Category: Barstool Debates (Page 3 of 8)

      Is Martz a good fit for Cutler and the Bears?

      February 1, 2010 /

      The “Mad Scientist” is coming to Chicago: The National Football Post reports that the Bears have hired Mike Martz to become their next offensive coordinator.

      What’s interesting about this hire is that Martz wasn’t GM Jerry Angelo’s first, second, third or even fourth candidate for the position. Angelo had Jeremy Bates, Rob Chudzinski, Hue Jackson and a host of others ahead of Martz on his wish list, but all of the candidates bowed out, presumably because head coach Lovie Smith is on the hot seat. Why would anyone want to go to Chicago if there’s a possibility that they’ll get axed in a year anyway?

      Why would anyone outside of Martz, that is.

      After serving as the 49ers’ offensive coordinator for just one season, Martz was out of football last year and was itching to get back into coaching. With so few options, it makes sense that he would jump at the opportunity to join the Bears.

      They’re desperate, he’s desperate – it works.

      But will it work? Martz was the same person that criticized Jay Cutler earlier this season for being immature following a loss to the Packers in Week 1. Martz reportedly got the Bears’ blessing to fly down to Tennessee over the weekend to meet with Cutler and clear the air, but will the marriage work?

      Martz is still regarded as one of the brightest offensive minds in football and his track record speaks for itself. Anyone that can turn the Lions’ offense into a top 10 passing attack deserves praise, although the reason why he has been ousted everywhere he’s been is because he doesn’t run the football. He also has no use for pass protection and his quarterbacks are often sitting ducks because he always runs plays out of three and four receiver sets, thus leaving less linemen in to protect his signal caller. That’s not good considering how bad the Bears’ offensive line is and given that Cutler often forces passes when he’s under duress and doesn’t mind throwing as many interceptions as humanly possible during 60 minutes of football.

      I see this union between Cutler and Martz ending in one of two ways: An explosive partnership that makes the Bears one of the most excited passing teams in the NFL, or a beautiful disaster that will be worthy of watching from the front row.

      Either way, it should be a fun year in Chicago.

      Was Martz a good hire for the Bears?
      View Results


      Photo from fOTOGLIF

      Barstool Debates, NFL

      If Favre retires, was signing worth it for Vikings?

      January 25, 2010 /

      Before their win over the Cowboys in the Divisional Round two weeks ago, I proposed the question of whether or not signing Brett Favre was worth it for the Vikings. Now that Minnesota has been knocked out of the playoffs and the annual Brett Favre retirement dance has begun, I’m proposing a similar question.

      If Favre does decide to hang ‘em up this offseason, was signing him for one year worth it for the Vikings?

      Had they lost to Dallas, I would have empathically said “no” to the above question. The Vikings won the division and reached the playoffs with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson in 2008. So for all intents and purposes, had they lost to the Cowboys the Vikings would not have improved under Favre and therefore, his signing would have been a waste. After all, Minnesota didn’t jump over all the hurdles to sign Favre last offseason just so they could win another division title and be bounced in their first playoff game. And had he retired after a loss to Dallas, the signing would have looked even worse.

      However, my stance has changed after the Vikes advanced to the NFC Championship Game because that meant they did improve with Favre under center. They weren’t knocking on the door of a Super Bowl last year with Jackson at quarterback and although we’ll never know, I highly doubt they would have reached the NFC title game with Jackson or Sage Rosenfels this season.

      So yeah, the signing of Favre was worth it in my eyes. Did they sign him in hopes that he would advance them to the Super Bowl? Of course they did, but 30 teams fail to reach the Super Bowl every year and 28 of them didn’t get as far as the Vikings did this season. They knew they were a quarterback away from making a legitimate run and they did what they had to do in order to sign one of the best in the game.

      Continue reading »

      Barstool Debates, NFL

      Should the Cardinals trade Anquan Boldin?

      January 22, 2010 /

      If beat writer Kent Somers of the Arizona Republic is right when he says that the Cardinals will try to shop receiver Anquan Boldin this offseason, then the team would be making a wise decision.

