T1B

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:02 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:As for it "never" happening, Quinn will be the #1 pick next year barring injury or a complete flameout, so the team with the #1 pick will in all likelihood either pick him or trade the pick.
The Niners will not spend two #1 picks on QBs in three years nor will they even be in a position to worry about it.

Mike Nolan will get them headed in the right direction. I'm not predicting a winning season for them, but I don't think they'll embarass themselves either and will show reasons for optimism for the future.

Here is Smith's salary breakdown :

Code: Select all

Year	Salary	Base Salary	Signing Bonus	Other Bonus
2006	$2,910,000	$1,050,000	$200,000	$1,660,000
2007	$7,535,000	$1,675,000	$5,860,000	0
2008	$8,201,000	$2,300,000	$5,901,000	0
2009	$8,388,607	$2,925,000	$8,388,607	0
2010	$8,388,607	$4,750,000	$8,388,607	0
2011	$5,000,000	$5,000,000	$0	0

Now , I don't think the 49ers are gonna get to pick in the first 2 spots , because they could have just tanked 2 games last season to pick there this past draft . And Smith's salary will prohibit taking a player like QB in the first anyway , and if they did have a top 5 pick , they might trade down for more picks . Smith will play better this season, because he really couldn't play worse , and I doubt the 49ers could trade him anyway .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:56 am**

drummer wrote:Here is Smith's salary breakdown :

Code: Select all

Year	Salary	Base Salary	Signing Bonus	Other Bonus
2006	$2,910,000	$1,050,000	$200,000	$1,660,000
2007	$7,535,000	$1,675,000	$5,860,000	0
2008	$8,201,000	$2,300,000	$5,901,000	0
2009	$8,388,607	$2,925,000	$8,388,607	0
2010	$8,388,607	$4,750,000	$8,388,607	0
2011	$5,000,000	$5,000,000	$0	0

I may be a nerdy engineer, but something about 2009 and 2010 don't match. In either case, your franchise is screwed if Alex turns out to be....well Alex. Sorry Niner fan, but you will be picking in the first couple spots this year.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:13 am**

DallasFanatic wrote:
drummer wrote:Here is Smith's salary breakdown :
Code: Select all
Year	Salary	Base Salary	Signing Bonus	Other Bonus
2006	$2,910,000	$1,050,000	$200,000	$1,660,000
2007	$7,535,000	$1,675,000	$5,860,000	0
2008	$8,201,000	$2,300,000	$5,901,000	0
2009	$8,388,607	$2,925,000	$8,388,607	0
2010	$8,388,607	$4,750,000	$8,388,607	0
2011	$5,000,000	$5,000,000	$0	0
I may be a nerdy engineer, but something about 2009 and 2010 don't match. In either case, your franchise is screwed if Alex turns out to be....well Alex. Sorry Niner fan, but you will be picking in the first couple spots this year.

I think the 3rd category is what the signing bonus counts against the Cap . The guy who compiled this info is a Niner fan who does some serious homework on this subject , and just got a job as an intern in the NFL .

Don't forget , they have Dilfer as a backup , so if Smith still struggles by week 6 , he might have to take over . But there are signs that Smith is looking fairly sharp in camp , and that he and Bryant are connecting .

Again , Smith has a new OC in Turner , and from I've heard about GB's camp , is that not only is Farve struggling with McCarthy's offense , but so is the rest of the offense in general . Plus , the Niners have more to work with this year as far as development of personnel , yet , with the worst offensive and defensive teams historically of the franchise last season , they still managed 4 wins .

As opposed to AZ's 5 , which 2 wins came against the 49ers .

I think they could get at least 5-6 wins this season . That might place them 3rd or 4th overall on the draft chart . Hell , they would have picked 7th last draft if Oakland won the coin toss .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:26 am**

I'm not thinking your friend is too smart.

Salary = Base Salary + Signing Bonus + Other bonuses.

If you apply this formula to the other years you will see its true. The NFL just hired its newest tard.

:D

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:33 am**

DallasFanatic wrote:I'm not thinking your friend is too smart.

Salary = Base Salary + Signing Bonus + Other bonuses.

If you apply this formula to the other years you will see its true. The NFL just hired its newest tard.

:D

Actually , I was wrong on the guy who did the cap crunching ( it was another guy who was hired ) , but , you can look it up here .

And here .

It may explain that chart for you also.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:48 am**

How do those charts differ from my formula? You add up the three columns and get a cap total. This isn't rocket science. Your friends signing bonus column is wrong or the total salary column is wrong for those two years.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:51 am**

Yeah, your chart's fucked. Like C&Paul: garbage in, garbage out.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:03 am**

DallasFanatic wrote:How do those charts differ from my formula? You add up the three columns and get a cap total. This isn't rocket science. Your friends signing bonus column is wrong or the total salary column is wrong for those two years.

