Logan Ryan going on GMFB @9:30

[munchmemory]

I've been on the Kay Adams love train since first seeing her years ago.  I always seem to point out how cute Kay is to my wife which results in me getting chastised.  

As someone else said, even a brief glimpse of her is the ONLY reason which drives me to watch GMF.  She's equal parts adorable and girl-next-door sexy.  Just an absolute doll.

[Hael]

Lets just be clear what Logan Ryan is.  He's played CB2 behind Malcolm Butler his entire career.  And while Butler was a legitimate top 10 cb1 for about two years early in his career, he's been sporadic ever since and is probably what you would call a rank 25-30 cb1 at this stage in his career (will probably be a cb2 now that Jackson has developed). 

However Ryan was probably the best CB2 in football last year.  So you're looking at someone who is probably a bottom tier cb1.

If you put this guy up against elite wr1s on an island, he's going to get smoked.  However, he will stabilize the position and give you a certain stable veteran value, just be sure not to pay him CB1 money.

[Ecuadorian Jet]

7 hours ago, Prez33 said:

I’m not worried about the safeties. Adams and Maye are among the best duos in the NFL at the position. And adding Ashtyn Davis could make it even scarier. 
 

Desir was a decent find. But he’s not a #1 CB. Not even close. Poole is the #3. Slot CB. Bryce Hall and Bless Austin are still prospects/maybes at this point. After that, you have Arthur Maulet, Nate Hairston, Johnny Tryinghard, and Scottie Willbecut. 

Bless Austin held his own last year.

[Prez33]

48 minutes ago, Ecuadorian Jet said:

Bless Austin held his own last year.

Agreed. But we’re talking about a 7 game sample size. He hasn’t earned anything beyond a roster spot at this point. 

[vtbx]

I'm hoping the Jets sign Ryan but I find it a little strange that a B level FA gets to promote that he is "open for business" on a national sports show. I understand that they are hurting for content but Ryan is only making himself weaker from a negotiating standpoint. 

[32EBoozer]

Just now, vtbx said:

I'm hoping the Jets sign Ryan but I find it a little strange that a B level FA gets to promote that he is "open for business" on a national sports show. I understand that they are hurting for content but Ryan is only making himself weaker from a negotiating standpoint. 

Excellent point and welcome to the board. @T0mShane loves fresh meat.

That's a picture of him.... beware!

[Ghost420]

Ryan also mainly played the slot from what i seen. We have Poole for tbat

[Vudu]

Mehta with egg on his face

[TNJet]

10 hours ago, Philc1 said:

I’d rather have Clowney or Peters.  Let him jump on the hype train in Miami so they can go 6-10

More like 4-12.

[FidelioJet]

Clowney would have more impact on this defense.

[Big_Slick]

3 hours ago, vtbx said:

I'm hoping the Jets sign Ryan but I find it a little strange that a B level FA gets to promote that he is "open for business" on a national sports show. I understand that they are hurting for content but Ryan is only making himself weaker from a negotiating standpoint. 

Yep. Ryan is getting desperate and is trying to force the Jets hand by pimping himself on GMFB. JD needs to stick to his evaluation of what this guy is worth.

[Big_Slick]

5 hours ago, munchmemory said:

I've been on the Kay Adams love train since first seeing her years ago.  I always seem to point out how cute Kay is to my wife which results in me getting chastised.  

As someone else said, even a brief glimpse of her is the ONLY reason which drives me to watch GMF.  She's equal parts adorable and girl-next-door sexy.  Just an absolute doll.

She's cute, but real light up top. A double A would be an improvement.

[thebuzzardman]

Damn, only news I got in this topic was which sportscaster women guys jack off to. 

[Jetsfan80]

 

12 hours ago, pdxgreen said:

Just curious.  Why do so many NFL fans always usually support an NFL owner (already using public funds or tax breaks for their old stadium) ... then suddenly skip town with a huge lawsuit intact for an entire new market to pay for their new stadium?  Then have a 180 turn against an individual player and their own labor situation?

Mark Davis?  "Oh well his money doesn't come from private wealth.  It's from the Raiders.  He needs the Las Vegas hospitality tax to fund his stadium.  He had to get out of Oakland."  (Meanwhile... he screws the corporate interest in his venture that got him the concession in the first place.)

