frostybanana's forum posts
[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] How much is he making right now? I thought it was like 2 million or something around there?ExoticAnimal
According to the link, his salary going into this season is only $800k.Perhaps he got some bonuses or something cuz i remember reading another article a while back saying that he made 2 million. I'll have to try and find it. That's true and not true. The Titans moved the escalators from the end of Johnson's contract to his 2010 salary to raise it from 550k to about 2 million instead of giving him a new contract. From the player's perspective, that's BS because Johnson's 2000 yard season could easily be the best year of his career and he should've been compensated for it. On the other hand, he made about 4 million in bonuses his first few years because of his performance. This year his base salary is 960,000. It's highly likely that includes several performance based bonuses, so he COULD make 2 million. CJ wants a contract that has 30-40 million GUARANTEED. This is where I have to side with management. That's is FAR too much for a running back. That is not the total contract, that is just the guaranteed money. So he's looking for a 5-6 year, 60-80 million dollar deal with 30-40 million guaranteed. Runningbacks are prone to getting injured, especially backs who carry the load like CJ. If CJ gets the max deal, that'll put the Titans in at 16 million a season for his services. Is that really worth it? If he gets that kind of contract, Peterson is in for HUGE payday as well.
The seahawks? Lynch had two good games all year...one regular season game and the playoff game (he wa son my fantasy team, trust me) T Jack to Rice connection...we have seen that before and it sucks (with a better O line and running game in Minnesota) The Broncos won 4 games last year...with Orton...now imagine what will happen with Tebow Royal had one good year two years ago and Lloyd has had one good year Moreno always gets hurt D has some good players, but many are old Give me the Lions offense and their D-line over anything the Broncos have The 49ers have Willis and Davis...I will give you that. Their back half of their Defense is FAAAAR worse than the lions, the lions have a better Defensive Front The Lions have 3 QB's better than anything the 49ers have The lions TE is good (not great like Davis) Gore is getting old (by RB standards and has bad knees and always gets hurt) I love Crabtree (from Tech)...but he is not a number 1 guy IMO The titans keep losing their good defensive players maybe the younger ones step up...maybe they don't...can't bank on it (same as you don't bank on Stafford) Britt is a head case. Do you trust him? Bad QB play, Johnson losing a step (now two years removed from all world year...happens to every back) Name one thing you would want from the Vikings except AP ...nothing...not a damn thing (maybe TE) Their O line is old and slow QB sucks now (was never accurate, now one hops passes and lost mobility) Defense lost some good players and rest got old The Browns are a wildcard I THINK they overachieved, but maybe not...maybe I am wrong and Colt is a solid NFL player I just don't see them getting the special teams play they did nor getting the production from the run game Raiders ...you are depending on that QB play (they let the only decent one they had go b/c Al Davis is in love with Jason) ...you are depending on one of the biggest busts in recent memory at WR ...you are depending on a RB that is always hurt ...they lost their only real receiving threat Now teams will be able to pass all over them AZ...you don't see the talent drop? Warner (arguable HOF player) gone, replaced by an unknown RB...worse WR...worse (Boldin and Breaston gone) Defense...older and trying to plug holes O Line...older Out of any of those, I will give that AZ could be close (depends on QB play) and the Browns if Colt is legit but that still leaves 11 teams worse...even if I add in 2 more for fun, that leaves 9 team worse...puts lions at 10th worst (far removed from bottom 4)rawsavon
Seahawks: Doesn't matter, they had a better record and they dethroned the Saints in the playoffs.
Broncos: Again, it was an off year. They've performed well with the same guys. Better than the Lions ever have.
