NFL Week 6

[bukie]

Junior Seau unretired (again) and signed with the Patriots (again). Vinny Testaverde would be proud.

 

Random fact to show how old he is: Seau was in the NES version of Tecmo Super Bowl, which came out in 1991. Bonus points if you know the other two active players from that game.

Brett Favre and John Carney?

[JonJayCutler]

 

Fair point with you guys playing the Lions, but the schedule isn't exactly the same. We get Atlanta and Philly, while you get TB and Dallas. That definitely favors GB, imo. Meanwhile the Vikings get to have their last game of the year against a Giants team that will have probably locked up the division a month earlier, and Carolina. So I think they have it the best of all.

 

But yeah...that's just the way it goes...and I'm not worried since the Packers suck. ;)

 

The Vikings will also play the Steelers with Polamalu and unless something else happens, the Seahawks with Hasselbeck.

 

Every team gets some breaks and for the most part divisional schedules are as equal as they can be.

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

[dew1679666265]

Junior Seau unretired (again) and signed with the Patriots (again). Vinny Testaverde would be proud.

 

Random fact to show how old he is: Seau was in the NES version of Tecmo Super Bowl, which came out in 1991. Bonus points if you know the other two active players from that game.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

[Flames24Rulz]

 

Fair point with you guys playing the Lions, but the schedule isn't exactly the same. We get Atlanta and Philly, while you get TB and Dallas. That definitely favors GB, imo. Meanwhile the Vikings get to have their last game of the year against a Giants team that will have probably locked up the division a month earlier, and Carolina. So I think they have it the best of all.

 

But yeah...that's just the way it goes...and I'm not worried since the Packers suck. ;)

 

The Vikings will also play the Steelers with Polamalu and unless something else happens, the Seahawks with Hasselbeck.

 

Every team gets some breaks and for the most part divisional schedules are as equal as they can be.

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

 

There's no such thing as a good backup QB in the NFL. Seneca Wallace really isn't that good.

 

Your first point is fair but Seattle was missing their best player on both sides of the football in that game. I'm not bashing the Bears by any means, you have to face the teams you're dealt with. Kick the opponent while they're down. Detroit is going to be without Calvin Johnson and possibly Stafford this week, so I'll gladly take that.

[JonJayCutler]

 

The Vikings will also play the Steelers with Polamalu and unless something else happens, the Seahawks with Hasselbeck.

 

Every team gets some breaks and for the most part divisional schedules are as equal as they can be.

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

 

There's no such thing as a good backup QB in the NFL. Seneca Wallace really isn't that good.

 

What? So you're saying backup QBs don't have varying degrees of talent? That Seneca Wallace = Caleb Hanie? Really though, my point is that the gap between starter and backup in Seattle is much smaller than the gap on most teams. Look at the Bears and Packers.

[CubbieBum]

 

The Vikings will also play the Steelers with Polamalu and unless something else happens, the Seahawks with Hasselbeck.

 

Every team gets some breaks and for the most part divisional schedules are as equal as they can be.

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

 

There's no such thing as a good backup QB in the NFL. Seneca Wallace really isn't that good.

 

What? So you're saying backup QBs don't have varying degrees of talent? That Seneca Wallace = Caleb Hanie? Really though, my point is that the gap between starter and backup in Seattle is much smaller than the gap on most teams. Look at the Bears and Packers.

 

Hasselbeck was a backup at one point. So was Matt Schaub and pretty much every starter in the NFL. They almost all start out as backups. How about Kurt Warner? Was out of the NFL and then brought in to backup Trent Green.

[ISUCubsFan]

Brett Favre and John Carney?

Carney is one. Favre was in the league but third string w/ the Falcons, so he wasn't in.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

Nope.

[CubbieBum]

Brett Favre and John Carney?

Carney is one. Favre was in the league but third string w/ the Falcons, so he wasn't in.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

Nope.

 

Isn't Feagles like 43? Matt Turk is also over 40 I believe. Those are the only ones I can think of.

[SouthSideRyan]

Brett Favre and John Carney?

Carney is one. Favre was in the league but third string w/ the Falcons, so he wasn't in.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

Nope.

 

Isn't Feagles like 43? Matt Turk is also over 40 I believe. Those are the only ones I can think of.

 

I'm pretty sure Feagles was in it.

[hawkeyecub]

 

Fair point with you guys playing the Lions, but the schedule isn't exactly the same. We get Atlanta and Philly, while you get TB and Dallas. That definitely favors GB, imo. Meanwhile the Vikings get to have their last game of the year against a Giants team that will have probably locked up the division a month earlier, and Carolina. So I think they have it the best of all.

 

But yeah...that's just the way it goes...and I'm not worried since the Packers suck. ;)

 

The Vikings will also play the Steelers with Polamalu and unless something else happens, the Seahawks with Hasselbeck.

 

Every team gets some breaks and for the most part divisional schedules are as equal as they can be.

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

 

The discussion was about schedules and how one team was lucky to play weaker squads. So yes you can just look at it like that.

Urlacher is out for the year, are you going to use that every game for 16 weeks? And Seneca is not a pretty good QB. He's a serviceable backup.

