Discussion UsefulNotes / NationalFootballLeagueNotoriousFigures

I'm down for that.

Done.

I'm not against removing it. It's a relic from before I started editing these pages four-ish years ago, so I have some nostalgia for them, but it does seem unfair to single out the Browns (the Lions, Bucs, and Cards have had plenty of bad streaks in their histories) and potentially a good way to trim the page by removing the borderline cases. Would like to hear from someone else first, but I'm leaning towards just cutting it.

I'm partial to it, but if it makes more sense, splitting along those lines is fine. Green and Coleman could stay as busts, I feel more strongly about Green (off field stuff was pretty notable back then) than Coleman. The rest, eh. They weren't great and fit when listing them all but probably don't stand on their own.

I thought about shortening a couple examples, as we don't have to list every player that a team missed out on. Unless that player played the same position or had a Hall of Fame career.

Splitting the page sounds like a pretty good idea, as well.

I like listing out Ho Fers and relevant Pro Bowlers that were missed, it's part of the story of the bust. "The team took this guy who was not only bad, but they missed these other guys!"

But yeah, I think with the new page length requirements, a true "Notorious" page for rule/law breakers makes the most sense, with Busts/Disappointments on their own. (Any further reduction probably wouldn't be required at that point.)

Looks like the site has reverted to the old page length standard, not getting the alert anymore. Glad we weren't too hasty. We'll return to this if the issue returns.

Yeah, I agree, it's unnecessary.

Okay, I've just removed the justifying edits. Sorry about that.

No worries, thanks.

Idk, think Beer Baron's suggestion from earlier works just fine.

Yeah, looks like that split takes care of it.

By the letter of the law, I think you're within your rights to delete his entry until he's not on the team. But Wilson's circumstances are so unique (#2 pick demoted from starter in Year 3) that I think he absolutely qualifies as a bust, and I'd wait to delete him until he presents any evidence that he could start for any team that didn't lose their QB to injury. Maybe he'll turn out to be an Alex Smith, but that feels increasingly unlikely with every snap he plays.

Zach Wilson is definitely a bust as he was definitely going to be riding the pine if Rodgers stayed healthy. Also, I'm watching Justin Fields as a bust as he hasn't stepped up in year 3.

I'm not going to remove Wilson at this point, but let's follow our rule as written in the description for all future busts - "If the player was drafted in the first round but released or traded for minimal compensation before the expiration of his rookie contract, he likely qualifies."

Even if it looks bad, let's wait until a player is actually off his drafting team.

Think moving Coaches/Execs will work as a solution, think there's more space on the other page.

I'm loathe to kill my own creations, but if you have a draft for condensing the "worst in X" entries you'd like to share, I'll accept it if necessary.

If moving the coaches and execs is enough for now, we don't need to remove those at this time.

Eh, it's similar to some of the other bit players who didn't really have much of an NFL career. A few are still listed, but they're serial killers or murder/suicide types. Awful charges, but this is a bottom of the roster guy active for one game I believe. Only really notable for the crime.

Yeah, he seems inevitable, but we should still probably wait until his contract is up.

Oh yeah, or actually moved from the roster one way or another. Just saying to keep him on the radar. Found the Russell stat comparison interesting.

He is definitely a massive flameout and I am amazed a BYU product was taken that high.

Zach Wilson has permanently been moved to third string on the Jets.

I don't think that's the case at all. Kamara hasn't even been issued a suspension for the assault, and I don't think his job is at any risk at this moment. That's not to excuse Kamara at all, but just to say that he doesn't meet the criteria of a layperson knowing him more for a crime than his many on-field accomplishments.

^ Agreed. When something does come of it, we can move him.

I don't know if matters or not, but Pat Mc Afee has released a podcast talking about how Brett Favre is under investigation for a second case of welfare fraud.

Favre's been up to his eyeballs in controversies for awhile, but he's yet to be charged with anything that would require moving him. I wouldn't be against adding a note about it to his entry on the QB page, but I'm still hesitant to until he actually gets charged for something.

