My Theory On how to Fix This Defense

[Keegs]

We do not need a ton of new young defensive players.
Our defense was great this year.

what we need is to give all of our players flu shots before the frickin playoffs.

then we can draft linebackers and DBs that are immune to influenza and we are all set.

Thanks and be sure to tip your waitress.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

We do not need a ton of new young defensive players.
Our defense was great this year.

what we need is to give all of our players flu shots before the frickin playoffs.

then we can draft linebackers and DBs that are immune to influenza and we are all set.

Thanks and be sure to tip your waitress.

Keegs, you are doing a wonderful job. You have got the "it" factor. Keep up the good work, errr... work. ROFLMAO

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

ya if you could the flu shot to everyone they shouldn't get the flu. common sense huh? but cmon the pats training and med staff don't know what they're talking about.

i think the easiest way to fix the defense is stop wasting a roster spot on le kevin smith

 

[Kdo5]

what we need is to give all of our players flu shots before the frickin playoffs.

then we can draft linebackers and DBs that are immune to influenza and we are all set.

 

[ATippett56]

Keegs, you are doing a wonderful job. You have got the "it" factor. Keep up the good work, errr... work. ROFLMAO

Please don't feed the animals!

 

[Yankees/Colts]

Yes! Please keep the status quo.

 

[Canada's #1 Pats Fan]

Yes! Please keep the status quo.

Do you mean to consistently win our division, or to consistently make the playoffs, or to consistently make wise business decisions re: players and contracts, or to consitently not resign players who no longer have any value to the betterment of the whole team.

Good luck re signing Freeney - and I hope that you do franchise him to leave that oh so sour taste in his mouth and why oh why does your kicker chew up 5% of the total cap available to your team. Contrary to popular belief, while at the pro bowl our coach was picking away at Manning's game giving us a bigger advantage for the future. Enjoy your only SuperBowl win as cap hell is about to set upon you and maybe we'll see you back in the big game in another 9 years or so.

 

[DarrylS]

Yes! Please keep the status quo.

Is Polian - Steinbrenner a good thing? From my point of view George Steinbrenner ruined the Baseball. Polian will probably not ruin football, but sooner or later with his situational rule changes there will be a backlash.

 

[Yankees/Colts]

Now I realize you guys hate the Colts, but I know you've got to be happy for Bill Polian and the fact he was finally able to hoist the Lombardi. A class act like Polian, a guy who worked so hard all those years and came so close so many times with the Bills, you have to feel good for a guy like that.

 

[Eugene Chung]

Is Polian - Steinbrenner a good thing? From my point of view George Steinbrenner ruined the Baseball. Polian will probably not ruin football, but sooner or later with his situational rule changes there will be a backlash.

At least Steinbrenner didn't need to change any rules. His spending was unethical but it was accepted by the owners because of revenue sharing. Polian needed to change the rules to better fit his team's style of play.

But I do agree that Polian - Steinbrenner isn't a good thing.

I think this is the first time that I've heard of a person being a Colts and Yanks fan.

 

[maverick4]

At least Steinbrenner didn't need to change any rules. His spending was unethical but it was accepted by the owners because of revenue sharing. Polian needed to change the rules to better fit his team's style of play.

But I do agree that Polian - Steinbrenner isn't a good thing.

I think this is the first time that I've heard of a person being a Colts and Yanks fan.

Oh man what a horrible player, it'll be hard to take your posts seriously!

Just kidding, welcome to the board.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

At least Steinbrenner didn't need to change any rules. His spending was unethical but it was accepted by the owners because of revenue sharing. Polian needed to change the rules to better fit his team's style of play.

But I do agree that Polian - Steinbrenner isn't a good thing.

I think this is the first time that I've heard of a person being a Colts and Yanks fan.

Maybe the guy just hates the city of Boston, who knows.

