Claxton had 6 seasons of 50% FT%, over about 770 FTA.  Now he is suddenly at 70% this season on about 100 FTA.  I am not sure that is a durable improvement.

Claxton at 70% FT% is still not worth $25M in my mind, but if I felt he could sustain that,  I would at least consider trading Simons for him with a future, highly protected pick.

Clayton doesn't move the needle much, but the trade is reasonable value.

really?  how so?  rephrase the deal -- say we were offering Simons and a Pick for essentially Queta but paid about 25 mill more a year.  I can't see you saying that was a reasonable value.  Before you go saying that Claxton is better than Q, I'll give you that he is, but not that much better and certainly not 25 million a year better.

That trade is too rich.   


Plus Claxton's contract is to high for what he provides.   

Quote from: johnnygreen on Today at 01:51:12 PM

Quote from: Roy H. on Yesterday at 11:42:34 PM

Coach of the Year:  Vrabel or Ben Johnson?

Right now I'd say Johnson.  His team is winning despite injuries that decimated the defense.  He's completely rebuilt the running game into a strength, and the offense is scoring despite a very inaccurate QB.

But ultimately, I think the Bears could lose 2 or 3 of their upcoming games, while I think the Pats will finish strong.

Former UMass QB has done a great job. I would replace McDonald with whoever is the Panthers coach. They have been playing with confidence despite their lack of experience and talent.
Sean Payton and Mike Mcdonald should be added to that list.

Liam Coen has done a helluva job too.

Former UMass QB has done a great job. I would replace McDonald with whoever is the Panthers coach. They have been playing with confidence despite their lack of experience and talent.

Quote from: Moranis on Today at 10:30:08 AM

Quote from: Donoghus on Today at 10:12:54 AM

I don't see the argument for Texas at all.

what about Oklahoma?  Do you see an argument for them?  I mean i think most people have OU making it, yet they lost 23-6 on a neutral site to Texas. 

What about Vanderbilt, whose only ranked win is Tennessee and who also lost to Texas.

Also, did you know Texas A&M has only beaten 1 ranked opponent which was Notre Dame in week 3 and they basically only won because ND went for 2 up 6 instead of just kicking the extra point.

I get the Florida loss is horrible, but Texas' other losses are to 1 and 3 (OSU and UGA) and they have 2 top 10 wins (A&M and OU) plus the top 15 win (Vande). 

With the size of the conferences there is a lot of schedule imbalance. It isnt nearly as cut and dry as it used to be. I think head to head really needs to matter as should scheduling a game on the road at the best team in the country when you didn't have to.

nitpicking but Notre Dame didnt go for two they just botched the snap on the PAT.

ah, that is what the play by play said. Speaking of ND, the only 3 ranked teams they played were those first 2 to Miami and A&M which they lost and USC which is 9-3 and ranked 17.  Is that resume better than Texas? What about the coach less Mississippi squad whose only ranked wins are Oklahoma snd Tulane with a loss to Georgia.  Do those wins over the Citadel, Georgia State, and Washingron State really ring as worthy.

There are 7 SEC teams above .500 in conference. Texas is one and played 4 of the others going 3-1. They ran a gauntlet  While the only one A&M played was Texas who beat it. Ole Miss was 1-1. Vande was 0-2. Bama and UGA were 2-1 and obviously play each other again for the SEC title.

Schedule should matter especially when head to head actually happened.