[Exile on Waveland]

Brett Favre and John Carney?

Carney is one. Favre was in the league but third string w/ the Falcons, so he wasn't in.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

Nope.

 

Isn't Feagles like 43? Matt Turk is also over 40 I believe. Those are the only ones I can think of.

 

I'm pretty sure Feagles was in it.

 

Colts just signed Matt Stover. He's been around that long; though don't remember if he's in the game.

[Exile on Waveland]

Junior Seau unretired (again) and signed with the Patriots (again). Vinny Testaverde would be proud.

 

Random fact to show how old he is: Seau was in the NES version of Tecmo Super Bowl, which came out in 1991. Bonus points if you know the other two active players from that game.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

 

Neither were even in college in 1991.

[Guest]

How about Dave Biehn, the long snapper for the Chargers. Seems like he's been around forever.

[dew1679666265]

Junior Seau unretired (again) and signed with the Patriots (again). Vinny Testaverde would be proud.

 

Random fact to show how old he is: Seau was in the NES version of Tecmo Super Bowl, which came out in 1991. Bonus points if you know the other two active players from that game.

 

Darren Sharper and Fred Taylor?

 

Neither were even in college in 1991.

 

Ouch. Those were two of the oldest position players I could think of still playing (forgot Favre somehow).

[ISUCubsFan]

 

Isn't Feagles like 43? Matt Turk is also over 40 I believe. Those are the only ones I can think of.

 

I'm pretty sure Feagles was in it.

 

Yes, Feagles (Eagles), Carney, and Seau (both Chargers) are correct. Fred Taylor is like 150 in running back years but he and Sharper are only 33. Dave Binn has apparently been in the league since 94, which is a long time for someone I've never heard of. Turk missed by a couple of years as well, and Stover was in the league in 1990, but not starting yet.

[JonJayCutler]

 

Not to mention the Bears lucked out against Pittsburgh without Polamalu and the Seahawks without Hasselbeck and Lofa.

 

And we were missing Urlacher, Tinoisamoa, and Clark for both of those games. You have to look at both sides of the coin. You can't just say we lucked out due to key injuries on the opposing team when we ourselves had key injuries. In the case of Hasselbeck's injury, its not like he was replaced by some nobody. Seneca Wallace is a pretty good QB.

 

The discussion was about schedules and how one team was lucky to play weaker squads. So yes you can just look at it like that.

Urlacher is out for the year, are you going to use that every game for 16 weeks? And Seneca is not a pretty good QB. He's a serviceable backup.

 

My point with mentioning the Bears' injuries is that each team has its injuries almost every week. In other words, if both teams were completely healthy, it would likely have been the same result.

 

I see what you're saying about schedules, and there is a good chance that players on the Seahawks who were healthy against us could be out when the Packers play them. Not only that, but lets say the Packers and Seahawks both enter their game without any key injuries, is it really any different than the Bears and Seahawks both having important players out?

 

I suppose that comes down to how you value the guys who were injured for each team. Last I checked, Matt Hasselbeck wasn't a top QB in the NFL. I can think of 13-14 QBs who I rather have. Then add in the fact that Wallace is a good backup and you really don't have that much of a dropoff between QBs in Seattle.

[Flames24Rulz]

Hasselbeck was a backup at one point. So was Matt Schaub and pretty much every starter in the NFL. They almost all start out as backups. How about Kurt Warner? Was out of the NFL and then brought in to backup Trent Green.

 

How many backup QB's in the league would you take to start on your team? That's the question I should've posed.

 

There's actually more strength at the QB position this year than in quite some time. Still, there's a lot of starters out there that suck or aren't very good. Seneca Wallace may be one of the better backup QB's in the league, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not that great of a quarterback.

[dew1679666265]

How many backup QB's in the league would you take to start on your team?

 

That's an interesting question. And there are actually a few.

 

Jon Kitna, Cowboys

Kevin Kolb/Michael Vick, Eagles

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

Jeff Garcia (was with Raiders to start year)

 

Not many, but those are a few varying degrees of starter quality QBs currently serving as backups. Seneca Wallace also has a career 60% completion percentage and a 25:14 TD:INT ratio. I think he'd make an ok starter, but he'd have to have good weapons and a solid running game.

[CubbieBum]

Hasselbeck was a backup at one point. So was Matt Schaub and pretty much every starter in the NFL. They almost all start out as backups. How about Kurt Warner? Was out of the NFL and then brought in to backup Trent Green.

 

How many backup QB's in the league would you take to start on your team? That's the question I should've posed.

 

There's actually more strength at the QB position this year than in quite some time. Still, there's a lot of starters out there that suck or aren't very good. Seneca Wallace may be one of the better backup QB's in the league, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not that great of a quarterback.

 

I don't know how anyone can say a player who has done pretty well in the few opportunities he has gotten is not that great. The point is we don't know. Every year there are backups in the league that somewhere down the line get their shot and turn out to be very good. Some can be low drafted young players who are still buried on the depth chart. The one that comes immediately to mind is Nate Davis for obvious reasons. He showed a lot poise in the preseason and just about everyone on the 49ers message board I belong to want to see what he can do next season as the starter. However, right now he's technically a 3rd stringer. I say technically 3rd because its obvious to anyone who watches the 49ers games he's actually the backup.

