05-22-2012, 11:12 AM
He was drafted by Cleveland and definitely a bust considering when they drafted him (6th) and who they could have drafted instead (Roethlisberger). In fact, the Browns actually traded up to get him, back when trading up was a lot more expensive than it is now. The general consensus was they overpaid at the time. Winslow missed most of his first season with a leg injury, but then missed the entirity of the next season after getting into a motor cycle accident, in a parking lot. He was never quite the same after these injuries, though he essentially did go on to be a productive tight end, including a pro-bowl appearance. Still considering what the Browns paid, they needed an "explosive playmaker," to use the cliche, not a guy who catches short passes while spending most of his time injured.
Originally Posted by Eightball
05-23-2012, 07:29 AM
Well, looking at some of the other players drafted in the top 10 of that 2004 draft, he's certainly not a bust by comparison.
#2 Robert Gallery
#7 Roy Williams (the WR)
#9 Reggie Williams
All 3 were much worse players than Winslow. Winslow more belongs with the second tier of players from that draft:
#8 DeAngelo Hall
#10 Dunta Robinson
Both decent pros but no more than that.
Yes, Winslow isn't a superstar, but he is a very good TE. Granted, a very good TE doesn't have the overall game impact that a great QB does, so it's fair to question drafting a TE that high, but overall, he's not been a bust when looking fairly at the players drafted around him.
05-23-2012, 10:15 AM
Let me repeat that, he played 2 games his first two years, and I just checked the exact trade, and the Browns under Butch Davis gave up their 2nd round pick to move up one spot to get this guy, and his contract included a $16 million signing bonus. You will never convince anyone from northern Ohio he wasn't a bust.
I suppose the Browns woes aren't necessarily relevant to whether or not the Seahawks are getting a good player in trade.
05-23-2012, 11:15 AM
Given where the Browns drafted him, I can sort of see where "bust" applies. Though I think TE's shouldn't be drafted that high anyway, but that is another issue. That all said, his 2nd and 3rd years in Cleveland were pretty much all that should have been realistically expected - if 80+ receptions each year and over 1100 yards in 2007 isn't living up to a high draft pick, I'm not sure what would have. Then he had a down year and they got rid of him.
Of course the problem with just looking at those numbers is that tight ends can be seriously impacted by the offense they are in. As Zach Miller's drop in numbers from Oakland two years ago to Seattle last year shows. That didn't happen because Zach Miller suddenly sucks, it happened because Seattle ended up being forced to use him as a blocker most of the time and rarely threw the ball his way when he was out on a pass route.
In other news, the NFLPA has sued the league for collusion in relation to the cap penalties levied against the Redskins and Cowboys. The NFL contends the NFLPA's agreement to the new CBA and their signing off on the cap penalties waived their rights to challenge this, but now we'll see if a judge agrees. The whole thing really raises questions about why the NFLPA made those agreements to begin with.
Last edited by Sarkus; 05-23-2012 at 12:57 PM.
05-23-2012, 02:54 PM
It also questions if the CBA negates the collusion wouldn't it also negate bountygate. The NFL can't have it both ways.
05-23-2012, 04:51 PM
Not really the same things. The CBA specifically has language saying the NFLPA is giving up all rights to sue over anything related to the legal proceedings they initiated during the lockout, specifically mentioning collusion. It doesn't say anything about the commish ignoring prior player issues that they agree he has the right to rule on.
Originally Posted by RainRaven
If anything it seems like the NFLPA wants it both ways. Its widely believed the NFLPA signed off on the penalites because otherwise there was going to be no increase in the salary cap this year. So they agreed to the redistribution of money since it meant most teams would have more money to pay players. Now they want the league to compensate them for the collusion as well.
Hard to say what the judge will say, though. On the one hand collusion clearly happened. On the other hand the NFLPA seems to have given up legal rights to sue over it.
05-23-2012, 05:12 PM
I agree it was dumb for the nflpa to sign off on the intial deal, I guess it depends on what the specific language of that deal was. However I personally hope the nfl loses, they should not be able to hide behind the CBA to avoid penalty on clearly illegal behavior. If goodell wants players held accountable then the league should be held accountable as well.
06-09-2012, 09:43 PM
06-11-2012, 09:01 PM
Fins sign Ochocinco.
Nothing says our WRs suck, like signing a guy who caught 15 passes playing with Brady.....
06-11-2012, 11:12 PM
I read something that said that essentially Ocho couldn't learn the offense in New England. He's a freelancer rather than a guy who runs good routes so QBs can throw to a spot.
In other words he's good for some offenses and terrible for others.
06-14-2012, 11:18 AM
Pop Warner is changing its policies to reflect concussion concerns and is probably just the beginning of major changes to football as we've known it.
