AARoads Forum
Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Sports => Topic started by: webny99 on February 04, 2020, 02:35:53 PM
-
Welcome to the AARoads thread for NFL discussion since 2020!
For the 2021 season >> click here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26378.msg2571129#msg2571129)
For the 2022 season >> click here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26378.msg2708526#msg2708526)
For the 2023 season >> click here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26378.msg2818975#msg2818975)
Original title: NFL (2020 Season)
Because the dust has hardly settled from Super Bowl 54, it's time to start talking about the offseason and looking ahead to the 2020 NFL season!
There are plenty of draft and free agency narratives in the NFL this year: Joe Burrow, Tua Tagovailoa, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees, just to name a few.
Can teams that had unexpected success this year replicate that next year? (SF 49ers, Buffalo Bills, Tennessee Titans...) Can teams that underperformed make a playoff run next year? (Dallas Cowboys, LA Rams, Cleveland Browns...)
Will the Patriots extend their dynasty? Can the Ravens supplant the Chiefs as the team to beat in the AFC?
Will the 2020 NFC West be the greatest division of all time? Can the Saints overcome their run of postseason woes?
I'm excited to see all that and more unfurl over the next 12 months! :coffee:
My way-to-early Super Bowl matchup for next year: Ravens vs. Saints! :nod:
-
Justin Herbert will have the best overall stats of any rookie next year. (Helps he'll be picked later in the draft for a better team)
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
-
You forgot the XFL
-
You forgot the XFL
That’s going to require a separate thread.
-
You forgot the XFL
So will most of America
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
From ESPN:
The games will be held on back-to-back Sundays; dates and opponents will be announced in April when the league reveals the schedule. However, the Jaguars did protect home games against Pittsburgh and Chicago, so the opponents will come from this list: Houston, Indianapolis, Tennessee, Cleveland, Detroit and Miami.
It's likely to be between mid-October and mid-November because the annual Florida-Georgia game is being played at TIAA Bank Field on Oct. 31 and the Jaguars have either played their London game that week or had a bye week at that time.
(A practical note: The NFL traditionally aims to have a London game the last Saturday of October because the time difference is one hour less due to the US remaining on DST a week longer than Western Europe does. Who knows whether that would influence the timing for the Jaguars' games.)
You forgot the XFL
So will most of America
I might have considered going to the XFL game at Audi Field this Saturday except the weather is supposed to be atrocious. I made it to one soccer game last season and it seemed like a nice little stadium, though we didn't get to look around a whole lot.
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
What are you talking about? Of course they’re playing the Bears and Steelers. Just not in London.
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
What are you talking about? Of course they’re playing the Bears and Steelers. Just not in London.
That's what I meant. I thought you were saying the London games would be the Bears or Steelers and I was pointing out that they will not.
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
From ESPN:
The games will be held on back-to-back Sundays; dates and opponents will be announced in April when the league reveals the schedule. However, the Jaguars did protect home games against Pittsburgh and Chicago, so the opponents will come from this list: Houston, Indianapolis, Tennessee, Cleveland, Detroit and Miami.
It's likely to be between mid-October and mid-November because the annual Florida-Georgia game is being played at TIAA Bank Field on Oct. 31 and the Jaguars have either played their London game that week or had a bye week at that time.
(A practical note: The NFL traditionally aims to have a London game the last Saturday of October because the time difference is one hour less due to the US remaining on DST a week longer than Western Europe does. Who knows whether that would influence the timing for the Jaguars' games.)
You forgot the XFL
So will most of America
I might have considered going to the XFL game at Audi Field this Saturday except the weather is supposed to be atrocious. I made it to one soccer game last season and it seemed like a nice little stadium, though we didn't get to look around a whole lot.
Thanks for the ESPN link Mr. Hoo (or should I say...Dr. Hoo ;))! It seems there was a misunderstanding there for a little while. I guess not having the info in front of me didn’t help much LOL
-
There is reporting of the Jags playing two games in London which is apparently driving down the cost of tickets.
They will be playing the Bears and Steelers.
They will NOT be playing the Bears or Steelers. The Jaguars asked to keep those games in Jacksonville because they can actually sell out those games.
What are you talking about? Of course they’re playing the Bears and Steelers. Just not in London.
That's what I meant. I thought you were saying the London games would be the Bears or Steelers and I was pointing out that they will not.
No I wasn’t. It does appear that my sentence spacing failed to do the trick. I should mention that I have had issues with formatting via my iPhone thanks to the small as heck keyboard and I am due for a newer and bigger phone and in fact this particular iPhone (SE) was discontinued by Apple in September of 2018, so I could use a new phone already since I have had mine for over two years now. I am already decided on moving back to Android, which Android phone that will be is still a little up in the air but I have a good idea of what brand to switch to once I make my final decision which should be soon. I was, until September of last year, using my iPad to type and format my posts, but my thought process was inspired to ship my old iPad to Apple via FedEx and then use credits towards a new one...but I got distracted and failed to meet the shipping deadline but that wasn’t really my fault as the shipping material was sent to my house a little late which made it practically impossible for me to meet the deadline...way to go Apple! I do still have a need for a proper computing device but whether that will be a new iPad or a Chromebook Pixelbook Go by Google. So that needs to be figured out as well.
-
Predicting a winner in the NFL is a real crapshoot. Parity + injuries + poor playoff performance when it counts = Throw a dart at the dartboard.
That being said, at least we can easily select teams who are potential contenders. Let's look at who is not predicted to be in the race and see if any of them can be the darkhorse. Las Vegas Raiders anyone? That team would lead my list. Who's on yours?
Rick
-
Predicting a winner in the NFL is a real crapshoot. Parity + injuries + poor playoff performance when it counts = Throw a dart at the dartboard.
That being said, at least we can easily select teams who are potential contenders. Let's look at who is not predicted to be in the race and see if any of them can be the darkhorse. Las Vegas Raiders anyone? That team would lead my list. Who's on yours?
Rick
Barring injuries, teams with elite QBs can be counted on to be contenders every year. This would include Chiefs, Ravens, Packers, Saints, Seahawks, Steelers and Texans
Teams without elite QBs can contend with a strong defense and running game. Candidates for 2020 would include 49ers, Titans, Bills, Raiders, Colts, Vikings, Bears and Patriots
-
Predicting a winner in the NFL is a real crapshoot. Parity + injuries + poor playoff performance when it counts = Throw a dart at the dartboard.
That being said, at least we can easily select teams who are potential contenders. Let's look at who is not predicted to be in the race and see if any of them can be the darkhorse. Las Vegas Raiders anyone? That team would lead my list. Who's on yours?
Rick
Barring injuries, teams with elite QBs can be counted on to be contenders every year. This would include Chiefs, Ravens, Packers, Saints, Seahawks, Steelers and Texans
Teams without elite QBs can contend with a strong defense and running game. Candidates for 2020 would include 49ers, Titans, Bills, Raiders, Colts, Vikings, Bears and Patriots
And then you have the Redskins. :-D :banghead: :-D :banghead:
-
Predicting a winner in the NFL is a real crapshoot. Parity + injuries + poor playoff performance when it counts = Throw a dart at the dartboard.
It's not too big of a challenge to correctly predict more than half of games correctly. 538's NFL predictions (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-nfl-predictions/games/) went 164-86-6 (0.656) this past season. But, there is always some upsets, usually between 2 and 8 per week. So, getting above 2/3 - 3/4 of games correct presents some major challenges, because there is a certain degree of randomness. Sometimes you can feel it, sometimes you just can't, and stuff happens seemingly out of the blue.
-
The Bills, after facing on of the easiest schedules this past season (AFC North, NFC East), face a much tougher one next season.
It gets harder in terms of both travel (AFC West and NFC West - yikes!) and opponents (Chiefs, Niners, Seahawks, Rams, Steelers, Titans).
I believe they are also, along with the Texans and Saints, one of the only teams to face 3 or more of this year's championship contenders:
-Obviously this year's SB matchup hailed from the divisions the Bills play, and they also get the Titans since they both finished 2nd in their division.
-The Texans get the Titans (obviously) plus the Chiefs, who also finished first, and the Packers, since they play the NFC North next year.
-The Saints get the other 1st place finishers Niners and Packers, plus the Chiefs since they play the AFC West.
I couldn't find any other teams that drew 3 or more championship teams. The Ravens are the only other team to get both the Chiefs and Titans, but they get the NFC East (so no Niners or Packers), while the Eagles get both of those, but no Chiefs or Titans.
And then of course the entire AFC East and the Saints are the only ones that get both Super Bowl teams.
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
-
As for the England games, I believe that Miami will be "home" with theirs. They host Kansas City this coming season. I can't see that one going overseas. Miami is playing the NFC West and will host Seattle and the L.A. Rams.
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
A small part of me wants to exorcise that part of you.
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
"Superb owl"...LOL! Sometimes typos can turn out so funny!
Rick
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
"Superb owl"...LOL! Sometimes typos can turn out so funny!
Rick
Last year in Jeopardy, the Jeopardy round had a category of Super Bowl(dealing with football), then in Double Jeopardy there came the category of Superb Owl (dealing with owls).
-
Yeah. Superb Owl is common now.
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
"Superb owl"...LOL! Sometimes typos can turn out so funny!
Rick
That's not a typo, that's common parlance. 🦉
-
A small part of me wants to see Brady re sign with the Pats, and then throw for 5000 yards, 45 touchdowns, and win a superb owl. As crazy as it sounds it's not completely out of the question.
"Superb owl"...LOL! Sometimes typos can turn out so funny!
Rick
That's not a typo, that's common parlance.
Thanks for letting me know! Superb Owl it is!
Rick
-
Super Bowl™ is a trademark that cannot be used without permission
Superb owl is not.
-
This Forum's superb owl will not be commenting on this.
-
This Forum's superb owl will not be commenting on this.
Who is that? (sorry)
-
This Forum's superb owl will not be commenting on this.
Who is that? (sorry)
The one usually on the fritz I bet.
-
This Forum's superb owl will not be commenting on this.
Who is that? (sorry)
The one usually on the fritz I bet.
whoooooo is that????
-
Super Bowl™ is a trademark that cannot be used without permission
Superb owl is not.
What if they are referring to minutia about that 48 lane bowling center on Appleton, WI's northeast side?
(Appleton's Super Bowl predates the NFL's version by about four years and, under a very basic tenet of USA federal trademark law, can keep right on using that name.)
:spin:
Mike
-
That sounds like that Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois that is totally unrelated to the Florida chain. That also explains why there are no locations of the Florida chain within 20 miles of Mattoon.
Super Bowl™ is a trademark that cannot be used without permission
Superb owl is not.
Only in the USA. I, in Spain, can use the term "Super Bowl" freely :sombrero:.
-
That sounds like that Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois that is totally unrelated to the Florida chain. That also explains why there are no locations of the Florida chain within 20 miles of Mattoon.
Super Bowl™ is a trademark that cannot be used without permission
Superb owl is not.
Only in the USA. I, in Spain, can use the term "Super Bowl" freely :sombrero:.
The 'keep back' radius from their 1968 settlement is 30 miles/50 km. The family restaurant in Mattoon recently struck a deal with the chain to allow a franchised chain location to be opened at I-70/IL 130 (interchange 119) in Greenup, IL, which is at the very edge of that radius and a location that is completely inconsequential to them.
Mike
-
There's a good chance that the playoffs will be changed in 2020, and the regular season expanded in 2021. The NFL doesn't get very many things right when it comes to logistics, but it nailed the 16 game regular season (and its scheduling format), and the 6 team/conference playoffs. This is a classic example of fixing something that is not broken. Come on, NFL.
-
I like the premise of expanding the playoffs, but not the premise of the #7 seed potentially ousting the #2 seed.
The only thing worse than what happened to the Ravens this year, would be going 14-2, getting no bye, and losing in the wild card round.
It would be cool to see a #3 or #4 seed - or even a #5 seed!! - host the divisional round. This year, for example, say the #2 Packers lost to the #7 Rams in the wild card (very possible). #3 Saints and #4 Eagles also lost, so the #5 Seahawks would be hosting the divisional round!
-
There's a good chance that the playoffs will be changed in 2020, and the regular season expanded in 2021. The NFL doesn't get very many things right when it comes to logistics, but it nailed the 16 game regular season (and its scheduling format), and the 6 team/conference playoffs. This is a classic example of fixing something that is not broken. Come on, NFL.
– You know, Mr. Burns, you’re the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
– Yes, but I’d trade it all for a little more.
-
Not that I never mind talking football, why was this thread separated from the main football thread?
-
Not that I never mind talking football, why was this thread separated from the main football thread?
Good question.
-
Not that I never mind talking football, why was this thread separated from the main football thread?
I figured why not?
With all the narratives surrounding the season, it may well end up being a fairly lengthy sub-topic.
Also, it's specific to the NFL, for those of us that don't care about the other leagues. ;-)
-
As the events of the past few weeks have unfolded, I am now genuinely curious about whether an NFL team is likely to sign Colin Kaepernick this season, and if so, which team would it be?
(I'm hoping that we, the forum users, can be trusted with a chance to have this discussion if we keep it civil and sports-related, so please don't squander it or get this thread locked.)
-
As the events of the past few weeks have unfolded, I am now genuinely curious about whether an NFL team is likely to sign Colin Kaepernick this season, and if so, which team would it be?
(I'm hoping that we, the forum users, can be trusted with a chance to have this discussion if we keep it civil and sports-related, so please don't squander it or get this thread locked.)
I don't know, he hasn't played football for like 4 years.
-
As the events of the past few weeks have unfolded, I am now genuinely curious about whether an NFL team is likely to sign Colin Kaepernick this season, and if so, which team would it be?
(I'm hoping that we, the forum users, can be trusted with a chance to have this discussion if we keep it civil and sports-related, so please don't squander it or get this thread locked.)
I'm surprised no one had signed him by now even with his history. A lot of teams have had far worse backups on hand and could have used the veteran presence. They were probably concerned with him being an "instigator." On the other hand, picking him up now only proves that that's why a team was blackballing him before, so there's probably >50% chance he stays unemployed.
-
Teams feared the political reaction. That's the sole reason he wasn't signed by anyone.
-
Teams feared the political reaction. That's the sole reason he wasn't signed by anyone.
I don't know why sports leagues would fear political reaction. It might cause a media storm at the outset, but long term, large numbers of people don't stop watching sports for political reasons. I know a lot of very liberal people who never even thought about giving up their Cubs season tickets when the family of Trump's campaign finance manager bought the team. There were never going to be large numbers of people turning on a team if they signed Kapernick.
-
Teams feared the political reaction. That's the sole reason he wasn't signed by anyone.
I don't know why sports leagues would fear political reaction. It might cause a media storm at the outset, but long term, large numbers of people don't stop watching sports for political reasons. I know a lot of very liberal people who never even thought about giving up their Cubs season tickets when the family of Trump's campaign finance manager bought the team. There were never going to be large numbers of people turning on a team if they signed Kapernick.
I think teams worried about the "distraction" of the political reaction his signing would bring. I mean, did you see what happened when Trump called out the NFL?
-
Teams feared the political reaction. That's the sole reason he wasn't signed by anyone.
I don't know why sports leagues would fear political reaction. It might cause a media storm at the outset, but long term, large numbers of people don't stop watching sports for political reasons. I know a lot of very liberal people who never even thought about giving up their Cubs season tickets when the family of Trump's campaign finance manager bought the team. There were never going to be large numbers of people turning on a team if they signed Kapernick.
I think teams worried about the "distraction" of the political reaction his signing would bring. I mean, did you see what happened when Trump called out the NFL?
The general view on kneeling and the like has drastically shifted recently. Drew Brees got ripped for saying something that would have been the consensus two years ago. There's no reason for him not to at least be on a roster, though it'll be tough for him to make much of an impact after two seasons away from football.
-
On the other hand, picking him up now only proves that that's why a team was blackballing him before, so there's probably >50% chance he stays unemployed.
That's a good point, but I guess I'm not sure anything is gained by not just owning up to it. Everyone knows that he was blackballed anyways at this point. And the NFL has walked back on other aspects of their 2017 stance, so this seems like the right time for a team to just do it if they're on the fence.
I can think of at least a dozen or so teams where he would be a major improvement as backup, even despite his years off. I wouldn't even be mad if the Bills signed him, although it wouldn't have really make any sense to pick up Jake Fromm in the draft if that was in the cards.
I think teams worried about the "distraction" of the political reaction his signing would bring. I mean, did you see what happened when Trump called out the NFL?
Ahem. I mean, I agree - although when you say "teams", it's really the owners that we're talking about. Clearly most of the owners tend to align more with Trump than not, while the majority of fans and players probably wouldn't really care that much. But please, this is exactly where threads like this get off the rails, so let's keep it to Kaepernick.
-
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29314127/cowboys-texans-players-test-positive-covid-19-sources-say
Cowboys and Texan players are tested positive for COVID-19.
-
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/19/report-49ers-player-tests-positive-for-covid-19-player-among-group-working-out-in-nashville/A member of the 49ers has been tested positive for COVID-19.
-
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/19/report-49ers-player-tests-positive-for-covid-19-player-among-group-working-out-in-nashville/A member of the 49ers has been tested positive for COVID-19.
And his likelihood of developing ANY symptoms beyond those of the mildest of colds?
Mike
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/19/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-football-return-329645
Now COVID-19 and Football has become a political issue as seen here.
-
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/19/report-49ers-player-tests-positive-for-covid-19-player-among-group-working-out-in-nashville/A member of the 49ers has been tested positive for COVID-19.
And his likelihood of developing ANY symptoms beyond those of the mildest of colds?
Mike
Somewhere around 10% of at least having a fever, maybe 5% severe illness and 2% hospitalization. Do you want to infect an entire league and find out? I personally do not.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/19/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-football-return-329645
Now COVID-19 and Football has become a political issue as seen here.
and we are not to discuss politics in this thread thanks
-
https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/06/around-10-nfl-teams-have-covid-19-cases (https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/06/around-10-nfl-teams-have-covid-19-cases)
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29339696/nflpa-advises-players-not-work-together-due-coronavirus (https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29339696/nflpa-advises-players-not-work-together-due-coronavirus)
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-during-covid-19-pandemic-revisiting-disrupted-and-shortened-seasons-in-league-history/
Here is how the NFL is responding to COVID-19.
-
https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/06/around-10-nfl-teams-have-covid-19-cases (https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/06/around-10-nfl-teams-have-covid-19-cases)
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29339696/nflpa-advises-players-not-work-together-due-coronavirus (https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29339696/nflpa-advises-players-not-work-together-due-coronavirus)
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-during-covid-19-pandemic-revisiting-disrupted-and-shortened-seasons-in-league-history/
Here is how the NFL is responding to COVID-19.
just don't read the comments section
-
https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/06/around-10-nfl-teams-have-covid-19-cases
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29339696/nflpa-advises-players-not-work-together-due-coronavirus
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-during-covid-19-pandemic-revisiting-disrupted-and-shortened-seasons-in-league-history/ (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-during-covid-19-pandemic-revisiting-disrupted-and-shortened-seasons-in-league-history/)
Here is how the NFL is responding to COVID-19.
just don't read the comments section
Great Point here given the situation.
-
Only 2 days left until the NFL season begins!
https://www.nfl.com/news/2020-nfl-kickoff-to-celebrate-start-of-101st-season
I didn't have much optimism for this season for most of the summer, but things have really started to shape up in the past few weeks. I think it really helped the NFL to have the other leagues restart first.
-
Let's just hope it can last for more than a month
-
It wouldn't be surprising if all four leagues were playing on the same day, with MLB playing a truncated season, and the NBA and NHL seasons ending later than usual, at a time when they'd normally have their training camps by now. But webny99 is right, it helped the NFL to have the other three leagues restart first, because it was the only one already in offseason mode when the first COVID cases hit back in March.
-
It wouldn't be surprising if all four leagues were playing on the same day, with MLB playing a truncated season, and the NBA and NHL seasons ending later than usual, at a time when they'd normally have their training camps by now. But webny99 is right, it helped the NFL to have the other three leagues restart first, because it was the only one already in offseason mode when the first COVID cases hit back in March.
Tomorrow is the first of what might be several days.
1 NFL regular season game
1 NHL playoff game
1 NBA playoff game
12 MLB regular season games
Also, 1 regular season MLS game and 3 regular season WNBA games.
-
Normally I believe this is only possible in late October and early November. Something about a "sports equinox" I think?
-
Chiefs win 34-20! Wasn't even that close until the Texans caught up some in the fourth quarter.
-
KC dominated. They've got a really good team again this year.
Reduced crowd was odd to look at. Not as odd as it'll be to see the empty seats on Sunday for other games. But still; strange times.
Makes me wonder how much those fans paid for those seats with the reduced supply. I have to imagine season ticket holders made bank on the secondary market.
-
KC dominated. They've got a really good team again this year.
Reduced crowd was odd to look at. Not as odd as it'll be to see the empty seats on Sunday for other games. But still; strange times.
Makes me wonder how much those fans paid for those seats with the reduced supply. I have to imagine season ticket holders made bank on the secondary market.
