2022-2023 NFL Thread: Perk Patty & Chiefs 2X SB Champs

[The Captain]

I'm not saying Bradshaw is a bum or anything. But he isn't anything close to an all-time great.

[Toilet Paper Roll]

Yeah but when you’re talking to five of all time at one position over the last 60 years you need to omit some very talented players

Bradshaw was clutch and was better in big games buts his 1:1 TD:INT ratio can’t be ignored

[sfvega]

Feb 3, 2023 13:51:40 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

Feb 3, 2023 11:35:36 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Bradshaw's only in the Hall because of the rings. He doesn't belong anywhere near a Top QB of all time list unless it's just about the Steelers.

There's something to be said for being a consistent winner. Kirk Cousins has a skill set that is vastly superior to Bradshaw, but Bradshaw was a consistent winner. No wilting in the playoffs. No panicking during prime time. Mediocre QBs can win a title. Mediocre QBs don't have what it takes to win titles consistently. Sure, his team being talented helps, but we are not talking about a few years spurt like Aikman. Bradshaw was the QB during a prolonged period of excellence.

That is such a questionable reasoning. The Redskins proved it didn't matter much who your QB was; you could still win three SBs. The Giants won two with different QBs in the same timeline. Jim Plunkett won two and didn't even make the Hall of Fame. The Redskins won the Super Bowl with in years they ranked 1st, 2nd, and 6th in scoring defense. The Giants won the SB in years they ranked 1st and 2nd in scoeing defense. They won 5 Super Bowls with 5 different non-HOF QBs, because as the adage was at the time: defense wins championships. The Steelers were 1st, 2nd, 2nd, and 5th if you were wondering, and they outranked the scoring offense 3 out of the 4 years.

Now that the rules have shifted so much, that's no longer true, but it damn sure was pre-Brady/Manning rules. Even now, how close did Jimmy G get to winning a championship? And he's not even average. Eli won two while not even being a consensus top 10 QB in that stretch. Nick Foles.

Bradshaw was a 3 time Pro Bowler and was only once an All-Pro. He wasn't NEARLY as good at his position as Joe Greene was at his, Mel Blount was at his, Jack Lambert. Which is why it's harder for someone like Marino to win a title. He was by far the best player on his team. If you put him with a generational defense, a Hall of Fame RB and two Hall of Fame WRs at the same time, I think his chances of winning a title or multiple might go up just a tad. That's the problem with overlooking AMAZING team building in these dynasties. The Steelers of the 70s, the Niners of the 80s, and the Cowboys of the 90s all had the same thing in common and it wasn't having the best QB of that era. It was that they drafted and developed more talent than anyone else. Jimmy Johnson and Bill Walsh might even still be the gold standard of team building in the NFL. Well, it also helps that the Niners spent to the point of the league implemented a cap that the Niners also ended up blatantly going around. QBs can't control the owner, the GM, head coach, the talent of the team around them.

Kirk Cousins is an above-average QB. He has better arm talent because that's how era progression works, but if you're putting together a team for next season right now how many QBs are you taking over Cousins? Would you take him over Allen, Burrow, Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc. He has arguably the best WR in the NFL, and Cousins is a zero time All-Pro. If you put him on the Texans, how much better does he make them? He was 13th in QB rating this year. He is not the standard of excellence. Being better than Kirk Cousins is not much of an argument for being a top 5 QB now, much less all-time.

[Confused Mark Wahlberg]

Feb 2, 2023 16:51:00 GMT -5 BRV said:

In case you're wondering, yes, Dan Orlovsky did get roundly mocked for this list.

Dan looks like he's apologizing for saying something racist and failing miserably

[Push R Truth]

This dude is a top tier QB

[Dr. T is an alien]

Feb 3, 2023 15:24:33 GMT -5 sfvega said:

Feb 3, 2023 13:51:40 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

There's something to be said for being a consistent winner. Kirk Cousins has a skill set that is vastly superior to Bradshaw, but Bradshaw was a consistent winner. No wilting in the playoffs. No panicking during prime time. Mediocre QBs can win a title. Mediocre QBs don't have what it takes to win titles consistently. Sure, his team being talented helps, but we are not talking about a few years spurt like Aikman. Bradshaw was the QB during a prolonged period of excellence.