49ers: Far worse? Not really. Delmas had ZERO picks last season, Spievey is unproven and both their corners got absolutely torched last season. Far worse is an exaggeration, they are both bad. The Lions having a better defensive front is a given, but that's literally the only strength they have on defense. The 9ers have a better linebacking corps and their line isn't bad. Gore being "OLD" is irrelevant. He is a 1000 yard rusher (1500 scrimmage yards. If he was on the wrong side of 30, fine. He's 28 and he still ran for 800 yards last year, he's far from done and he's far better than anyone the Lions have. As far as the QBs go, as I said, you can't argue for Stafford, he doesn't get on the field. Was Hill better than Smith? Sure. But it's not night and day. Smith: 2370 yards, 14 TDs, 10 INTs, 82.1 rating. Hill: 2686 yards, 16 TDs, 12 INTs, 81.3 rating.
Titans: Their line still has proven guys on it and they still have proven guys in their secondary regardless of whatever young guys are stepping up as well. Britt being a "head case" is irrelevant, he's a GOOD receiver. Bad QB play isn't that big a deal. They have Hasselbeck, he can check down enough to free up Chris Johnson. And yeah, CJ's a lost a step from his 2000 yard year but what RB hasn't after a year like that? Did you really expect another 2000 yard year? He still had close to 1400 yards, he still had 11 TDs, he still had 44 receptions, he can still carry that offense despite the poor QB play. His offense by itself is better than anything the Lions have to offer.
Vikings: Umm, they still have a great defensive line. Jared Allen isn't going away and K.Williams is one of the best DTs in the NFL. They still have Harvin and assuming they revert back to a running offense, they will be just fine with McNabb checking the ball down and AP/Toby Gerhart running the ball. They had a bad year, but those are the same guys that played well before. They're not done.
Raiders: They have busts, they also have speed and last season they proved they can kill with that speed. Their defense is still good, one player gone isn't going to affect it that much. McFadden played a full year last year and put on weight because his legs were too skinny (that's why he was getting hurt). Is Campbell good? Hell no, I'd rather have Shaun Hill. But they don't need him to be good with the number 1 rushing attacks and an offensive genius in Hue Jackson.
Warner being gone is the biggest drop I see. They won't be as good as they were with him, no question. But Fitzgerald is good enough that he doesn't need a great number 2 to make plays. The guys they have on defense are good, better than the Lions and with an offense that now has Kolb (who I won't say is better than Stafford or Hill but is certainly better than DA, Skelton or Hall) who will, at the very least, get them some first downs. They have Beanie Wells and they drafted a guy to take the pressure off him too. I just don't see the Lions being better honestly.
You obviously have you're own logic when rating these teams because it seems you're placing emphasize where I wouldn't. I simply think the Lions are overhyped. They have bad corners, bad safeties and bad linebackers. And instead of addressing that, they chose to draft a DT when they already have 2 good ones, and a running back, when they already have Jahvid Best (who they spent a first rounder on last year). They also drafted a WR when they went and paid Burleson number 1 money last season. That screams stupidity to me and I think their holes will show up in the regular season.
[QUOTE="frostybanana"]Bills, Bengals, Redskins, Dolphins, Panthers, Lions, Seahawks, Cardinals, Browns, Rams.rawsavonSince we are focused on the Lions atm, I will list the teams I think are worse and we can go from there -keep in mind that record =/= how good a team is (part of it but not all of it) b/c there is not a balanced schedule in the NFL #32 Panthers #31 Seattle #30 Bungles #29 Broncos #28 Dolphins #27 Bills #26 49ers #25 Redskins #24 Titans #23 Vikings #22 Browns #21 Raiders #20 Arizona ...then the lions *the order might be a little off, but not much difference in 29 and 31 IMO...would require that I put in lots of though Since there is no point in discussing the ones we agree on, do tell why you rank the ones I have below the lions above them Fair enough.
I would agree about Seattle had they not won against the Rams and then against the Saints the following week. It wasn't a fluke, they were playing with an intensity. I actually watched them beat the Rams fully expecting the Rams to win, but I saw every player on the team get up and perform at another level, much like the Cardinals did a few years ago to make it to the Super Bowl. It's a testament to impressive gameplanning, preparation and coaching and the Seahawks brought it when it mattered. I don't see them as a MUCH worse team now despite not having Hasselbeck because they've added weapons in Zach Miller and Sidney Rice.
