|
|
#21
10-03-2005, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench. He probably has the best job in the NFL [/ QUOTE ] Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete. Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much. [/ QUOTE ] He was an unproven rookie who held out for training camp and 2 (?) preseaon games. He was the last rookie to sign. I think hes in it for the money more than others and didn't mind a guarenteed sitting on the bench for a good period of time. 
|
|
#22
10-03-2005, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
On the other hand San Diego never really wanted to sign Eli. They got exactly what the management wanted all along. They got a QB that they think is at least close to as good, plus a butt load of draft picks, plus they don't have to sign Manning to a huge contract.
The Mannings were nothing but San Diego's scape goat. For the reasons above San Diego wanted to bail out of the first pick. They knew their fans wanted Manning and would be upset if they didn't pick him. To get their way and save face San Diego needed to sway their fans from wanting Manning. To do this they brought in Archie and had someone high up tell him in privacy that San Diego wasn't the place for him and he should go elsewher. Archie says no problem, how about New York. San Diego management leaks to the press that Eli wants to go to New York and won't sign with San Diego. This turns the San Diego fan base against the Mannings. It also allows San Diego to get what they wanted all along while making the Mannings look like the bad guys.
|
|
#23
10-03-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all. [/ QUOTE ] jack only cares about rushing avg. [/ QUOTE ] Let's go with an extreme example and say Kevin Faulk gets 800 rushes and gets 1800 rushing yards. Was that a good year? Of course it wasn't. LT was like that, just less extreme; there's a point in yards per carry (in various situations; 3 yards on 3rd and 3 is obviously a lot betteer than 3 yards on first and ten) where no matter how many yards you get over the season, you're not adding value with each individual rush.
|
|
#24
10-03-2005, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, okay - except LT blew last year, and Brees was still very, very good. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, LT just sucked last year. What with his 1,800 yards, 18 TD's and all. [/ QUOTE ] jack only cares about rushing avg. [/ QUOTE ] Let's go with an extreme example and say Kevin Faulk gets 800 rushes and gets 1800 rushing yards. Was that a good year? Of course it wasn't. LT was like that, just less extreme; there's a point in yards per carry (in various situations; 3 yards on 3rd and 3 is obviously a lot betteer than 3 yards on first and ten) where no matter how many yards you get over the season, you're not adding value with each individual rush. [/ QUOTE ] I'm a big stat guy and all, but I completely disagree with this when it comes to football. Just too much that has to be factored in. LT played on a good team last year - meaning he had a lot of carries at the ends of games where he was grinding down the clock. I just think that kind of criticism is overrated. He's a stud, period.
|
|
#26
10-03-2005, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a big stat guy and all, but I completely disagree with this when it comes to football. Just too much that has to be factored in. LT played on a good team last year - meaning he had a lot of carries at the ends of games where he was grinding down the clock. I just think that kind of criticism is overrated. He's a stud, period. [/ QUOTE ] I don't get this at all. There are lots of runners on winning teams and it doesn't hurt them much. Last year, Curtis Martin, Corey Dillon, Warrick Dunn, and Edgerrin James come to mind. This year, he's exploded in the two games that San Diego has won. Sunday, Deuce McAllister got 80 yards in the fourth quarter "grinding out the clock." And I'm even taking that into account - in the fourth quarter when you're ahead, it takes less yardage to be a "successful play." The problem with LT was the problem with Barry is the problem with Deuce, etc. So often he gets stuffed at the line and then he pads the yards by busting an 80 yarder. Sure, that's valuable, but it limits your options on 3rd and 3 when you can't get a consistent 3 yards. People like to play up his versatility, but LT really is a limited back. Sure, he can catch balls - but more often than not, he's getting 6 yards on 3rd and 8 out of the backfield. Yeah, that'd be a good play on 1st and 10 but you need 8 yards, not 6, so it really doesn't matter. A guy like Priest circa 2003 or Faulk circa 2000, you can hand the ball off on 1st and 10 and the majority of the time, you're in 2nd and 5. With LT, you're often in 2nd and 8. Now, he may break one loose, but how many drives stalled out (especially pre-Gates) because LT gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage on 1st and 2nd down? This is why high-percentage runners are more valuable than low-percentage runners even if their ypc is lower.
|
|
#27
10-03-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
I always thought Rivers was overrated and went almost a full round too early, so I think it worked out well for him. He gets to collect his full contract without having to worry about being released, without showing that he doesn't have the tools to make it in the league.
|
|
#29
10-03-2005, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you have a stat to back it up, what is LTs first down ypc? [/ QUOTE ] YPC isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying what his average is, but something more like: what percentage of time does he gain 0 or less yards, 1 yard, 2 yard, 3 yards, etc. I don't know it offhand, but for his career I believe it's somewhere about 58% of the time he gains less than 4 yards on 1st and 10, compared to the league average of 54% and guys like Priest c. 2003 with like monstrous 42%.
|
|
#30
10-03-2005, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Phillip Rivers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? It worked out awesome for him, hes getting paid $40,000,000 guarenteed to site on the bench. He probably has the best job in the NFL [/ QUOTE ] Some players aren't losers who are in football for the money. They actually want to compete. Not to mention the obvious fact that his next contract isn't going to be worth much. [/ QUOTE ] He was an unproven rookie who held out for training camp and 2 (?) preseaon games. He was the last rookie to sign. I think hes in it for the money more than others and didn't mind a guarenteed sitting on the bench for a good period of time. [/ QUOTE ] Did you ever see the conditions of the contract that was offered first? Some of the conditional money that made the contract seem bloated and very attractive was utterly ridiculous. Terms such as leading the Chargers to a Super Bowl Victory and being SB MVP his first year would net a bonus. To get most of the incentives, he would have had to have basically been a football Jesus with a perfect QB rating, 400+ yards per game, no losses, and lead SD to 15 straight SB vitories. The SD managment is notorious for such contract offers, and disputes. The initial contract SD offered with flat out littered with absolutely unatainable incentive clauses. Now his contract holdout prevented him from competing for the starting job his rookie year, and has cost him any chance at any of the many incentives which are still in his contract. However, the holdout did bring more guaranteed money, and more attainable incentives. Double edge sword indeed.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