That is such a questionable reasoning. The Redskins proved it didn't matter much who your QB was; you could still win three SBs. The Giants won two with different QBs in the same timeline. Jim Plunkett won two and didn't even make the Hall of Fame. The Redskins won the Super Bowl with in years they ranked 1st, 2nd, and 6th in scoring defense. The Giants won the SB in years they ranked 1st and 2nd in scoeing defense. They won 5 Super Bowls with 5 different non-HOF QBs, because as the adage was at the time: defense wins championships. The Steelers were 1st, 2nd, 2nd, and 5th if you were wondering, and they outranked the scoring offense 3 out of the 4 years.

Now that the rules have shifted so much, that's no longer true, but it damn sure was pre-Brady/Manning rules. Even now, how close did Jimmy G get to winning a championship? And he's not even average. Eli won two while not even being a consensus top 10 QB in that stretch. Nick Foles.

Bradshaw was a 3 time Pro Bowler and was only once an All-Pro. He wasn't NEARLY as good at his position as Joe Greene was at his, Mel Blount was at his, Jack Lambert. Which is why it's harder for someone like Marino to win a title. He was by far the best player on his team. If you put him with a generational defense, a Hall of Fame RB and two Hall of Fame WRs at the same time, I think his chances of winning a title or multiple might go up just a tad. That's the problem with overlooking AMAZING team building in these dynasties. The Steelers of the 70s, the Niners of the 80s, and the Cowboys of the 90s all had the same thing in common and it wasn't having the best QB of that era. It was that they drafted and developed more talent than anyone else. Jimmy Johnson and Bill Walsh might even still be the gold standard of team building in the NFL. Well, it also helps that the Niners spent to the point of the league implemented a cap that the Niners also ended up blatantly going around. QBs can't control the owner, the GM, head coach, the talent of the team around them.

Kirk Cousins is an above-average QB. He has better arm talent because that's how era progression works, but if you're putting together a team for next season right now how many QBs are you taking over Cousins? Would you take him over Allen, Burrow, Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc. He has arguably the best WR in the NFL, and Cousins is a zero time All-Pro. If you put him on the Texans, how much better does he make them? He was 13th in QB rating this year. He is not the standard of excellence. Being better than Kirk Cousins is not much of an argument for being a top 5 QB now, much less all-time.

I feel I can defend that statement though. Yes, other teams won multiple championships with different QBs, but the fact remains that they had to use different QBs. Average QBs don't remain starters for long. Sure, Bradshaw did not make a lot of Pro Bowls, but the "team made them" argument had to have worked against him at the time as well. For that matter, are you going to tell me that the Steelers were the only team that was built well during the 70's?

[sfvega]

Feb 3, 2023 16:17:10 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

Feb 3, 2023 15:24:33 GMT -5 sfvega said:

That is such a questionable reasoning. The Redskins proved it didn't matter much who your QB was; you could still win three SBs. The Giants won two with different QBs in the same timeline. Jim Plunkett won two and didn't even make the Hall of Fame. The Redskins won the Super Bowl with in years they ranked 1st, 2nd, and 6th in scoring defense. The Giants won the SB in years they ranked 1st and 2nd in scoeing defense. They won 5 Super Bowls with 5 different non-HOF QBs, because as the adage was at the time: defense wins championships. The Steelers were 1st, 2nd, 2nd, and 5th if you were wondering, and they outranked the scoring offense 3 out of the 4 years.

Now that the rules have shifted so much, that's no longer true, but it damn sure was pre-Brady/Manning rules. Even now, how close did Jimmy G get to winning a championship? And he's not even average. Eli won two while not even being a consensus top 10 QB in that stretch. Nick Foles.

Bradshaw was a 3 time Pro Bowler and was only once an All-Pro. He wasn't NEARLY as good at his position as Joe Greene was at his, Mel Blount was at his, Jack Lambert. Which is why it's harder for someone like Marino to win a title. He was by far the best player on his team. If you put him with a generational defense, a Hall of Fame RB and two Hall of Fame WRs at the same time, I think his chances of winning a title or multiple might go up just a tad. That's the problem with overlooking AMAZING team building in these dynasties. The Steelers of the 70s, the Niners of the 80s, and the Cowboys of the 90s all had the same thing in common and it wasn't having the best QB of that era. It was that they drafted and developed more talent than anyone else. Jimmy Johnson and Bill Walsh might even still be the gold standard of team building in the NFL. Well, it also helps that the Niners spent to the point of the league implemented a cap that the Niners also ended up blatantly going around. QBs can't control the owner, the GM, head coach, the talent of the team around them.