Logan Ryan?  "3 Million more?!  He shouldn't have to ask for more.  His family should be set by now!"

I see a lot more of the former than the latter.  If NFL  publicity departments are setting up all sorts of schemes to generate public support them are doing a hell of a job!

 

 

11 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

You’re right, it’s weird. People get all bent out of shape when players want to get paid. The NFL is a multi billion dollar cooperation, the players deserve to get paid 

 

11 hours ago, rangerous said:

i don't know.  i don't support the owners either.  but it just seems so foolish for the players to talk about feeding their families when they've already earned orders of magnitude than i have in my lifetime.  somehow i managed, why can't they.  and if they want more money then just say so.  that's what it's all about in the final analysis.

as for the owners,  there are a few like kraft who deserves respect for their business prowess.  that guy actually worked for his money.  same thing with jerry jones, arthur blank, and a few others.  the rest are trust babies.  it's not right to simply think they should be giving their money away but at the same time they've built quite a club for themselves and they really should need all of the tax breaks they get to keep a team in a city or build a new stadium.

 

Simple.  There's a salary cap.  It's not about taking the owner's side.  It's all about trying to squeeze as much talent onto the team while spending as little as possible.  $3M less for a Logan Ryan type can make a big difference when it comes to adding additional talent.

[pdxgreen]

11 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

 

 

 

Simple.  There's a salary cap.  It's not about taking the owner's side.  It's all about trying to squeeze as much talent onto the team while spending as little as possible.  $3M less for a Logan Ryan type can make a big difference when it comes to adding additional talent.

That sounds like something invented exactly to "take the owner's side."  

[heymangold]

saw this guy wanted 10M+ from miami.  he's a decent CB, had the best year of his career last year in the slot.  brian poole plays the slot for us.  pass on this guy.

 

manish sucks.

[rangerous]

19 hours ago, pdxgreen said:

I've got nothing against the guy who earned his billions.  I believe in capitalism to an extent.  That creating wealth is fine because the system around it floats so many other smaller boats as well.  But the communal discussion of "Millionaires vs Billionaires" is this constant push/pull in sports entertainment and it's sometimes hard to know which one is right.  I am not a humanitarian or an economist.  Just an American football fan.  The need for cash is good to an extent as long as its with core values and principles.

(sorry to go off topic. back to Ryan's imminent signing!)

frankly the things that really bother me about the whole money in sports debate are organizations like espn that pay complete morons like stephen a a ton of money for being a blithering idiot.  the talking heads become larger than the sports they cover.  that's just not right.  although a low rent guy like booger was just completely useless as a color commentator.

[pdxgreen]

2 minutes ago, rangerous said:

frankly the things that really bother me about the whole money in sports debate are organizations like espn that pay complete morons like stephen a a ton of money for being a blithering idiot.  the talking heads become larger than the sports they cover.  that's just not right.  although a low rent guy like booger was just completely useless as a color commentator.

Hit the nail on the head there.  Great take.  

[southtown24th]

21 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

Open for business is code for those Jets better up that MFing money, or anyone else interested this is the number I need to be at.

bingo

[Jetsfan80]

8 hours ago, pdxgreen said:

Th as t sounds like something invented exactly to "take the owner's side."  

Don't blame me, I didn't come up with the salary cap. 

If wanting players to get less money than they're worth to fit more talent under the salary cap makes me pro-ownership, then I guess I'm pro-ownership.  ***Shrugs***

[pdxgreen]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Don't blame me, I didn't come up with the salary cap. 

If wanting players to get less money than they're worth to fit more talent under the salary cap makes me pro-ownership, then I guess I'm pro-ownership.  ***Shrugs***

Well.  I can remember some of the old rosters in the 80's and 90's when they actually had something called "quality depth."  I guess if that makes me for pro players, then I am players side of the labor agreement.  I'd rather the cronies who didn't negotiate right and create decent team cultures to attract talent... actually got punished for it 

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, pdxgreen said:

Well.  I can remember some of the old rosters in the 80's and 90's when they actually had something called "quality depth."  I guess if that makes me for pro players, then I am players side of the labor agreement.  I'd rather the cronies who didn't negotiate right and create decent team cultures to attract talent... actually got punished for it 

The cap is most certainly a bad thing for the players and a legal form of collusion because of Collective Bargaining.  It's a stark contrast to the MLB, where the MLBPA has the power on their side and they would never, ever approve a hard salary cap. 