They've got a really good team if Mahomes can stay healthy. Last year they missed out on the no. 1 seed because Mahomes was dealing with injuries for a good chunk of the year, and they needed the upset of the season to get a first round bye at all. This year nobody but the top seed gets a bye, and the last seven Super Bowl winners all had first round byes. It doesn't help that Baltimore has the league's easiest schedule and a roster that rivals KC's.
So the point is, nothing is a forgone conclusion.
-
My goodness, the Lions simply cannot close out games against the Bears. That was last year's Thanksgiving game all over again. :meh: :coffee:
In Bills news, Josh Allen delivered the first 300-yard game in regulation since... Kyle Orton in 2014. Yikes. But I'll take the 10-point win over the Jets. No better way to start the season than 1-0!
-
Week 1 has been very interesting. Quite a few upsets and surprises. Maybe that's to be expected with all the offseason drama from both COVID and the countless major trades/free agent signings. With two and half games still to go, here are my thoughts:
- Packers look extremely good on offense. Aaron Rodgers must be out to prove that all the drama surrounding their first round draft choice is a joke. If they play like that all year, they will be as tough as anyone to beat. The Vikings are not an easy opponent either.
- Eagles suck. All I heard from the media all offseason was how great Carson Wentz is. You would've thought he built the pyramids of Giza alone while carrying 52 men on his back from the way they were talking. I've never wanted to see a team lose as badly as I wanted to see the overrated, injury-prone, directionless Eagles lose today. Thank you Washington Football Team for doing something positive for once.
- Patriots look decent, but it's too early to tell, and it's not like they played the '85 Bears. The Dolphins are young and still rebuilding.
- Buccaneers looked tired and in over their heads. I'm not sure why anyone expected a team with so many new players and no preseason to flourish immediately, especially against possibly the best team in the NFC in the Saints. They will get better as the season goes on.
- Cardinals over Niners was easily the upset of the week. The Super Bowl hangover is a real thing. If this game is any indication, the Kyler Murray/DeAndre Hopkins connection will be one of the best in the league.
-
Week 1 has been very interesting. Quite a few upsets and surprises. Maybe that's to be expected with all the offseason drama from both COVID and the countless major trades/free agent signings. With two and half games still to go, here are my thoughts:
- Packers look extremely good on offense. Aaron Rodgers must be out to prove that all the drama surrounding their first round draft choice is a joke. If they play like that all year, they will be as tough as anyone to beat. The Vikings are not an easy opponent either.
- Eagles suck. All I heard from the media all offseason was how great Carson Wentz is. You would've thought he built the pyramids of Giza alone while carrying 52 men on his back from the way they were talking. I've never wanted to see a team lose as badly as I wanted to see the overrated, injury-prone, directionless Eagles lose today. Thank you Washington Football Team for doing something positive for once.
- Patriots look decent, but it's too early to tell, and it's not like they played the '85 Bears. The Dolphins are young and still rebuilding.
- Buccaneers looked tired and in over their heads. I'm not sure why anyone expected a team with so many new players and no preseason to flourish immediately, especially against possibly the best team in the NFC in the Saints. They will get better as the season goes on.
- Cardinals over Niners was easily the upset of the week. The Super Bowl hangover is a real thing. If this game is any indication, the Kyler Murray/DeAndre Hopkins connection will be one of the best in the league.
I followed along with the Jets for amusement, and they appear to be waiting for the preseason to begin.
-
Vikings have a lot of new defensive personnel so it was probably going to be tough to expect them to be ready for this game. It’s also Week 1. But it’s disheartening to find that Green Bay kicked out ass in every facet on a “neutral field” . I think that Week 16 matchup from last season and the nasty taste it left was still fresh in a lot of Vikings fans minds. This game actually went on a similar trajectory where it was close for a while but the Packers steadily just took control of the game and the Vikings had no answer. It’s frustrating because I hate losing to this frickin team so much.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
Week 1 has been very interesting. Quite a few upsets and surprises. Maybe that's to be expected with all the offseason drama from both COVID and the countless major trades/free agent signings. With two and half games still to go, here are my thoughts:
- Eagles suck. All I heard from the media all offseason was how great Carson Wentz is. You would've thought he built the pyramids of Giza alone while carrying 52 men on his back from the way they were talking. I've never wanted to see a team lose as badly as I wanted to see the overrated, injury-prone, directionless Eagles lose today. Thank you Washington Football Team for doing something positive for once.
When I checked partway through the second quarter the Eagles were shutting down the Football Team. However now I see they did turn the scoreboard back.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
Week 1 has been very interesting. Quite a few upsets and surprises. Maybe that's to be expected with all the offseason drama from both COVID and the countless major trades/free agent signings. With two and half games still to go, here are my thoughts:
- Eagles suck. All I heard from the media all offseason was how great Carson Wentz is. You would've thought he built the pyramids of Giza alone while carrying 52 men on his back from the way they were talking. I've never wanted to see a team lose as badly as I wanted to see the overrated, injury-prone, directionless Eagles lose today. Thank you Washington Football Team for doing something positive for once.
When I checked partway through the second quarter the Eagles were shutting down the Football Team. However now I see they did turn the scoreboard back.
Yep. An interception before halftime eventually got Football Team a TD. Some bad coaching during that series, along with ineptitude during the 2nd half, cost the Eagles what should've been an easy Week 1 win.
-
In other news: Rain is wet, sun rises in the east, Lions blow a 17-point fourth quarter lead, head coach says "We've just got to coach better."
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Why are you freaking out over a team changing its mascot?
-
And I thought the Death Star was an ugly stadium. That monstrosity in LA looks like it was designed by an over-produced sci-fi movie. They'll add the hologram screens in post-production, so just randomly point at the air in front of you while inside.
Also, how do they keep pigeons from just flying in and pooping on everything? They love hanging out underneath things like a giant stadium roof with no walls.
And in 15 years when both their teams have skipped town again... :-D
Kudos to La Rams for holding on to that slim lead for so long in the 4th, tho. Looks like another year of lofty expectations in Big D that will end in a first round playoff loss again, at best.
Brady should've just retired. What's he trying to prove down there in Tampa? As much delight as I may find in seeing his eminently punchable face lose like that, this all seems like one giant ego stroke attempt. All that "GOAT" shit is in his head.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Why are you freaking out over a team changing its mascot?
Who's freaking out? Sounds like you're freaking out in response to my comment.
Edited to add: With that said, nice one here by some AP hack.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eh01Id5WAAE9cqO?format=jpg&name=small)
-
In other news: Rain is wet, sun rises in the east, Lions blow a 17-point fourth quarter lead, head coach says "We've just got to coach better."
I'm torn between the Bengals missed field goal or the Lions missed catch as the most inexplicable loss of the week. They were both so bad, like head-in-hands bad.
Looks like another year of lofty expectations in Big D that will end in a first round playoff loss again, at best.
Expectations are certainly lofty, but at this point it would take an absolute meltdown/disaster/sub-.500 season to lose the division, so I'd say a first-round playoff loss is pretty much the worst-case scenario.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Why are you freaking out over a team changing its mascot?
Who's freaking out? Sounds like you're freaking out in response to my comment.
Edited to add: With that said, nice one here by some AP hack.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eh01Id5WAAE9cqO?format=jpg&name=small)
I'm not freaking out, I'm asking a question.
-
In other news: Rain is wet, sun rises in the east, Lions blow a 17-point fourth quarter lead, head coach says "We've just got to coach better."
I'm torn between the Bengals missed field goal or the Lions missed catch as the most inexplicable loss of the week. They were both so bad, like head-in-hands bad.
Looks like another year of lofty expectations in Big D that will end in a first round playoff loss again, at best.
Expectations are certainly lofty, but at this point it would take an absolute meltdown/disaster/sub-.500 season to lose the division, so I'd say a first-round playoff loss is pretty much the worst-case scenario.
The Rams are no joke. I think people are underestimating them because they declined last year compared to 2018, but they still went 9-7 in the league's best division last year. They are a good team. No shame in losing to them by 3 points, especially with it being Dallas' first game with a new head coach and no preseason.
-
With that said, nice one here by some AP hack.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eh01Id5WAAE9cqO?format=jpg&name=small)
hashtag: dad jokes
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
I kind of like that. I may have to borrow this. That might be an even more fun way to troll people than what I said above (which obviously succeeded in pushing thspfc's buttons).
-
I followed along with the Jets for amusement, and they appear to be waiting for the preseason to begin.
I take it 2:03 PM every Monday on WFAN is appointment radio. OH THE PAIN!!
And why not Washington FC?
-
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
I kind of like that. I may have to borrow this.
Same here! I'll definitely have to track that as the season goes on. Of course, it requires an Eagles win, so we'll see how that goes.
-
I tweeted that idea at a local transportation reporter who happens to be a big Philadelphia Football Team fan and he just retweeted it with the comment "Oh this is excellent."
Someone else replied to express concern that a team that fails to qualify for the playoffs might have the "Football Team" moniker at the end of the year. My thought is, so what?
-
I tweeted that idea at a local transportation reporter who happens to be a big Philadelphia Football Team fan and he just retweeted it with the comment "Oh this is excellent."
Someone else replied to express concern that a team that fails to qualify for the playoffs might have the "Football Team" moniker at the end of the year. My thought is, so what?
It will most likely be a team that doesn't qualify. At latest it will be a team that is eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.
-
I tweeted that idea at a local transportation reporter who happens to be a big Philadelphia Football Team fan and he just retweeted it with the comment "Oh this is excellent."
Someone else replied to express concern that a team that fails to qualify for the playoffs might have the "Football Team" moniker at the end of the year. My thought is, so what?
It will most likely be a team that doesn't qualify. At latest it will be a team that is eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.
It very likely trickles down to a team like Miami, Detroit, Cincinnati, or the New Yorks, and stays there, but one example of another possibility is that Chicago could pick it up from Jacksonville in Week 16 and then in Week 17 Green Bay is resting Aaron Rodgers having already locked in their playoff seed and they take it into the playoffs.
-
Yeah, I mean given that the whole point is that it's transferred between losing teams, wouldn't you expect it to end up with a non-playoff team? I don't see why that would matter; it would only reinforce the negative connotation.
-
Yeah, I mean given that the whole point is that it's transferred between losing teams, wouldn't you expect it to end up with a non-playoff team? I don't see why that would matter; it would only reinforce the negative connotation.
Just award the Jets the name of New York Football Team and be done with it.
-
Just award the Jets the name of Not in New York Football Team and be done with it.
-
Just award the Jets the name of Not in New York AFC Football Team and be done with it.
Nicely done, although that could also be the G-men, so we better specify AFC :)
-
I was really, really hoping that FiveThirtyEight's NFL forecasting game (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-nfl-forecasting-game/results/) would return this year, but with week 1 in the books and no sign of it, I have to assume it's not coming back. I know they're focused on other things (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/) this year, so I get it, but after I had so much fun with it last year, I was pretty bummed out, so I decided to play me against their forecast the old-fashioned way this season.
It's pretty simple: you pick a percentage chance of winning for each matchup, and gain points if they win, and lose points if they lose. The catch is that you can gain up to 25, but lose up to 75, so it's costly to be over-confident. There's a full scale for calculating points which I can post if anyone is interested. And if anyone else wants to play, I'm happy to figure out a way for us to do it here.
Their model earned 32.8 points this week, and I earned 10.5 points.
-
Just award the Jets the name of Not in New York AFC Football Team and be done with it.
Nicely done, although that could also be the G-men, so we better specify AFC :)
Hey, the Giants at least played regular season football. And they're already the New York Football Giants.
-
Just award the Jets the name of Not in New York AFC Football Team and be done with it.
Nicely done, although that could also be the G-men, so we better specify AFC :)
Hey, the Giants at least played regular season football. And they're already the New York Football Giants.
On paper, losing by 10 to the Bills ≈ losing by 10 to the Steelers.
The difference is the Bills would have had 40+ points if not for missed field goals and Josh Allen fumbles, and the Jets would have had 10 if not for a garbage time touchdown.
-
Don't know why people were complaining about Browns-Bengals being on TNF. Two mediocre teams from the same state, a division rivalry, two interesting QB's including this year's #1 draft pick, both after their first W of the season. What's not to like?
-
Don't know why people were complaining about Browns-Bengals being on TNF. Two mediocre teams from the same state, a division rivalry, two interesting QB's including this year's #1 draft pick, both after their first W of the season. What's not to like?
TNF is all about two mediocre teams.
-
Don't know why people were complaining about Browns-Bengals being on TNF. Two mediocre teams from the same state, a division rivalry, two interesting QB's including this year's #1 draft pick, both after their first W of the season. What's not to like?
TNF is all about two mediocre teams.
Calling the Bengals mediocre is generous.
-
I think the main reason the two Ohio teams were chosen for last night is symbolic: September 17, 1920, was the date of the meeting in Canton at which the APFA (which later changed its name to the NFL) was founded.
-
TNF is all about two mediocre teams.
Calling the Bengals mediocre is generous.
But calling Burrow mediocre is anti-generous.
Burrow had 61 (!) pass attempts last night. That's the most by a rookie since '01 and the second-most of all time!
-
TNF is all about two mediocre teams.
Calling the Bengals mediocre is generous.
But calling Burrow mediocre is anti-generous.
Burrow had 61 (!) pass attempts last night. That's the most by a rookie since '01 and the second-most of all time!
Right. Burrow looks really good, the Bengals are bad.
-
I think the main reason the two Ohio teams were chosen for last night is symbolic: September 17, 1920, was the date of the meeting in Canton at which the APFA (which later changed its name to the NFL) was founded.
Interesting fact, thanks for pointing that out. That would certainly makes sense.
Anyway, I enjoyed watching the Browns win the game last night. Our next game is against the Football Team.
-
Burrow isn't going to last if he keeps getting hit like he did last night.
-
I think the main reason the two Ohio teams were chosen for last night is symbolic: September 17, 1920, was the date of the meeting in Canton at which the APFA (which later changed its name to the NFL) was founded.
Interesting fact, thanks for pointing that out. That would certainly makes sense.
Anyway, I enjoyed watching the Browns win the game last night. Our next game is against the Football Team.
No, it's against the Eagles!
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
-
Snakes alive, that Falcons-Cowboys ending was something. Cowboys win 40-39 after holding a lead for literally zero seconds the entire game. The Falcons are truly cursed on Texas soil.
-
Snakes alive, that Falcons-Cowboys ending was something. Cowboys win 40-39 after holding a lead for literally zero seconds the entire game. The Falcons are truly cursed on Texas soil.
And the Jags are truly cursed on Tennessee soil. T For Texas, T For Tennessee (with apologies to Jimmie Rodgers).
-
Still digesting the Bills somewhat wild 31-28 win in Miami. The offense looks much improved - that was the best game by a Bills QB in my lifetime, easily. Now if only the defense can step up and look like it did last year (they only allowed 28 or more points once the entire 2019 season), then we can legitimately talk Super Bowl or at least deep playoff run.
-
How bout dem Cowboys! I never lost confidence in Dak Prescott to at least make it a nervous ending for Atlanta. Anyone who still says Prescott isn't a franchise QB is legally insane. Based off last year and the first two weeks of this year he's easily top 10, maybe top 5. The Eagles also suck, again. Surprise! :rolleyes:
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
Philadelphia lost again, so they reamain "Football Team" for another week.
-
How bout dem Cowboys! I never lost confidence in Dak Prescott to at least make it a nervous ending for Atlanta.
There was a stat going around that entering yesterday, teams since 1933 with at least 39 points and 0 turnovers are 440-0!!!
With the inexplicable Falcons loss, that record falls to 440-1. :rofl:
-
How bout dem Cowboys! I never lost confidence in Dak Prescott to at least make it a nervous ending for Atlanta.
There was a stat going around that entering yesterday, teams since 1933 with at least 39 points and 0 turnovers are 440-0!!!
With the inexplicable Falcons loss, that record falls to 440-1. :rofl:
Prescott also became the first player in NFL history to throw for at least 300 yards and run for at least 3 touchdowns in a game. If that's not remarkable enough, consider that he threw for 450 yards and one touchdown, giving him 4 TD's total.
-
How bout dem Cowboys! I never lost confidence in Dak Prescott to at least make it a nervous ending for Atlanta.
There was a stat going around that entering yesterday, teams since 1933 with at least 39 points and 0 turnovers are 440-0!!!
With the inexplicable Falcons loss, that record falls to 440-1. :rofl:
Prescott also became the first player in NFL history to throw for at least 300 yards and run for at least 3 touchdowns in a game. If that's not remarkable enough, consider that he threw for 450 yards and one touchdown, giving him 4 TD's total.
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
-
How bout dem Cowboys! I never lost confidence in Dak Prescott to at least make it a nervous ending for Atlanta.
There was a stat going around that entering yesterday, teams since 1933 with at least 39 points and 0 turnovers are 440-0!!!
With the inexplicable Falcons loss, that record falls to 440-1. :rofl:
Prescott also became the first player in NFL history to throw for at least 300 yards and run for at least 3 touchdowns in a game. If that's not remarkable enough, consider that he threw for 450 yards and one touchdown, giving him 4 TD's total.
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
They certainly did yesterday. Game of the season so far, and it could end up being the game of the season period.
-
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
They certainly did yesterday. Game of the season so far, and it could end up being the game of the season period.
Definitely the wildest finish, but not the best game, period.
-
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
They certainly did yesterday. Game of the season so far, and it could end up being the game of the season period.
Definitely the wildest finish, but not the best game, period.
What game was better in your opinion? Patriots/Seahawks is the only one that really compares.
-
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
They certainly did yesterday. Game of the season so far, and it could end up being the game of the season period.
Definitely the wildest finish, but not the best game, period.
What game was better in your opinion? Patriots/Seahawks is the only one that really compares.
Chiefs/Chargers and Bengals/Browns were both a lot of fun.
Falcons/Cowboys looked like a blowout early and there was not a lot of suspense/excitement until the very end, which makes it harder to see it as a great game.
-
When the Falcons lose, they make it memorable.
They certainly did yesterday. Game of the season so far, and it could end up being the game of the season period.
Definitely the wildest finish, but not the best game, period.
What game was better in your opinion? Patriots/Seahawks is the only one that really compares.
Chiefs/Chargers and Bengals/Browns were both a lot of fun.
Falcons/Cowboys looked like a blowout early and there was not a lot of suspense/excitement until the very end, which makes it harder to see it as a great game.
Chiefs/Chargers was good if you like a lot of field goals. Otherwise, not so much. Bengals/Browns was two bad teams.
-
I don't think increased scoring makes a game more exciting. The Falcons built a lead on Cowboy turnovers, then lost it due to general incompetence. That's not all that interesting to me.
The Chiefs / Chargers was a close game throughout, with a rookie quarterback looking good in his first start. Much more interesting IMO.
-
Here's an interesting thought to ponder: With an extra wild-card team this season, could the entire NFC West make the playoffs?
That's the only division I could see potentially pulling it off: they've got the reigning NFC champ and the other three teams are all 2-0, plus two of the usual runners up, Vikings and Eagles, haven't looked good. Even so, Bucs, Bears, or someone else will probably play spoiler, but it's certainly still a possibility.
-
Here's an interesting thought to ponder: With an extra wild-card team this season, could the entire NFC West make the playoffs?
That's the only division I could see potentially pulling it off: they've got the reigning NFC champ and the other three teams are all 2-0, plus two of the usual runners up, Vikings and Eagles, haven't looked good. Even so, Bucs, Bears, or someone else will probably play spoiler, but it's certainly still a possibility.
Not really a possibility. Do they have four of the seven best teams in the NFC? You could argue they do. But each team in that division has to play each other twice. Not everyone can do well within the division - there will be at least one team that ends up with 4-6 divisional losses. At that point there's very little room for error on the rest of your schedule. At most I could see three teams from that division making it. Maybe Seahawks, Rams, Cardinals, in that order.
-
Raiders new stadium looks like a giant plug-in air freshener.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
Philadelphia lost again, so they reamain "Football Team" for another week.
Philadelphia didn’t lose today, but they didn’t win either–they tied Cincinnati 23—23 and thus continue to be "Football Team."
-
In Bills news:
My goodness. My blood pressure is never going to be the same after that Bills-Rams game. The Bills blew a 28-3 lead - yes, exactly like the Falcons did in the infamous Super Bowl - went down 32-28 after giving up four straight TD's, marched down the field and squeaked in a touchdown on 4th down - after a controversial PI call - to finish 35-32 with 15 seconds remaining.
Happy to be 3-0, but I have serious, serious questions about this defense. The Bills went the entire 2019 season without allowing 32 points, and now they allow 28 to the Dolphins and 32 to the Rams in back-to-back weeks.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
Philadelphia lost again, so they reamain "Football Team" for another week.
Philadelphia didn’t lose today, but they didn’t win either–they tied Cincinnati 23—23 and thus continue to be "Football Team."
In light of the bizarre event, I say the Bengals also absorb the Football Team nickname. So there will now be two Football Teams. What does everyone else think?
-
The Falcons simply cannot play with a lead. They just can't. I feel bad for all their fans.
Cowboys/Seahawks is about halfway through the second quarter and looks to be a good game. I get the feeling that the Cowboys this year are one of those teams that can beat anybody, and can also lose to anybody.
-
The entire town of South Park attended the Denver Football Team’s game:
https://dailysnark.com/2020/09/27/denver-broncos-have-the-entire-town-of-south-park-in-the-stands-during-todays-game/
-
The Falcons simply cannot play with a lead. They just can't. I feel bad for all their fans.