For the record: Steinbrenner's spending is only unethical because he was willing to do it and nobody else did. If Boston matches them dollar for dollar, it's ethical, in the Boston fan's mind. So it strikes me that, no common set of mores pertaining, Steinbrenner's spending is just competitive, not unethical. And competitiveness always looks unfair from the vantage point of the weaker competitor. I'm sure there were all sorts of "labor advocates" who complained when Patriots players signed for less than top dollar in the past. That's more unethical, from a labor point of view, because it undercuts the union's attempt to put more revenue in players' pockets. If players willingly adopted this style across the league, the cap system would be stymied. Of course, the real-life labor result is a team that spends to the cap, and spreads around money to the middle class of players, not just to the super rich. So it turned out to be one model a team could pursue, not an unethical aberration. The same is true for Steinbrenner, although in baseball it is just a matter of competition without a cap constraint. Want to beat the Yankees? Keep pace with his spending.

As for rule changes, other than insisting the league enforce their own contact rules for coverage guys, what rule did Polian actually change?

PFnV

 

[Yankees/Colts]

As for rule changes, other than insisting the league enforce their own contact rules for coverage guys, what rule did Polian actually change?

PFnV

Don't speak with common sense now.

 

[Eugene Chung]

Maybe the guy just hates the city of Boston, who knows.

For the record: Steinbrenner's spending is only unethical because he was willing to do it and nobody else did. If Boston matches them dollar for dollar, it's ethical, in the Boston fan's mind. So it strikes me that, no common set of mores pertaining, Steinbrenner's spending is just competitive, not unethical. And competitiveness always looks unfair from the vantage point of the weaker competitor. I'm sure there were all sorts of "labor advocates" who complained when Patriots players signed for less than top dollar in the past. That's more unethical, from a labor point of view, because it undercuts the union's attempt to put more revenue in players' pockets. If players willingly adopted this style across the league, the cap system would be stymied. Of course, the real-life labor result is a team that spends to the cap, and spreads around money to the middle class of players, not just to the super rich. So it turned out to be one model a team could pursue, not an unethical aberration. The same is true for Steinbrenner, although in baseball it is just a matter of competition without a cap constraint. Want to beat the Yankees? Keep pace with his spending.

As for rule changes, other than insisting the league enforce their own contact rules for coverage guys, what rule did Polian actually change?

PFnV

Haha, I love the city of Boston. I live in Allston and grew up in Canton so I love anything Boston. Obviously, my post wasn't well articulated. I stand corrected on the rule changes part. Polian is the most vocal member of the competition committee which has done a lot of good for the league.

As for Steinbrenner, I understand your point, but there was a period where the Yanks' spending was hurting baseball. Owners like Pohlad, Selig and Schott (former A's owner) couldn't spend the money to keep FAs due to various reasons (old stadiums, lack of outside revenue streams from TV and radio, etc.). Steinbrenner's freespending ways which started in the 70s with Reggie Jackson (and could later be seen in the 90s with the Sox, Dodgers, and Mets among others) led to the implementation of revenue sharing. Yes, it is in the name of competition, but Georgie was spending in a way that didn't allow teams to compete (see the David Wells-Diamondbacks saga from a while back).

Nonetheless, it was a great post and I thank you for correcting me there.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thanks, EugeneChung...

I'm now totally in Devil's Advocate territory, but...

You make a great point that the big market Yanks were the terror of small market teams, which were able to push revenue sharing because of the lack of fiscal restraint by the big-market teams.

Lately, baseball's woken up to the NFL model, where owners don't compete with each other; rather, they're business partners. Their competition is the other sports.

With the advent of revenue sharing, Baseball has started to "get it." Prior to that, though: Steinbrenner's job, in the end, was to make money. Steinbrenner's tools were a huge fan base and resource base, and the Yankee history. In other words, to generate future revenue, he wanted his product to be the Yankee Dynasty. And for a number of years, it was.

Now, his product is the local franchise of MLB. He has no compunction about wanting to win every year at any cost, even now -- and neither do other Baseball teams. (I believe the Sox are up to about 2/3 of their payroll.) But with the luxury tax and revenue sharing in baseball, they've moved significantly toward the NFL's model.

Okay, rant over,

PFnV