      Boldin is a quality playmaker with excellent size, good speed and solid hands. But talent isn’t something the Cardinals are desperate for at the wideout position. They have plenty of youth and depth at receiver with Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Breaston and Early Doucet, which makes Boldin expendable.

      Boldin will be 30 in early October and is set to make $3 million in his final year. Mind you, that’s not a ton of money to pay a receiver of his caliber, but if he reaches free agency after the 2010 season then Arizona will get nothing for him in return. If they trade him now, they might be able to get a third round pick and another player, which was what teams were offering last offseason.

      A trade makes even more sense if Kurt Warner retires this offseason. When Matt Leinart takes over under center, the Cardinals will switch from an offense that attacks opponents through the air to one that tries to beat teams on the ground. The focus will come off the quarterback and receivers and onto young running back Beanie Wells.

      Continue reading »

      Barstool Debates, NFL

      Barstool Debate: What’s the best way to revamp the NFL overtime system?

      January 15, 2010 /

      I was reading ESPN The Magazine today, and in their New Year, New Rules issue, Peter Keating suggests a few ways to improve the NFL’s rules for overtime.

      I thought I’d pull in our NFL guru, Anthony Stalter, and kick a few of these around. I have a personal favorite that wasn’t on Keating’s list that we’ll discuss at the end.

      John Paulsen: All right, Anthony. Keating writes that there are three rules to overtime: 1) it “should preserve the essential character of a sport while moving games toward conclusive results,” 2) it should be fair, and 3) it should be fun. The current overtime system in the NFL isn’t fair, and I’d argue that it isn’t fun either. Although my beloved Packers lost in OT after winning the coin flip, 72% of teams that won the flip last season went on to win the game. That’s not fair. And if it’s not fair, then it’s not fun, either. Keating’s first suggestion is the divide-and-choose method. The winner of the coin toss picks the yard line at which the ball would be placed (say, the 25-yard line) and the other would decide who gets the ball. The first team to score wins the game. What do you think?

      Anthony Stalter: I fail to see how this is a major improvement over the system that is currently in place. It still puts too much emphasis on a coin flip and besides, I think we’d see the ball being placed on the 20-yard line more times than not. A team wouldn’t want to start backed up to its own goal line and wouldn’t want another team to start close to midfield. So the ball would likely be placed at the 20 and thus, all you’re really doing is eliminating the kickoff. And if we were just eliminating the kickoff, teams would still want the ball first and therefore, hate winning the coin toss.

      Continue reading »

      Barstool Debates, College Football, NFL

      If the Vikings lose on Sunday, would signing Favre have been a waste?

      January 15, 2010 /

      The Minnesota Vikings didn’t just sign Brett Favre in the offseason: They jumped through every hoop and hopped every hurdle in front of them in order to acquire the ageless one, including alienating Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson in the process. (And while I can’t prove it, I also fully believe that Brad Childress sold his soul in order to sign Favre as well.)

      That’s why if the Vikings lose this Sunday to the Dallas Cowboys, signing Favre would have arguably been a waste. A team like Minnesota doesn’t subject itself the way it did this offseason to sign a 40-year old quarterback to lose in the second round of the playoffs. It signs a 40-year old drama queen because he’s worth it and to ensure that the team is going to have a shot at winning the Super Bowl.

      Okay, so there are no sure things in pro football. Signing Favre didn’t guarantee anything for the Vikings, but they knew that they were a legit passing attack away from being a Super Bowl contender and so far, suffering through Favre’s drama this offseason has been worth it.

      But if they lose this weekend, then they would have accomplished nothing. Favre isn’t going to play forever (uh, I think) and the Vikings’ window of opportunity to win a Super Bowl has been shrinking since Week 1. If they lose to the Cowboys, then the Vikes will have won precisely the same amount of playoff games with Tarvaris Jackson under center last year: Zero.

      Continue reading »

      Barstool Debates, NFL

      « Older posts Newer posts »

      © 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

      Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