06-14-2012, 06:40 PM
Did anyone catch what just happened in Giants land?
TE Jake Ballard tore his ACL in the Super Bowl. It's bad enough that he's not going to play at all this season. He'll come back in 2013. So the Giants put him on waivers, thinking no one is going to claim a player who can't play. Once he cleared waivers, they would put him on the Reserved/PUP list.
But someone did claim him off of waivers.
Belichick. God, what a brilliant evil fucker.
The Giants are fucking pissssssssssed.
06-14-2012, 08:16 PM
The Giants took a risk and now will pay the price. I don't see how they can be pissed, unless its at themselves. If they wanted to keep Ballard so bad they shouldn't have fucked him over by cutting him.
06-14-2012, 10:13 PM
Something about some unwritten rule nonsense. Which Belichick obviously denied and said it was fair game. The Giants took a risk and loss.
06-15-2012, 07:04 AM
What's with all the TEs? Does Belichick want to run the first four TE offense or something?
06-15-2012, 08:22 AM
As long as he gets us a real cornerback, I don't care how many TEs he uses.
06-15-2012, 03:03 PM
Well, since he ignores the written ones....:)
Originally Posted by Thongsy
06-15-2012, 03:16 PM
So remember those 50,000 pages of doccuments? It's more like 200.
06-19-2012, 08:20 PM
Florio over at PFT has noted that the NFL may have completely blown the bounty suspensions against the players due to a technical violation of the CBA. As he notes, the wording of the agreement says that when players are appealing a ruling by the commissioner they are required to receive any evidence the commish plans to present in the appeal three calendar days before the hearing. The NFL didn't do that. So while Goodell will presumably uphold his own decision, the whole thing is inevitably heading to an outside abitrator or judge who will be looking at that technical failure very closely.
06-19-2012, 08:39 PM
Unless there is subsection in the CBA that states what happens when evidence is not given 3 days in advance it will probably not amount to much. Probably just have another appeals hearing in which Goodell rules the same way.
06-20-2012, 12:30 AM
If you followed the link you'd realize it does say what happens. What happens is that the evidence can't be used. Just like in a court of law where the defense has to have a reasonable chance to look at the evidence the prosecutor is going to present. And Goodell needs to present that evidence because the CBA requires that he justify his decision when it is being appealed.
Originally Posted by Thongsy
Keep in mind there are federal judges who come into play when two sides have a CBA dispute. That is where this will likely end up. The players will argue that since the NFL violated the rules by not giving them the evidence in the time required that justified the suspensions, those suspensions cannot be upheld. A judge could very well agree.
06-20-2012, 11:10 AM
Wow. I hadn't heard about that until now. Fucking Belichick. Beat us twice in the Superbowl? No problem, we'll just poach injured players we have no use for from you.
Originally Posted by Woolen Horde
06-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Couldn't have happened to a more competent investigation. Holy shit did the NFL have a team of monkeys working on this? Then again 200 usable pages from 50,000 doesn't seem like a bad yield, even if it were an infinite ammount of monkeys.
Originally Posted by Sarkus
Last edited by Uncle Larry; 06-20-2012 at 07:43 PM.
06-20-2012, 09:01 PM
Oh, and just in case that evidence actually is thrown out there's always the anonymous bounty tip line to fall back on.
This is surreal.
07-11-2012, 03:11 PM
This went mostly unnoticed, but the NFL has (finally) eased its rules on local TV blackouts, so now instead of needing to sell out, the magic number for attendance has been reset at 85%.
However, this change is optional for teams, so if a club decides they want the blackout to hold if they don't sell out, they can keep the old rule in place. It sounds like a few teams, including the Colts, may opt to keep the 100% rule intact.
The blackout rules are a relic of a time when football was just getting started on TV. And yet I don't get the feeling this is the NFL finally catching up, but instead placating its TV partners. There have been times where Directv has had to blackout games even for people with the Sunday Ticket package, which is ridiculous, and this seems like this will greatly reduce the chances of that happening.
07-13-2012, 02:37 PM
Oh hey Drew Brees signed.
07-13-2012, 04:47 PM
First good news of the offseason for a Saints fan!
07-13-2012, 04:57 PM
Seahawks released WR Mike Williams today. Not a surprise that he was released, though most thought he'd make it to training camp. He dropped off a lot last year, then was injured, and they feel like they have a lot of depth behind the presumed starting trio of Rice, Tate, and Baldwin.
07-13-2012, 05:49 PM
Signing Lofton and extending Colston was kinda cool, honestly.
Originally Posted by Zuwadza
07-13-2012, 07:13 PM
Oh no! Not BMW! Who will I place a desperate waiver claim for in weeks 6-9 in fantasy now?!
Originally Posted by Sarkus