Dibs

He used the term "air pressure", potentially making a distinction between the technical psi and more generic terms. As example, when describing a partially flat tire on a car, if one was asked if they had discussed the air pressure, they could honestly say "no", having never discussed the actual psi.....but they discussed the fact that it was partially flat. It seems that mostly what he said was that he didn't know about the actual psi ranges required.....and now he does.

To highlight what I mean..... Belicheat started by saying... "When I came in Monday morning I was shocked to learn of the news reports about the footballs." The news reports being that it was discovered 11 of the 12 balls were deflated......Belicheat was shocked to learn of the discovery of the deflated balls, not necessarily the fact that the balls were deflated. He continues.... "I had no knowledge whatsoever of this situation until Monday morning." Meaning that he didn't know that the deflated balls had been discovered until Monday morning. He has not denied having a hand in the deflation of the balls.

I have just read through the transcript twice and the closest he actually got to saying he didn't do it, or organized to do it, was when he said "I have no explaination for what happened,..." ........and even that is not a denial. Unless I missed something, Belicheat still hasn't denied culpability.

Wilson looking like Geno today.

I am not disagreeing with your point, the Seahawks, 9ers and Ravens all had very strong run games.....and it seems obvious to me that the ground and pound is not obsolete. What you wrote above however is wrong......and I'm baffled why so many people believe it to be the case. The Giants had the 32nd ranked running game in 2011.....both in yards and YPA. The Giants had the 27th ranked defense(yards). 29th against the pass, 19th against the run. The Ravens were a bit better ranking 17th defensively(yards). 17th against the pass, 20th against the run.

lol....no.You can link to an article, but for copyright reasons you can only quote a small amount from the article. Your links were fine.....you needed to reduce the amount you copied down to a couple of paragraphs.

Beerball would like you to edit it down for copyright reasons. One is only allowed to post excerpts from an article. I'm sure he would have deleted his post after you did so. To edit your post.....just click on the "edit" button under your original post, and off you go.

I don't think that this aspect has been highlighted enough. Love it or hate it, Spiller is a jitterbug style runner. These last two seasons saw him pounding up the middle for little to no gain time and again....and for the most part he stuck to the script. You just know that he was told "Don't dance, don't bounce it, don't juke, don't jive. Not unless you get to the second level. Just power straight ahead." I can imagine Spiller sighed when every inside running play was called.

You are doing two things here... Firstly you are placing a much higher level of expectation and judgement on someone who is considered an edge better than most of his peers (HOF level QBs). Manning won his SB with a terrible defense and has been back twice more with two different teams. It is a huge stretch to call him a top 5 over rated player with those credentials. Secondly, you are arguing that he is over rated based upon his SB wins, which I think is totally reasonable. Marino(the Manning of his day) was subject to such criticism....and rightly so. To claim Manning is in the top 5 over rated players however is rediculous. If he is in the top 5 then Marino must be the most over rated player of all time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the concept that Mannings current abilities are regularly being questioned, thus he isn't rated today as highly as he was in his prime......plus sometimes when people talk about him they are refferencing his career, not just his current abilities(this was the same with all the greats). You yourself are rating him as such, on his career as you see it rather than his top 4 position as a QB this season?

Awesome criteria there. By that logic, Favre, Young, Warner, Brees, Unitas and Namath were all drastically over rated........let alone Kelly, Marino and Moon who never even had 1 title.

It seems like he spent more time promoting his articles than researching them.

I'm wondering if Hackett throws Marrone under the bus in his interview by saying his anemic offense was due to Marrone's heavy handed interference.

I'm not saying to not pay him(or pay him).....but with the rollover rule, it actually does hurt their ability down the line. Lets say we pay Hughes $12M/year instead of paying someone else $8M/year......and in 5 seasons time we will be wanting to pay big bucks to a QB. That $4M/year saving becomes $20M of extra cap space in 5 years time. I don't think it is the possible future QB who is the issue. One needs to consider the definite future contracts of Dareus, Glenn, Gilmore, Kiko, Woods, Watkins and Brown. That said, we have a good deal of cap space.....and with the constant increases in the cap, I personally wouldn't mind if we overspent a little on Hughes in order to keep this defensive unit together for longer.

See my post above.

It is....but I'm not sure what you are meaning by that. I'll explain why front loading used to work and why it now doesn't. It used to be that if you were going to pay somebody...lets say 5 years-$50M(I'm not using a signing bonus for simplicity purposes), and you frontloaded it....lets say first 2 seasons of $17.5M/year.......that would leave the last 3 seasons only costing $5M/year, thus giving an extra $5M/year cap space than you would have had had you paid things equally ($10M/year for this example). A couple of years ago however, a new rollover rule was introduced. Simply put, any leftover money under the cap is added to the next years allowable cap.......and continues like that every year. In relation to our example, if you didn't frontload the contract, this would meam.... In year 1, the $7.5M not spent on the frontload would rollover into year 2. In year 2, the $7.5M not spent on the frontload would rollover into year 3....plus the $7.5M from year 1 would also rollover. In year 3, the extra $5M spent by not frontloading would be offset by the $15M rolled over from years 1 and 2. Effectively one would be better off by $10M at this point by not frontloading. In year 4, the extra $5M spent by not frontloading would be offset by the $10M rolled over from previous years. Effectively one would be better off by $5M at this point by not frontloading. In year 5, the extra $5M spent by not frontloading would be offset by the $5M rolled over from previous years. Effectively both ways would end up with the same cap space in year 5. If you can follow that, you will see that one is actually worse off with the new rollover rules if they frontload contracts. The end result is the same, but there becomes more cap room to play with in the middle years when one doesn't frontload.

Frontloading makes no difference now adays. Any money you don't spend today rolls over into tomorrow.

Wow. Iupati at that cost seems like an absolute bargain! Multi-probowler in his prime....and at $1.6M/year less than what Levitre got 2 years ago. I'm hoping Roman can have some positive input in aquiring him.

Not much fear of that unless you think there is a reasonable chance we re-sign him. Pears is a FA.

Yeah, that's the second "top 5 list" article in as many days linked here from that site......and both were garbage IMO.

Just like the Hutchinson poison pill. Does anybody know if they managed to get rid of that loophole?

Yeah, I'd hope that their fiefdoms are already built and each can be comfortable in their areas of control without having to fight. The Marrone/Whaley offensive talent issue is intriguing though. It appears that Whaley obtained players specific to a plan(big OLmen, some speedy WRs and some possession WRs, mobile QB, RB depth). One has to assume that Marrone minimally was on board with those types of players, if not specifically asked for them. At some point it appears that Marrone became unhappy with many of the players he was given(one could speculate a lot on that concept).....which lead to obvious disunity. Rex and Whaley have both stated themselves to be on the same page so I don't see any particular reason to be concerned. The only possibility would be that it was Whaley's fault with Marrone and he ignored his wants/needs from the get go......and could do the same with Rex. Unlikely, considering what we know, but still possible. Only time will tell.

In the Rex press conference, Brandon clearly defined the 3 roles.....so that quote from Whaley indeed seems very odd.

Ah....I didn't know about that. Thanks for the info.

He made the probowl with us at least.