Kirk Cousins is an above-average QB. He has better arm talent because that's how era progression works, but if you're putting together a team for next season right now how many QBs are you taking over Cousins? Would you take him over Allen, Burrow, Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc. He has arguably the best WR in the NFL, and Cousins is a zero time All-Pro. If you put him on the Texans, how much better does he make them? He was 13th in QB rating this year. He is not the standard of excellence. Being better than Kirk Cousins is not much of an argument for being a top 5 QB now, much less all-time.

I feel I can defend that statement though. Yes, other teams won multiple championships with different QBs, but the fact remains that they had to use different QBs. Average QBs don't remain starters for long. Sure, Bradshaw did not make a lot of Pro Bowls, but the "team made them" argument had to have worked against him at the time as well. For that matter, are you going to tell me that the Steelers were the only team that was built well during the 70's?

That is, respectfully, an atrocious argument. I actually spent time trying to craft a convincing argument, and it's met with a strawman.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Feb 3, 2023 16:23:12 GMT -5 sfvega said:

Feb 3, 2023 16:17:10 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

I feel I can defend that statement though. Yes, other teams won multiple championships with different QBs, but the fact remains that they had to use different QBs. Average QBs don't remain starters for long. Sure, Bradshaw did not make a lot of Pro Bowls, but the "team made them" argument had to have worked against him at the time as well. For that matter, are you going to tell me that the Steelers were the only team that was built well during the 70's?

That is, respectfully, an atrocious argument. I actually spent time trying to craft a convincing argument, and it's met with a strawman.

There’s such a thing as being limited by your era.

1) Yes, the Steelers were well put together in the 70’s, but so were the Dolphins, Vikings, Cowboys, Raiders, and a few others. The 70’s was simply a bruising era to play during with some of the most fearsome defenses ever.
2) Because the rules favored defense in the 70’s, even the best QBs had stats we all would consider unacceptable. There are QBs from that era that are in the HoF despite throwing more picks than TDs. The rules just made that more likely.
3) in an era where defenses were favored by the rules (people loved the big hits), it takes something special to perform in the clutch and consistently win big. This is why I mentioned Cousins as despite all of his skills he is mediocre because he is not clutch. He doesn’t drag his offense past stiff defenses at key moments. Bradshaw did.

Let’s use Tom Brady as an example. Many people call him the GOAT. Is it because of his stats? No, plenty of QBs put up impressive stats during this era. Peyton simply was more capable of putting up more gaudy stats playing in the same era and also played with some top notch rosters, but as much as I love Peyton he was a notch below Tom. Brady’s top attribute is that he was clutch. How would he have performed in the 70’s? Well, the rules that made 40-50 TDs a season possible were not a thing, so his stats would not have been remotely like they are now. That capacity to be clutch, however, would still be in place. He’d have been a winner.

Granted, he would not have lasted 22 seasons (15 tended to be remarkable for QBs of that era because of the abuse they absorbed), so he’d have fewer rings. In short, he and Bradshaw would likely be comparable. Both were supported by the best defenses of their time, so it’s not like either one can claim to have been the solitary reason. Both were on teams always guaranteed to get their opponents’ best effort.

My point is simple; it’s impossible to compare players from different eras. They didn’t play In similar circumstances. The top measure was whether they were a winner. Did they beat the best of their eras? Bradshaw did. Montana did. Brady did. They all had other things working in their favor (talented teams, coaches, etc), but in the end they were the most successful of their era. That’s heavily weighed in their favor.

[sfvega]

Feb 4, 2023 10:36:34 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

Feb 3, 2023 16:23:12 GMT -5 sfvega said:

That is, respectfully, an atrocious argument. I actually spent time trying to craft a convincing argument, and it's met with a strawman.

There’s such a thing as being limited by your era.