I'm watching it closely and won't add yet, but this is a horrible look for him, especially as it continues to overshadow his wife's courageous battle and subsequent remission from cancer. I'll pray and hope he is innocent or was an unknowing accomplice, but it is not looking good on this front. But this is just another reminder of a good or great football player getting themselves into trouble over stupid stuff, like Clinton Portis did with the fraud and all that stuff.

A note is fine, and that's probably all the more it will be unless something bigger than a "slap on the wrist" comes out of this. Similar to Lawrence Taylor, this is Brett Favre we're talking about. It would take a massive controversy to overshadow his on-field accomplishments and make him "notorious".

(wrong place)

It's standard practice among media as well, I think to differentiate the 3rd pick of the 2nd round versus the 3rd pick overall (not that there are many situations where the former terminology is really used). I suppose all of the instances of "overall" could be removed barring exceptions needed for clarification for some reason.

Makes sense!

Heh, of course. Daniel Jones is another to have ready to post.

Love's current position reminds me a lot of Tommy Maddox, brought in to succeed an aging legend who has more in the tank than the org thought. If that holds, Love is gonna be the first MVP of the Rock's XFL and the Pack is gonna win two Super Bowls. Put a pin in it!

I feel like the only time I hear his name in games is when he's getting penalized, but fine. I'm sure we're getting close to the limit.

Eh, he seems pretty reviled by the Giants and Saints fanbase, we can keep him.

And the one good Belichick assistant just got fired after two winning seasons!

Yeah, he probably shouldn't have been fired, but I think there is a bit of an overreaction going on with him. Historically (at least since the merger) it's rare that a coach is brought back for a fourth season after three non-playoff seasons. Yeah, two of Flores were winning years, but he badly botched the offensive staff hirings with odd delegation of duties, the hyper conservative playcalling, the QB juggling, and while that winning streak was nice, it came after a terrible losing streak and good coaches don't let that happen. The media reaction today is as if Harbaugh or Payton got fired.

All true. But it is rare for coaches to get fired after (back-to-back!) winning seasons, and the whole thing smells like Flores getting pinned for a bunch of roster decisions that weren't all his fault. The last time I remember something like this happening was with Caldwell, and we all know what happened to the Lions after that.

Whatever works for the health and benefit of the page.

I mean, that's a subjective call. Unless anyone else feels strongly about removing any entries, I think I won't delete anything unless we reach the limit (still around 10K characters, I think). If/when we get there, I think Losman, Gregory, and Saban would probably be the first to go.

I think Manuel can go, as he wasn't really noteworthy in college and it was a rather poor QB draft. Saban can go, as his record wasn't terrible and he has achieved most of his success post NFL. Gregory is somebody I know nothing about

I feel strongly about leaving Saban. It may not be the worst record for an NFL coach, but relative to his college success, it definitely warrants an entry. It's forever a black mark against him and worth a note, especially with how it all ended ("I will not be the Alabama coach...")

Kelly, eh, can go. Again, to me, it was the circumstance of a red hot college coaching candidate coming in, clashing and failing that makes it notable.

I'd still strongly prefer to get rid of all the "low QB rating" guys first. They're footnotes of footnotes in terms of notability. At minimum, could they all be condensed into one entry?

I mean, "footnotes" is fair. "Footnotes of footnotes"? For my boy McQuilken? Harsh.

In all seriousness, removing/consolidating some of them works for me if it becomes necessary.

Thinking about it a bit more, something at the top of the "Disappointing Players" folder that covers multiple otherwise non-notable players in different categories might work. Condense all the "Worst Single Game QB Performances", "Biggest One-Game Wonders", etc. Something like that anyway.

You can tinker how you'd like. I have your Sandbox if you maybe want to do a draft in there first?

I wonder if we can move Lawrence Taylor to this list, as he has been arrested for failing to register as a sex offender on his soliction arrest.