Yeah , i'm a little confused on how that 3rd column is worked out , but the bottom line is that Smith's contract prohibits drafting another QB in the first round , if they pick in the Top 5 overall . Of course , anything could happen , but from what it looks like , Smith is locked up for at least 2 more years before the 49ers could take a bite in the ass if he doesn't pan out .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:36 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Let me go back to this:

Diogenes wrote:smacking the 49erfans is way too easy.
Now, let me see if I've got this straight.

On the one hand, I get pounded as a bandwagon jumper for being a Niners fan. On the other hand, I get Cardinals fan, of all people, running "your team sucks" smack on me?

On the one hand, you actually get laughed at as a tad dim for not getting the humor behind the phrase 'Arizona Cardinals bandwagon'.

On the other hand, yes, you do.

Thanks for playing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:12 am**

Diogenes wrote:Yes.

And it's a bet, Boltfan.

It's on.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:30 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Let me go back to this:

Diogenes wrote:smacking the 49erfans is way too easy.
Now, let me see if I've got this straight.

On the one hand, I get pounded as a bandwagon jumper for being a Niners fan. On the other hand, I get Cardinals fan, of all people, running "your team sucks" smack on me?
On the one hand, you actually get laughed at as a tad dim for not getting the humor behind the phrase 'Arizona Cardinals bandwagon'.

I'm aware that there is no Arizona Cardinals bandwagon. Like I said, your team has to show the ability to win at least three games in a season on a consistent basis before it acquires anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.

As for the bandwagon reference I actually made above, this might give you an idea of what I was referring to.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:36 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Let me go back to this:
Now, let me see if I've got this straight.

On the one hand, I get pounded as a bandwagon jumper for being a Niners fan. On the other hand, I get Cardinals fan, of all people, running "your team sucks" smack on me?
On the one hand, you actually get laughed at as a tad dim for not getting the humor behind the phrase 'Arizona Cardinals bandwagon'.
I'm aware that there is no Arizona Cardinals bandwagon. Like I said, your team has to show the ability to win at least three games in a season on a consistent basis before it acquires anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.

As for the bandwagon reference I actually made above, this might give you an idea of what I was referring to.

And yet still doesn't get the irony behind Ninerfan talking about a teams inability to win more than three games in a season.

Props on the 4 wins last year BTW. Epic.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:40 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote: On the one hand, you actually get laughed at as a tad dim for not getting the humor behind the phrase 'Arizona Cardinals bandwagon'.
I'm aware that there is no Arizona Cardinals bandwagon. Like I said, your team has to show the ability to win at least three games in a season on a consistent basis before it acquires anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.

As for the bandwagon reference I actually made above, this might give you an idea of what I was referring to.
And yet still doesn't get the irony behind Ninerfan talking about a teams inability to win more than three games in a season.

Props on the 4 wins last year BTW. Epic.

Shouldn't you be arguing with NFC East fan ? Your team has been an NFC West doormat for only 4 years , as opposed being a doormat in the East for almost 2 decades .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:51 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote: On the one hand, you actually get laughed at as a tad dim for not getting the humor behind the phrase 'Arizona Cardinals bandwagon'.
I'm aware that there is no Arizona Cardinals bandwagon. Like I said, your team has to show the ability to win at least three games in a season on a consistent basis before it acquires anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.

As for the bandwagon reference I actually made above, this might give you an idea of what I was referring to.
And yet still doesn't get the irony behind Ninerfan talking about a teams inability to win more than three games in a season.

The difference between the Niners and the Cardinals is this:

The Niners have sucked lately, but we have a history of being good, very good. In fact, Niner Fan still considers anything less than a Super Bowl win a disappointing season.

The Cardinals, meanwhile, have a history of sucking. The last time your team was even relevant was during the Ford Administration.

I suppose, in light of your post, that perhaps some simple math rules have been changed without my noticing. So help me out.

The Niners have five Super Bowl titles. The Cards have zero. Which is a bigger number, five or zero?

The Cards have missed the playoffs for the last seven seasons. The Niners have missed the playoffs for the last three seasons. Which is a bigger number, seven or three?

If you want to run smack at us for the last two seasons, fine. Of course, that two-season run was one of the worst in my team's history, and one of the better runs in your team's history. Props. I guess.

Like I said, nothing is more ironic than Cards Fan running smack at any other team in the NFL, least of all the team with arguably the greatest 15-20 season run in NFL history.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:05 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
The Niners have five Super Bowl titles. The Cards have zero. Which is a bigger number, five or zero?