Cowboys/Seahawks is about halfway through the second quarter and looks to be a good game. I get the feeling that the Cowboys this year are one of those teams that can beat anybody, and can also lose to anybody.
They need to get the Jets on their schedule.
-
Dak Prescott has just set the NFL record for most total passing yards in back-to-back games, with 922 (!) over the last two games. He broke Jared Goff's record of 912, set in weeks 4 and 5 of 2019. He also becomes the first Cowboys QB, and one of the first NFL QB's, to throw for over 400 yards twice in a row. This guy is unreal.
-
This season I'm following "the" Football Team just because :sombrero:.
....
I’ve decided I think I’ll call every team by "[City Name] Football Team" (or, for New York and LA, "[City Name] [NFC or AFC] Football Team" except for continuing to call the local team the Washington Redskins.
Let's spice things up a bit. "Football Team" gets to take an opponent's nickname when they win.
Washington beat Philadelphia in Week 1, so Washington is now the Eagles and Philadelphia is "Football Team." When Philadelphia wins their next game, they get to take the opponent's nickname and "Football Team" passes to them. See who gets stuck as "Football Team" at the end of the season.
Philadelphia lost again, so they reamain "Football Team" for another week.
Philadelphia didn’t lose today, but they didn’t win either–they tied Cincinnati 23—23 and thus continue to be "Football Team."
In light of the bizarre event, I say the Bengals also absorb the Football Team nickname. So there will now be two Football Teams. What does everyone else think?
No, the nickname is like a cup, in case of a tie the team that has it retains it.
-
Philadelphia didn’t lose today, but they didn’t win either–they tied Cincinnati 23—23 and thus continue to be "Football Team."
In light of the bizarre event, I say the Bengals also absorb the Football Team nickname. So there will now be two Football Teams. What does everyone else think?
No, the nickname is like a cup, in case of a tie the team that has it retains it.
I agree. I think Football Team needs a clear cut win, and their opponent a clear cut loss, in order for the name to be transferred.
-
Dak Prescott has just set the NFL record for most total passing yards in back-to-back games, with 922 (!) over the last two games. He broke Jared Goff's record of 912, set in weeks 4 and 5 of 2019. He also becomes the first Cowboys QB, and one of the first NFL QB's, to throw for over 400 yards twice in a row. This guy is unreal.
Not immune to mistakes though. He absolutely should not have thrown the ball where he did on that last play (especially after doing such a good job to stay on his feet). There's no reason to go for the end zone on 3rd down with less than 10 seconds left after the rest of the original play has already fallen apart. He should have thrown it away...but instead, he threw a Hail Mary pass that was pretty much a guaranteed interception.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure I would describe him as "unreal." His team got caught up in a shootout for the second straight game so he threw the ball a lot.
-
Dak Prescott has just set the NFL record for most total passing yards in back-to-back games, with 922 (!) over the last two games. He broke Jared Goff's record of 912, set in weeks 4 and 5 of 2019. He also becomes the first Cowboys QB, and one of the first NFL QB's, to throw for over 400 yards twice in a row. This guy is unreal.
Not immune to mistakes though. He absolutely should not have thrown the ball where he did on that last play (especially after doing such a good job to stay on his feet). There's no reason to go for the end zone on 3rd down with less than 10 seconds left after the rest of the original play has already fallen apart. He should have thrown it away...but instead, he threw a Hail Mary pass that was pretty much a guaranteed interception.
All quarterbacks make mistakes. Some (ahem, Wentz) make a lot more than others. It's just about impossible to throw 57 passes and not make a mistake or two.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure I would describe him as "unreal." His team got caught up in a shootout for the second straight game so he threw the ball a lot.
Trailing by 15-20 points is not a shootout.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure I would describe him as "unreal." His team got caught up in a shootout for the second straight game so he threw the ball a lot.
Trailing by 15-20 points is not a shootout.
Playing a couple games where you have to score 30+ points is a shootout. Coming from behind only means he had to pass the ball.
Decent quarterback. Hardly "unreal."
-
Yeah, I'm not sure I would describe him as "unreal." His team got caught up in a shootout for the second straight game so he threw the ball a lot.
Trailing by 15-20 points is not a shootout.
Playing a couple games where you have to score 30+ points is a shootout. Coming from behind only means he had to pass the ball.
Decent quarterback. Hardly "unreal."
Ok
-
One word to describe my feelings about the Ravens: Distaste.
They get so much (IMO too much) respect because they can be so dominant, and dominance can get you to 14-2, but it can't beat the best teams. I don't care how dominant you are against the Browns and Texans of the world: You have to be able to overcome deficits and put up points quickly to be taken seriously as a Super Bowl contender, and they proved again last night that they're not there yet.
-
One word to describe my feelings about the Ravens: Distaste.
They get so much (IMO too much) respect because they can be so dominant, and dominance can get you to 14-2, but it can't beat the best teams. I don't care how dominant you are against the Browns and Texans of the world: You have to be able to overcome deficits and put up points quickly to be taken seriously as a Super Bowl contender, and they proved again last night that they're not there yet.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast. I’ve always had questions about his intelligence - he scored a 13 from 50 on the Wonderlic. Josh Allen, who was drafted the same year, scored 37.
-
Bills are somehow first in the AFC in points scored so far this year with 93, only narrowly ahead of the Chiefs and Ravens who both have 91. Packers and Seahawks are atop the NFC with 122 and 111 respectively.
Now here's a weird stat: the Giants have allowed 79 points, the fewest in the NFC East, and they're 0-3! Just goes to show how terrible that division really is.
Bucs and Bears have allowed the fewest points overall, with just 61 each.
-
One word to describe my feelings about the Ravens: Distaste.
They get so much (IMO too much) respect because they can be so dominant, and dominance can get you to 14-2, but it can't beat the best teams. I don't care how dominant you are against the Browns and Texans of the world: You have to be able to overcome deficits and put up points quickly to be taken seriously as a Super Bowl contender, and they proved again last night that they're not there yet.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast. I’ve always had questions about his intelligence - he scored a 13 from 50 on the Wonderlic. Josh Allen, who was drafted the same year, scored 37.
That is lazy. He was top ten last year in numerous passing categories, including passer rating, which incorporates none of what he brings to the game with his running ability.
Calling him "fake" and "stupid" while comparing him to Josh Allen is hilarious. I've seen both play plenty in their careers, and there is nothing to suggest that he plays dumber than Allen. In fact, up until this year, I thought Allen wasn't very intelligent in his decision making.
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
-
One word to describe my feelings about the Ravens: Distaste.
They get so much (IMO too much) respect because they can be so dominant, and dominance can get you to 14-2, but it can't beat the best teams. I don't care how dominant you are against the Browns and Texans of the world: You have to be able to overcome deficits and put up points quickly to be taken seriously as a Super Bowl contender, and they proved again last night that they're not there yet.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast. I’ve always had questions about his intelligence - he scored a 13 from 50 on the Wonderlic. Josh Allen, who was drafted the same year, scored 37.
That is lazy. He was top ten last year in numerous passing categories, including passer rating, which incorporates none of what he brings to the game with his running ability.
But it does incorporate what he brings with his running ability. Do you know anything about the present-day NFL? Most defenses are scared of Jackson running all over them, so they sell out against the run and basically let him throw the ball. The Chiefs, for whatever reason, did not do that on Monday, and it worked. Jackson is 0-3 against the Chiefs and 21-3 against the rest of the NFL. They have his number. Whatever he is doing is not good enough. If he wants to win a conference title, he'll need to get past the Chiefs, as well as one or two other quality teams who will pose a real threat to how he wants to play. We've already seen two teams - Chargers in '18 and Titans in '19 - completely humiliate him on his home field in the playoffs. Going 14-2 is impressive. Winning MVP is extremely impressive. But you know some other quarterbacks who have gone 12-4, or 13-3, or 14-2? Mitch Trubisky, Jared Goff, Dak Prescott, Matt Ryan . . .
Calling him "fake" and "stupid" while comparing him to Josh Allen is hilarious. I've seen both play plenty in their careers, and there is nothing to suggest that he plays dumber than Allen. In fact, up until this year, I thought Allen wasn't very intelligent in his decision making.
For one, I was not comparing his talent or ability to Allen. I was merely comparing his intelligence to Allen. Anyone with eyes can see that Jackson is the superior athlete. If you put me in charge of redrafting the NFL, I would pick Jackson long before Allen. I also did not call him stupid. I said I have questions about his intelligence. Maybe he's very smart, but math is not his strong suit. I don't know.
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
They went 12-4 two years ago. I'm more surprised by the Steelers and Bills being 3-0 than I am by the Bears being 3-0.
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
Only team in NFL history to overcome multiple 16-point 4th quarter deficits in a single season, and it's only Week 3!
They went 12-4 two years ago. I'm more surprised by the Steelers and Bills being 3-0 than I am by the Bears being 3-0.
But the Bills and Steelers are actually 3-0 type teams. The Bears are, well... not. They're a defense-first team that's been lucky and had two improbable comebacks, plus a narrow win against the winless Giants. I think they're a fradulent 3-0, and I bet the Colts prove it this weekend.
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
Only team in NFL history to overcome multiple 16-point 4th quarter deficits in a single season, and it's only Week 3!
They went 12-4 two years ago. I'm more surprised by the Steelers and Bills being 3-0 than I am by the Bears being 3-0.
But the Bills and Steelers are actually 3-0 type teams. The Bears are, well... not. They're a defense-first team that's been lucky and had two improbable comebacks, plus a narrow win against the winless Giants. I think they're a fradulent 3-0, and I bet the Colts prove it this weekend.
Yes, they're a bad 3-0. Maybe the worst 3-0 team in five years.
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
Only team in NFL history to overcome multiple 16-point 4th quarter deficits in a single season, and it's only Week 3!
They went 12-4 two years ago. I'm more surprised by the Steelers and Bills being 3-0 than I am by the Bears being 3-0.
But the Bills and Steelers are actually 3-0 type teams. The Bears are, well... not. They're a defense-first team that's been lucky and had two improbable comebacks, plus a narrow win against the winless Giants. I think they're a fradulent 3-0, and I bet the Colts prove it this weekend.
Yes, they're a bad 3-0. Maybe the worst 3-0 team in five years.
Speaking as a Bears fan, I have to agree. They would be 0-3 right now if not for:
-D'Andre Swift's drop on the 2nd-to-last play week 1
-Golden Tate's OPI on the last play week 2
-Tashaun Gipson's INT with a minute left week 3
It definitely felt like the Falcons were exposing the Bears before #BigDickNick did his thing yet again. I'm curious to see how the Colts gameplan on defense now that he's officially the starter moving forward. Playing zone and daring Mitch to complete a deep ball won't work anymore :spin:
-
Somehow Bears are 3-0, only in 2020 :-D :D :pan:
Only team in NFL history to overcome multiple 16-point 4th quarter deficits in a single season, and it's only Week 3!
They went 12-4 two years ago. I'm more surprised by the Steelers and Bills being 3-0 than I am by the Bears being 3-0.
But the Bills and Steelers are actually 3-0 type teams. The Bears are, well... not. They're a defense-first team that's been lucky and had two improbable comebacks, plus a narrow win against the winless Giants. I think they're a fradulent 3-0, and I bet the Colts prove it this weekend.
Yes, they're a bad 3-0. Maybe the worst 3-0 team in five years.
The Bears have a shit offensive line. They've had a shit offensive line since about 1995. A QB change can only do so much with an OL this bad. It's incomprehensible that they drafted a TE with one of their two 2nd round picks when they have an OL this bad. Patrick Mahomes couldn't win more than 10 games behind this OL.
There was discussion about Lamar Jackson and the reason his stats are so much better than his talent is his OL. Same with Garoppolo.
-
Jackson is 0-3 against the Chiefs and 21-3 against the rest of the NFL. ...
We've already seen two teams - Chargers in '18 and Titans in '19 - completely humiliate him on his home field in the playoffs.
Right, which means his regular season record is 21-1 against non-Chiefs teams. The one loss? A 40-25 loss to the Browns exactly one year ago yesterday.
-
Jackson is 0-3 against the Chiefs and 21-3 against the rest of the NFL. ...
We've already seen two teams - Chargers in '18 and Titans in '19 - completely humiliate him on his home field in the playoffs.
Right, which means his regular season record is 21-1 against non-Chiefs teams. The one loss? A 40-25 loss to the Browns exactly one year ago yesterday.
Yes, but we're not talking about only the regular season.
-
Here's the latest Titans COVID update: https://www.nfl.com/news/pittsburgh-steelers-tennessee-titans-game-postponed-until-monday-or-tuesday
It was always just a matter of time before positive COVID tests occured in-season, and here we are.
-
Here's the latest Titans COVID update: https://www.nfl.com/news/pittsburgh-steelers-tennessee-titans-game-postponed-until-monday-or-tuesday
It was always just a matter of time before positive COVID tests occured in-season, and here we are.
Steelers/Titans will not be played W4. Officially postponed indefinately
The “simplest” solution will be to move the Ravens Bye and Play Steelers/Titans to W7 (Originally Titans Bye Week; Steelers/Ravens scheduled), and move Steelers/Ravens to W8 (Originally Steelers and Ravens Bye Week). Titans and Steelers Bye becomes W4
-
Here's the latest Titans COVID update: https://www.nfl.com/news/pittsburgh-steelers-tennessee-titans-game-postponed-until-monday-or-tuesday
It was always just a matter of time before positive COVID tests occured in-season, and here we are.
Steelers/Titans will not be played W4. Officially postponed indefinately
The “simplest” solution will be to move the Ravens Bye and Play Steelers/Titans to W7 (Originally Titans Bye Week; Steelers/Ravens scheduled), and move Steelers/Ravens to W8 (Originally Steelers and Ravens Bye Week). Titans and Steelers Bye becomes W4
Email the commish. I don't trust anyone in the NFL to have good ideas.
-
Dak Prescott over his last three games . . .
112 completions on 162 attempts
1,424 yards
8 passing touchdowns, 3 rushing touchdowns
If he kept up those stats for the entire season, he would break just about every single season passing record ever set, other than touchdowns, which he would lose out on to a handful of other quarterbacks.
-
Dak Prescott over his last three games . . .
112 completions on 162 attempts
1,424 yards
8 passing touchdowns, 3 rushing touchdowns
If he kept up those stats for the entire season, he would break just about every single season passing record ever set, other than touchdowns, which he would lose out on to a handful of other quarterbacks.
Impressive, but his team is 1-3. His team has gotten behind by large margins early in games, forcing them to throw every down. The Cowboys should try playing better earlier in games, or find a defense.
-
And they got their only win due the other team imploding.
-
Dak Prescott over his last three games . . .
112 completions on 162 attempts
1,424 yards
8 passing touchdowns, 3 rushing touchdowns
If he kept up those stats for the entire season, he would break just about every single season passing record ever set, other than touchdowns, which he would lose out on to a handful of other quarterbacks.
Impressive, but his team is 1-3. His team has gotten behind by large margins early in games, forcing them to throw every down. The Cowboys should try playing better earlier in games, or find a defense.
Did I say anything about the Cowboys? I'm talking about Dak Prescott. The Cowboys are mediocre, but Dak is really good. Why is the concept of a really good QB playing for a not-so-good team so hard to grasp?
-
And they got their only win due the other team imploding.
If we're going to play that game, one of their losses featured a crucial and very controversial call. In another one of their losses they were one play away from overtime.
-
Today was the first time Cleveland has beaten Dallas since 1994
-
And they got their only win due the other team imploding.
If we're going to play that game, one of their losses featured a crucial and very controversial call. In another one of their losses they were one play away from overtime.
Cool.
They still lost.
-
And they got their only win due the other team imploding.
If we're going to play that game, one of their losses featured a crucial and very controversial call. In another one of their losses they were one play away from overtime.
Cool.
They still lost.
They still beat the Falcons. All I'm asking for is consistency. If you're allowing some what-ifs, then you need to allow all the what-ifs. It's much easier to just look at the result and see it for what it is. The Cowboys are 1-3. They are not lucky to not be 0-4, they are not unlucky to not be 3-1. They are 1-3.
-
Things aren’t great for football in Texas these days. Houston is 0-4 after the Vikings beat them today. Texans had a chance to tie but Fuller couldn’t complete a late TD catch.
-
Things aren’t great for football in Texas these days. Houston is 0-4 after the Vikings beat them today. Texans had a chance to tie but Fuller couldn’t complete a late TD catch.
I had a very clear rooting interest in that one. Still bitter about that playoff game the Bills lost to the Texans this (yes, THIS!) January, and wanted to see the Vikings get their first win after the Diggs trade, which has been great for Buffalo so far.
-
The Cowboys are mediocre, but Dak is really good.
I agree. The offense is good, the defense is terrible. Average those together and you get mediocre.
They've been competitive all four weeks, but opposing offenses have gone wild against that defense.
And... with a 25-20 win over the 49ers, their first win of the season (!), the Eagles are now in first place in the NFC East at 1-2-1.
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
-
This has got to be a record...the Eagles in Week 4 finally get their first win, and immediately take sole possession of first place!
-
This has got to be a record...the Eagles in Week 4 finally get their first win, and immediately take sole possession of first place!
Everyone laughed at them for playing to tie against the Bengals... but the NFC East is so terrible that the non-loss actually paid off! :-D
-
A tie can make the difference come playoff-clinching time. I recall a year in which some team won its division because of a tie, going 9—6—1 and thus finishing half a game ahead of a 9—7—0 team.
-
A tie can make the difference come playoff-clinching time. I recall a year in which some team won its division because of a tie, going 9–6–1 and thus finishing half a game ahead of a 9–7–0 team.
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
-
This has got to be a record...the Eagles in Week 4 finally get their first win, and immediately take sole possession of first place!
Everyone laughed at them for playing to tie against the Bengals... but the NFC East is so terrible that the non-loss actually paid off! :-D
Exactly. Anyone who thinks that ties aren't much better than losses is out of their mind. In 2018 the Colts chose to lose instead of tying against the Texans, and that costed them a division title. Now the Eagles are on top of the NFC East after choosing to tie instead of throwing the game away. There's no telling how important that tie might be, especially in a division where the odds are that only one team is making the playoffs.
-
A tie can make the difference come playoff-clinching time. I recall a year in which some team won its division because of a tie, going 9—6—1 and thus finishing half a game ahead of a 9—7—0 team.
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
For another example, the 2014 Carolina Panthers made the postseason as NFC South champions with a 7-8-1 record. That tie let them edge out the Saints' 7-9 record.
-
A tie can make the difference come playoff-clinching time. I recall a year in which some team won its division because of a tie, going 9–6–1 and thus finishing half a game ahead of a 9–7–0 team.
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
I just looked up the standings. It was 2008 and the tie got them in as a wild-card, rather than winning the division, but the principle is the same, and certainly Oscar noted another example.
-
The first pandemic disruptions to the schedule were this week.
Still trying to understand why the normal Monday night game was bumped back half an hour. The games are going to overlap anyway and they're on different networks, so what is the point of a half hour delay?
It also doesn't matter to me, but it just seems like one of those stupid things that comes up because some bean counter thinks it'll mean more eyeballs for light beer, boner pill, and pickup truck commercials.
-
The first pandemic disruptions to the schedule were this week.
Still trying to understand why the normal Monday night game was bumped back half an hour. The games are going to overlap anyway and they're on different networks, so what is the point of a half hour delay?
It also doesn't matter to me, but it just seems like one of those stupid things that comes up because some bean counter thinks it'll mean more eyeballs for light beer, boner pill, and pickup truck commercials.
The NFL and ESPN have pushed the scheduled MNF game of Falcons/Packers another 10 minutes, to Kickoff at 9 PM EDT/8 PM CDT. Why another 10 minutes, or better yet, why the NFL didn’t announce that as the start time yesterday, who knows. I thought 8:50/7:50 was goofy anyway
-
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
For another example, the 2014 Carolina Panthers made the postseason as NFC South champions with a 7-8-1 record. That tie let them edge out the Saints' 7-9 record.
Quite by coincidence, the Panthers' tie that year also was with the Bengals, who seem to be a magnet for ties.
-
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
For another example, the 2014 Carolina Panthers made the postseason as NFC South champions with a 7-8-1 record. That tie let them edge out the Saints' 7-9 record.
Quite by coincidence, the Panthers' tie that year also was with the Bengals, who seem to be a magnet for ties.
Careful, someone at ESPN is going to link the Bengals' tendency to tie often with the fact that they haven't won any Super Bowls.
Seriously though, ties are so rare yet they happen in the same matchups a disporportionate amount of times. The Packers and Vikings have tied twice at Lambeau in the last eight years, in 2013 and 2018.
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
No, there cannot be. There are tiebreakers down to "coin flip."
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
Sarcastic answer: Yes, any time two teams that have already clinched playoff berths play each other.
Serious answer: Not in a very long time, if ever. But a similar thing I can remember was on the final day of the 2018 regular season, when the Steelers, who had just lost out on their division title, needed the Colts and Titans to tie to advance to the playoffs.
-
I'm so happy right now.