But at the same time they also don't have a spending floor in the MLB, so teams like the Orioles tank every year while ownership still ends up making good money.  So it's debatable whether a cap is better for sports overall and whether parity is something to strive for.

There were certainly pre-salary cap NFL teams with tons of depth.  There were also some pretty pathetic teams like the '76 Buccaneers, the '90 Patriots, the '73 Oilers, the '80 Saints, the '91 Colts, the '81 and '82 Colts, the '84 Bills, the '71 Bills, the '86 Bucs, the '92 Seahawks, etc.

[pdxgreen]

21 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The cap is most certainly a bad thing for the players and a legal form of collusion because of Collective Bargaining.  It's a stark contrast to the MLB, where the MLBPA has the power on their side and they would never, ever approve a hard salary cap. 

But at the same time they also don't have a spending floor in the MLB, so teams like the Orioles tank every year while ownership still ends up making good money.  So it's debatable whether a cap is better for sports overall and whether parity is something to strive for.

There were certainly pre-salary cap NFL teams with tons of depth.  There were also some pretty pathetic teams like the '76 Buccaneers, the '90 Patriots, the '73 Oilers, the '80 Saints, the '91 Colts, the '81 and '82 Colts, the '84 Bills, the '71 Bills, the '86 Bucs, the '92 Seahawks, etc.

I think it's a constant push pull.  At least as far as league ties of competition goes. You're never going to have a perfect CBA that achieves league parity but allows a dynasty the comfort room to maintain its group of HOFaers.  But what I liked about the old system was that if Debartlo Jr. wanted to make everybody happy on the bench... he could do so fairly easily.  And with some of those perennial  crappy teams:  the Tampa Bay  owner who screwed over Bo Jackson was never going to win @$!$ anyway.  I think where owners got scared was when they started to have to give the massive contracts to young QBs like Stafford coming right out of the gate.  They wre like, "we are going to fix this thing even if we have to burn half the league down to do it."  And here we are.

[Jetsfan80]

11 minutes ago, pdxgreen said:

I think it's a push pull.  You're never going to have a perfect CBA that achieves league parity but allows a dynasty the comfort room to maintain its group of HOFaers.  But what I liked about the old system was that if Debartlo Jr. wanted to make everybody happy on the bench... he could do so fairly easily.  Meanwhile that moron that owned Tampa Bay and screwed over Bo Jackson was never going to win @$!$ anyway.  I think where owners got scared is when they started to have to give the massive contracts to young QBs like Stafford coming right out of the gate.  They wre like, "we are going to fix this thing even if we have to burn half the league down to do it."  And here we are.

Yep.  The rookie pay scale change in the CBA at first seemed like a good thing.  After all, why shouldn't vets be getting a bigger piece of the pie?  But I think it's backfired on the players in many ways. Just like nearly every change to the CBA does. 

It's really only helped the high end veteran QB's and some of the fantasy stud WR's and RB's, while mostly hurting everyone else and also hurting the quality of play, especially along the Offensive Line and secondary.  

[#27TheDominator]

4 hours ago, rangerous said:

frankly the things that really bother me about the whole money in sports debate are organizations like espn that pay complete morons like stephen a a ton of money for being a blithering idiot.  the talking heads become larger than the sports they cover.  that's just not right.  although a low rent guy like booger was just completely useless as a color commentator.

Stephen A is larger than a sport?  Which one?  Curling?  I wouldn't even know his name if people didn't post videos of him on here.  He'd just be another reason to change the channel.

[rangerous]

8 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Stephen A is larger than a sport?  Which one?  Curling?  I wouldn't even know his name if people didn't post videos of him on here.  He'd just be another reason to change the channel.

true enough but if you ask stephen a he will tell just what he thinks he is.

[Jetsfan80]

13 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Stephen A is larger than a sport?  Which one?  Curling?  I wouldn't even know his name if people didn't post videos of him on here.  He'd just be another reason to change the channel.

The only sport he has any credibility on covering is the NBA, and he's not "larger" than the NBA like, say, Charles Barkley is. 

In every other sport he botches major details that demonstrate he really doesn't watch much or care.