Grading Every NFL Team's Offseason So Far

I truely dont know if i could rate the eagles yet.

 

Bleacher Report and their slideshows freaking suck

 

Seriously whats with the Bleacher Report garbage?

 

Wasn't intended to be a slight against anyone here, so I apologize if it seemed that way. But I repeat, heck Bleacher Report lol, they're awful.

 

most of the sites on the web that write nfl articles and college articles flat out suck anyhow! i think the folks here really do a good job in bringing info in here better than a lot of those sites do! they get a big hip,hip hooray from me! thanks for all the great work you guys do!

 

If i had to pick the 3 teams that improved greatly in the off season i would pick the 49ers,seahawks,and the browns. although the ravens lost a lot of good players,i think they had a decent offseason too by picking up elvis dumervil and chris canty. if they can have somebody step it up on offense and contribute half as much as bolden did last year,they should still make the playoffs.

 

I hate the "draft grades" and the "who improved" articles. Give me an article on who did best and worst in 2008. That you could at least have some substance and history behind...

 

I Don't remember 2008! lol :icon_cheesygrin:

 

I give the Packers a C because there's just too many unanswered questions. We'll see how the running game looks by the bye week.

 

The only reason the Bucs aren't an A is because of Mike Glennon. If we had actually used that pick on a position of need, our off-season would look a Hell of a lot better. Signing Goldson and Crabtree. Trading for Revis and Carimi. Drafting Banks and Spence. Those were all good moves. Drafting Glennon and Gholston...Da Fuq!?!

 

I have liked SF off season. Only real concern is the amount of guys recovering from injuries, especially ACLs. There are several teams that I think have had good off seasons. There are certain teams who haven't been talked about very much, like NYG, that I feel have had underrated work the last couple months.

 

Oh, I don't know. The last time I checked, they had over 10 million people reading their stuff.

 

Show me the link that provs those numbers rags.

 

Also, readership is very different than page views. I haven't seem any stats, but be careful with that. It's easy to rack up page views when you make people click 20 god**mn times to read one crapty article.

 

FindTheBest.com | Find. Compare. Decide. under who reads Bleacher Report? According to them, BR has over 12.1 million visitors to their Web site every month.

 

That such a broad stat. It could be 500k visiting 24 times a month

 

I just don't think BR is as bad as TheSnowman makes it out to be.

Remember when Lesnar was in MMA before he returned this last time to WWE? In one of his matches, Taker was there. I seem to recall that Taker challenged Lesnar to a MMA bout. Not longer after that, Taker got hurt wrestling Rey Mysterio and tore his rotator cuff, which required surgery. This put Taker on the shelf for a while. BR got the news from a wrestling Web site. I mentioned Taker's injury here, but no one here seemed to know anything about it.