1) Yes, the Steelers were well put together in the 70’s, but so were the Dolphins, Vikings, Cowboys, Raiders, and a few others. The 70’s was simply a bruising era to play during with some of the most fearsome defenses ever.
2) Because the rules favored defense in the 70’s, even the best QBs had stats we all would consider unacceptable. There are QBs from that era that are in the HoF despite throwing more picks than TDs. The rules just made that more likely.
3) in an era where defenses were favored by the rules (people loved the big hits), it takes something special to perform in the clutch and consistently win big. This is why I mentioned Cousins as despite all of his skills he is mediocre because he is not clutch. He doesn’t drag his offense past stiff defenses at key moments. Bradshaw did.

Let’s use Tom Brady as an example. Many people call him the GOAT. Is it because of his stats? No, plenty of QBs put up impressive stats during this era. Peyton simply was more capable of putting up more gaudy stats playing in the same era and also played with some top notch rosters, but as much as I love Peyton he was a notch below Tom. Brady’s top attribute is that he was clutch. How would he have performed in the 70’s? Well, the rules that made 40-50 TDs a season possible were not a thing, so his stats would not have been remotely like they are now. That capacity to be clutch, however, would still be in place. He’d have been a winner.

Granted, he would not have lasted 22 seasons (15 tended to be remarkable for QBs of that era because of the abuse they absorbed), so he’d have fewer rings. In short, he and Bradshaw would likely be comparable. Both were supported by the best defenses of their time, so it’s not like either one can claim to have been the solitary reason. Both were on teams always guaranteed to get their opponents’ best effort.

My point is simple; it’s impossible to compare players from different eras. They didn’t play In similar circumstances. The top measure was whether they were a winner. Did they beat the best of their eras? Bradshaw did. Montana did. Brady did. They all had other things working in their favor (talented teams, coaches, etc), but in the end they were the most successful of their era. That’s heavily weighed in their favor.

Brady is the greatest in totality. It's not like he's merely propped up by SBs. He's been an elite QB. His stats aren't a weakness. He ranks well all-time in like QB rating, but is one of the only guys who wasn't drafted after 2010. Him and Brees and Manning were elite QBs before the rule changes. His clutchness (prob not a word) is his defining trait, but it's amongst a myriad of greatness.

For instance, Bradshaw's first SB, he passed for 96 yards. The Steelers D didn't give up a single point, as the Vikes only score was on a blocked punt. Bradshaw threw 1 TD with 3:30 left in the game. Which is fine, it's not like Brady's early SBs were overwhelming play. But it's not like you look at him and think "Man, this guy willed his team to win, bailing out the defense." Which he would end up doing in the later 70s, but that's kind of the whole theme on Bradshaw is that it WAS a mixed bag. Sometimes he was great, sometimes he was just ok. They won a SB with him throwing 3 TDs and 5 INTs in the playoffs. So it's hard to say that historically there aren't other guys who could win given what he was asked to do. And again, look at the Pro Bowls and All Pros. I'm not saying Bradshaw should have thrown for 5,000 yards and 50 TDs in 1974. But PER HIS OWN ERA, he wasn't consistently thought of as the top QB so why retcon it that way?

It's a team game. Teams win titles, especially pre-06/07. The Niners had amazing teams. The Cowboys had amazing teams. The Pats had amazing teams. Which is why you don't just rank QBs by Super Bowl wins. Montana for instance led the league in comp % 5 times, QB rating twice, yards/game once. 8 time Pro Bowler, 3 time All-Pro. Brady led the league in comp % once, yards four times, TDs 5 times, QB rating twice, 15-time Pro Bowler, 3x All Pro. You're looking at this small scope of titles without looking at the rest which is EXACTLY WHY people have Montana and Brady ranked so highly and Bradshaw and Aikman not as much. These are ranks versus guys in their own era. So it's not expecting Bradshaw to be great by this era, but by his own. Brady and Montana were, Terry wasn't.

The Colts did have some well-built teams, but they were also built around Manning. He opened up space for the guys they invested in. Obviously Harrison and Wayne had talent on their own and would be successful anywhere, but would Joseph Addai? Obviously not. The year the Colts won the SB their defense was ranked 23rd in points allowed.

Cousins is a guy propped up by the NFL's video game numbers era. Again, he is NOT a yard stick by which all-time QBs should be measured otherwise there's 80 all-time top 5 QBs.

