dc.

Crav, I think Brees' 39-12 TD to INT ratio explains something. And Ryan's 26-17 also seems to answer your question.

To the merits of your earlier arguments, two thoughts: First, again, I actually agree pretty much entirely. I especially agree that he should be compared to the best of the best and that we should hold him to that standard. I think people defend Joe (and his contract) in large part because of the history this team. It's not right per se, but it's probably true. Given the history of lackluster and horrible QBs that this team dealt with for its for 10+ years, I think you can bet that people are going wild over even a hint of "good." And they are scared to death to lose that "good." You are 100% right that other teams have and will make it with average QBs. But we never seemed to even get to average. I think people are worried that without Joe, the only other option is Kyle Boller or Chris Redman or Trent Dilfer. Is this a valid fear? Maybe. But it should not preclude Joe from criticism -- and I personally don't think it does. But I do think that is why some show him deference. Second, on a personal note - and getting to the whole "you guys" assertions again - I personally have only really excused (in part) Joe because of the offensive line. I think the line was the primary problem facing our offense all season. It's also why I have been a rather staunch defender of Ray Rice while others have said he's done. No one was able to run. That makes it pretty clear to me it's not a RB problem. So I blame the OL. But please don't lump me into some group that says that "it's the OL, the RB, the receivers." No. They all failed to degrees. Joe failed seriously. I put primary blame on the OL. And we can agree to disagree, but I would say that one thing Peyton and Brady have always had on their side is strong line play.

Geronimo, Thanks for actually responding. Here's my only bone of contention: you call everyone a groupie. You even say it right there "you guys." Anyone who has a single disagreement with your analysis is deemed a groupie. Why isn't it possible to agree in part but disagree in part? Meanwhile, I told you what my motive was - my motive was stupid arguing. You want to argue that Joe should be compared to Peyton and Brady? Damn right he should. And he doesn't match up to them. And we are going to struggle at times because of that. And so long as he is making that much money and calling himself "the best in the league" - and so long as we want to win at a level like Brady and Manning - then he and his mistakes are fair game. And his mistakes and his bad reads and his bad audibles are all fair game. But SAY THAT - instead of just making a "joke" to rile feathers. I wasn't defending Joe; I was going after your hyperbole and inability to get around to the kind of post above (which is the kind we should be reading and the kind I am happy to discuss).

Ah, and now the change in argument. No one argued he doesn't own or that he isn't responsible. Spen (and now I) only argued that it is exaggeration to call it the team's most unbreakable record. That line turns a fair, deserved and reasonable criticism of Flacco into a line of total bull. He can own that stat- that awful, embarrassing, pathetic stat - and it says plenty without you all making up so one other level of hate.

Old82 - I generally agree, but technically the system is set up like this (to my knowledge). The CBA's that are renegotiated every few years between the teams/league and the players associations include discussions how making sure the wealth is spread appropriately. To my knowledge, the cap numbers as well as minimum numbers for vets, etc are tied to percentages of league revenue. As I remember it, last time the CBA was due to be discussed (not long ago given the big hold out, was that just 2012?) one sticking point was that "percentage of revenue" that players deserved. My understanding was that NFL players were getting less than MLB and NBA players on average and wanted to at least be in the same ballpark. Regardless, in the end I think you are right - in many ways the $$ doesn't matter so much as the time debt the teams are locking themselves into.

I think the contracts are crap - but it's not the money or the player, it's the length. Numbers on contracts are going up and always will (like the cap) so long as the league keeps increasing revenue. Now, of course we know the math works so the biggest cap hits come much later in the contracts and they get dumped or restructured - but locking guys in for 7 years is what's lunacy. The contract length is also what's pushing up salaries. Cutler is only so valuable compared to a league of good QBs. But he's not up against every QB in the league - he knows the Bears are looking at him or... Well, who knows, but it's not Peyton or Brady. Long contracts take players off the market, making good look great when they are the only option left. Silly, but the Bears are certainly saying "what other choice do we have?"