The Texans FINALLY fired Bill O'Brien!!!!! :sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
Sarcastic answer: Yes, any time two teams that have already clinched playoff berths play each other.
Serious answer: Not in a very long time, if ever. But a similar thing I can remember was on the final day of the 2018 regular season, when the Steelers, who had just lost out on their division title, needed the Colts and Titans to tie to advance to the playoffs.
I think he’s referring to a scenario like this:
(Note: this is under the old format of two wild cards, since a third was added for 2020)
We’ll have Teams A, B, and C. Let’s say C has beaten both A and B and has the head to head tiebreakers over both.
Teams A and B are 9-6 heading into Week 17 leading the Wild Card positions and are playing. Team C is 8-7 and can get into the playoffs with a win as they’ll overtake the loser of A vs. B. Teams A and B can play for a tie because no matter what C does, C can’t have a better win percentage than either A or B (9-6-1 vs. 9-7).
-
That 9-6-1 team was the Eagles.
That tie was with the Bengals.
For another example, the 2014 Carolina Panthers made the postseason as NFC South champions with a 7-8-1 record. That tie let them edge out the Saints' 7-9 record.
Quite by coincidence, the Panthers' tie that year also was with the Bengals, who seem to be a magnet for ties.
Yes, now. From their inception in 1968 through 2007, the Bengals played in exactly one tie game (in 1969 vs. the Houston Oilers). Since 2008, they have played in four tie games (vs. the Eagles in 2008, vs. the Panthers in 2014, vs. the Redskins in 2016, and again vs. the Eagles this year). And this is with the old sudden death/new overtime rules!
As far as teams that have tied the most since the OT rule was introduced for the 1974 NFL season, Green Bay has had 6 ties, Philadelphia has had 5 ties, and Cincinnati, Arizona, and Minnesota have had 4 ties. Minnesota and Green Bay have tied three times since 1974 in games played against one another (1978, 2013, and 2018).
For purists, a tie is like "kissing your sister". However, since 1972, tie games have counted in the standings. Before, tie games were not counted. For example, in 1971, Kansas City finished the season with a 10-3-1 record and a .769 winning percentage. In 1972, the NFL decreed that ties would be counted as "a half-game win and a half-game loss". So, in that year, Oakland finished the season 10-3-1 with a .750 winning percentage.
So, using a hypothetical scenario, using the old system, team A finishes 9-2-3 (San Diego's record in 1965) and team B finishes 10-3-1 in the same division. Team A would advance to the playoffs with a .818 winning percentage and team B would have been left out or have been a wild card with a .769 winning percentage. Under the "tie counts" system, both team A and team B would have .750 winning percentages and then would have to go to the NFL tiebreaker procedures to determine the division champion.
In other words, it is always better to play for a tie, if you must, because it is a half-win rather than chancing a win, falling short, and having an "L" on your record.
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
Sarcastic answer: Yes, any time two teams that have already clinched playoff berths play each other.
Serious answer: Not in a very long time, if ever. But a similar thing I can remember was on the final day of the 2018 regular season, when the Steelers, who had just lost out on their division title, needed the Colts and Titans to tie to advance to the playoffs.
I think he’s referring to a scenario like this:
(Note: this is under the old format of two wild cards, since a third was added for 2020)
We’ll have Teams A, B, and C. Let’s say C has beaten both A and B and has the head to head tiebreakers over both.
Teams A and B are 9-6 heading into Week 17 leading the Wild Card positions and are playing. Team C is 8-7 and can get into the playoffs with a win as they’ll overtake the loser of A vs. B. Teams A and B can play for a tie because no matter what C does, C can’t have a better win percentage than either A or B (9-6-1 vs. 9-7).
Could you imagine what the conspiracy theorists would say if that situation ever did happen? Especially if New England was involved? :nod:
-
Has there ever been an "if we tie we both advance to playoffs" situation in American football or hockey? (Baseball and basketball can't end in ties except for unusual circumstances, and I know the answer is yes for association football.)
Sarcastic answer: Yes, any time two teams that have already clinched playoff berths play each other.
Serious answer: Not in a very long time, if ever. But a similar thing I can remember was on the final day of the 2018 regular season, when the Steelers, who had just lost out on their division title, needed the Colts and Titans to tie to advance to the playoffs.
I think he’s referring to a scenario like this:
(Note: this is under the old format of two wild cards, since a third was added for 2020)
We’ll have Teams A, B, and C. Let’s say C has beaten both A and B and has the head to head tiebreakers over both.
Teams A and B are 9-6 heading into Week 17 leading the Wild Card positions and are playing. Team C is 8-7 and can get into the playoffs with a win as they’ll overtake the loser of A vs. B. Teams A and B can play for a tie because no matter what C does, C can’t have a better win percentage than either A or B (9-6-1 vs. 9-7).
Great explanation. I was trying to think of a good way to explain that it could happen, even though it's unlikely. It could also still happen if you took Team C is out of the picture (Teams A and B tie and both make the playoffs at 9-6-1), there just wouldn't be the same incentive to tie unless Team C was involved.
The same situation could also happen under the new format, say if another team had already clinched the #5 seed with an 11-5 record.
-
The Bears are maddening. I convince myself they're going to lose, and then they win. And yet, I'm not mad at myself for picking their opponents. I'm not mad at their opponents for losing, either. I'm just mad at them for winning, because they're 4-1 and should be more like 1-4.
-
The Bears are maddening. I convince myself they're going to lose, and then they win. And yet, I'm not mad at myself for picking their opponents. I'm not mad at their opponents for losing, either. I'm just mad at them for winning, because they're 4-1 and should be more like 1-4.
The Bears need to stop doing this to me on a weekly basis, all 4 wins have come with heart attacks down the stretch :crazy:
But it's definitely a very strange 4-1...I also said this in this thread after the Falcons game but they could very easily be 0-5 right now (this time courtesy of a few questionable calls against the Bucs, and Tom Brady apparently thinking it was 3rd down on the failed 4th down).
Also, this was hands down my favorite moment from the game (low-key surprised unnecessary roughness wasn't called, TBH):
https://twitter.com/FieldYates/status/1314390101087133698
-
The Bears are maddening. I convince myself they're going to lose, and then they win. And yet, I'm not mad at myself for picking their opponents. I'm not mad at their opponents for losing, either. I'm just mad at them for winning, because they're 4-1 and should be more like 1-4.
Not really. They've played five close games. Basic probability says you would expect them to win 2-3 of those games. So them being 1-4 would be just as unlikely as them being 4-1.
-
The Bears are maddening. I convince myself they're going to lose, and then they win. And yet, I'm not mad at myself for picking their opponents. I'm not mad at their opponents for losing, either. I'm just mad at them for winning, because they're 4-1 and should be more like 1-4.
The Bears need to stop doing this to me on a weekly basis, all 4 wins have come with heart attacks down the stretch :crazy:
But it's definitely a very strange 4-1...I also said this in this thread after the Falcons game but they could very easily be 0-5 right now (this time courtesy of a few questionable calls against the Bucs, and Tom Brady apparently thinking it was 3rd down on the failed 4th down).
Also, this was hands down my favorite moment from the game (low-key surprised unnecessary roughness wasn't called, TBH):
https://twitter.com/FieldYates/status/1314390101087133698
Mack used Wirf's momentum against him.
-
The Bears are maddening. I convince myself they're going to lose, and then they win. And yet, I'm not mad at myself for picking their opponents. I'm not mad at their opponents for losing, either. I'm just mad at them for winning, because they're 4-1 and should be more like 1-4.
Not really. They've played five close games. Basic probability says you would expect them to win 2-3 of those games. So them being 1-4 would be just as unlikely as them being 4-1.
But when you look at the games, that's not really the case. All four wins came down to one or two decisive plays in their favor, it's really more like they've been lucky and pulled several wins out of the fire.
-
Just for fun, I decided to try to rank the toughness of the NFL divisions heading into Week 5.
Here's what I came up with, starting with toughest and ending with easiest:
1. NFC West
2. AFC North
3. NFC South
4. NFC North
5. AFC West
6. AFC East
7. AFC South
8. NFC East
Then I ran FiveThirtyEight's Elo ratings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-nfl-predictions/) to obtain an average Elo for each division. I was surprised to find that I got 6 of 8 in the exact same order. The only difference was that my #3 NFC South and #5 AFC West were flipped, with the NFC South falling to #5 and the AFC West rising to #3. I guess the Chiefs are just that good.
-
Kyle Allen out of the game after a helmet-to-helmet hit, so Alex Smith is playing quarterback for the Redskins.
-
Kyle Allen out of the game after a helmet-to-helmet hit, so Alex Smith is playing quarterback for the Redskins.
No, it's the Washington Eagles
-
Keeping up with all the NFL schedule changes is becoming a bit complicated, so here's a guide:
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-schedule-changes-team-by-team-adjustments-after-patriots-vs-broncos-is-postponed-to-week-6/
-
Kyle Allen out of the game after a helmet-to-helmet hit, so Alex Smith is playing quarterback for the Redskins.
No, it's the Washington Eagles
He's throwing a fit over a team changing their nickname so don't pay any attention to him.
Anyways, Cowboys win. Search "Dak Prescott injury" at your own risk.
-
Heartbreaking loss for both the Cowboys and the Giants.
-
Kyle Allen out of the game after a helmet-to-helmet hit, so Alex Smith is playing quarterback for the Redskins.
No, it's the Washington Eagles
He's throwing a fit over a team changing their nickname so don't pay any attention to him.
Anyways, Cowboys win. Search "Dak Prescott injury" at your own risk.
Honestly, shut up. You’re the guy who criticizes me every time I say "Redskins." I just use the name and I don’t engage in commentary about it (until this post, because I’ve had enough of your whining). If anyone’s "throwing a fit," it’s you–you feel the need to cry about it every time I use that name, apparently because you have no sense of humor. It’s a joke! If you don’t like it, put me on ignore. Even one of the TV commentators said "Redskins" today. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! Heck, I remember a few years ago when one of the referees came out for the coin toss and called what is now known as the Las Vegas Football Team "Los Angeles" (which they haven’t been since 1994).
If it makes you feel any better, I call the NBA team the Bullets, too.
Besides, if you didn’t get the joke CoreySamson was making, then you need to reread the thread. I also note you don’t whine about the European member who goes on about coming up with different names for every arena.
-
BTW, rather creepy for Prescott to suffer that injury on the same day Alex Smith returned.
-
Kyle Allen out of the game after a helmet-to-helmet hit, so Alex Smith is playing quarterback for the Redskins.
No, it's the Washington Eagles
He's throwing a fit over a team changing their nickname so don't pay any attention to him.
Anyways, Cowboys win. Search "Dak Prescott injury" at your own risk.
Honestly, shut the fuck up. You’re the jackass who criticizes me every time I say "Redskins." If anyone’s "pitching a fit," it’s you–you feel the need to cry about it every time I use that name. If you don’t like it, put me on ignore. Even one of the TV commentators said "Redskins" today. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! Heck, I remember a few years ago when one of the referees came out for the coin toss and called what is now known as the Las Vegas Football Team "Los Angeles" (which they haven’t been since 1994).
If it makes you feel any better, I call the NBA team the Bullets, too.
Besides, if you didn’t get the joke CoreySamson was making, then you need to reread the thread. I also note you don’t whine about the European member who goes on about coming up with different names for every arena.
Wow. Can you, in good standing with basic logic, continue to insist that I'm the one who needs to be quiet when you just used language that quite obviously potrays anger? It wouldn't be a big deal if you just casually said the old name, but instead you have to go on and say you are calling every other team the "Football Team". Do you see where you come across as the disgruntled one?
And by the way, I do understand what "Washington Eagles" means.
-
Both of you, cool it, now.
-
BTW, rather creepy for Prescott to suffer that injury on the same day Alex Smith returned.
Continuity of a quarterback out of service due to a major leg injury. You know the deal.
(Dak was heading to Fort Worth but his foot wanted to visit Dallas. Too soon?)
-
BTW, rather creepy for Prescott to suffer that injury on the same day Alex Smith returned.
Continuity of a quarterback out of service due to a major leg injury. You know the deal.
(Dak was heading to Fort Worth but his foot wanted to visit Dallas. Too soon?)
My wife was in the other room and heard me make a grimacing sort of noise and wanted to know what was wrong. When I said Prescott's leg did something that reminded me of Theismann and Smith, she immediately said she didn’t need to see the video. I saw the play live and the replay once. That’s plenty.
-
BTW, rather creepy for Prescott to suffer that injury on the same day Alex Smith returned.
Continuity of a quarterback out of service due to a major leg injury. You know the deal.
(Dak was heading to Fort Worth but his foot wanted to visit Dallas. Too soon?)
Oof. A little too soon. That was tough, and I even got a bit emotional watching the footage. Wishing him a speedy recovery.
-
Those fluorescent green jerseys the Seattle Football Team are wearing tonight are hideous. They remind me of the old Orlando Thunder of the WLAF almost 30 years ago, though I seem to recall the Thunder's jerseys seeming to be an even more cloyingly bright color. Whether that was because of the lousier TV picture back then, stadium lighting issues, or just the mental cobwebs that accumulate over 30 years, I have no idea.
As an aside, turning to this game and seeing Kirk Cousins playing was sort of striking. Recall the Redskins (clearly the right name in the time period I’m about to mention) had Robert Griffin anointed as the quarterback of the future only to see him lose his job to Cousins, who wore jersey #8 (same as he does in Minnesota). They now have Dwayne Haskins, who just lost his job to Kyle Allen, who wears jersey #8. Obviously, if you’re going to start in Washington, you need to insist your backup not wear #8. :-D
-
Those fluorescent green jerseys the Seattle Football Team are wearing tonight are hideous. They remind me of the old Orlando Thunder of the WLAF almost 30 years ago, though I seem to recall the Thunder's jerseys seeming to be an even more cloyingly bright color. Whether that was because of the lousier TV picture back then, stadium lighting issues, or just the mental cobwebs that accumulate over 30 years, I have no idea.
As an aside, turning to this game and seeing Kirk Cousins playing was sort of striking. Recall the Redskins (clearly the right name in the time period I’m about to mention) had Robert Griffin anointed as the quarterback of the future only to see him lose his job to Cousins, who wore jersey #8 (same as he does in Minnesota). They now have Dwayne Haskins, who just lost his job to Kyle Allen, who wears jersey #8. Obviously, if you’re going to start in Washington, you need to insist your backup not wear #8. :-D
I don't care if you want to refer to any given team as any particular name. Football Team or otherwise. Please stop posting about it. I will start issuing warnings after this. Thanks.
-
Those fluorescent green jerseys the Seattle Football Team are wearing tonight are hideous. They remind me of the old Orlando Thunder of the WLAF almost 30 years ago, though I seem to recall the Thunder's jerseys seeming to be an even more cloyingly bright color. Whether that was because of the lousier TV picture back then, stadium lighting issues, or just the mental cobwebs that accumulate over 30 years, I have no idea.
As an aside, turning to this game and seeing Kirk Cousins playing was sort of striking. Recall the Redskins (clearly the right name in the time period I’m about to mention) had Robert Griffin anointed as the quarterback of the future only to see him lose his job to Cousins, who wore jersey #8 (same as he does in Minnesota). They now have Dwayne Haskins, who just lost his job to Kyle Allen, who wears jersey #8. Obviously, if you’re going to start in Washington, you need to insist your backup not wear #8. :-D
It didn't work for Bob Holly back in 1983. Maybe if he stuck around through 1985...
It was great to see Alex Smith back on the field. And hoping for a total recovery for Dak.
-
Those fluorescent green jerseys the Seattle Football Team are wearing tonight are hideous. They remind me of the old Orlando Thunder of the WLAF almost 30 years ago, though I seem to recall the Thunder's jerseys seeming to be an even more cloyingly bright color. Whether that was because of the lousier TV picture back then, stadium lighting issues, or just the mental cobwebs that accumulate over 30 years, I have no idea.
As an aside, turning to this game and seeing Kirk Cousins playing was sort of striking. Recall the Redskins (clearly the right name in the time period I’m about to mention) had Robert Griffin anointed as the quarterback of the future only to see him lose his job to Cousins, who wore jersey #8 (same as he does in Minnesota). They now have Dwayne Haskins, who just lost his job to Kyle Allen, who wears jersey #8. Obviously, if you’re going to start in Washington, you need to insist your backup not wear #8. :-D
It didn't work for Bob Holly back in 1983. Maybe if he stuck around through 1985...
It was great to see Alex Smith back on the field. And hoping for a total recovery for Dak.
Heh, and Bob Holly was backing up Joe Theismann, who wore #7 (as Haskins does as well). Maybe it’s Dan Snyder—related. Certainly people here blame Snyder for just about everything that’s wrong with that franchise. For those of us who grew up during their glory years in the 1980s, it’s been sad to see how largely irrelevant they’ve become, even on the local sports scene.
-
I will agree with you on the lessening importance of the Redskins/Football Team in Washington and the surrounding areas which were Redskin strongholds. There used to be an incredible waiting list for tickets to the games--now, I don't believe there is much of one now. Snyder has plenty to do with the current state of the team, however, the demise began the day after Joe Gibbs retired the first time after the 1992 season. The Redskins were still important throughout the rest of the 1990's but as long as Snyder owns the team, us long-term Redskins fans will probably never sniff anything like the glory days of the Gibbs era.
Throughout the 1980's and early 1990's I would try to watch or listen to every Redskins game--even on dates with my now wife. It did help that she was a devout Redskins fan also. Of course, if I did watch the games, the TV sound was off and the radio broadcast was on my stereo system (yes, an 80's system complete with semi-large speakers). There was nothing like hearing Frank Herzog, Sam Huff, and Sonny Jurgensen doing the broadcast, punctuated by Frank's call after every Redskins touchdown, "Touchdown! Washington Redskins!". I, just like 1995hoo, miss those days--when Washington Redskins football was fun and meaningful.
-
I will agree with you on the lessening importance of the Redskins/Football Team in Washington and the surrounding areas which were Redskin strongholds. There used to be an incredible waiting list for tickets to the games--now, I don't believe there is much of one now. Snyder has plenty to do with the current state of the team, however, the demise began the day after Joe Gibbs retired the first time after the 1992 season. The Redskins were still important throughout the rest of the 1990's but as long as Snyder owns the team, us long-term Redskins fans will probably never sniff anything like the glory days of the Gibbs era.
Can vouch up here that PSL's killed off Jets and Giants fandoms. Growing up, they said to get your name on the Jets list when you're born, and maybe you'll get on it before you retire. PSL's come, suddenly no waiting list. They realized how badly they had done it, but it was too late.
-
I don’t think the Redskins sold PSLs when Jack Kent Cooke built what is now FedEx Field, although the suites, club seats, and loge seats (none of which count towards sellouts per NFL rules) are subject to multiple-year contracts, and that’s proved to be its own source of bad publicity for Snyder, especially during the 2008 recession–when people encountered hard times and had trouble paying the contractual prices on schedule, the Redskins sued some of them.
We have a friend who used to have Caps season tickets down the row from our seats. She and her husband were also long-standing Redskins season ticket holders. She had to give up the Caps tickets because attending became too much of a burden as her husband suffered from Alzheimer’s. No problem there with the Caps at all, although it’s fair to recognize those are sold year-by-year. He died about five years ago and she wanted to give up the Redskins tickets as well, in part because she didn’t want to attend games alone, but the Redskins said no dice–you committed to buying these tickets and you, or your estate if you die too, will keep paying for them. (They didn’t have premium tickets, either, but apparently the tickets were still sold on a multi-year basis. I don’t know all the details.) Stuff like that is a real turnoff to dealing with that franchise. I mean, I understand the principle of a contract being a binding contract, but on the other hand, there’s something reasonable to the idea of working with your customers, especially someone like her who had been a customer for over 50 years.
I’ve never bought Redskins season tickets for several reasons, including (but not necessarily limited to) the franchise's reputation for suing customers if they can’t pay, the nuisance of getting to games at FedEx Field, my own declining interest in football compared to hockey, the fact that we have Caps season tickets (enough of a cost and time commitment without football), the fact that we gave up our UVA football season tickets after the 2009 season, and the general bad reputation the FedEx Field game day atmosphere has in terms of a lot of drunken fighting going on (no doubt not helped by the increasing hordes of opposing fans who attend games there as local fans lose interest).
-
Not sure what the correct smiley to use with this one is!
https://twitter.com/NickiJhabvala/status/1316124881029824512?s=20
-
I'm not sure what to think about "Tuesday Night Football". It just feels so wrong. NFL football is supposed to be many games on Sunday and one game on Monday only! Thursday Night Football to open the season is cool when it's the reigning champion, but other than that it feels forced and gimmicky. :-|
-
I have never understood why people fork over tons of cash to be told, "yeah, hopefully you'll get the return product before you die". If you want to go to games that bad and have that kind of money to throw around, why not just buy tickets to each upcoming game individually?
-
I'm not sure what to think about "Tuesday Night Football". It just feels so wrong. NFL football is supposed to be many games on Sunday and one game on Monday only! Thursday Night Football to open the season is cool when it's the reigning champion, but other than that it feels forced and gimmicky. :-|
What about the Saturday games in December?