Broncos are a team that has a lot of veteran talent that has shown in the past they can play at a very high level. Guys like Bailey, Dawkins, Dumervil, D.J. Williams to name a few. They also have, in addition to those guys, a nice group of young talent in Tebow, Demaryius Thomas, Knowshon Moreno, Eddie Royal, etc and while they've only shown flashes, the team as a whole has shown they can play at a high level. Last year was a down year with the SAME guys they've had in seasons past. I don't think they're great, I do think they're better than the Lions.
49ers are guilty of the same thing the Lions are. The only difference is they lost because of piss poor coaching and gameplanning. They still have some of the best players in the league in Patrick Willis, Frank Gore and Vernon Davis and now they've brought in a competent head coach. They drafted big needs on the defense and got their QB in Kaepernick. That along with the great talent they have on defense already tells me they're on the right track. Now, they DO have holes on their defense, particularly in the secondary. But so do the Lions and the Lions' holes don't stop there.
The Titans are nowhere near as bad as they seem. They have two good corners (verner, finnegan), a first rounder to replace babin (derrick morgan), TWO good defensive tackles, (Jones, Haye) and two good safeties. Obviously they're not all all-pros but they're starters. The only hole they have is their linebacking corps, which isn't great, but it's better than the Lions. And on offense, they have guys like Chris Johnson and Kenny Britt, they'll be OK because they're a running team.
The Vikings biggest problem is that they're old. But they're not worst than the Lions. They've been able to push their offense on AP's back before, they can do it again and defensively they have proven veterans that can step up. The biggest loss is Ray Edwards, but they have plenty of talent on the lines anyways. Their secondary IS questionable and I have no redeeming qualities for it at all. Their back end is awful and it's their biggest hole. But they have solid LBs and a solid line and that's what they've thrived on in the past. With AP on offense, they're still a better team than the Lions.
The Browns are a much better team than you might think. You claim the Lions division is hard (if not the hardest), I don't think there's a tougher division in football than the AFC North. The Browns have good players, they need a more consistent gameplan. They have Hillis in the backfield, who won't have to carry a full load with the returning Montario Hardesty. McCoy played in an offense with no weapons and still played decently for a rookie. They drafted Greg Little and shored up their defensive line. They have a good young secondary, although the free spot is a question mark. Their linebackers aren't great, and that's probably their biggest weakness. I still see them as a better team than the Lions because they have a solid running game and a hard hitting defensive mindset.
The Raiders? I'm a little confused you think the Lions are better than them to be frank. They don't have the best offense, but they have a GOOD defense. Yes, they lost Nnamdi, and their corners are a poor as a result, but they have two solid safeties, a great linebacking corps and a fantastic line to boot. They are a dangerous team. Their offense can kill you with it's speed and they can control the clock at the same time with their phenomenal running game.
Arizona is not that much different from the team that went to the Super Bowl a few years ago. The only difference is no quarterback this time around. Even so, going into the year I thought they'd have the best secondary in football (Patrick Peterson, Adrian Wilson, Kerry Rhodes and DRC) but then they decided to be stupid and trade DRC. So while their secondary will be OK because they have Toler and picked up Marshall, they might not be the best in the league as I thought. Even so, they have a GREAT defensive line with Dockett, Dan Williams and Campbell and that coupled with their secondary will make them dangerous and make up for their less the stellar linebackers. A healthy Beanie Wells a new QB and Larry FItz will mean they're on the right track on offense. All in all, I don't see THAT big a difference from a talent perspective in their team from a few years ago other than Kurt Warner and their linebackers. But I think they've improved enough in areas that matter that they can overcome that.
Sorry that took so long.