You are following such basic rules of pathetic internet arguing, I am wondering if I'm at Dee's board or on ESPN. 1. make exaggerated claims to get attention or just because you're that full of shit 2. Avoid merited arguments at all costs: Call anyone that disagrees a loon, hack, groupie, etc. 3. Continue to avoid merits at all costs: Deflect by "feeling sorry" for those who wish to actually discuss. (Didn't you notice how I predicted that move by acknowledging that I was taking the bait... Or do you not understand that reference) You can call me whatever you want, avoid me all you want. I'm patient. I'll wait for you to come around and actually talk merits. I know it may not happen. That's ok.

Fine. I'll take the bait. Go find me all my pro Flacco posts. What defines a Flacco groupie? Go find me the post that says I like his contract. Go find me the post that says I think he's elite. Or how about the one where I say he's on par with Manning or Brady. I'll help, just to make another point. Here's one that qualifies for the last box: Flacco's int total this year is still lower than Manning's personal record: 28. Or 23 in his sixth season. (Because I know you are both actually going to say that is a pro Flacco item, I will be very clear and say directly: my intent is only to prove how breakable that "record" is. Now, 165 points in 16 games... I'd call that on a different level. But I guess everyone's entitled to their own "opinion")

I think Spen's agenda is closer to mine than it is to being pro-Flacco. In fact, prior to the arrival of you two/one, he could have been put in a more Flacco doubter category - regularly questioning his decision making etc... I would say he still does. As for his agenda - like mine - it's to point out stupid, exaggerated, emotional and illogical arguments. Most unbreakable record is INTs? Silly. But it sure does sound good if you want to make a point.

Stupid and football stupid are very different. Doing it and explaining it are also different. Bradshaw sounds like a moron... But on the field he could see it and do it. I can see the solution to almost any visual puzzle and execute, but i cant describe what i am doing. The comparison is bad. I'm not saying Joe is Manning. He's not. But he's also bright enough if he has some tools - like a few seconds to throw or some decent plays to run.

What mistake? Trying something to make the team better? Again, if he'd sat on his thumbs and done nothing then we'd all be up in arms that there was no change despite the obvious personnel shortcomings. Harbaugh actually meddles the perfect amount I'd argue. He doesn't overdo it like so many coaches, but he's also not stubbornly stuck in some formula. That doesn't mean every decision is right but none of those options ensures a perfect product.

True. Point to Spen. Harbaughs misjudgment this year was Castillo - but I don't blame him for trying something. We lost our primary receiver and Birk. Had he sat on his hands and done nothing, we would have blamed a bad offense on not making any changes. I think Castillo was a miatake, but I can't say its a "pattern." I say the bigger mistake and issue is with not making a change - to play calling and blocking - earlier. But even that is hard: how do you rewrite an offense midseason? I think Caldwell, "the only FO move," deserves plenty of blame for lame game plans and calls.

I mostly agree with Papa here. And the bigger issue is the way Yanda is adjusting every call so he and Shipley can help cover the blocks they know G can't handle.

There is something very wrong with our O, and play calling is a tremendous part of that. But I think the real problem is our OL schemes and sets. There is something beyond wrong there.

The Reynolds/Showalter one was staged though - Reynolds admitted to doing it on purpose to get one over on Buck. Apparently the whole team was in on it.

