Antonio Brown 2019 Outlook

[FollowTheLeader 452]

20 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

use the emoji's dude. . .🤷‍♂️

 

I'm on a pc, I don't have that option. Or at least I don't see it

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

55 minutes ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

That percentage doesn't seem to represent recent history (~16yrs). I had to research back to 2007 to find the most recent All-Pro WR on a Super Bowl Champion roster (RW was only 2nd team), and he was the only SB winning All-Pro WR over the last 16yrs.

2012 NYG - no All-Pro Wr

2011 GB - no All-Pro WR

2010 NO - no All-Pro WR

2009 PIT - no All-Pro WR

2008 NYG - no All-Pro WR

2007 IND - All-Pro WR Reggie Wayne (2nd Team)

2006 PIT - no All-Pro WR

2005 NE - no All-Pro WR

2004 NE - no All-Pro WR

2003 TB - no All-Pro WR

 

 

Yeah you are looking at your years incorrectly.  Wayne was an All-Pro in the 2007 season, but Indy won the SB dated in 2007 for the 2006 season.  Although they still had an All-Pro in Harrison in 2006 as well.

[ThreadKiller 375]

8 minutes ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

:meh: doesn't really change anything as it relates to the topic...but my apologies for not being precise.

No worries.

 

Was just thinking, um I didn't know we had already called the Patriots 2019 champions, considering that season hasn't been played yet lol.

Edited February 28 by ThreadKiller

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

I would even be fine with just making the Super Bowl.  Hell I'd be fine making the playoffs.  

[FollowTheLeader 452]

7 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

 

Yeah you are looking at your years incorrectly.  Wayne was an All-Pro in the 2007 season, but Indy won the SB dated in 2007 for the 2006 season.  Although they still had an All-Pro in Harrison in 2006 as well.

 

Crap...relied on wicki and didn't account for all that aspect.

Again, just reporting on a story run by nfl network (all-pro WR members not being on a SB champ roster), and thought I'd run the numbers, but I goofed. Not sure I want to take the time to do it again.

Anybody got the actual stats? Interested to see how much the difference in the correct SB year vs correct All-Pro year makes...

 

Edited February 28 by FollowTheLeader

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

1 minute ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

Crap...relied on wicki and didn't account for all that aspect.

Again, just reporting on a story run by nfl network (all-pro WR members not being on a SB champ roster), and thought I'd run the numbers, but I goofed. Not sure I want o take the time to do it again.

Yeah I mean I get it.  But just seems like an "isn't that interesting" type of story more than anything actually related to winning a Super Bowl.  At the end of the day it's about making your team better than it was before.  Antonio Brown would make any team better than it was before.

[dashoe 6,071]

11 minutes ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

I'm on a pc, I don't have that option. Or at least I don't see it

in the  reply box emojis are in the top row between the code and bullets buttons 👍

[FollowTheLeader 452]

Nope. I just got the same 20 that have always been there. Probably related to browser or individual pc settings.

[FollowTheLeader 452]

6 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

Yeah I mean I get it.  But just seems like an "isn't that interesting" type of story more than anything actually related to winning a Super Bowl.  At the end of the day it's about making your team better than it was before.  Antonio Brown would make any team better than it was before.

 

I actually think the stat/story line of an all-pro wr not being on a SB winning roster supports the idea of football being a "team" sport.

[ThreadKiller 375]

1 minute ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

I actually think the stat/story line of an all-pro wr not being on a SB winning roster supports the idea of football being a "team" sport.

 

I agree. The All-Pro WR tends to be of the diva personality that contradicts the whole "team" thing. There are obviously some that aren't terrible for team chemistry, but my opinion is that money and resources are better spent on other positions rather than the flashy all pro WR that limits your ability at quality depth. This is all under assumption that the All Pro WR has a top dollar contract.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Superbowl winning teams don't tend to have these diva WRs. And the NFL has been a passing league for a while now, so don't expect it to change. The only way it changes is if there ends up being a higher number of these diva WRs which leads to a majority of teams having them. IMO, that's unlikely because some teams simply don't tolerate it.

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

1 minute ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

I actually think the stat/story line of an all-pro wr not being on a SB winning roster supports the idea of football being a "team" sport.

Of course.  You need a competent QB and supporting cast.  You still need a solid defense, even with the changing landscape of the league.  I am not saying one player makes or breaks a team.  Haven't said that, won't say that.  But that is the case for ANY player.  That doesn't mean a team shouldn't go after a player who would make them better.  

[ThreadKiller 375]

1 minute ago, ToO_BaD said:

Of course.  You need a competent QB and supporting cast.  You still need a solid defense, even with the changing landscape of the league.  I am not saying one player makes or breaks a team.  Haven't said that, won't say that.  But that is the case for ANY player.  That doesn't mean a team shouldn't go after a player who would make them better.  

 

But what is "better?" That's a vague, misleading way to describe it, no?

 

Antonio Brown's talent makes EVERY team better on paper and statistically. That said, personality, money, situation, and other factors cross many teams off the list. Some teams weigh the pain in the a** factor more heavily than others and don't see his locker room presence as a plus for their team which in their eyes, means they aren't better.

 

Just using that as an example. I guess my point is, it's not as black and white as you try to make it.

[dmb3684 4,475]

24 minutes ago, FollowTheLeader said:

 

Crap...relied on wicki and didn't account for all that aspect.

Again, just reporting on a story run by nfl network (all-pro WR members not being on a SB champ roster), and thought I'd run the numbers, but I goofed. Not sure I want to take the time to do it again.