That's a really tough one. He's basically the greatest defender of all time and despite the notoriety he has gained following his playing career, he's almost certainly still better known for his on field success.

His off the field troubles though are creeping up and there is a contigent of fans who really dislike him for his nasty attitude when playing and some for his sexual proclivities.

I'm biased because I wrote all of those, but I think those are some of the most entertaining/educational entries on the page. Think those guys are about as notable as many of the terrible coaches, and feel like it's worth keeping them to contrast with the performances of great QBs on the other page. If we get rid of them, we'd also have to get rid of guys like Peterman, and that just seems sacrilegious.

Page is about 40,000 characters short of needing a split. I think we can keep them for a bit. Urban might still wind up with an entry, and I'm planning on adding Goff at the end of the season, but I don't predict needing to add much for awhile.

On another point... should we move AB to the Offensive Players page? His legal stuff seems to be settled, he's back playing, and his stats are nearly Ho F level.

Yeah, if we're pretty far off of a split, we don't need to do anything now.

AB is tricky. Peterson, for example, was (rightly) moved back as his career overshadows his (basically forgotten about) controversy. When I think of AB, it's still tough to not immediately go to the end of his Steelers/Raiders/brief Pats stint. That was a crazy run of notoriety. He's back, he won that SB, but I don't think it overshadows the notoriety. If others feel differently, that's fine, he's close, but I'd leave him for now.

Antonio Brown should stay for now. Antonio might be enjoying a resurgence, as he's lucky to be playing with Tampa. But his stats with the team though still haven't done to counteract his dramatic exits with Pittsburgh, Oakland, and New England. He's like Pacman to me that way

Just seen that Antonio Brown is now accused of obtaining a fake vaccination card. I disagree vehemently with the mandatory vaccine, but combined with his past actions, this warrants his permanent inclusion on the notorious players list.

I think he has earned his spot under disappointments, and he probably has earned his spot in the respective folder for the Collegiate Football page as well, as his teams toxic cultures that he created ultimately led to his retirements at Florida and Ohio State.

Yeah, we'll wait until there is action, but putting it out there. And sadly, if he wanted to do so, he could walk right into another college program even if he got fired here. USC apparently has interest. That notoriety just won't bring him down at that level.

Some schools are willing to make deals with the devil to just a taste at success or to get back to success. But it's a matter of time before Urban fakes another health emergency or does something to get him fired, and the program put under sanctions when he's at the collegiate level.

Plus, USC is a school that has been in lots of trouble since the millenium and if he goes there, this could get interesting as he'll have to watch who he recruits, how he recruits and he'll have to keep his proclivities at bay.

Definitely gonna wait until he's fired to add him. ...Anyone want to place bets on what week that'll be?

Shad Khan came out and said he won't be fired at this time, but now the belief is that he has lost the locker room and might resign instead. Such a mess.

I say by Week 8 he'll either resign or be fired.

Eh, possibly. Still a long season, and even then, I could see moving him to the "Disappointment" section first, as there are some one-hit wonders in there who've done more.

I could see that also. He's improving slowly and I'm hoping he keeps the pace up. Tannehill avoided the busts category as well as Alex Smith when both were looking like sure fire busts for the first several years of their career.

Yeah, I think we have to wait until at least the end of a season to reevaluate reputations; as Jameis has shown, we need to see these guys actually reach the postseason before reevaluating. Jameis and Darnold both need to prove that they're a Drew Brees and not a Jeff George.

I say wait until the end of this season, but keep tabs on them as those two are in the same division. And looking at Carolina's schedule, they have an outside chance of making the postseason as I see 7 games that look bad and are backloaded into the second half.

I think Winston is touchy, but his biggest problem is turnovers and if he cleans them up in New Orleans and takes them to a playoff berth, he earns his spot on the QB page and Watson is worthy of being removed, as his career is looking like it could be on ice.