[SpongeWorthy]

How many backup QB's in the league would you take to start on your team?

 

That's an interesting question. And there are actually a few.

 

Jon Kitna, Cowboys

Kevin Kolb/Michael Vick, Eagles

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

Jeff Garcia (was with Raiders to start year)

 

Not many, but those are a few varying degrees of starter quality QBs currently serving as backups. Seneca Wallace also has a career 60% completion percentage and a 25:14 TD:INT ratio. I think he'd make an ok starter, but he'd have to have good weapons and a solid running game.

 

You'd only take those guys after at least 20-25 other guys disappeared off the face of the Earth.

[dew1679666265]

How many backup QB's in the league would you take to start on your team?

 

That's an interesting question. And there are actually a few.

 

Jon Kitna, Cowboys

Kevin Kolb/Michael Vick, Eagles

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

Jeff Garcia (was with Raiders to start year)

 

Not many, but those are a few varying degrees of starter quality QBs currently serving as backups. Seneca Wallace also has a career 60% completion percentage and a 25:14 TD:INT ratio. I think he'd make an ok starter, but he'd have to have good weapons and a solid running game.

 

You'd only take those guys after at least 20-25 other guys disappeared off the face of the Earth.

 

It depends on which QB you're talking about from that list. I consider Garcia to be the best on that list and there are currently 14 starting QBs I'd take over him (with three I'm not sure about in Sanchez, Stafford and Henne). With some of those QBs, I'd take Vick or Kitna over them, but not many. I still think Leinart can be a quality starting QB in the league and Kitna, if nothing else, could pull a Kerry Collins for a year or two, I think.

 

As for the QBs I'd take over Garcia - Brady, Palmer, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Peyton, Schaub, Rivers, Eli, McNabb, Romo, Cutler, Rodgers, Brees and Ryan. Roethlisberger and Romo only because of their age. Warner's a possibility, but I'm not sure if this year's bad start is a sign that he's done.

[jersey cubs fan]

You'd only take Ben over Garcia because of his age? That's kind of nuts.

[dew1679666265]

You'd only take Ben over Garcia because of his age? That's kind of nuts.

 

Roethlisberger: 63.4% completion percentage/109:74 TD:INT/90.5 rating/12.5 y/c

Garcia: 61.6% completion percentage/161:83 TD:INT/87.5 rating/11.3 y/c

 

Very similar career numbers with Ben having a better completion percentage and rating, but Garcia a better TD:INT ratio. Saying only because of age is wrong, but that's the biggest difference between the two at this point. Both have decent mobility as well, but neither has been a real running threat.

[ISUCubsFan]

You'd only take Ben over Garcia because of his age? That's kind of nuts.

 

Roethlisberger: 63.4% completion percentage/109:74 TD:INT/90.5 rating/12.5 y/c

Garcia: 61.6% completion percentage/161:83 TD:INT/87.5 rating/11.3 y/c

 

Very similar career numbers with Ben having a better completion percentage and rating, but Garcia a better TD:INT ratio. Saying only because of age is wrong, but that's the biggest difference between the two at this point. Both have decent mobility as well, but neither has been a real running threat.

 

Also worth noting that Garcia is pretty good at avoiding sacks and Roethlisberger is awful. Part of that might be his line, but he holds onto the ball forever. That said, Ben's been very good this year, and I'm guessing there's a reason Garcia doesn't have a job, so I'd take Ben easily. Warner is 10th in both DYAR and DVOA, so I wouldn't call him done either. Anyone who's career stats I can easily confuse with Tom Brady is welcome on my team.

[dew1679666265]

You'd only take Ben over Garcia because of his age? That's kind of nuts.

 

Roethlisberger: 63.4% completion percentage/109:74 TD:INT/90.5 rating/12.5 y/c

Garcia: 61.6% completion percentage/161:83 TD:INT/87.5 rating/11.3 y/c

 

Very similar career numbers with Ben having a better completion percentage and rating, but Garcia a better TD:INT ratio. Saying only because of age is wrong, but that's the biggest difference between the two at this point. Both have decent mobility as well, but neither has been a real running threat.

 

Also worth noting that Garcia is pretty good at avoiding sacks and Roethlisberger is awful. Part of that might be his line, but he holds onto the ball forever. That said, Ben's been very good this year, and I'm guessing there's a reason Garcia doesn't have a job, so I'd take Ben easily. Warner is 10th in both DYAR and DVOA, so I wouldn't call him done either. Anyone who's career stats I can easily confuse with Tom Brady is welcome on my team.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant with the age comment. Garcia might be done, but if he's still capable, he's as good as a lot of starting NFL QBs. I didn't realize DVOA liked Warner so much either, so I'd probably put him over Garcia too then.

 

Of course, Garcia not having a job now may not have much to do with whether he's done or not. He was with the Raiders through training camp and then was cut shortly after it. By the time he was back out on the market, every team had its starter already and it's rare for a team to bring in a new QB to start after training camp - barring injury.