb that has some potential and is willing to play for your team?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Re:Cutler

18-24 Teams should be interested in him, so speculating on how/why team X could get him is useless.

Great. 18-24 more QBs will be whining that their current teams are trying to trade them.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Great. 18-24 more QBs will be whining that their current teams are trying to trade them.

no. odds are most of them aren't giant babies

[stevew]

It's about time for McNabb to start whining about something else so he can get back on the front pages. Cutler's stealing his douche-thunder.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by stevew

It's about time for McNabb to start whining about something else so he can get back on the front pages. Cutler's stealing his douche-thunder.

In all fairness, considering he basically told the Eagles "Do something in the off-season or I want out.", he should be speaking up about how the Eagles have done pretty nothing at all. It's like the front office is playing a game of chicken with McNabb.

[molson]

The OT rules won't be changing for next season:

Competition Committee decides there will be no change to NFL overtime rules - ESPN

63% of teams that won the toss won the game in '08. That seems way too high.

[Logan]

How many won on their first possession?

[sterlingice]

I don't know but 63% of the teams who won got 1 more possession than the teams that lost and that extra possession probably is why

SI

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

63% of teams that won the toss won the game in '08. That seems way too high.

There were 16 overtime games in 2008, including playoffs. 10 (eventually) won by the team that won the coin toss (62.5%). Change the outcome of just two of those games, and we're at 50%.

The reason that seems way too high is because the sample size is way too small. And as much as I usually like John Clayton, very poor form on his part to report just the percentages and not the real numbers. And I have no idea where 43.4% comes from in the "success rate" line. 7 in 16 is 43.75%. Either a typo or he's using some kind of "fancy" stat.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't know but 63% of the teams who won got 1 more possession than the teams that lost and that extra possession probably is why

SI

You sure about that? Teams often don't get the same number of possessions during regulation.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by sabotai

In all fairness, considering he basically told the Eagles "Do something in the off-season or I want out.", he should be speaking up about how the Eagles have done pretty nothing at all. It's like the front office is playing a game of chicken with McNabb.

I sure as hell wouldn't invest another dollar in him, other than the more than fair base salary he's already getting. Outside of the TO year this guy is really not much more than slightly above average at best. And he loses big games at a rate not seen since Jim Kelly.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by stevew

I sure as hell wouldn't invest another dollar in him, other than the more than fair base salary he's already getting. Outside of the TO year this guy is really not much more than slightly above average at best. And he loses big games at a rate not seen since Jim Kelly.

9-5 playoff record...yeah, he's terrible in big games.

[Taur]

Everything I am hearing about Cleveland and Cutler is that Cutler will not be going to the Browns, but a 3rd team. The Browns will be trading Quinn and keeping Anderson as their starting QB.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

There were 16 overtime games in 2008, including playoffs. 10 (eventually) won by the team that won the coin toss (62.5%). Change the outcome of just two of those games, and we're at 50%.

The reason that seems way too high is because the sample size is way too small. And as much as I usually like John Clayton, very poor form on his part to report just the percentages and not the real numbers. And I have no idea where 43.4% comes from in the "success rate" line. 7 in 16 is 43.75%. Either a typo or he's using some kind of "fancy" stat.

I'm almost positive that prior to this year, the team who received the ball at the start of overtime had won somewhere around 51% of the time. Which means that the team who won the toss this year could have won 16 out of 16 times and it wouldn't warrant a change to the system. Good job by the league in not changing something due to a statistical outlier.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

9-5 playoff record...yeah, he's terrible in big games.

right back at ya. I missed the part where he has a fist full of rings already. My bad.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm almost positive that prior to this year, the team who received the ball at the start of overtime had won somewhere around 51% of the time.

From 2000 to 2007 it's 60% win.

From 1974 to 2002 it's 52% win, 44% loss, 5% tie.

[Logan]

When did they first start moving the kickoff line back?

[DataKing]

Is it that, or a cumulative effect from all of the rules changes in recent years that favor the offense? 5-yard contact rule, crap like that.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You sure about that? Teams often don't get the same number of possessions during regulation.

regulation isn't sudden death

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by stevew

I missed the part where he has a fist full of rings already. My bad.

Quick, somebody get Eli's agent on the horn and get that kid a raise, he's earned it because he's so clutch. Oh, and get the throne ready for him in Canton, he's on his way.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Logan

When did they first start moving the kickoff line back?

It moved to the 30 in 1994. I found a neat article involving computer simulations on this while looking that up:

Originally Posted by pigskinrevolution.com

In the recently released 2006 Pro Football Prospectus, contributor Jim Armstrong laid out the facts regarding kicking and receiving in overtime. For the first twenty years of NFL overtime (1974-1993), the receiving team went 95-93-13 (50.5%) in the 201 overtime games. Starting with the 1994 season, the receiving team’s record in the twelve subsequent years was 106-70-3 (60.1%) in 179 games.

...

ZEUS™ is the perfect tool to study the value of receiving the kickoff in overtime. Unlike NFL history where only 380 data points are available, ZEUS can run 1,000,000 overtime games in less than a minute.

...

Assuming the kickoff is from the 30 yard line between typical, equal teams the receiving team wins 57.0% of the time
which is a 14% advantage in receiving vs. kicking.

...

It is also not difficult to tell ZEUS to move the location of the kickoff, in this case back to the pre-1994 35 yard line. Yes, this did reduce the winning chances of the receiving team (showing that Armstrong was qualitatively correct), but only by 2.5%. Prior to 1994 ZEUS says the receiving team should have won 54.5% of the time.

One question remains: if it wasn’t the kickoff location that led to the nearly 50-50 success rate for the pre-1994 receiving teams, what was it? Here we only need to apply statistics. The fact is that experiments almost never agree 100% with theory because of the limited number of experimental trials that can be performed. For the 201 pre-1994 overtime games, the single standard deviation (a measure of the expected random fluctuations in the results) is 7.0 games. The prediction (based upon 54.5% winning chances) is that the receiving team should have won 109.5 games. They actually won 101.5 games. (Note that, similar to hockey, we count a tie as ½ win and ½ loss for this analysis.) The discrepancy between actual wins and predicted wins was -8.0. Divide this by the standard deviation (7.0) and we see that the experiment disagreed with theory by 1.1 standard deviations. According to statisticians this is not an unusual random discrepancy. Thus the 1974-1993 overtime data is consistent with ZEUS’s prediction within statistical uncertainty.

So what exactly is the break even field position for the receiving team to start their drive in overtime? ZEUS says the 18 yard line. Any deeper and the offensive team is an underdog and any further ahead they are a favorite. Therefore even a guaranteed touchback by the kicking team proves to be disadvantageous (48.2% GWC for the kicking team with their opponent beginning the drive on the 20 yard line).

So basically although it might look that way on the surface, it was more than those five yards that caused the jump from 50.5% to 60.1% and according to the computer the difference is better explained by the smallish sample size over the years.

[RainMaker]

I don't get my Bears. We have a franchise that literally hasn't had a solid QB in 50 years. We also haven't drafted well at all in the early rounds over the past few years. So why not give up a 1st and 2nd for Cutler? The guy is a young Pro Bowler. Instead of trying to find the next Tom Brady by drafting QBs late, why not just go all out and grab a good one?

I also don't get why Minnesota isn't willing to do the same? That is a team that is a QB away from being a Super Bowl squad.