Yeah, it's way too early for Winston. If he performs like he did this weekend all year, the team will make the playoffs for sure, but it's a long season. I am almost certain Watson will wind up here eventually, but I'm also giving him another year; QBs have sat out seasons before, and we really are completely in the dark regarding the investigation.

True. Quarterbacks have missed lots of time due to injuries or whatever, but can come back and perform to the levels they were before, if not better. I think we'll give Watson this season and maybe the next to see if he returns and how he performs.

Yeah, go for it.

I think it is smart. I say we should do that for everything that uses two or more words: OC- Offensive Coordinator DC- Defensive Coordinator HC- Head Coach DT- Defensive Tackle NT- Nose Tackle OT- Offensive Tackle OG- Offensive Guard DE- Defensive End MLB- Middle Linebacker OLB- Outside Linebacker FS- Free Safety SS- Strong Safety CB- Cornerback WR- Wide Receiver

Offense and Defense/Special Teams makes sense. Same split as our other player pages.

Offense and defense split makes sense to me.

Seems fine on both.

I think removing them is fine, as the other guy might be more of a bust or name that will become forgotten by most people 10-15 years down the line. And Chad Johnson was a player most people will remember for the extravagant celebrations.

I think it could time for splitting the page. I'm for deleting the names above, but keeping them filed away somewhere, as some of these players could well be drafted ahead of a Hall of Famer at their position in future years, although some of them might be unlikely to be drafted ahead of a Hall of Fame player. But that begs the question of J.P. Losman, as I added him under QB busts, would he still be considered a bust under the new criteria, as he was drafted in the 1st round of the most stacked QB draft in recent memory in 2004.

A bust is a little like the classic "you know it when you see it". There are probably a bunch of examples that lack the "story" we've talked about before. Looking at your posted list there, I'd leave Carroll (he was totally incompetent, has the fun nickname, has the "from starter to cut in season" thing going for him, and I'll take any excuse I can get to list Packers here. (So damn many on the other pages...) Fletcher has the "the Dolphins took him over Drew Brees who they were also scouting heavily" thing, Jenkins was basically given up on after one target as a rookie, Kumerow is one of the biggest reaches ever (imagine a guy projected as a 4th rounder going in the 1st nowadays), Maybin was another for just how embarassingly pathetic he was on the field (plus the story of how he played in his 220s as a DE), and Werner I really added to throw more dirt on Grigson but I could see him being cut.

1st round (excepting Hackenberg for the reasons stated in his write up), cut/traded/option not picked up before end of rookie deal, and...something else notable. Something that tells that "story".

Everybody has a different definition for a bust. Maybe we should have a vote or something, try to be democratic about this. Like you said, BeerBaron, maybe the busts and disappointments categories could be kept and let in its own separate useful note. I think putting it on Notorious Figures, is well, a bit much, as when I think of notorious, I think of evil, not disappointing or "horrible" play. Notorious figures should be for those who were despicable on the field and/or off the field, like Bill Romanowski.

I think it's fine to keep together for now, but that's a logical split if we get there one day.

After giving it some more thought, a way to put it for the busts might be: 1st round pick (or well-detailed exceptions like Hack), Cut/Traded/Option Not Picked Up before expiration of rookie deal (again, with any exceptions being detailed as to why they still qualify), and some else notable. Simply being a bust doesn't cut it. They need to have some other element - they were just spectacularly bad, they were taken ahead of a great player, there was something unusual about their college and/or pro circumstance, they were part of a historically implausible string of busts (looking at you, Browns), etc. etc. We don't necessarily need to define it, but just something more than "1st round pick who wasn't good".

I think the criteria could be some of the following:

• 1st Round Pick (Can be from Supplemental Draft if they were an outstanding college player like Bosworth)
• Heisman Trophy Winner/Finalist (Archie Griffin definitely falls in here)
• Cut/Traded/Option Not Picked Up before expiration of rookie deal (Sam Darnold falls here)
• Was Plagued by Injuries that ended or cut short their careers (Ki-Jana Carter and Jahvid Best fall into this part)
• Older than the average draft pick (looking at you Brandon Weeden)
• Plus, folders can be made/kept for teams that have a propensity for drafting bad players high routinely, like the Browns, Lions, and Bengals.