-
I'm not sure what to think about "Tuesday Night Football". It just feels so wrong. NFL football is supposed to be many games on Sunday and one game on Monday only! Thursday Night Football to open the season is cool when it's the reigning champion, but other than that it feels forced and gimmicky. :-|
What about the Saturday games in December?
I don't like them either. Or the Saturday playoff games.
-
Whereas I’ve thought for several years that having the Super Bowl on Saturday would be useful. Lets everyone stay up late, eat what they want, etc., and have all day Sunday to deal with the hangovers and digestive distress that may accompany the sorts of things a lot of people eat at those sorts of events, rather than disrupting the work day Monday.
Football on Tuesday is a little bit weird, but they had a good reason for it under the circumstances. Hockey in August was pretty weird too, after all. I expect the NFL will wind up playing the season over 18 weeks, but it makes sense to try to get games in as early as possible so as to leave room for slippage later if more games need to be postponed. (It would have been funny if the Tuesday night game had been played on November 3, though!)
-
Well, I've been here when the Bills are good, so I might as well be here when they're bad, too.
In a terrible 42-16 loss to the Titans, Tre White was badly missed on defense, which allowed 40 points for the first time since Nathan Peterman.
-
I'm not sure what to think about "Tuesday Night Football". It just feels so wrong. NFL football is supposed to be many games on Sunday and one game on Monday only! Thursday Night Football to open the season is cool when it's the reigning champion, but other than that it feels forced and gimmicky. :-|
What about the Saturday games in December?
Saturday games are OK when there are no college games, and Thursday games on Thanksgiving and the season opener are fine, but the rest of the Thursday slate needs to go. Players hate them. I get that we had to have games on Tuesday because this is 2020, but let's not explore that as a permanent idea. I don't mind having Monday doubleheaders. If we shift all those Thursday games to extra Monday games that would be great.
-
I seem to recall once upon a time, when Thursday night games were rare, they used to air on ABC as a "Monday Night Football Special Thursday Edition" or something like that.
I feel like the combination of Thursday games with the "Color Rush" uniform thing has made it a little bit gimmicky. The uniforms can look rather overdone or garish at times. It's sort of like they don't know when to leave well enough alone–reminds me a bit of how the NHL decided that because the Winter Classic was successful, in the 2013—14 season they would have six outdoor games.
Since every team now plays a Thursday night game, it seems like it should be feasible to schedule a team's "bye week" prior to the Thursday night game, which in theory would resolve some of the players' complaints.
-
Ah yes, I forgot about the Thanksgiving games. Those are cool too. So it would look like this:
Week 1: TNF with defending champion hosting, one MNF game, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 2-11/12: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 12 or 13 depending on where Thanksgiving falls: three Thursday games, one MNF, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 12/13-16: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 17 and playoffs: all on Sunday
-
Ah yes, I forgot about the Thanksgiving games. Those are cool too. So it would look like this:
Week 1: TNF with defending champion hosting, one MNF game, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 2-11/12: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 12 or 13 depending on where Thanksgiving falls: three Thursday games, one MNF, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 12/13-16: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 17 and playoffs: all on Sunday
One clarificatory question: How do you feel about years when Christmas falls on Sunday? That will next happen in 2022. Usually the NFL moves the majority of that week's slate to Saturday. For many years they avoided playing any games at all on Christmas, no doubt due to all the negative publicity and feedback they got from the 1971 AFC playoff game between the Chiefs and Dolphins on Christmas Day that went to double overtime and is still the longest NFL game ever played (not the longest pro football game, but the longest NFL game), but more recently they've played two games on Christmas Day when it falls on Sunday or Monday.
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
-
Ah yes, I forgot about the Thanksgiving games. Those are cool too. So it would look like this:
Week 1: TNF with defending champion hosting, one MNF game, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 2-11/12: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 12 or 13 depending on where Thanksgiving falls: three Thursday games, one MNF, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 12/13-16: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 17 and playoffs: all on Sunday
One clarificatory question: How do you feel about years when Christmas falls on Sunday? That will next happen in 2022. Usually the NFL moves the majority of that week's slate to Saturday. For many years they avoided playing any games at all on Christmas, no doubt due to all the negative publicity and feedback they got from the 1971 AFC playoff game between the Chiefs and Dolphins on Christmas Day that went to double overtime and is still the longest NFL game ever played (not the longest pro football game, but the longest NFL game), but more recently they've played two games on Christmas Day when it falls on Sunday or Monday.
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
I usually don't even notice when the NFL moves games away from Christmas, since all the days of that part of the year sort of blend together. But yes, I agree that there is no need to play games on Christmas, especially since some teams are already playing on Thanksgiving.
IIRC, the final day of the regular season is in January two out every five years. In 2015 it was the 3rd, in 2016 it was the 1st, in 2017 it was the 31st of December, in 2018 it was the 30th, and in 2019 it was the 29th. This year it will be the 3rd of January again.
-
No Pro Bowl this year. It was scheduled to be held in Las Vegas the weekend before the Super Bowl, but today the league cancelled it. Given all the speculation that the regular season may run a week longer than planned, that arguably gives them more flexibility to play the Super Bowl as scheduled by just eliminating the week off after the conference championships (which they have done in the past; the 1982 season is a notable example in my mind when they expanded the playoffs after the strike-shortened season).
-
No Pro Bowl this year. It was scheduled to be held in Las Vegas the weekend before the Super Bowl, but today the league cancelled it. Given all the speculation that the regular season may run a week longer than planned, that arguably gives them more flexibility to play the Super Bowl as scheduled by just eliminating the week off after the conference championships (which they have done in the past; the 1982 season is a notable example in my mind when they expanded the playoffs after the strike-shortened season).
Can't help but wonder if this is the end of the Pro Bowl.
-
Ah yes, I forgot about the Thanksgiving games. Those are cool too. So it would look like this:
Week 1: TNF with defending champion hosting, one MNF game, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 2-11/12: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 12 or 13 depending on where Thanksgiving falls: three Thursday games, one MNF, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 12/13-16: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 17 and playoffs: all on Sunday
One clarificatory question: How do you feel about years when Christmas falls on Sunday? That will next happen in 2022. Usually the NFL moves the majority of that week's slate to Saturday. For many years they avoided playing any games at all on Christmas, no doubt due to all the negative publicity and feedback they got from the 1971 AFC playoff game between the Chiefs and Dolphins on Christmas Day that went to double overtime and is still the longest NFL game ever played (not the longest pro football game, but the longest NFL game), but more recently they've played two games on Christmas Day when it falls on Sunday or Monday.
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
They are adding a game and two weeks to the schedule beginning in 2021, so I have no idea how that is going to work, but as it has been until this year, the earliest W1 Sunday is 9/7 and the latest is 9/13 (as it was this year). That puts the earliest W17 Sunday at 12/28 and the latest at 1/3. On any potential game date, Christmas would be part of week 16.
The NFL moved week 1 off Labor Day weekend several years ago due to poor TV ratings, so my guess is that Week 1 stays where it is and what used to be the Wild Card and Divisional rounds will become weeks 18 and 19. This would mean that no more Super Bowls on my birthday but there would be conference championship games.
Fun trivia: Rex Grossman and Tom Brady are currently the only quarterbacks ever to lose games on my birthday.
-
Ah yes, I forgot about the Thanksgiving games. Those are cool too. So it would look like this:
Week 1: TNF with defending champion hosting, one MNF game, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 2-11/12: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 12 or 13 depending on where Thanksgiving falls: three Thursday games, one MNF, the rest on Sunday
Weeks 12/13-16: all on Sunday except for one MNF
Week 17 and playoffs: all on Sunday
One clarificatory question: How do you feel about years when Christmas falls on Sunday? That will next happen in 2022. Usually the NFL moves the majority of that week's slate to Saturday. For many years they avoided playing any games at all on Christmas, no doubt due to all the negative publicity and feedback they got from the 1971 AFC playoff game between the Chiefs and Dolphins on Christmas Day that went to double overtime and is still the longest NFL game ever played (not the longest pro football game, but the longest NFL game), but more recently they've played two games on Christmas Day when it falls on Sunday or Monday.
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
I remember watching that game. It was a real dandy! The outcome led to the Chiefs not seeing the playoffs for a very long time while the Dolphins had a nice little dynasty going with three straight Super Bowl appearances, going 2-1 with one of those seasons being the Perfect Season.
Rick
-
Can't help but wonder if this is the end of the Pro Bowl.
I won't shed a tear.
Now you don't even get a trip to Hawaii, so what's the point? Any degen with a SouthWest ticket can go to Vegas for 89 bucks. It's a shit city unworthy of pro sports.
The Orlando of the West.
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
The NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
It's irrelevant, because the NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
There is no TNF Week 17.
All Week 17 games are played on Sunday, and every team plays a Divisional Opponent
If Divisional Title game and/or Playoff games depend on other games results, those games are all placed in the same timeslot/either 1 ET or 4:25 ET. Also both FOX and CBS have Doubleheaders Week 17. SNF on NBC takes a “Win and you’re in” game that does not depend on the other game results, whenever possible. Even better if it is a “Win and In” game for both teams, typically a Division Title game scenario
All of this is within the 16 game schedule. When it goes to 17 games, that remains to be seen. Also this schedule formula came about with the realignment to 8 Divisions and with Flex Scheduling for SNF on NBC
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
It's irrelevant, because the NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
There is no TNF Week 17.
All Week 17 games are played on Sunday, and every team plays a Divisional Opponent
If Divisional Title game and/or Playoff games depend on other games results, those games are all placed in the same timeslot/either 1 ET or 4:25 ET. Also both FOX and CBS have Doubleheaders Week 17. SNF on NBC takes a “Win and you’re in” game that does not depend on the other game results, whenever possible. Even better if it is a “Win and In” game for both teams, typically a Division Title game scenario
All of this is within the 16 game schedule. When it goes to 17 games, that remains to be seen. Also this schedule formula came about with the realignment to 8 Divisions and with Flex Scheduling for SNF on NBC
Generally the games between two already eliminated teams or one eliminated team and team that has clinched a playoff berth are in the early slate. The games with playoff berth implications are all in the afternoon slate, as well as the meaningless west coast games that they can't put anywhere else.
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
The NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
Y'all can't get your facts straight. There is no Thursday or Monday night game in week 17. If you're going to make a fact-checking post, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.
Yeah, I realized that after i posted it.
Anyway, the purpose is to make it as even as possible going into the Wildcard playoff weekend, where no team would have had significantly more or less rest time prior to those games.
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
It's irrelevant, because the NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
There is no TNF Week 17.
All Week 17 games are played on Sunday, and every team plays a Divisional Opponent
If Divisional Title game and/or Playoff games depend on other games results, those games are all placed in the same timeslot/either 1 ET or 4:25 ET. Also both FOX and CBS have Doubleheaders Week 17. SNF on NBC takes a “Win and you’re in” game that does not depend on the other game results, whenever possible. Even better if it is a “Win and In” game for both teams, typically a Division Title game scenario
All of this is within the 16 game schedule. When it goes to 17 games, that remains to be seen. Also this schedule formula came about with the realignment to 8 Divisions and with Flex Scheduling for SNF on NBC
Generally the games between two already eliminated teams or one eliminated team and team that has clinched a playoff berth are in the early slate. The games with playoff berth implications are all in the afternoon slate, as well as the meaningless west coast games that they can't put anywhere else.
Y'all get your facts straight before you post. The earlier games are one group of teams whose fates are tied (e.g. AFC playoff contenders) and the later games are the other (e.g. NFC playoff contenders).
-
I remember a Bears-Packers game a few years ago in the Early window of Week 17 for an NFC North Title game - but that result did not depend on the Lions-Vikings result at all, because the Bears and Packers were already 1-2 in the Division. But since it did not depend on any other games, it was not included in the “Late Game” collection that year, where more of the games were dependent on each other
Of course, any WC scenarios that involve MT/PT teams, then all those WC contention games must be played in the 4:25 Late Window. NFC/AFC West Title Scenarios (unless it is a Chiefs vs other AFC West team for the AFC West Title, Head-to-head, played in KC) also are played at 4:25
And then usually the NFC East Title game gets flexed to SNF on NBC, but not always. They do occasionally take a game from another division for Game 256.
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
It's irrelevant, because the NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. Even a Sunday night game isn't guaranteed, and they decide after Week 16 whether there will be one. Otherwise for Week 17, there's 1 game on Thursday night, with the remainder played Sunday at 1 & 4:25pm (ET).
There is no TNF Week 17.
All Week 17 games are played on Sunday, and every team plays a Divisional Opponent
If Divisional Title game and/or Playoff games depend on other games results, those games are all placed in the same timeslot/either 1 ET or 4:25 ET. Also both FOX and CBS have Doubleheaders Week 17. SNF on NBC takes a “Win and you’re in” game that does not depend on the other game results, whenever possible. Even better if it is a “Win and In” game for both teams, typically a Division Title game scenario
All of this is within the 16 game schedule. When it goes to 17 games, that remains to be seen. Also this schedule formula came about with the realignment to 8 Divisions and with Flex Scheduling for SNF on NBC
Generally the games between two already eliminated teams or one eliminated team and team that has clinched a playoff berth are in the early slate. The games with playoff berth implications are all in the afternoon slate, as well as the meaningless west coast games that they can't put anywhere else.
Y'all get your facts straight before you post. The earlier games are one group of teams whose fates are tied (e.g. AFC playoff contenders) and the later games are the other (e.g. NFC playoff contenders).
Are you trolling me now? Because that's wrong also.
-
I remember a Bears-Packers game a few years ago in the Early window of Week 17 for an NFC North Title game - but that result did not depend on the Lions-Vikings result at all, because the Bears and Packers were already 1-2 in the Division. But since it did not depend on any other games, it was not included in the “Late Game” collection that year, where more of the games were dependent on each other
Of course, any WC scenarios that involve MT/PT teams, then all those WC contention games must be played in the 4:25 Late Window. NFC/AFC West Title Scenarios (unless it is a Chiefs vs other AFC West team for the AFC West Title, Head-to-head, played in KC) also are played at 4:25
And then usually the NFC East Title game gets flexed to SNF on NBC, but not always. They do occasionally take a game from another division for Game 256.
When was this Bears/Packers game that you speak of? It wasn't in 2013, which was the last time they played for the division in week 17. And the NFC East hasn't been on week 17 SNF since 2013.
-
I remember a Bears-Packers game a few years ago in the Early window of Week 17 for an NFC North Title game - but that result did not depend on the Lions-Vikings result at all, because the Bears and Packers were already 1-2 in the Division. But since it did not depend on any other games, it was not included in the “Late Game” collection that year, where more of the games were dependent on each other
Of course, any WC scenarios that involve MT/PT teams, then all those WC contention games must be played in the 4:25 Late Window. NFC/AFC West Title Scenarios (unless it is a Chiefs vs other AFC West team for the AFC West Title, Head-to-head, played in KC) also are played at 4:25
And then usually the NFC East Title game gets flexed to SNF on NBC, but not always. They do occasionally take a game from another division for Game 256.
In 2013, the Packers beat the Bears in Week 17 to win the division with a 8-7-1 record, with the Bears missing the playoffs at 8-8.
-
I remember a Bears-Packers game a few years ago in the Early window of Week 17 for an NFC North Title game - but that result did not depend on the Lions-Vikings result at all, because the Bears and Packers were already 1-2 in the Division. But since it did not depend on any other games, it was not included in the “Late Game” collection that year, where more of the games were dependent on each other
Of course, any WC scenarios that involve MT/PT teams, then all those WC contention games must be played in the 4:25 Late Window. NFC/AFC West Title Scenarios (unless it is a Chiefs vs other AFC West team for the AFC West Title, Head-to-head, played in KC) also are played at 4:25
And then usually the NFC East Title game gets flexed to SNF on NBC, but not always. They do occasionally take a game from another division for Game 256.
In 2013, the Packers beat the Bears in Week 17 to win the division with a 8-7-1 record, with the Bears missing the playoffs at 8-8.
And looking it up, that game was a 4:25 game. Huh. I mis-remembered. I thought that was a “high noon” kickoff
Regarding the NFC East bit, yes 2013 was the last time. And that was the end of a 3-year stretch, from 2011-2013 of All NFC East. No other Division has been shown more than twice since the Divisional Game Final schedule format was introduced in 2010.
The AFC East and NFC South have yet to be featured on Game 256 - AFC East because it hasn’t been competitive with the Pats during the Brady-Belichick Era, and NFC South because (I assume) Ratings, and the two South Divisions are the 2 newest Divisions. AFC South was first featured in 2018 for Game 256
Of course, one could argue that the current NFC West is the newest NFC Division, and the NFC South is the more legitimate child of the old NFC West, since 3 former NFC West teams make up the current NFC South, and only 2 former NFC West teams are in the current NFC West, but I digress
-
I don't know whether it's mathematically possible for Christmas Day to fall on a Monday of Week 17, in which case there would be no Monday night game. I suspect not, seeing as how the regular season invariably seems to end the first weekend of January since the league moved the first week of the season to the weekend after Labor Day.
The NFL doesn't play a Monday night game the final week of the season. ...
See boldface.
-
Generally the games between two already eliminated teams or one eliminated team and team that has clinched a playoff berth are in the early slate. The games with playoff berth implications are all in the afternoon slate, as well as the meaningless west coast games that they can't put anywhere else.
Y'all get your facts straight before you post. The earlier games are one group of teams whose fates are tied (e.g. AFC playoff contenders) and the later games are the other (e.g. NFC playoff contenders).
Are you trolling me now? Because that's wrong also.
As currently scheduled:
All Week 17 games played in EST and CST (13 games) are scheduled for 1PM EST.
All Week 17 games played in MST and PST (3 games) are scheduled for 4:25 PM EST.
I believe some of these, likely the ones with the biggest playoff implications, will be flexed.
Last year, for example, 49ers-Seahawks was flexed to SNF because the division was on the line.
-
I remember a Bears-Packers game a few years ago in the Early window of Week 17 for an NFC North Title game - but that result did not depend on the Lions-Vikings result at all, because the Bears and Packers were already 1-2 in the Division. But since it did not depend on any other games, it was not included in the “Late Game” collection that year, where more of the games were dependent on each other
Of course, any WC scenarios that involve MT/PT teams, then all those WC contention games must be played in the 4:25 Late Window. NFC/AFC West Title Scenarios (unless it is a Chiefs vs other AFC West team for the AFC West Title, Head-to-head, played in KC) also are played at 4:25
And then usually the NFC East Title game gets flexed to SNF on NBC, but not always. They do occasionally take a game from another division for Game 256.
In 2013, the Packers beat the Bears in Week 17 to win the division with a 8-7-1 record, with the Bears missing the playoffs at 8-8.
And looking it up, that game was a 4:25 game. Huh. I mis-remembered. I thought that was a “high noon” kickoff
Regarding the NFC East bit, yes 2013 was the last time. And that was the end of a 3-year stretch, from 2011-2013 of All NFC East. No other Division has been shown more than twice since the Divisional Game Final schedule format was introduced in 2010.
The AFC East and NFC South have yet to be featured on Game 256 - AFC East because it hasn’t been competitive with the Pats during the Brady-Belichick Era, and NFC South because (I assume) Ratings, and the two South Divisions are the 2 newest Divisions. AFC South was first featured in 2018 for Game 256
Of course, one could argue that the current NFC West is the newest NFC Division, and the NFC South is the more legitimate child of the old NFC West, since 3 former NFC West teams make up the current NFC South, and only 2 former NFC West teams are in the current NFC West, but I digress
I was at a night game in Green Bay in week 17 of the 2010 season where the Packers backed into the playoffs as the second wild card by beating the Bears. They went on to storm through the playoffs entirely on the road, beating the Bears again in Chicago to go to and then win the Super Bowl.
An aside, is there any other instance of one NFL team defeating another NFL team four times in one calendar year (Packers over the Bears four times in calendar year 2011)?
Mike
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
And the Bears are now at risk of becoming Football Team next Monday.
-
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
And the Bears are now at risk of becoming Football Team next Monday.
High risk, you could say. :paranoid:
-
Can't help but wonder if this is the end of the Pro Bowl.
I won't shed a tear.
Now you don't even get a trip to Hawaii, so what's the point? Any degen with a SouthWest ticket can go to Vegas for 89 bucks. It's a shit city unworthy of pro sports.
The Orlando of the West.
Try telling that to Mark Davis (the Raiders' owner) and the Golden Knights! The Magic would also be offended by your description of their own city too.
-
Can't help but wonder if this is the end of the Pro Bowl.
I won't shed a tear.
Now you don't even get a trip to Hawaii, so what's the point? Any degen with a SouthWest ticket can go to Vegas for 89 bucks. It's a shit city unworthy of pro sports.
The Orlando of the West.
Try telling that to Mark Davis (the Raiders' owner) and the Golden Knights! The Magic would also be offended by your description of their own city too.
Football, with only 8 home games per year, can easily be supported by Vegas. Realistically there's enough support for 40+ NFL teams, but not the talent to have a competitive league bigger than the current 32.
I worry that hockey and its 41 home dates will hit on hard times in Vegas once the novelty wears off.
-
Can't help but wonder if this is the end of the Pro Bowl.
I won't shed a tear.
Now you don't even get a trip to Hawaii, so what's the point? Any degen with a SouthWest ticket can go to Vegas for 89 bucks. It's a shit city unworthy of pro sports.
