Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Superman last won the day on October 15

Superman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35,190 Hall of Famer


  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

51,077 profile views
  1. There's no one best measure of greatness for a QB. Greatness is subjective.
  2. I think that contract was premature, and he hasn't really shown that he's worth it, yet, partly due to injury. But the Niners can wriggle out of it at any point moving forward. They frontloaded it dramatically. After 2019, they will have paid him a total of $60m, but they can release him before April with only a $4m cap penalty. So let's say he's awful for the rest of the year and they can draft a replacement, they could move on. And they have that same flexibility after every year of the contract. I'm not saying they will, but it could be a more fluid situation than expected if he doesn't perform. The Eagles and Rams have much less flexibility with Wentz and Goff.
  3. Right, treating him like a franchise QB doesn't make him a franchise QB. The Dolphins made a big commitment to Ryan Tannehill, that didn't make him a franchise QB.
  4. There's some clear consensus here. The QB is important (I think I only saw one serious list that didn't include QB), OL is important, pass rushers are important, almost universally. There's also consensus that RB wouldn't be at the top of the list for most, almost all. So I think it's a fair conclusion to say most think you need a good QB, good OL and good pass rusher. Some variance on pass catchers. I counted 26 submissions that included either a WR or TE (mostly WRs, but some had both). Others would try to make due with average-ish skill players on offense, valuing OL instead. On defense, some value coverage, others value play up front, that seemed to be a healthy mix. That might be different if we knew exactly what the defense wants to be... More varied are the ideas about skill players, what to do behind and outside of the pass rushers, and whether the best players would be weighted toward defense or offense. I counted 42 legit submissions so far -- listed 7 players, and appeared to be serious -- and 22 picked at least four offensive players, while the other 20 picked at least four defensive players. I'm not sure that you can really show a preference when only picking seven positions, although some went very heavy on either side. But there's obviously a desire for balance, more than being dominant on just one side of the ball. I'm not too surprised by the way this has gone, but I think it's very interesting.
  5. We have an All Pro on our roster that was picked in the second round. Not counting specialists, there were nine All Pros last year that were drafted outside of the first round. So even if you're building through the draft, in theory, it's possible. Not likely, though.
  6. Cool, still not the point of the exercise.
  7. That's the other part about it. Even replacement level JAGs have a good game every once in a while, so maybe you get a 10 catch game from one average WR this week, and another 8 catch game from another WR a couple weeks later, but in between, you're might wind up having a couple three catch, 28 yard performances from those same guys. But yeah, in theory, if you're building a roster and moving into the future, some of those JAGs will be rookies who might be able to get better. Just wanted to look at the immediate snapshot of your roster, though.
  8. Ehh, the point isn't really to discuss the best way to build a roster. I want to know how people would prioritize certain positions in building a roster. I also think it's rare to have a team with seven top five players on the roster. The Rams went all in last year, went to the SB, but probably only had four top five players -- Donald, Gurley, Whitworth, Havenstein. I'll give you half a season of Goff tearing it up and six games of Cupp being excellent. The 2007 Pats had Brady, Welker, Moss, Vrabel (12 sacks), Wilfork and Samuel. Was anyone else top five? So my point is that with a top heavy roster, assuming your top seven are healthy and a great scheme match, I think you could do some damage with 46 replacement players. It's definitely not the ideal, but that's not the point of the exercise.
  9. I don't know if you're really considering how some of your comments are coming across on this topic. But I'm good with moving on, just voicing my frustration with the way this discussion seems to be framed, IMO.
  10. I'm struggling to think of any SB team that didn't have a difference maker at one of the offensive skill positions. Edelman probably isn't top five, but he isn't a JAG either. The Pats last two SB wins, a WR and a RB won SB MVP. So you're going to go with replacement level players at WR, RB and TE, and give preference to the OL, and ask the QB to elevate the offense by himself. That's my opinion. I think I get your approach, I just wonder if you're asking too much of the QB, and not compensating enough on the defense.
  11. This is a bit of a cheat. The idea isn't that you get to choose seven all time great players. You get seven players who will be among the top five at their position, currently in the league. I don't know if that changes your answers, but it might. Same idea for me, and I wanted to be strong up the middle, closest to the ball on pretty much every play.
  12. I don't know if everyone else is going in order of importance. I didn't, just went offense, then defense.
  13. You get one more. QB, OT, OG, TE, DE, CB...
  14. Part of my scenario in the OP was you're starting a roster for the coaching staff you have, so I was just making sure you're honoring the scenario. I agree, I think they've shown signs of wanting to play more varied coverages, and I hope they do. Still, it's interesting that for a team that's has only played heavy man coverage on a couple of occasions, you'd prioritize corner that way. I knew you had thought it through, but wanted to hear/read your rationale. Nope. Need the other four, or your submission will be returned to sender... ;)
  • Create New...