Don't confuse him. Rasputin is easily confused.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:34 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:The Niners have five Super Bowl titles. The Cards have zero. Which is a bigger number, five or zero?

The Cardinals have two titles. 1925, 1947

No Super Bowl back then, of course. But if you still insist, which is a bigger number, five or two?

And no titles since 1947 should tell you something.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:21 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:No Super Bowl back then, of course.
Which means nothing, of course.

Except for the fact that I contrasted Super Bowl titles.

A league championship is a league championship. It doesn't make a difference if it was 1994 or 1925.

Which was basically conceded when I wrote:

But if you still insist, which is a bigger number, five or two?

And no titles since 1947 should tell you something.
It says the Bidwell family has only one championship in 74 years of operations. They very well might be the worst dynasty in the history of professional sport.

Don't forget about the Wrigleys.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:03 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: And no titles since 1947 should tell you something.
It says the Bidwell family has only one championship in 74 years of operations. They very well might be the worst dynasty in the history of professional sport.
Don't forget about the Wrigleys.

Why are they getting dragged into this? They run a pretty successful franchise... I mean, their gum is pretty freaking ubiquitous.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:02 pm**

m2 wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
The Niners have five Super Bowl titles. The Cards have zero. Which is a bigger number, five or zero?
Don't confuse him. Rasputin is easily confused.

m2 talking to Terry channeling m2?

Now that's confusing.

And Rack the Lombardi Packers, BTW. Since you all prefer to pretend we're still in the 20th century.

As far as...

Shouldn't you be arguing with NFC East fan ? Your team has been an NFC West doormat for only 4 years , as opposed being a doormat in the East for almost 2 decades .

Actually your team has been the doormat for the last four years, and the only reason the subject came up is that your myopic fellow ninerfan brought it up.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:11 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
m2 wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
The Niners have five Super Bowl titles. The Cards have zero. Which is a bigger number, five or zero?
Don't confuse him. Rasputin is easily confused.
m2 talking to Terry channeling m2?

I'm channeling m2? Trust me, it's unintentional. The Niners are pretty close to the only thing upon which you'll find me agreeing with m2.

As far as...

Shouldn't you be arguing with NFC East fan ? Your team has been an NFC West doormat for only 4 years , as opposed being a doormat in the East for almost 2 decades .
Actually your team has been the doormat for the last four years, and the only reason the subject came up is that your myopic fellow ninerfan brought it up.

Myopic? Pot, meet kettle, if you think team history is irrelevant.

At least I know my team will be good again, and most likely sooner rather than later. Enjoy another 20 years or so of sub-.500 seasons.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:20 pm**

Unintentional? whatever. I guess like minds and all that. And yes, your delusion that this is the same team or organization as the one in the ninties is the definition of myopia.

BTW, rack the current Super Bowl Champs. And Rocky Bleier. They couldn't have done it without him.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:22 pm**

As far as the niners being good 'sooner rather than later', dream on. You'll still be paying for all of those trophies for the rest of the decade. And the Cards will be in the playoffs at the end of the season.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:24 pm**

Vaginoes wrote:Actually your team has been the doormat for the last four years, and the only reason the subject came up is that your myopic fellow ninerfan brought it up

Wrong .

2003 NFL Standings

NFC West

St. Louis Rams 12 4
Seattle Seahawks 10 6
San Francisco 49ers 7 9
Arizona Cardinals 4 12

It was more like 2 years .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:41 pm**

So history actually ended in 2003?

Good to know.

Johnny U.-still the man.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:49 pm**

Diogenes wrote:And yes, your delusion that this is the same team or organization as the one in the ninties is the definition of myopia.

As is your delusion that this is not the same Cardinals organization that existed in the eighties and nineties.

Diogenes wrote:And the Cards will be in the playoffs at the end of the season.

I laughed.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:54 pm**

Diogenes wrote:So history actually ended in 2003?

Good to know.

Johnny U.-still the man.

What in the hell are you blabbing about ?

Do you even know ?

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:06 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And yes, your delusion that this is the same team or organization as the one in the ninties is the definition of myopia.
As is your delusion that this is not the same Cardinals organization that existed in the eighties and nineties.

Diogenes wrote:And the Cards will be in the playoffs at the end of the season.
I laughed.

I think the real question here is how many games will the 49ers win as opposed to how many starts Warner will have before he gets injured .

So far on a couple other boards , the bet on Warner is game 4 .

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:31 pm**

Red wrote: Why are they getting dragged into this? They run a pretty successful franchise... I mean, their gum is pretty freaking ubiquitous.

Sheesh, Red.

I know you've been dying to use that BIG word that you just learned, but to use it in a reference to chewing gum?