The Orlando of the West.
Try telling that to Mark Davis (the Raiders' owner) and the Golden Knights! The Magic would also be offended by your description of their own city too.
Football, with only 8 home games per year, can easily be supported by Vegas. Realistically there's enough support for 40+ NFL teams, but not the talent to have a competitive league bigger than the current 32.
I worry that hockey and its 41 home dates will hit on hard times in Vegas once the novelty wears off.
Vegas has a bigger and better team now in a sport that most would consider more exciting. I think the Golden Knights will be fine because the sports market there is still relatively uncompetitive compared to other hockey markets like Dallas, LA, Miami, and DC.
-
The Cowboys looked straight awful last night. I can’t remember the last time I saw a team so uninspired. Punts, turnovers, more turnovers, a porous defense, once again doing nothing on offense until they were down by a million. Even then it wasn’t much. Andy Dalton was less than impressive, but I expect that he will improve once he plays more with the Cowboys. As for the defense, there’s no sign of improvement in sight.
-
The Cowboys 218 points allowed (average 36.3 per game) is by far the highest in the league, and it's not even close. Vikings are next at 192, followed by Jets at 185 and Falcons at 184. But it just goes to show how uninspired defenses as a whole have been this year when six teams have allowed 180+, but no teams have even scored 180: Ravens are first in points scored at 179, Bucs second at 177.
... and yet, there the Cowboys sit atop the NFC East, which is a jarring 5-18-1 through six weeks, with only two wins outside the division (Eagles over 49ers and Cowboys over Falcons)
-
The Cowboys 218 points allowed (average 36.3 per game) is by far the highest in the league, and it's not even close. Vikings are next at 192, followed by Jets at 185 and Falcons at 184. But it just goes to show how uninspired defenses as a whole have been this year when six teams have allowed 180+, but no teams have even scored 180: Ravens are first in points scored at 179, Bucs second at 177.
... and yet, there the Cowboys sit atop the NFC East, which is a jarring 5-18-1 through six weeks, with only two wins outside the division (Eagles over 49ers and Cowboys over Falcons)
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
-
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
I dunno, I think I would take the Eagles to win the division if I had to pick. Both teams *should* win this week, in which case the winner of the week 8 game would take the lead.
-
Both teams *should* win this week
After watching the Cowboys' abysmal play last night, I don't think I would be comfortable making a statement like that even if it is against Washington. Their defense sucks - we knew that already. But the offense certainly didn't do them any favors last night either. NFL teams should not be having five turnovers in one game - especially when two of them are coming from your three-time Pro Bowl running back. Andy Dalton's play should improve once he finds a rhythm, but if the running backs can't hold onto the ball until he does that...it's going to be a looooong season.
-
Generally the games between two already eliminated teams or one eliminated team and team that has clinched a playoff berth are in the early slate. The games with playoff berth implications are all in the afternoon slate, as well as the meaningless west coast games that they can't put anywhere else.
Y'all get your facts straight before you post. The earlier games are one group of teams whose fates are tied (e.g. AFC playoff contenders) and the later games are the other (e.g. NFC playoff contenders).
Are you trolling me now? Because that's wrong also.
As currently scheduled:
All Week 17 games played in EST and CST (13 games) are scheduled for 1PM EST.
All Week 17 games played in MST and PST (3 games) are scheduled for 4:25 PM EST.
I believe some of these, likely the ones with the biggest playoff implications, will be flexed.
Last year, for example, 49ers-Seahawks was flexed to SNF because the division was on the line.
It will all depend on ratings, how many games matter, and who they matter to. Ideally there are meaningful games in all five slots. Late afternoon is the preferred slot for teams whose fates are tied together and are do-or-die where the winners make the playoffs and the losers go home. Early meaningful games are generally for teams in the playoffs but can move up or down in seeding. Sunday night is for a game independent of all others, but a couple years ago it happened where no such game existed and the NFL elected not to play a Sunday night game.
-
Both teams *should* win this week
After watching the Cowboys' abysmal play last night, I don't think I would be comfortable making a statement like that even if it is against Washington. ...
We'll see what happens, but since Week 1, Washington hasn't done anything to convince me they're actually trying to win games (last week's failed 2 point conversion to win notwithstanding). My thought process about the upcoming game is basically the same as it was about the Giants game: Sure, they're bad, maybe even verging on terrible, but not bad enough to lose a division game to The Football Team, especially one like this that would let them back in to the thick of the race for the division title.
-
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
I dunno, I think I would take the Eagles to win the division if I had to pick. Both teams *should* win this week, in which case the winner of the week 8 game would take the lead.
Considering that the Bengals have had 5 games decided by 1 possession, I think they could beat Dallas. They've demonstrated that they can play they just haven't finished games well.
-
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
I dunno, I think I would take the Eagles to win the division if I had to pick. Both teams *should* win this week, in which case the winner of the week 8 game would take the lead.
Considering that the Bengals have had 5 games decided by 1 possession, I think they could beat Dallas. They've demonstrated that they can play they just haven't finished games well.
Considering that the Cowboys have had four games decided by one possession, that claim is irrelevant.
-
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
I dunno, I think I would take the Eagles to win the division if I had to pick. Both teams *should* win this week, in which case the winner of the week 8 game would take the lead.
Update: with the Eagles' win over the Giants last night, the winner of Cowboys-Eagles next week is a lock to have the division lead, regardless of Sunday's Cowboys/Washington outcome.
If the Cowboys beat Washington, they'll be in the lead at 3-4, but Philly can take the lead at 3-4-1 with a win.
If the Cowboys lose to Washington, they'll be in second at 2-5, but they can take the lead at 3-5 with a win.
Washington isn't in the mix even if they beat the Cowboys, because they have a Week 8 bye.
(Yes, I'm having way too much fun with this. The NFC East is so terrible that it has ironically become the most entertaining division race to track. :-D)
-
(https://www.ssoworld.org/pics/boyz4.jpg)
-
I predict the Cowboys will win that division at 7-9, with five wins coming inside the division and the other two being the Bengals and Niners/Vikings.
I dunno, I think I would take the Eagles to win the division if I had to pick. Both teams *should* win this week, in which case the winner of the week 8 game would take the lead.
Update: with the Eagles' win over the Giants last night, the winner of Cowboys-Eagles next week is a lock to have the division lead, regardless of Sunday's Cowboys/Washington outcome.
If the Cowboys beat Washington, they'll be in the lead at 3-4, but Philly can take the lead at 3-4-1 with a win.
If the Cowboys lose to Washington, they'll be in second at 2-5, but they can take the lead at 3-5 with a win.
Washington isn't in the mix even if they beat the Cowboys, because they have a Week 8 bye.
(Yes, I'm having way too much fun with this. The NFC East is so terrible that it has ironically become the most entertaining division race to track. :-D)
Thanks for the in-depth statistical analysis. Couldn't have figured that out. Also, Philly does not play on Sunday, meaning the division lead is mercifully all Dallas's if they don't screw up against Washington.
Can't wait to see what happens when the NFC East winner is 8-8 or 9-7 (or 8-7-1 etc.) instead of 2-14 like you would figure if you only listened to this guy. The NFC East is bad. There is not a quality team in the division. But it is unlikely that the winner of the division will be worse than the 2010 Seahawks, who were 7-9.
-
(https://www.ssoworld.org/pics/boyz4.jpg)
I know that Mayfield is in a position to talk after consecutive multi-intercpetion games. Would be a better meme if it was one of the Browns' running backs.
-
... Can't wait to see what happens when the NFC East winner is 8-8 or 9-7 (or 8-7-1 etc.) instead of 2-14 like you would figure if you only listened to this guy.
This guy being... me?
I think that since every team has six division games, and the Cowboys and Eagles already have a win outside the division, the winner could be 7-9 or 6-10, but anything lower than that is probably infeasible.
-
... Can't wait to see what happens when the NFC East winner is 8-8 or 9-7 (or 8-7-1 etc.) instead of 2-14 like you would figure if you only listened to this guy.
This guy being... me?
I think that since every team has six division games, and the Cowboys and Eagles already have a win outside the division, the winner could be 7-9 or 6-10, but anything lower than that is probably infeasible.
I was exxagerating. So long as there are no more ties, it's not mathematically possible anymore for the division winner to be worse than 5-11. I was just saying that if you only listened to webny99 about the 2020 NFC East, you would think the '60 Cowboys, '76 Buccaneers, '08 Lions, and '17 Browns got stuck in the same division. Really, it's just two meh teams (PHI and DAL), and two worse than meh, but not super bad, teams (NYG and WAS).
-
... I was just saying that if you only listened to webny99 about the 2020 NFC East, you would think the '60 Cowboys, '76 Buccaneers, '08 Lions, and '17 Browns got stuck in the same division. Really, it's just two meh teams (PHI and DAL), and two worse than meh, but not super bad, teams (NYG and WAS).
I'm not saying they're the four worst teams in the league, but 6-19-1 (with 4 of those wins being against each other) is a pathetic record, and it is a historically bad division (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nfc-east-is-historically-bad-how-much-worse-can-it-get/). And the Giants and Washington are "super bad" no matter how you cut it. The Jags and Jets are the only other teams that might be as bad or worse.
-
...
I know that Mayfield is in a position to talk after consecutive multi-intercpetion games. Would be a better meme if it was one of the Browns' running backs.
They used the QBs for this meme since last year.
-
Dallas QB knocked out on an ugly helmet-to-helmet hit when he was already sliding to give himself up. The Redskin player who did that should be suspended. Totally unnecessary and dangerous play. (If the league doesn’t suspend him, Ron Rivera should because without the penalty, Dallas would have had to punt.)
-
Both teams *should* win this week
After watching the Cowboys' abysmal play last night, I don't think I would be comfortable making a statement like that even if it is against Washington. ...
We'll see what happens, but since Week 1, Washington hasn't done anything to convince me they're actually trying to win games (last week's failed 2 point conversion to win notwithstanding). My thought process about the upcoming game is basically the same as it was about the Giants game: Sure, they're bad, maybe even verging on terrible, but not bad enough to lose a division game to The Football Team, especially one like this that would let them back in to the thick of the race for the division title.
... and congratulations to the Washington Football Team on your second win!
Don't thank me: all I did was hit "post" to clinch the win for you. :-|
-
Both teams *should* win this week
After watching the Cowboys' abysmal play last night, I don't think I would be comfortable making a statement like that even if it is against Washington. ...
We'll see what happens, but since Week 1, Washington hasn't done anything to convince me they're actually trying to win games (last week's failed 2 point conversion to win notwithstanding). My thought process about the upcoming game is basically the same as it was about the Giants game: Sure, they're bad, maybe even verging on terrible, but not bad enough to lose a division game to The Football Team, especially one like this that would let them back in to the thick of the race for the division title.
... and congratulations to the Washington Football Team on your second win!
Don't thank me: all I did was hit "post" to clinch the win for you. :-|
I think we all knew that Dak is a good quarterback, even before he got hurt. But if you look at where this team was with him at QB (averaging 32.6 points per game) versus where they are now without him (averaging 6.5 points per game), I don't know that one could say with a straight face that he's not at least a top 7-8 QB.
-
(https://www.ssoworld.org/pics/boysweek6.jpg)
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
Los Angeles Bears
Chicago Football Team (next Sunday: home against New Orleans)
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
Los Angeles Bears
Chicago Football Team (next Sunday: home against New Orleans)
As a lifelong Bears fan, I'm beyond frustrated by the team's inability for 25+ years to put together a quality offensive line. They keep trading for and drafting quarterbacks when it's been long past the point that the team should have figured out that quarterback is not the biggest problem.
-
As a lifelong Bears fan, I'm beyond frustrated by the team's inability for 25+ years to put together a quality offensive line. They keep trading for and drafting quarterbacks when it's been long past the point that the team should have figured out that quarterback is not the biggest problem.
Yup. With each passing season, I better understand the pessimistic attitude my dad has that the Bears will ever field a competent offense. (And of course during the brief interval that the Bears actually had a high-powered offense under Trestman, the defense completely imploded :banghead:)
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
Los Angeles Bears
Chicago Football Team (next Sunday: home against New Orleans)
As a lifelong Bears fan, I'm beyond frustrated by the team's inability for 25+ years to put together a quality offensive line. They keep trading for and drafting quarterbacks when it's been long past the point that the team should have figured out that quarterback is not the biggest problem.
Over the past two-ish years, I have never understood why Trubisky has gotten blamed for literally everything that has gone wrong for the Bears. He is not a high-caliber starting QB by any stretch, but with how much criticism he gets, you would think he is DeShone Kizer or Nathan Peterman. That team has always had bigger problems than the quarterback, and they still do with Foles.
-
Unfortunately for how the draft played out, Trubisky basically would've had to be better than Mahomes to not be blamed for all the problems and considered a huge bust.
-
Unfortunately for how the draft played out, Trubisky basically would've had to be better than Mahomes to not be blamed for all the problems and considered a huge bust.
That is true.
-
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
-
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
Someone watched the Steelers game?
Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
-
Bills squeak out a win over the Pats for the first time since 2016! Wow, that feels good. This team has tortured the Bills for two full decades, and I don't say that lightly: Bills were 5-35, now 6-35, against the Pats since 2000.
It was also Sean McDermott's first win over Bill Belichick.
-
Vikings upset Green Bay in a game the Packers clearly had no interest in given their Thursday night game in San Francisco this week. Love beating those (bleeps) especially when they think they’re just going to cruise past us.
That’s the kind of loss that hurts at playoff time when you’re fighting for seeding.
-
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.
The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
-
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.
The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
Wow, you love to whine about teams winning close games, don’t you.
The Saints lost in the wild card round. To the Vikings. The Packers beat the Vikings twice that season. The Packers made the NFC Championship. If you wanted to say that the Saints should have gotten then second seed before the wild card round last year, fine, but after the fact, it’s very clear who the better team was. Don’t say wElL tHe PaCkErS gOt DeStRoYeD bY tHe 49ErS. That doesn’t matter in this context since the Saints couldn’t even make the second round, much less the conference championship game.
-
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
Someone watched the Steelers game?
Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their one possession games, you would say they are terrible because they’re only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning. :-D :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don’t like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.
-
Wow, you love to whine about teams winning close games, don’t you.
What? I never said that. I think the Saints were the better team, and it was pure bad luck they missed the bye. That's not necessarily the Packers fault, but it is pretty clear the Packers weren't a 13-3 team.
The Saints lost in the wild card round. To the Vikings. The Packers beat the Vikings twice that season. The Packers made the NFC Championship. If you wanted to say that the Saints should have gotten then second seed before the wild card round last year, fine, but after the fact, it’s very clear who the better team was. Don’t say wElL tHe PaCkErS gOt DeStRoYeD bY tHe 49ErS. That doesn’t matter in this context since the Saints couldn’t even make the second round, much less the conference championship game.
Of course the Saints should've been able to beat the Vikings, but that's one of the wilder NFL rivalries, and it's not like hanging on by a thread against the Seahawks and getting blown out by the Niners is somehow more convincing than losing to the Vikings in overtime.
The Packers did enough to get a playoff win, which is to their credit, but, let's be honest, the Saints had a much more viable path to the Super Bowl if they had gotten the bye. Remember, they dropped 46 points on the Niners in the regular season last year - which is more than the Packers did in two games.
-
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
Someone watched the Steelers game?
Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their won possession games, you would say they are terrible because they’re only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning. :-D :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don’t like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
-
I don't follow sports much, but I will say this: in American football and basketball, trying to win is not always the same as trying to get the most points. In American football, you can play in a way that you barely beat your opponent. In basketball, strategies are different in the last minute depending on score difference. In both cases, trying to beat your opponent when you're slightly behind is part of the skill of the game.
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
-
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
Someone watched the Steelers game?
Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their won possession games, you would say they are terrible because they’re only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning. :-D :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don’t like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year’s Packers?
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
In Hockey, there is definitely a point in the 3rd period where it becomes more of a defensive game for the team with a 1 or 2 goal lead. They will certainly attack the net if given the opportunity, but the overall strategy is defense late in the game.
For baseball, there's some more subtle differences. Baseball is also a little different than the other sports. In most other sports, a takeaway can happen at any moment. In baseball, once a team is at bat, there's nothing the defensive team can do to go on the offensive again until the 3rd out is made.
A batter generally won't intentionally sit there and strike out. He'll still swing. He'll still run. But they won't be as aggressive on the basepaths if they have a sizeable lead. A runner on base won't steal. The manager won't change pitchers late in the game as often. They'll try to prevent running up the score as a show of being a good sport, but they won't stop playing completely.
(One memorable game where a player did intentionally strike out...it was a Phillies playoff game, and the pitcher was batting. It was later in the game, a runner on 1st, and 1 out. The announcers, fairly keen on what was going on, figured the batter wasn't going to swing and possibly hit into a double play. Sure enough, that entire at bat, the batter never swung. He very intentionally struck out. And that brings up the whole DH versus no-DH argument, which I won't go into in a NFL thread.)
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
-
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year’s Packers?
Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
I can think of a few situations where teams' strategies have changed based on the score. One of the ones I remember the best was the Redskins' first game of the 1991 season when they were beating the Lions 45—0 late in the fourth quarter. They had all the backups in the game (even the third-string quarterback), kept the ball on the ground instead of passing, and the Lions still couldn't stop them. They got down to first and goal on the Lions' one-yard line and Joe Gibbs ordered the quarterback (Jeff Rutledge, IIRC) to take a knee on four straight plays rather than running up the score further. Of course in theory point differential is a tiebreaker, such that there might be some incentive to run up the score, but it's way down the list of tiebreakers to the point where it's unlikely to come up. (I don't remember exactly what the hierarchy of tiebreakers was back then, just too long ago.)
-
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year’s Packers?
Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
They are more situational, but to say like he did that soccer, baseball, and hockey are not situational is a comment that reeks of trying to be an expert on something that you don't know much about.
-
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year’s Packers?
Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?
Let's see if they can do it consistently for consecutive seasons. The Packers had an easy schedule last year, and I'm not sure the Bears can keep pulling out close wins - yesterday's Saints game suggests maybe not unless their offense can improve.
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
Baseball is pretty situational (maybe less so that they instituted the three-batter minimum for pitchers). Let’s say there are two outs, you have two runners on base. A good hitter at the plate and a weak one on deck. You might pinch hit for the weak hitter if the guy batting reaches, but you probably don’t if he makes an out and the inning ends. Also have seen it countless times where a team has a closer warming in their bullpen but immediately sits him down for a weaker pitcher when they add a couple more runs on and put the lead outside the margin of a save situation.
-
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?
Just double checking. :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year’s Packers?
Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?
Let's see if they can do it consistently for consecutive seasons. The Packers had an easy schedule last year, and I'm not sure the Bears can keep pulling out close wins - yesterday's Saints game suggests maybe not unless their offense can improve.
The Packers did not have a particularly easy schedule last year. They went 7-3 against teams with a record of .500 or better. They played three games against Super Bowl teams. And the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have all played relatively weak schedules as well. For what it's worth, the Bears have played a difficult schedule, especially over the last five weeks (5-2 Colts, 5-2 Bucs, 5-3 Rams, 5-2 Saints).
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
Baseball is pretty situational (maybe less so that they instituted the three-batter minimum for pitchers). Let’s say there are two outs, you have two runners on base. A good hitter at the plate and a weak one on deck. You might pinch hit for the weak hitter if the guy batting reaches, but you probably don’t if he makes an out and the inning ends. Also have seen it countless times where a team has a closer warming in their bullpen but immediately sits him down for a weaker pitcher when they add a couple more runs on and put the lead outside the margin of a save situation.
Baseball is very situational, yes, and the rules allow for it as well. Soccer is highly situational. Teams often play with a completely different style or organization when leading compared to when trailing, especially in the second half. Some of that involves bending the rules or "playing dirty" (i.e. taking several extra seconds to inbound the ball while you have the lead). From what I understand about hockey, there are many rules (such as icing) to prevent teams from playing conservatively, but there is still room to change your style of play depending on the score.
-
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.
The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
If the Packers win, critics will just say the 49ers were hobbled by injuries.
-
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.
The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
If the Packers win, critics will just say the 49ers were hobbled by injuries.
And if they win by eight or fewer points, webny99 will say that the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.
-
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
I don’t follow sports much
Clearly.
His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
I can think of a few situations where teams' strategies have changed based on the score. One of the ones I remember the best was the Redskins' first game of the 1991 season when they were beating the Lions 45—0 late in the fourth quarter. They had all the backups in the game (even the third-string quarterback), kept the ball on the ground instead of passing, and the Lions still couldn't stop them. They got down to first and goal on the Lions' one-yard line and Joe Gibbs ordered the quarterback (Jeff Rutledge, IIRC) to take a knee on four straight plays rather than running up the score further. Of course in theory point differential is a tiebreaker, such that there might be some incentive to run up the score, but it's way down the list of tiebreakers to the point where it's unlikely to come up. (I don't remember exactly what the hierarchy of tiebreakers was back then, just too long ago.)