You're trying to cover your ears and only look at Super Bowls mainly because you can't really point to much else as to why Bradshaw is elite, which is indirectly telling me that he isn't elite.

[The Captain]

Again, no one is calling Bradshaw a bum or anything. That's a strawman. He was a good QB. Just not an all-time great and he wouldn't be in Canton without the rings.

Rings go a long way to making people ignore the total body of work, especially for QB's and in the earlier days when a lot of advanced metrics didn't really exist. Like Joe Namath got into the Hall because of Super Bowl III and he had more career interceptions than touchdowns.

[Dr. T is an alien]

I’m sold on not calling him in a top 5 spot. That’s fine. I believe I’m am correct to have severely tempered expectations of QBs from the 70’s. For example, most seasons in the 70’s had 1 or2 QBs that averaged 200 yards a game (1974 had none EDIT-my mistake. Ken Anderson missed a game, so his 1974 average was a shade over 200). That’s just not how the game was played. For the record, Bradshaw managed it a time or two, though one of those years was 1979 when a number of QBs managed it after rules were changed to encourage scoring.

[sfvega]

Feb 4, 2023 17:12:45 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

I’m sold on not calling him in a top 5 spot. That’s fine. I believe I’m am correct to have severely tempered expectations of QBs from the 70’s.

I do the legwork to break down how Bradshaw wasn't above the class at his time, and you still pretend like I'm expecting out of era stats from him. All Pro, Pro Bowl, yards, TDs, QB rating, comp % are all year-to-year stats, and the players who are actually in the conversation for best QB ever are all noticable in these. Brady and Montana just as much as guys like Peyton and Marino. They're not guys who are defined only by their playoff prowess. I brought up like 97 yards or 5 picks in 3 games because it was noticable even for the era. The week prior, Bradshaw had 95 yards to Kenny Stabler's 271. The week before that, Terry himself had 200+. This illustrates two things. One, that he wasn't outplaying the era in the playoffs, like he did in 78/79. Two, that there was still a ton of emphasis for the Steelers on getting Bleier and Harris the ball. They mostly ran the ball, and did so for over 200 yards in both the AFCCG and the SB which put less of an emphasis on Bradshaw having to be great. Bradshaw himself averaged 156 passing yards/game in the playoffs up until those two low totals in the end of the 74 season. This is, again, not expecting Bradshaw to put up stats comparable to Montana or Marino in the 80's or Rodgers or Mahomes in the late 2010s. This is him versus the league, versus other starters numbers, versus what he himself put up. Him and Fran both had trouble going up against the best defenses of the era. But Fran himself averaged 200 yards/game that season, which Bradshaw didn't do until....you guessed it inadvertently: 1979.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Feb 4, 2023 17:58:25 GMT -5 sfvega said:

Feb 4, 2023 17:12:45 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

I’m sold on not calling him in a top 5 spot. That’s fine. I believe I’m am correct to have severely tempered expectations of QBs from the 70’s.

I do the legwork to break down how Bradshaw wasn't above the class at his time, and you still pretend like I'm expecting out of era stats from him. All Pro, Pro Bowl, yards, TDs, QB rating, comp % are all year-to-year stats, and the players who are actually in the conversation for best QB ever are all noticable in these. Brady and Montana just as much as guys like Peyton and Marino. They're not guys who are defined only by their playoff prowess. I brought up like 97 yards or 5 picks in 3 games because it was noticable even for the era. The week prior, Bradshaw had 95 yards to Kenny Stabler's 271. The week before that, Terry himself had 200+. This illustrates two things. One, that he wasn't outplaying the era in the playoffs, like he did in 78/79. Two, that there was still a ton of emphasis for the Steelers on getting Bleier and Harris the ball. They mostly ran the ball, and did so for over 200 yards in both the AFCCG and the SB which put less of an emphasis on Bradshaw having to be great. Bradshaw himself averaged 156 passing yards/game in the playoffs up until those two low totals in the end of the 74 season. This is, again, not expecting Bradshaw to put up stats comparable to Montana or Marino in the 80's or Rodgers or Mahomes in the late 2010s. This is him versus the league, versus other starters numbers, versus what he himself put up. Him and Fran both had trouble going up against the best defenses of the era. But Fran himself averaged 200 yards/game that season, which Bradshaw didn't do until....you guessed it inadvertently: 1979.