What a waste, bro.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:41 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Red wrote: Why are they getting dragged into this? They run a pretty successful franchise... I mean, their gum is pretty freaking ubiquitous.
Sheesh, Red.

I know you've been dying to use that BIG word that you just learned, but to use it in a reference to chewing gum?

What a waste, bro.

Concur. If you want to use the word "ubiquitous" on a football board, Brent Musberger might be a pretty good reference -- particularly if you're talking about the eighties.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:43 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And yes, your delusion that this is the same team or organization as the one in the ninties is the definition of myopia.
As is your delusion that this is not the same Cardinals organization that existed in the eighties and nineties.

Dennis Green says you're an idiot. The reason that the Cards never have gotten over the hump is because of what Bidwell always does in the offseason whenever they get close, I doubt he's going to be letting any free agents go in ther middle of the season.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:53 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Dennis Green says your an idiot.

Not to run spelling/grammar smack, but the irony in that sentence is priceless.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:57 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Dennis Green says you're an idiot.
Not to run spelling/grammar smack...

My all means do.

In your case (like with the niners) punting is always a good idea.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:32 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Dennis Green says you're an idiot.
Not to run spelling/grammar smack...
My all means do.

Tell me that one was intentional.

In your case (like with the niners) punting is always a good idea.

We can do a one-week sig bet after each Niners-Cards game, if you like. At least there, there won't be a push, unlike the playoff sig bet.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:55 pm**

It's a bet.

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:23 am**

#1 Rams
#2 Vikings
#3 49ers
#4 Lions
#5 Jets
#6 Saints
#7 Titans
#8 Packers
#9 Jaguars
#10 Falcons

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:59 am**

Ask for the the top 2 and Jess ups the ante and gives the TOP TEN.

THAT's what's known as raisin' the bar.

Rack the newbie in here.

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:40 pm**

Fuck it.

#1 Bills
#2 49ers
#3 Titans
#4 Texans
#5 Saints
#6 Jets
#7 Packers
#8 Vikings
#9 Raiders
#10 Eagles

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:32 pm**

poptart wrote:Ask for the the top 2 and Jess ups the ante and gives the TOP TEN.

THAT's what's known as raisin' the bar.

Rack the newbie in here.

He gets an E for effort -- whatever the fuck that's good for -- but I'd like to hear some logic behind having Jacksonville at #9. I don't see JAX imploding just because they lost Jimmy Smith. I'm thinking he meant to put a certain other AFC South team there instead.

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:41 pm**

Red wrote:
poptart wrote:Ask for the the top 2 and Jess ups the ante and gives the TOP TEN.

THAT's what's known as raisin' the bar.

Rack the newbie in here.
He gets an E for effort -- whatever the fuck that's good for -- but I'd like to hear some logic behind having Jacksonville at #9. I don't see JAX imploding just because they lost Jimmy Smith. I'm thinking he meant to put a certain other AFC South team there instead.

Injuries and Leftwich is overdue for a bad season, plus if you look at thier depth chart http://www.jaguars.com/Team/DepthChart.asp it's a full team of unknowns to me. Fred Taylor is bound to get injured again doesnt he every freaking year? The Texans are more improved, the Colts are going to run and gun away with the divison again and in my opinon the Jags will go 6-10 this yr whether that puts em #9 or not, shrug, but it would probably be near the bottom of the first 15.

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:31 pm**

A few of my thoughts on these lists.

jtr wrote:
1 Rams
#2 Vikings
#3 49ers
#4 Lions
#5 Jets
#6 Saints
#7 Titans
#8 Packers
#9 Jaguars
#10 Falcons

Cicero wrote:
#1 Bills
#2 49ers
#3 Titans
#4 Texans
#5 Saints
#6 Jets
#7 Packers
#8 Vikings
#9 Raiders
#10 Eagles

When I look at these lists what sticks out in my mind is where are the Cleveland Browns? Sure they might be better than last season but they have problems with their Oline and a noob for QB.

Also I'm not exactly sold on AZ, sure they may be better this season, but I thought they were last year too. They'll need to show me before I move them off the list of the bottom 10.

As for TN, I don't believe they'll be the bottom 2 or 3. Volek is a serviceable QB, Fisher is a quality coach, they play good defense and their receivers are superior to last season.

The Jags might have over achived last season because of scheduling, but Greg Jones is a quality RB, and Leftwich is cool in the pocket. Like Red was alluding to, I don't believe they belong on this list.

I also wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Vikings in contention for their division this season.

The Eagles might not be the dominant team in the NFC East this season, but I think Andy Reid will have them competitive, certainly competitive enough that they also don't belong on this list IMO.

T1B

The first and second picks in the 2007 draft will go to...