I don't think we need to stipulate reasons for notability at this point. The first and third in your list for sure, the rest fall under the "something else notable" I have above. It can be open to the reader's interpretation and the old "know it when we see it" further up.

Sorry that this turned into a longer thread, but thanks for everyone's thoughts.

I'm with Baron, story/x-factor is the key thing for me. The thing that triggered me thinking of more criteria was going back through draft lists on my last round of edits and being reminded of how the majority of first round picks never amount to anything and could feasibly be added under the "first rounder who didn't last four years" thing, which would just be a tremendous mess.

I see reasons to keep all of the ones I've listed, so I'll keep them... save for Benjamin, which is one I'm pretty sure I wrote.

Even without that win record, him catching his own TD pass in that playoff game alone keeps him out of the bust zone. Def a disappointment though.

I agree. I will go through and put him under disappointments, where his contemporary Jameis Winston currently resides.

My initial reaction is to put him on the main page. He's had a very productive career and I don't think his issues overshadow it.

Main page is good for Suh. Suh has straightened up his penalty image since leaving Jim Schwartz and Detroit behind.

Any player with a penchant for off the field issues or flat out dirty play (with no signs of stopping it) is notorious. It's real problematic when the off the field issues start to outshine a HOF career and the HOF career becomes forgotten and the player is more known for getting into trouble at every whim.

I'm guessing the latter.

Probably just speaking as a SoCaller who has had to watch this guy the last five years, but it is remarkable that a #1 pick who played in a Super Bowl can be so completely uninteresting.

Yeah, without the initial shot-in-the-arm that Mc Vay provided him, he goes the way of a bust pretty quickly. Once he could no longer scheme around Goff's weaknesses, that offense slowed way down.

I think Goff could be considered an average player at worst. But he is borderline bust though, considering he was drafted with a first round pick.

Oh yeah, he's a total shyster who is going to blow up that franchise. I've read that some in the organization have compared him to Littlefinger or Wormtongue...not exactly promising comparisons.

Think Mitch is a "wait and see" case. Him and Jameis (the player I keep holding myself back from adding) both fit the criteria of not being a starter by the end of their rookie contracts, but both also have a lot going for them in their records. We might need to wait a few years to have the full perspective on where to put them. That said, it's also a wiki, and we can always move 'em around later.

Been giving this some more thought and I think Winston (and Mariota for that matter) can go under disappointments. In the event that either undergo a career resurrection, we can move them, as you say. I'm still going to hold on Trubisky for the rest of this year at least. I'm leaning toward bust over disappointment at this point, but will wait.

You still plan on holding out on Trubisky 'til the end of the year?

I suppose not. I'll see if I can get around to it later today.

See my other comment, meant to reply but posted a new comment instead.

Question: What do we think about Ndamukong Suh? I'd probably put him on the main page since I think his penalty issue isn't all that egregious and he hasn't had any real off-field issues, but my mom's a Lions fan, so I wanna make sure I'm not being biased.

^ Whoops

I kinda like the current folder arrangement on this page. Notorious is still a third the length of the "Main" page, so I don't feel like we need to split up the draft busts just yet (though the Browns having their own folder would be pretty funny).

As for further dividing the main page, I think we're ok for now- we're a little less than 200,000 characters away from where we will absolutely need to split it. Once we get there, though, offense/other would definitely be the way to go, though it would certainly skewed toward offense; I believe the quarterback folder is longer than the defensive/special teams folders combined.

No real surprise on the quarterbacks, lol. Like I said, we've covered a very good portion of the current elites and past greats, so there shouldn't be any large editions heading forward, just adding a few players a year who establish themselves as great.