Magnetic Curses

i have no problem with starting johnson against a lefty. but he looked like an idiot there

please just bring up the big 3 as soon as we won't lose a year of team control and let them play. i'm sick of watching retreads.

what in the hell is wrong with sveum?

that's an obvious balk, no question. why do lefties think they can still get away with that [expletive]? STOP TRYING TO STEAL

this giants lineup is worse than anything we've ever put out there.

[expletive] i swish i still lived in a place where it would still be light out

i'm starting to get excited about him

In the accompanying chat, Kevin Goldstein had this to say: I agree with everything Aaron says about Castro offensively. Defense, not so much. I predict he'll be a third baseman during the last half of this ten year period, and the stolen bases will dwindle. I thought that was interesting given the variety of opinions on his defensive development. And Sutcliffe picked Shark at #26. what the hell he's a fairly young starting pitcher with a high k/9. i wouldn't have picked him, but it's not indefensible. the most ridiculous pick was chapman. what kind of meatball picks a reliever to anchor their team?

Dino Bravo was killed by the mob because he was horning in on their illegal cigarette distribution racket. you can't make that [expletive] up. but anyway, michael jordan can wear lebron james's tongue as a bolo tie if he wants.

he wears what he wants because he's michael jordan you pussies

to clear things up, i don't think there's a curse on 1,000 yard rushers making the super bowl. signing one to a huge contract, however, is a curse.

well that's a relief

which is about the same thing as saying consistently. i knew you weren't reading.

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence. Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top? It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries. it's funny because you refuse to acknowledge that i have repeatedly said "consistently", you just ignore what doesn't fit your argument. new england has maintained consistent excellence in reaching the super bowl, the giants have won 2, the saints, the colts, the steelers have all won super bowls and gone CONSISTENTLY deep into the post season with a running back by committee. those teams are the standards of excellence. i don't care what teams have won a game in one year or another. The word consistently isn't in any of your posts until now. you replied to a post of mine with that word in it.

The trend isn't that RB by committee wins SuperBowls. The trend is good QBs win Superbowls. And the general trend in the NFL is running the ball is less important to scoring points than it was in the past. again, you are refusing to acknowledge that i've said a franchise qb + running back by committe seems to be the best formula for winning a super bowl, not one or the other. i think it's stupid to think it doesn't. and goony is about to hammer you hard on this one, so i'll let him.

I love the skip you had in there. Refusing to acknowledge one of those years, but not being blatant about it. That's well done :-) shut up, that year never happened. or, at least the sb never happened. ok, fixed. :P

super bowl winning running backs Bradshaw - 659 yards on 171 carries Jackson - 703 yards on 190 carries Thomas - 793 yards on 147 carries Parker - 791 yards on 210 carries Jacobs - 1009 yards on 202 carries Parker - 1202 yards on 255 carries Dillon - 1635 yards on 345 carries to me this shows a trend.

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence. Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top? It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries. it's funny because you refuse to acknowledge that i have repeatedly said "consistently", you just ignore what doesn't fit your argument. new england has maintained consistent excellence in reaching the super bowl, the giants have won 2, the saints, the colts, the steelers have all won super bowls and gone CONSISTENTLY deep into the post season with a running back by committee. those teams are the standards of excellence. i don't care what teams have won a game in one year or another.

i'm sure that they like each guy individually and appreciate the dynamic each brings to the team. sproles, in particular, is a special veteran player that they want to keep in the fold. they like thomas, who has been with them for a long time and is most likely a steady presence in the locker room, and they must like ingram's role as a goal-line guy. i personally wouldn't have chosen ingram so high as he doesn't seem like a special player, but whatever. they feel that those guys combined are worth the money that it takes to retain their services individually. you keep going back and forth between "i think RBs are expendable" to "if you think RBs are so expendable......?" it's confusing, your position isn't clear at all on this. i have personally given my formula on what i would do if i were a GM, so my position is quite clear.

you're smart, we get it.

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time. I've said several times I'm 50/50 on Forte getting a new contract. I think the difference here is that I think Forte will be good enough for long enough to justify the extension for the most part. He is capable of being worthless in 1-2 years, but if you guarantee him $20Mil and give him a 5-year contract, you can cut him loose after 3 years and he won't hurt anything, because all the guaranteed money is paid at that point. You think he's only going to give 1-2 good years, I think he's capable of 2-3. you keep saying things like bell isn't a big dropoff in production to forte, so why pay forte 20 million when you get that production or close to it for peanuts?

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence.

which again, if true, proves my point. but it's also weird logic to say that guys who put up better numbers are not as good as a guy who puts up worse numbers. take away the numbers and all you have is opinion. but let's just assume you're right and forte is better in a vacuum, but his dyar and dvoa numbers aren't near sproles or thomas and slightly trail ingram. what does that say about the importance and expendability of running backs? I don't want to add anything other to this conversation outside of this: trying to determine the value of runningbacks by comparing DYAR and DVOA of those runningbacks on different teams in different systems is flawed analysis. but forte is like 32nd in the league in both areas, so his value doesn't really compare to anyone's in any system.

those weren't our arguments, those were aspects of our arguments. me pointing out that there have been only 2 1,000 yard rushers to start in the last 5 super bowls shows that the better teams are consistently relying on running backs by committee and staying away from paying or using one back they will eventually have to pay if they haven't already. i never once implied that something happens to running backs at 1,000 yards that makes their teams less likely to win in the playoffs, that's a really strange interpretation of what i said. as for Goony's point, if you spend a lot of money on one player, you have less to spend on others. if that player is at a replaceable position, the money you spend on them inhibits you from either a. diversifying the position and protecting yourzxelf from injury or b. inhibits you from spending that money on other, more important positions. that is undeniable. you need to go back and re-read the whole discussion if that's what you took out of it. we have been saying the second thing all along.