Back in 1991, point differential in conference games was the fifth tiebreaker (I believe). So, if the Redskins had tied another team, say the 49ers, at 14-2, did not play each other that season, and had the same conference record (use 10-2), then net point differential in conference games would be the next tiebreaker step. When the NFL realigned in to the current setup of four divisions of four teams in each conference with the addition of the Houston Texans in 2002, the tiebreaker steps were changed where point differential is farther down the list (9-11, net points common games, net points all games, net touchdowns all games). Strength of victory and strength of schedule are now 5 and 6 with a best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed (7) and best combined ranking among all games in points scored and points allowed (8). Record in common games were given a boost up to 3, having this be more important than conference games.
In effect, it is not so imperative to run up the score anymore. More weight is given to just wins and losses, no matter what the score is. The way the current tiebreaker procedure is set up, it would take a lot of steps before points scored and points allowed are taken into consideration.
Under the previous tiebreaker procedure, the Redskins did not make the playoffs in 1979 with a 10-6 record. They did lose to Dallas 35-34 in Roger Staubach's final regular season game along with his last comeback from a 34-21 deficit. However, they still could have make the playoffs over the Chicago Bears, also 10-6, assuming the Bears would not beat the St. Louis Cardinals by more than 33 points. Well, on the morning of the game, George Halas (the general face of the Bears for 40 years) passed away. The Bears came out and played spirited football, winning the game 42-6, and knocking the Redskins out of the playoffs. If the current tiebreaker procedure was in effect then, I believe the Redskins would have made the playoffs based on better record in common games, minimum of four (had four common games--Dallas, St. Louis, Green Bay, and Detroit). Redskins would have been 5-1 vs. the Bears 4-2 record in common games.
Just using an example to show the difference in the tiebreaker procedure from 1976-2001 vs the one in effect since 2002.
BTW, that 1991 Redskins team was the best Redskins team I had ever seen, if not one of the top 10 best of all-time.
-
It was a shame that they moved point differential down. Week 17 of 1999 had a crazy scenario where the Packers and Panthers were trying to outscore each other in separate games and keep their opponents from mitigating their differentials. I think the Packers came out ahead, but ultimately neither made the playoffs as the Cowboys snagged the last berth late that afternoon.
-
... the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.
I'd say you're right, but that was a nice win last night against the Niners. They should be 1-7.
-
... the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.
I'd say you're right, but that was a nice win last night against the Niners. They should be 1-7.
Yeah, true.
-
As long as we're talking about the Packers, there is one thing that really impresses me about them: they are very good coming off a loss, and have been throughout the LaFleur era. One of the biggest differences between great coaches and average/a little above average coaches is games following a bad performance. Say what you will about their run defense or recieving corps or margin by which they win games, but that is a well coached team.
-
Fun fact: as Week 8 draws to a close, the Dolphins (!) lead the NFL in fewest points allowed with 130.
They've usually been quietly good at defense in the post-Marino era, though never spectacular enough to be in the national conversation, with such mediocre records.
But they're 5-3 now...I forgot what it's like to be above .500 this "late" in the season.
-
The Seahawks have allowed the second most yards in NFL history through eight games. They are going nowhere in the postseason if they keep that up.
-
But they're 5-3 now...I forgot what it's like to be above .500 this "late" in the season.
And not only that... they're currently in the #7 spot! Not many people saw that coming, but hats off to them: with the Pats two-decade reign of terror in the rearview, I'm happy to see success for Bills, Fins and (maybe someday) Jets alike!
At this moment, with the Ravens at 6-2 almost certain to make the playoffs, it looks like it'll be Colts, Browns, Raiders and Dolphins battling it out for the final two wild card slots.
The NFC picture is considerably more muddled, with the Cardinals (!) actually looking like the most likely Wild Card team, along with the loser of the NFC South, but last night's blowout did little to clarify that picture, as the Saints handed Brady not only the most lopsided loss of his career but also completed a season sweep of Brady, the first time any team has done so in Brady's career. WOW.
-
The NFC really is a mess. The Bucs were loooking like the team to beat until last night. The Saints have beaten the Bucs twice, but they also lost to the Packers, who lost to the Bucs by 28. :confused: :confused: Then you have Seattle who isn't going to win their division if they keep playing the way they have over their last four games. I think you have the Saints, Packers, and Bucs as obvious playoff teams, and the Seahawks and Eagles (sadly) as probable playoff teams. The last spots will probably go to the Rams and Cardinals, but they are inconsistent and have played weak schedules so far. Maybe the Bears will turn it around as their schedule gets more manageable (their last six opponents have a combined 28-13 record), but they are definitely trending in the wrong direction.
-
Also, don't look now but there are a couple of forgotten teams that are still fighting in the NFC. Vikings have won two in a row, one of which was against the 6-2 Packers. Falcons have won three out of four, despite their best efforts to squander a big fourth quarter lead against the Broncos. If the Cardinals or Rams slip up, and the Bears continue to struggle, one or both of those teams could be in the mix of things by the end of this month.
-
I don't know if such a proposition exists, but I'd be willing to bet AFC -6 in the Super Bowl right now.
-
Imagine being told a year or two ago that the Jets would be only 2 games in back of the Pats at mid-season (with a good chance to pick up a game head to head). But another finger on the monkey's paw uncurls (or curls, I forget).
-
I've kind of thought all season that the NFC has all the big names (Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson...), while the AFC has the superpower-type teams (for sure Chiefs and probably Steelers, and you could debate which other teams are in that category).
But then, there's only 2 teams that haven't notched 2 wins yet, and they're both from the AFC: Jets and Jaguars. So the AFC has definitely got the extremes; at least every NFC team has managed 2 wins, even though in the case of the NFC East 7 of their combined 9 wins have been against each other!
-
Imagine being told a year or two ago that the Jets would be only 2 games in back of the Pats at mid-season (with a good chance to pick up a game head to head). But another finger on the monkey's paw uncurls (or curls, I forget).
The finger curls when the wish is used, per Simpsons.
-
I've kind of thought all season that the NFC has all the big names (Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson...), while the AFC has the superpower-type teams (for sure Chiefs and probably Steelers, and you could debate which other teams are in that category).
But then, there's only 2 teams that haven't notched 2 wins yet, and they're both from the AFC: Jets and Jaguars. So the AFC has definitely got the extremes; at least every NFC team has managed 2 wins, even though in the case of the NFC East 7 of their combined 9 wins have been against each other!
Mahomes, Jackson, Roethlisberger . . . any of those ring a bell?
-
I've kind of thought all season that the NFC has all the big names (Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson...), while the AFC has the superpower-type teams (for sure Chiefs and probably Steelers, and you could debate which other teams are in that category).
But then, there's only 2 teams that haven't notched 2 wins yet, and they're both from the AFC: Jets and Jaguars. So the AFC has definitely got the extremes; at least every NFC team has managed 2 wins, even though in the case of the NFC East 7 of their combined 9 wins have been against each other!
Mahomes, Jackson, Roethlisberger . . . any of those ring a bell?
Pardon me for not clarifying: I meant big names that have been established as such by virtue of being around around for many years. That leaves Roethlisberger... who's had a great career and been decent this year, but he's not quite on the level of any of the four NFC players I mentioned.
-
Wait a second, the media told me that the Buccaneers suck because they had one bad game. You mean to tell me that a 7-3 team is good? :-o
-
Bills get walked off by Arizona on an incredible Hail Mary play.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
-
Bills get walked off by Arizona on an incredible Hail Mary play.
My goodness. That wild finish is the talk of Western New York - and honestly probably most of the country - this morning.
And all the jokes about the Hopkins trade only rub salt in the wound because we LOST to the Texans in the playoffs this January. :-(
Two of the most excruciating losses in NFL history to two different franchises in a span of 10 months, and Hopkins was on the other side of the ball for BOTH.
And yet, you still have to love the Cardinals, who are the perfect underdog story and wildly entertaining, having now scored 30+ points in 5 straight games. Not to mention they're now first in the NFC West with tiebreakers over the Rams and Seahawks.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
This was his first game back after missing several weeks to injury. While I agree staying inbounds would have been better regarding the clock (as it would have meant just 1 kneel down instead of 2), I'm fine with what he did as it avoided the risk of re injuring himself by trying to slide or possibly getting nailed from behind by a defender if he slowed down to take a knee.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
Apparently the line started at -2.5 and went to -3, so those betters either won or pushed. It was fairly late when the line went to -3.5.
I don't see too many people betting on the Browns anyway due to their non-popularity, and sports gambling within Ohio isn't legal to add to the "home team effect", so there probably want much win/loss to speak of.
-
I don't get why people are so astounded when players go down/out of bounds intentionally. It's not a new tactic, and it doesn't take a football genius to understand that it's better to keep the clock moving than score in some situations. And obviously players aren't thinking about bettors or their fantasy stock while playing.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
This brings to mind a recent game I saw. Just before the end of the game, I believe the score was tied. The team with the ball threw an interception to the other team. They then quickly tackled the guy. That enabled there to be one or two more plays that resulted in a FG and lost the game for the first team. If they hadn't touched the other guy, let him run around for a bit, time would have run out and it would have gone to OT.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
This brings to mind a recent game I saw. Just before the end of the game, I believe the score was tied. The team with the ball threw an interception to the other team. They then quickly tackled the guy. That enabled there to be one or two more plays that resulted in a FG and lost the game for the first team. If they hadn't touched the other guy, let him run around for a bit, time would have run out and it would have gone to OT.
On tonight's C'Mon Man, they showed an Arkansas high school game from last week where one team was leading by one point and had 4th and 32 from around their own 10-yard line with six seconds left in the game. All the quarterback had to do was run around for six seconds to kill the clock. Instead, he immediately took a knee. Of course, on fourth down that means a turnover and the clock stops. The other team promptly kicked the game-winning field goal.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
It didn't matter. Houston had no timeouts, so it would only have been the difference between two Cleveland kneels and one. Going out of bounds was probably the smarter choice actually. Falling intentionally, especially in a small space, can be awkward and dangerous if you don't do it correctly.
-
I loved the smart and unselfish play by Nick Chubb today running out of bounds at the 1 at the end of a breakaway run instead of scoring, enabling the Browns to simply kneel out the clock for a 10-7 win rather than giving Houston the ball back.
Fantasy football players who started Chubb must have hated it, as well as anyone who bet on Cleveland -3.5.
He could have taken a knee or slid at the 1 so the clock would continue running.
This brings to mind a recent game I saw. Just before the end of the game, I believe the score was tied. The team with the ball threw an interception to the other team. They then quickly tackled the guy. That enabled there to be one or two more plays that resulted in a FG and lost the game for the first team. If they hadn't touched the other guy, let him run around for a bit, time would have run out and it would have gone to OT.
This happens because the offense is immediately out of the element they're familiar with...and their one and only instant is to tackle the defender who intercepted the ball. In the meantime, the defender who caught the ball should immediately go down anyway instead of trying to do too much. Even if he isn't touched, they'll stop the clock within a second or two as his forward progress is considered stopped.
Theres a lot of situational awareness that takes place during certain moments of the game. When it's done wrong....you're on the wrong highlight reel on ESPN.
-
Vikings win in Chicago, which they never do going back the last 20 years.
-
Vikings win in Chicago, which they never do going back the last 20 years.
I joked that the Bears beat the Vikings to a 5-5 record, ironic given that the Bears started 5-1 while the Vikings started 1-5! :)
-
Vikings win in Chicago, which they never do going back the last 20 years.
I joked that the Bears beat the Vikings to a 5-5 record, ironic given that the Bears started 5-1 while the Vikings started 1-5! :)
Yeah, the Bears were fake. I'll give credit where credit is due. Looking at their remaining schedule I only see one surefire win - Jacksonville in week 16. Detroit has won four of their last seven, Minnesota has won three in a row, Houston is better than their record says, and we know what Green Bay is. Chicago could end up losing nine of their last ten games when the season is over. I can only remember a few comparable collapses. Carolina last year started 5-3 and finished 5-11. Indianapolis last year started 5-2 and finished 7-9. Carolina in 2018 started 6-2 and finished 7-9. Minnesota in 2016 started 5-0 and finished 8-8. Atlanta in 2015 started 6-1 and finished 8-8. One thing that all those teams had in common was injuries, and lots of them, but you can't really say that about Chicago right now, which is what makes them different.
-
My 2 cents from someone who's watched > 90% of Bears games dating back to the early 1980s:
The Bears have a very strange dynamic in that they are Top 5 in the league in terms of defensive talent and at the same time Bottom 5 in the league in terms of offensive talent, and it's been this way to varying degrees for going on 30 years. What makes this really unusual is that it has persisted through a variety of GMs and coaches. I don't know if there is some weird nostalgia about the 1985 team or if coincidentally they've all been really bad at identifying offensive talent.
To be more specific, the offensive line, which is the most underrated position group in the game in terms of importance. With an elite offensive line, you can have a productive offense with less than elite skill players. An elite offensive line forces you to put 8 defenders in the box to be able to stop the run, which opens up the passing game, and it forces you to rush 5+ defenders in order to get pressure on the QB, which makes covering the receivers much harder.
For a converse example, consider my college alma mater, Notre Dame. They have, hands down, the best offensive line in college football. If you look at QB, RB, and WR, they don't come close to matching Clemson but that line gave them the ability to take them down.
The Bears as an organization just don't get it.
-
My 2 cents from someone who's watched > 90% of Bears games dating back to the early 1980s:
The Bears have a very strange dynamic in that they are Top 5 in the league in terms of defensive talent and at the same time Bottom 5 in the league in terms of offensive talent, and it's been this way to varying degrees for going on 30 years. What makes this really unusual is that it has persisted through a variety of GMs and coaches. I don't know if there is some weird nostalgia about the 1985 team or if coincidentally they've all been really bad at identifying offensive talent.
To be more specific, the offensive line, which is the most underrated position group in the game in terms of importance. With an elite offensive line, you can have a productive offense with less than elite skill players. An elite offensive line forces you to put 8 defenders in the box to be able to stop the run, which opens up the passing game, and it forces you to rush 5+ defenders in order to get pressure on the QB, which makes covering the receivers much harder.
For a converse example, consider my college alma mater, Notre Dame. They have, hands down, the best offensive line in college football. If you look at QB, RB, and WR, they don't come close to matching Clemson but that line gave them the ability to take them down.
The Bears as an organization just don't get it.
Almost makes you wonder if Virginia McCaskey and her children/Halas’s grandchildren are more involved in Football Ops than we are often lead to believe. Ownership is the constant, over varying GMs and Coaching Staffs
-
My 2 cents from someone who's watched > 90% of Bears games dating back to the early 1980s:
The Bears have a very strange dynamic in that they are Top 5 in the league in terms of defensive talent and at the same time Bottom 5 in the league in terms of offensive talent, and it's been this way to varying degrees for going on 30 years. What makes this really unusual is that it has persisted through a variety of GMs and coaches. I don't know if there is some weird nostalgia about the 1985 team or if coincidentally they've all been really bad at identifying offensive talent.
To be more specific, the offensive line, which is the most underrated position group in the game in terms of importance. With an elite offensive line, you can have a productive offense with less than elite skill players. An elite offensive line forces you to put 8 defenders in the box to be able to stop the run, which opens up the passing game, and it forces you to rush 5+ defenders in order to get pressure on the QB, which makes covering the receivers much harder.
For a converse example, consider my college alma mater, Notre Dame. They have, hands down, the best offensive line in college football. If you look at QB, RB, and WR, they don't come close to matching Clemson but that line gave them the ability to take them down.
The Bears as an organization just don't get it.
Almost makes you wonder if Virginia McCaskey and her children/Halas’s grandchildren are more involved in Football Ops than we are often lead to believe. Ownership is the constant, over varying GMs and Coaching Staffs
That's definitely part of it. Sooner or later the old timers need to come to reality and realize that defense doesn't always win championships. The only real defensive teams to win the Super Bowl recently were the Legion of Boom Seahawks and the No Fly Zone Broncos. Those defenses were arguably better than the '85 Bears.
-
I don't get why people are so astounded when players go down/out of bounds intentionally. It's not a new tactic, and it doesn't take a football genius to understand that it's better to keep the clock moving than score in some situations. And obviously players aren't thinking about bettors or their fantasy stock while playing.
Fantasy football and sports betting are addictive and obsessive
-
I don't get why people are so astounded when players go down/out of bounds intentionally. It's not a new tactic, and it doesn't take a football genius to understand that it's better to keep the clock moving than score in some situations. And obviously players aren't thinking about bettors or their fantasy stock while playing.
Fantasy football and sports betting are addictive and obsessive
Absolutely. But the point is that people shouldn't be acting like intentionally not scoring is some revolutionary 500 IQ Belichickian tactic.
-
Sick of the Cardinals hype. They started 4-2 against a pillowfight schedule (4-6 Niners, 2-7 WFT, 4-5 Lions, 3-7 Panthers, 0-9 Jets, 2-7 Cowboys post-injury). Then they beat Seattle, who was highly overrated in hindsight, in overtime, and everyone lost their minds. Since? Lost to a QB making his second career start, needed a hail mary to beat Buffalo, and lost to the Seahawks, who played like garbage last night and still won. Now this is not to say that I am not excited to see what they can do. They have a very good young quarterback, arguably the league's best WR, and an interesting head coach. But this year is not their year, and that's okay. They were 3-13 two years ago and 5-10-1 last year. A rebuild is a rebuild, and they're headed in the right direction, but the media has gone absoultely bonkers over a team that is really nothing special.
-
Also, Ravens lost to the mediocre Patriots (mediocre Patriots still feels weird to say) on Sunday night. I forgot to dunk on everyone who called me stupid or other things for saying this in September.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he’s toast.
Is all.
Is all.
-
Vikings win in Chicago, which they never do going back the last 20 years.
What? They did in 2017.
-
The "Hail Murray" play, as it's been dubbed, already has it's own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Murray
Hopkins tweeted that the best meme of his catch gets a signed jersey, which led to some great entertainment, although painful at times for Bills fans.
-
Say what you will about the caliber of the teams in the NFC East but that is going to be a really exciting division race. Everyone within a half game of each other. Right now the Eagles are on top but they've shown me abosultely nothing positive for most of the season. Giants have played five of their six divisional games, so they are going to need to find wins elsewhere if they want to take the crown. Daniel Jones has one career win against out of division teams so I don't think they're going to do that. That leaves Washington, who seemingly has new life with Alex Smith, and Dallas, who is hopefully done with their quarterback revolving door and still has three more divisional games to play.
-
The New York NFC Football Team do, however, hold the tiebreaker over the Redskins by virtue of having swept the season series. The division could conceivably come down to the Redskins—Philadelphia game on the final day of the season, depending on how the next few weeks go.
I would have laughed had today’s game ended in a tie. The Cincinnati Football Team and Redskins tied 27—27 in London the last time they had played before today. The real lesson, though, is–if you’re a quarterback, try to avoid playing in Washington the two weekends before Thanksgiving. Joe Theismann, Alex Smith, and now Joe Burrow. Ouch.
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
-
My goodness the NFC East is a bloodbath, with three 3-7 teams plus the 3-6-1 Eagles.
The funniest thing is that the division as a whole had just two (!) wins outside the division entering today, and with Washington and the Cowboys both winning today, they've doubled it - in Week 11!
This is going to sound ridiculous, but I'm picking the Cowboys to win it.
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
Not like there are an abundance of opportunities. Colts arrived in Indy in 1984. The AFC vs NFC scheduling formulas have changed, especially as the NFL went from 6 total Divisions to 8 total Divisions, but inter-conference games are not common. Under the current NFL schedule formula, inter-conference teams play each other every 4 years, and they alternate at which site. So GB-IND was in Indy this year; in 2024 will be in Green Bay; in 2028 will be back in Indy, depending on what the NFL does for the 17th game when it is added to the schedule. Most theories I have read on that imply it will be in intra-conference game added
So, once every 8 years they get to play a regular season game in Indiana. The only other chances to play in IN then become Superbowls hosted at Lucas Oil Stadium (I looked up if the Hoosier/RCA Dome ever hosted a SB - answer is no). The only SB played at Lucas Oil was XLVI, where the Giants beat the Patriots
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
I had to check this. The Evansville Crimson Giants played in Wisconsin, but Green Bay never returned the favor. Hammond Pros were a traveling team. They never played the Muncie Flyers. And that was every non-Colts team in Indiana.
-
My goodness the NFC East is a bloodbath, with three 3-7 teams plus the 3-6-1 Eagles.
The funniest thing is that the division as a whole had just two (!) wins outside the division entering today, and with Washington and the Cowboys both winning today, they've doubled it - in Week 11!
This is going to sound ridiculous, but I'm picking the Cowboys to win it.
It's guaranteed Washington or Dallas will take the lead in the Division Thursday, as they play against each other...unless somehow that game ends in a tie.
-
Have there ever been two divisions in a conference (North and West, NFC) completely ahead of another (East) ten or more weeks into the season? (Specifically, last place north and west teams have a better record than first place east)
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
I don't believe they've ever won in New Hampshire either.
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
I don't believe they've ever won in New Hampshire either.
I'm going to guess they've never played there either. Are there any other state where the Packers have actually played games but never won?
-
Have there ever been two divisions in a conference (North and West, NFC) completely ahead of another (East) ten or more weeks into the season? (Specifically, last place north and west teams have a better record than first place east)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say No, certainly not in Week 11, certainly not with two other divisions, and maybe not ever in any week aside from some flukey examples in the first couple weeks of the season.