Anybody got the actual stats? Interested to see how much the difference in the correct SB year vs correct All-Pro year makes...

 

 

I think my only point was spending a ton of money on a WR would be really low on my priority list.  It's one of the least important positions in real football. Add in the headaches. And it just seems dumb.

Edited February 28 by dmb3684

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

2 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

I agree. The All-Pro WR tends to be of the diva personality that contradicts the whole "team" thing. There are obviously some that aren't terrible for team chemistry, but my opinion is that money and resources are better spent on other positions rather than the flashy all pro WR that limits your ability at quality depth. This is all under assumption that the All Pro WR has a top dollar contract.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Superbowl winning teams don't tend to have these diva WRs. And the NFL has been a passing league for a while now, so don't expect it to change. The only way it changes is if there ends up being a higher number of these diva WRs which leads to a majority of teams having them. IMO, that's unlikely because some teams simply don't tolerate it.

I don't agree with the portion in bold.  There are plenty of All-Pro WRs who aren't divas.  All-Pro WRs just get more media coverage because they are the best in the league.  And even though there was less case of a SB winning team having one, there were examples of teams who had one and made the SB.  Or teams who had won a SB and still had the All-Pro receiver in a non-AP year.

[ThreadKiller 375]

2 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

I don't agree with the portion in bold.  There are plenty of All-Pro WRs who aren't divas.  All-Pro WRs just get more media coverage because they are the best in the league.  And even though there was less case of a SB winning team having one, there were examples of teams who had one and made the SB.  Or teams who had won a SB and still had the All-Pro receiver in a non-AP year.

 

Which part in bold? Nothing is bolded. Also, I'm not following your point with the structure of that sentence(s). Name these examples you speak of? The point is that teams with diva WRs don't win. It's that simple. Of course the term "diva" is pretty subjective, but at the same time I'd say it isn't and it's pretty obvious. I'll wait for you to name all of these examples of diva WRs being on Superbowl teams.

 

And not all All-Pro WR are divas, that's why I pointed that much out in my post "There are obviously some that aren't..."

Edited February 28 by ThreadKiller

[The 7th Beatles 10,753]

FWIW

 

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

3 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

But what is "better?" That's a vague, misleading way to describe it, no?

 

Antonio Brown's talent makes EVERY team better on paper and statistically. That said, personality, money, situation, and other factors cross many teams off the list. Some teams weigh the pain in the a** factor more heavily than others and don't see his locker room presence as a plus for their team which in their eyes, means they aren't better.

 

Just using that as an example. I guess my point is, it's not as black and white as you try to make it.

Well I guess the word would be talented.  I apologize for using such an enveloping term.  I am aware there are grey areas.  Obviously if it doesn't work for a team on all levels, they won't do it.  It is how a team wants to balance talent/fit/chemistry etc.  Talent doesn't always win out, nor does chemistry.  It takes a balance.  But situations can change year to year.  How often were people crying about AB being a diva before all this stuff got brought to light this year?

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

10 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

Which part in bold? Nothing is bolded. Also, I'm not following your point with the structure of that sentence(s). Name these examples you speak of? The point is that teams with diva WRs don't win. It's that simple. Of course the term "diva" is pretty subjective, but at the same time I'd say it isn't and it's pretty obvious. I'll wait for you to name all of these examples of diva WRs being on Superbowl teams.

 

And not all All-Pro WR are divas, that's why I pointed that much out in my post "There are obviously some that aren't..."

I will DM you.  No point in continuing this on here when it isn't relevant to Antonio Brown.

[ThreadKiller 375]

8 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

Well I guess the word would be talented.  I apologize for using such an enveloping term.  I am aware there are grey areas.  Obviously if it doesn't work for a team on all levels, they won't do it.  It is how a team wants to balance talent/fit/chemistry etc.  Talent doesn't always win out, nor does chemistry.  It takes a balance.  But situations can change year to year.  How often were people crying about AB being a diva before all this stuff got brought to light this year?

 

::raises hand

 

I have always had the opinion that AB is a headache. Most of the time, that opinion was met with disagreement. With everything going on now and his being a headache being more commonly known or agreed upon, it's easier to have that opinion.

His me first attitude, complaining for the ball more and throwing temper tantrums on sideline even while winning games led me to the opinion I've always had of him. Great player, but an absolute idiot that isn't worth the trouble unless he can get in line. I have doubts he has the ability to get in line.

[BMcP 6,798]

Now that we know he isn’t going to the Patriots, where is he headed?

[ToO_BaD 2,159]

6 minutes ago, BMcP said:

Now that we know he isn’t going to the Patriots, where is he headed?

Well if the reports are true that the Niners also do not currently have interest, maybe the Raiders?  Has Green Bay been ruled out?  

[BrianM 856]

If this trade market is dry, do they force him back in the fold or cut him?  Brown is probably aching to be cut- he's got no guarantees left anyways.   

[dashoe 6,071]

6 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

Well if the reports are true that the Niners also do not currently have interest, maybe the Raiders?  Has Green Bay been ruled out?  

 

 

I hear it's cold in Buffalo. . . 🤣

[Members_Only_76 6,033]

27 minutes ago, ToO_BaD said:

 Has Green Bay been ruled out?  

 

As a GB fan, I hope so

Adams has it covered, and I don't see GB as a fit in general.

[SharkSwimmer 3,680]

39 minutes ago, BrianM said:

If this trade market is dry, do they force him back in the fold or cut him?  Brown is probably aching to be cut- he's got no guarantees left anyways.   

Brown is going to be a Steeler or not play.  And the Steelers are certainly not going to tear up his contract and give him a shiny new one.