I think Joe played a bad game for sure - and there weren't many moments that offered a different view. But I still put much more blame on Harbs. The running game was actually working for most of the day - Ray was running well early on. 6 yards on the opening play. Then two bad pass plays. Happened over and over. There just isn't any consistency or logic to our game planning. Harbs is also the ultimate "coach speak" coach - which I honestly don't blame him for. It's just annoying to listen to. He's great at being a voice on TV/Radio/etc that just doesn't let the media get to him or let anyone throw his players under the bus. It's a fine trait. All coaches do it. But damn is it annoying to listen to. (This is really more a complaint about all sports reporters/players/coaches/shows - which is why I've pretty much given up. Can't even watch a highlight show anymore because I have to listen to "momentum change!" ... blah)

Went today. Worst game I've ever witnessed. Target #1: Harbaugh. No game plan on either side of the ball. The FG was a pathetic call - post game he said he thought it would make it a two possession game which is false. Either he's lying to avoid or he's not - which is worse. And how about going empty set on 3rd and 1 near the goal line - is that not the moment to drop in Vonta (who never plays now)? We have to at least pretend we'll run it, but even went empty back frequently. Target #2: Joe. Actually, I am going to restrain some because Tyrod shows us that Joe's play was probably better than we realized. But his reads were nonexistent. Fixed on his #1 even when double covered... Missing wide open receivers. From the upper deck it was so plain to see I was about to lose it. Honorable Mention: The Refs. Enough said. But the change of call on the late false start/encroachment... At least they got it right but how absurd. So plain to see a few refs waited on the replay. If you knew the calk, why not say it right away douche?

Well I hope it's not true too... But it sure does seem like the same pattern and same crap as years prior. This team CAN afford to have a few big contracts - we CAN afford to be in the market for anyone from Choo to Cano .... But Angelos doesn't want to and won't. The rules on spending are entirely arbitrary. Some sensical, but mostly about being cheap and maximizing profits. Between close location to big markets and being in division with big markets, and a massive TV deal that controls another team's media.... The on field product has nothing to do with making money.

I don't get it, except it's been clear from everything else this year that Dan is not authorized to spend any money. Seriously, our two most expensive deals have been 2.5m to a reliever and 1m to Reimold. Meanwhile, we traded away a 10m contract & watched other players that were ours or we had interest in sign elsewhere. Most without so much as an offer. Angelos is back and his wallet is closed - even though ticket sales and revenue have been up for two years and they are raising tic prices this year heavily. (It doesn't look heavy - but by years end the dynamic pricing will prove to be costing us all muchore)

Weirder twist now... Balfour, his agents and two other docs say he is perfectly fine. They are saying the O's bailed just because. He may even file a grievance against the team. Great. I'm inclined to believe it. It would be a new low in Angelos' attempts to fake off season moves... But I don't think he's above it in the slightest. Sounds right up our Free Agent alley and MO.

There's plenty that's been done. Don't forget who is NOT on this team this year... Hammel, Feldman, McLouth, Johnson, Roberts, Valencia... I'm sure I have forgotten a few. So, down 40% of our rotation, 20% of our bullpen, 20% of our lineup. But its ok... David Lough and Jemile Weeks are here.

And the entire analysis is off as Balfour has shoulder trouble. Always wondered why the As would trade for the more expensive player!

So, we traded JJ - expecting a cost of about $10m this year. Final return: Jemile Weeks (in trade) PTBNL (in trade) Ryan Webb (approx. 2.5m this year) Grant Balfour (approx 7.5m this year) Total - just about the $10m we were "saving" Ultimately - I guess we do "win." We have a closer of equal caliber (arguably better in some ways), another strong arm for the bullpen (which is now looking pretty formidable), and two "prospects." Personally, I still think Weeks is just a total scrub and we'll be dumping him soon enough. But can't say we didn't get some value for that cash. I simply suppose I was hoping we'd get something legitimately strong in return with our cash. We still have no LF, no DH, no 2B and could really use a #1 pitcher - or at least a solid #2 or #3. All those positions have a solid "fill in" crew... but none are locked down. Would love to have at least two of these spots truly FILLED, not just filled in.

Michael Kiwanuka... crazy mixture of some of the greatest in classic soul/rock/folk... Van Morrison, Willie Nelson, Al Green... all hidden in here. This is the one that's just been stuck in my head for weeks. But check out his others.