Dude, what the hell? Are you so fixated on being right that YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THAT I SAID YOU CONVINCED ME??!! I ignored his total stats because no one had great stats in that era. It was the era of bruising defense, mauling receivers, and ground and pound football. I fixated on winning since doing so consistently truly means something, but you convinced me.

[sfvega]

Feb 4, 2023 19:00:53 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

Feb 4, 2023 17:58:25 GMT -5 sfvega said:

I do the legwork to break down how Bradshaw wasn't above the class at his time, and you still pretend like I'm expecting out of era stats from him. All Pro, Pro Bowl, yards, TDs, QB rating, comp % are all year-to-year stats, and the players who are actually in the conversation for best QB ever are all noticable in these. Brady and Montana just as much as guys like Peyton and Marino. They're not guys who are defined only by their playoff prowess. I brought up like 97 yards or 5 picks in 3 games because it was noticable even for the era. The week prior, Bradshaw had 95 yards to Kenny Stabler's 271. The week before that, Terry himself had 200+. This illustrates two things. One, that he wasn't outplaying the era in the playoffs, like he did in 78/79. Two, that there was still a ton of emphasis for the Steelers on getting Bleier and Harris the ball. They mostly ran the ball, and did so for over 200 yards in both the AFCCG and the SB which put less of an emphasis on Bradshaw having to be great. Bradshaw himself averaged 156 passing yards/game in the playoffs up until those two low totals in the end of the 74 season. This is, again, not expecting Bradshaw to put up stats comparable to Montana or Marino in the 80's or Rodgers or Mahomes in the late 2010s. This is him versus the league, versus other starters numbers, versus what he himself put up. Him and Fran both had trouble going up against the best defenses of the era. But Fran himself averaged 200 yards/game that season, which Bradshaw didn't do until....you guessed it inadvertently: 1979.

Dude, what the hell? Are you so fixated on being right that YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THAT I SAID YOU CONVINCED ME??!! I ignored his total stats because no one had great stats in that era. It was the era of bruising defense, mauling receivers, and ground and pound football. I fixated on winning since doing so consistently truly means something, but you convinced me.

I'm not hellbent on changing your top 5, only with expanding your point of view which seemed to focus on one team accolade. That's the whole reason I get on here. The exchange of information.

[Spiderf 4]

Wow, a Pro Bowl with Decker performing. Thought I'd never see that.

[Dr. T is an alien]

The Colts have apparently been taking about 12 hours each on each of their 8 in person interviews for the head coaching position.

[XIII]

Feb 5, 2023 17:13:49 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

The Colts have apparently been taking about 12 hours each on each of their 8 in person interviews for the head coaching position.

12 hour interview with Irsay? I’d withdraw my candidacy. lol

[Mecca]

Feb 5, 2023 17:13:49 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

The Colts have apparently been taking about 12 hours each on each of their 8 in person interviews for the head coaching position.

Why do they need to interview Saturday that long? And all reports are thar Irsay wants to hire Saturday...dumpster fire is inbound.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Feb 5, 2023 19:36:45 GMT -5 Mecca said:

Feb 5, 2023 17:13:49 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

The Colts have apparently been taking about 12 hours each on each of their 8 in person interviews for the head coaching position.

Why do they need to interview Saturday that long? And all reports are thar Irsay wants to hire Saturday...dumpster fire is inbound.

The reports are all over the place. Some say he is not the favorite. Several reports suggested Raheem Morris was the favorite, but Vegas just changed their odds to suggest Wink Martindale has likely secured the job.

[Citizen Grimm]

Feb 5, 2023 20:10:10 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

Feb 5, 2023 19:36:45 GMT -5 Mecca said:

Why do they need to interview Saturday that long? And all reports are thar Irsay wants to hire Saturday...dumpster fire is inbound.

The reports are all over the place. Some say he is not the favorite. Several reports suggested Raheem Morris was the favorite, but Vegas just changed their odds to suggest Wink Martindale has likely secured the job.

I’d love for this to cripple the Giant’s defense if they hire Martindale, especially since it’s seems like they’re really on the verge of turning a corner with the franchise.