-
The Packers have never won a game in the state of Indiana (excluding preseason)
I don't believe they've ever won in New Hampshire either.
I'm going to guess they've never played there either. Are there any other state where the Packers have actually played games but never won?
Not the Packers, but the Jets have never beaten Philadelphia anywhere.
-
Packers never won in Buffalo.
-
Packers never won in Buffalo.
But they've almost certainly won in New York state before, given that the Giants played there until 1975.
-
Packers never won in Buffalo.
But they've almost certainly won in New York state before, given that the Giants played there until 1975.
Yes, they won the 1961 NFL championship at Yankee Stadium.
-
Packers never won in Buffalo.
But they've almost certainly won in New York state before, given that the Giants played there until 1975.
Yes, they won the 1961 NFL championship at Yankee Stadium.
They beat the Giants multiple times in New York State, at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium
They beat the NFL Brooklyn Dodgers at Ebbets Field
They even beat the Staten Island Stapletons, during the Staples short existance in the NFL, on Staten Island
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan.
Oh come on, the Pats are only 4-6. Just because for once they aren’t at the top of the division winning nearly every game doesn’t make their season “rough” . For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Well as mediocre as the Patriots are, both NJ teams are worse.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan.
Oh come on, the Pats are only 4-6. Just because for once they aren’t at the top of the division winning nearly every game doesn’t make their season “rough” . For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
It's rough in comparison to steamrolling the entire rest of the division and cruising to a first round bye.
And seriously RGT, your team hasn't had a bad year since the turn of the century. I think you can put up with one season of mediocrity before you jump "ship" (get it?)
I've been rooting for the Cowboys for the last couple years and it's been nothing but disappointment, but I'm not abandoning them.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
Most NFL fans don’t care for the Patriots. Even out west with completely unassociated fan bases there is a lot of statements of discontent that go around. There was a similar phenomenon with the Cowboys in the 1990s and 49ers in the 1980s.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
Most NFL fans don’t care for the Patriots. Even out west with completely unassociated fan bases there is a lot of statements of discontent that go around. There was a similar phenomenon with the Cowboys in the 1990s and 49ers in the 1980s.
Did those teams face multiple allegations and proven instances of cheating?
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
You seem like a hit at parties.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
Most NFL fans don’t care for the Patriots. Even out west with completely unassociated fan bases there is a lot of statements of discontent that go around. There was a similar phenomenon with the Cowboys in the 1990s and 49ers in the 1980s.
Did those teams face multiple allegations and proven instances of cheating?
No, but I would argue they were about as equally as unliked nonetheless. There was even a “49ers suck” chant that we would do on the bus in suburban to Detroit which upset the driver.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
Most NFL fans don’t care for the Patriots. Even out west with completely unassociated fan bases there is a lot of statements of discontent that go around. There was a similar phenomenon with the Cowboys in the 1990s and 49ers in the 1980s.
The rest of the NFC East still hate the Cowboys. Many around the country hate Jerry Jones. But since they haven't won a Superbowl in a generation, they aren't the America's Team they once were.
-
For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
The NFC East, however, belongs in a category of their own, because while all four teams are historically bad, all four teams are also historically relevant, because one of them will make the playoffs, and all four have a realistic shot. A chaotic bloodbath if I've ever seen one.
Put another way, you'd rather be any NFC East team than the Lions, Panthers, Pats, or Broncos, because none of those teams have a realistic chance to make the postseason despite a better record than the every NFC East team.
-
For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
The NFC East, however, belongs in a category of their own, because while all four teams are historically bad, all four teams are also historically relevant, because one of them will make the playoffs, and all four have a realistic shot. A chaotic bloodbath if I've ever seen one.
Put another way, you'd rather be any NFC East team than the Lions, Panthers, Pats, or Broncos, because none of those teams have a realistic chance to make the postseason despite a better record than the every NFC East team.
And none of those four NFC teams realistically have a shot in any playoff matchup.
-
It wouldn't shock me if an NFC East team won a playoff game, though. After all, this is 2020; it would be fitting if one of them ended up in the NFC championship.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan.
Oh come on, the Pats are only 4-6. Just because for once they aren’t at the top of the division winning nearly every game doesn’t make their season “rough” . For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
It's rough in comparison to steamrolling the entire rest of the division and cruising to a first round bye.
And seriously RGT, your team hasn't had a bad year since the turn of the century. I think you can put up with one season of mediocrity before you jump "ship" (get it?)
I've been rooting for the Cowboys for the last couple years and it's been nothing but disappointment, but I'm not abandoning them.
I'm not jumping ship, I'm still a Pat's fan just rooting for the Bucs on the side this year
-
It wouldn't shock me if an NFC East team won a playoff game, though. After all, this is 2020; it would be fitting if one of them ended up in the NFC championship.
...by which time it will be 2021
-
It wouldn't shock me if an NFC East team won a playoff game, though. After all, this is 2020; it would be fitting if one of them ended up in the NFC championship.
...by which time it will be 2021
... which, if you expect 2021 to be a byproduct of 2020, makes it all the more fitting.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan. Go Bucs I guess.
Good. I hope you have many, many rough years for both of those teams.
Here we go again with Alps and his hate towards teams that win. No wonder he's a Jets fan and a Michigan fan
Alps is one of 80% of the country that hate the Pats. The other 20% are Pats fans that still whine they only won 6 Superbowls, or people that don't care about foosball.
Most NFL fans don’t care for the Patriots. Even out west with completely unassociated fan bases there is a lot of statements of discontent that go around. There was a similar phenomenon with the Cowboys in the 1990s and 49ers in the 1980s.
The rest of the NFC East still hate the Cowboys. Many around the country hate Jerry Jones. But since they haven't won a Superbowl in a generation, they aren't the America's Team they once were.
They still draw bigger ratings than any other team.
-
It wouldn't shock me if an NFC East team won a playoff game, though. After all, this is 2020; it would be fitting if one of them ended up in the NFC championship.
The winner of the NFC East is most likely going to get either the Seahawks or Rams. Barring a massive turnaround I give them little chance in that matchup. Rams have already beaten all four NFCE teams, and that was early in the season when the losing teams were healthy. Seahawks still have to play three of the four though.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan.
Oh come on, the Pats are only 4-6. Just because for once they aren’t at the top of the division winning nearly every game doesn’t make their season “rough” . For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
Yeah, hey, whatareyou whining about? You could be rooting for the 3-6-1 Eagles!
:-o
Mike
-
Texans improved to 4-7 with a win over the Lions today, and I dare say Romeo Crennel has done a heck of a job with this team over the last couple weeks, considering their flaws. Deshaun Watson is playing lights out and hasn't thrown an interception in weeks. Sadly, I don't think the future is that bright for the Texans considering their lack of future draft picks.
-
Texans improved to 4-7 with a win over the Lions today, and I dare say Romeo Crennel has done a heck of a job with this team over the last couple weeks, considering their flaws. Deshaun Watson is playing lights out and hasn't thrown an interception in weeks. Sadly, I don't think the future is that bright for the Texans considering their lack of future draft picks.
Watson has been quitely playing like a top 5 QB this season. He just isn't winning because Houston's defense is useless.
-
This has been a rough year to be a Patriots fan.
Oh come on, the Pats are only 4-6. Just because for once they aren’t at the top of the division winning nearly every game doesn’t make their season “rough” . For an idea of what a rough season looks like, look at the Jets, Bengals, Jaguars, or any NFC East team...
Yeah, hey, whatareyou whining about? You could be rooting for the 3-6-1 Eagles!
:-o
Mike
You mean the second-place Eagles.
:bigass:
(My autocorrect recognizes “bigass” by now!)
-
Lions fire Head Coach Patrica(sp?) and GM Quinn today.
-
Lions fire Head Coach Patrica(sp?) and GM Quinn today.
It's about time. Patricia is right up there with Freddie Kitchens and Ben McAdoo in terms of the worst coaching hires recently.
-
For the first time since 2007, the Cleveland Browns will not have a losing record.
-
Due to QB Jeff Driskel's recent COVID diagnosis, all three other Broncos quarterbacks - Drew Lock, Brett Rypien, and Blake Bortles - have been contact-traced and are required to quarantine. As a result, the Broncos have zero available QBs for their game against the Saints today.
But they're still playing. Kendall Hinton, a wide receiver on the practice squad, apparently played QB for a few years at Wake Forest, and he will start at that position today for the Broncos. RB Royce Freeman will serve as the emergency backup.
-
Due to QB Jeff Driskel's recent COVID diagnosis, all three other Broncos quarterbacks - Drew Lock, Brett Rypien, and Blake Bortles - have been contact-traced and are required to quarantine. As a result, the Broncos have zero available QBs for their game against the Saints today.
But they're still playing. Kendall Hinton, a wide receiver on the practice squad, apparently played QB for a few years at Wake Forest, and he will start at that position today for the Broncos. RB Royce Freeman will serve as the emergency backup.
No big deal. The Bears have been playing with zero available QBs all season.
-
With Patrick Mahomes' 462 yard performance against Tampa, Dak Prescott no longer holds the top three games in terms of passing yards this season (502, 472, 450). If that isn't impressive enough, Dak has played less than half as many games as most of the other starting QBs. I know people will say "garbage time" or "they were behind", but Dallas is far from the only team who gets behind, yet Dak is the only QB to put up those kinds of numbers. He's a top 5-7 QB. Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, Watson, possibly Allen, and possibly Brady are the only guys I would put ahead of him.
-
Vikings stole a game against Carolina where they did all kinds of Vikings shit like allow two consecutive fumble return scores by the same guy, muffing a punt in a critical moment, and giving up a huge completion to give the Panthers a field goal try to win. He missed it badly which is also very un-Vikings.
-
He missed it badly which is also very un-Vikings.
Very on-brand for the Panthers, though. That's the third time they've lost on a long field goal miss this season.
That fourth quarter was wild, definitely among the best so far this season.
-
Lions fire Head Coach Patrica(sp?) and GM Quinn today.
Like with Wayne Fontes and Matt Millen, one year too late for the Lions.
-
I'm just happy to see the Vikings on the right side of a one-point loss, because I honestly think that loss to the Seahawks was the most excruciating loss of the season... yes, even worse than the "Hail Murray" Bills-Cardinals game, because the Vikings thoroughly outplayed the Seahawks for nearly the entire game. It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. Bills 30, Cardinals 32
4. Chargers 30, Broncos 31
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Chargers-Raiders and Bears-Falcons are up there too.
-
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
https://twitter.com/CapitalsHill/status/1333533419205226496?s=20
https://twitter.com/CamaroWRX/status/1333533873771261954?s=20
-
Nick Folk! Pats need to win out to maintain their 10 win streak that started literally when I was born.
-
I'm just happy to see the Vikings on the right side of a one-point loss, because I honestly think that loss to the Seahawks was the most excruciating loss of the season... yes, even worse than the "Hail Murray" Bills-Cardinals game, because the Vikings thoroughly outplayed the Seahawks for nearly the entire game. It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. Bills 30, Cardinals 32
4. Chargers 30, Broncos 31
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Chargers-Raiders and Bears-Falcons are up there too.
Next game the Jets win is on this list by default.
-
... It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. Bills 30, Cardinals 32
4. Chargers 30, Broncos 31
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Chargers-Raiders and Bears-Falcons are up there too.
Next game the Jets win is on this list by default.
If it's this season, then yes. :)
-
I'm just happy to see the Vikings on the right side of a one-point loss, because I honestly think that loss to the Seahawks was the most excruciating loss of the season... yes, even worse than the "Hail Murray" Bills-Cardinals game, because the Vikings thoroughly outplayed the Seahawks for nearly the entire game. It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. Bills 30, Cardinals 32
4. Chargers 30, Broncos 31
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Chargers-Raiders and Bears-Falcons are up there too.
I disagree with putting Bills-Cardinals on the list, unless you're ranking by most emotional. Choking away a double digit second half lead, like the Chargers do every week, is much worse than giving up one fluke play at the very end.
-
I disagree with putting Bills-Cardinals on the list, unless you're ranking by most emotional. Choking away a double digit second half lead, like the Chargers do every week, is much worse than giving up one fluke play at the very end.
I don't know. The Bills blew a double-digit second-half lead too; they were up 23-9 in the third quarter before completely unraveling and allowing three straight Cardinals scores. It looked like they were headed for a 26-23 loss, which would have been bad enough on it's own; but then to regain composure and march down the field for an impressive go ahead touchdown with 30 seconds left and still lose is about as excruciating as you can get.
-
I disagree with putting Bills-Cardinals on the list, unless you're ranking by most emotional. Choking away a double digit second half lead, like the Chargers do every week, is much worse than giving up one fluke play at the very end.
I don't know. The Bills blew a double-digit second-half lead too; they were up 23-9 in the third quarter before completely unraveling and allowing three straight Cardinals scores. It looked like they were headed for a 26-23 loss, which would have been bad enough on it's own; but then to regain composure and march down the field for an impressive go ahead touchdown with 30 seconds left and still lose is about as excruciating as you can get.
Hmm, I didn't realize that.
-
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
-
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
If it ever happened, it would have been during the league's first decade, before scheduling became more centralized. Even then, I highly doubt it happened.
-
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
If it ever happened, it would have been during the league's first decade, before scheduling became more centralized. Even then, I highly doubt it happened.
I saw something about the Tuesday game earlier this season having been the first Tuesday game in 70-something years, so that tells us how long ago it would have to have been. I know there was a Wednesday night game not too many years ago–the season-opening game was played on Wednesday instead of Thursday to avoid conflicting with the final night of one of the political parties' presidential nominating conventions when the candidate would be giving his keynote speech– and Saturday games are routine after the college football regular season is over. I'm not sure how routine Friday games are, but they're also not super-rare, as I believe the league has scheduled one game on Friday when Christmas falls on that day of the week (like this year) since they resumed playing Christmas games some time ago (recall for many years they went to great pains to avoid playing on Christmas if possible).
Edited to add: The Wednesday season opener was in 2012 to avoid conflicting with Obama's speech that Thursday.
-
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
If it ever happened, it would have been during the league's first decade, before scheduling became more centralized. Even then, I highly doubt it happened.
I saw something about the Tuesday game earlier this season having been the first Tuesday game in 70-something years, so that tells us how long ago it would have to have been. I know there was a Wednesday night game not too many years ago–the season-opening game was played on Wednesday instead of Thursday to avoid conflicting with the final night of one of the political parties' presidential nominating conventions when the candidate would be giving his keynote speech– and Saturday games are routine after the college football regular season is over. I'm not sure how routine Friday games are, but they're also not super-rare, as I believe the league has scheduled one game on Friday when Christmas falls on that day of the week (like this year) since they resumed playing Christmas games some time ago (recall for many years they went to great pains to avoid playing on Christmas if possible).
Edited to add: The Wednesday season opener was in 2012 to avoid conflicting with Obama's speech that Thursday.
It was much more recent. The Eagles played the Vikings on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010. The game was pushed back from Sunday due to a blizzard in Philly. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201012280phi.htm
The last Tuesday game before that was in 1946 though.
-
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
If it ever happened, it would have been during the league's first decade, before scheduling became more centralized. Even then, I highly doubt it happened.
I saw something about the Tuesday game earlier this season having been the first Tuesday game in 70-something years, so that tells us how long ago it would have to have been. I know there was a Wednesday night game not too many years ago–the season-opening game was played on Wednesday instead of Thursday to avoid conflicting with the final night of one of the political parties' presidential nominating conventions when the candidate would be giving his keynote speech– and Saturday games are routine after the college football regular season is over. I'm not sure how routine Friday games are, but they're also not super-rare, as I believe the league has scheduled one game on Friday when Christmas falls on that day of the week (like this year) since they resumed playing Christmas games some time ago (recall for many years they went to great pains to avoid playing on Christmas if possible).
Edited to add: The Wednesday season opener was in 2012 to avoid conflicting with Obama's speech that Thursday.
It was much more recent. The Eagles played the Vikings on Tuesday, Dec 28, 2010. The game was pushed back from Sunday due to a blizzard in Philly. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201012280phi.htm
The last Tuesday game before that was in 1946 though.
Interesting, thanks. I saw various articles citing to an Elias Sports Bureau reference to it being the first Tuesday game in 70+ years. Interesting to see they overlooked that one. It seems the 1946 game was a weather-related postponement as well.
-
Vikings again escape by the skin of their teeth against a Jags team who is 1-11 but have played a lot of teams tough. Vikings should have wrecked these guys but played sloppy and undisciplined. A win is a win.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
Or you can be the 2011 Giants and barely make the playoffs and win the Superbowl.
-
For the Vikings it’s pretty remarkable how they’ve turned a 1-5 start into a playoff contender with a bunch of rookies and practice squad fill ins on defense. They’re not going to shock the world but some of these guys will be part of the future and I would want them to grow into the job this way.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
Or you can be the 2011 Giants and barely make the playoffs and win the Superbowl.
Speaking of the Giants: quite the signature victory today in Seattle. Big chance to distance themselves from the pack in the NFC (l)East with the Nameless Team facing the Steelers and the non-East Coast team facing the Ravens.
-
In what might be the first good thing the Jets have done this year, they manage to barely lose to the Raiders to preserve their draft pick.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
The only example of that I can think of is the Bengals during the Andy Dalton era. It seems like wild card teams either ascend to the next level and become Super Bowl contenders, or they flame out sooner rather than later and become really bad.
-
In what might be the first good thing the Jets have done this year, they manage to barely lose to the Raiders to preserve their draft pick.
I read something interesting today. With the way that game ended, it might have seemed like the Jets intentionally lost so that they can get the top pick, but their coaching staff and a good portion of their roster knows that they aren't going to be on the team next year (the Jets have a ton of draft picks). So the Jets really are that bad. They're not faking it.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
Or you can be the 2011 Giants and barely make the playoffs and win the Superbowl.
Speaking of the Giants: quite the signature victory today in Seattle. Big chance to distance themselves from the pack in the NFC (l)East with the Nameless Team facing the Steelers and the non-East Coast team facing the Ravens.
Eagles are an irrelevant mess, as they benched Carson Wentz in favor of Jalen Hurts today. It's been a really bad year for my Cowboys, but it's been equally bad for Philly, and they don't have quarterback injury problems (lots of them) to blame.
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
Los Angeles Bears
Chicago Football Team (next Sunday: home against New Orleans)
Chicago really likes clinging to that "Football Team" thing!
-
In what might be the first good thing the Jets have done this year, they manage to barely lose to the Raiders to preserve their draft pick.
For a few minutes, it was looking like the Jags would beat the Vikings, to maintain or widen their "lead" over the Jets for the 2nd draft pick. But they too reverted to form.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
Or you can be the 2011 Giants and barely make the playoffs and win the Superbowl.
Sure but you can't always count on your SB opponent to be overhyped and overrated.
-
I saw that 5—0 score at halftime in Seattle. Too bad that wasn’t the final score. I believe there have only been three games in NFL history that ended with 5—0 scores, the best-known one being a 1970 season playoff game in which Dallas beat Detroit.
Of course, after New York's first touchdown, they made a two-point conversion to make it 8—5, so that would have been even weirder had that been the final score.
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
Better yet, has any NFL team at any point in any game ever had a score of 4?
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
In 1966, the Alouettes beat the Ottawa Rough Riders 1—0! Lowest-scoring game in CFL history. I believe the most recent time a team scored only one point in a game was in July 2012 when the Saskatchewan Roughriders beat the Eskimos 17—1.
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
Better yet, has any NFL team at any point in any game ever had a score of 4?
On November 25, 1923, the Racine Legion beat the Chicago Cardinals 10—4. Only time a team finished with four points. There have been two other times when a team had four points at some point during a game, most recently in 1950.
I seem to recall a college football game ending with a 6—4 score some years back. I’ll have to look for that one. Edited to add: October 2004. Iowa beat Penn State 6—4.
-
Patriots blowing out Chargers now, maybe playoffs are still a possibility?
You will soon learn that barely making the playoffs and getting a shitty draft pick are the fast track to long-term mediocrity, even for a franchise that drafts as well as NE.
Or you can be the 2011 Giants and barely make the playoffs and win the Superbowl.
Sure but you can't always count on your SB opponent to be overhyped and overrated.
They beat the 15-1 Packers and the 13-3 49ers on the way.
-
Speaking of the Giants: quite the signature victory today in Seattle.
Colt McCoy coming through with the NFC East's FIRST win over a team with a winning record, in Week 13, to get the Giants to 5-7 and expand their division lead? Yup, exactly what what we expected in August...
-
Chicago really likes clinging to that "Football Team" thing!
Oof. Starting 5-1 and missing the playoffs is rare, starting 5-1 and sitting at 5-7 in early December has to be even rarer.
I saw that 5—0 score at halftime in Seattle. Too bad that wasn’t the final score.
We did have a final score that included 5-0 today. Unfortunately for the hapless Chargers, it was 45-0...
-
In what might be the first good thing the Jets have done this year, they manage to barely lose to the Raiders to preserve their draft pick.
If preserving the draft pick is the goal, then aren't all 12 losses a good thing?
They've actually been competitive in a number of their games, with one-score losses to the Pats, Chargers, and now Raiders, plus a late blown lead against the Broncos. They're so skilled at losing that I'd actually think less of them if they had won those four and were 4-8 right now.
-
In what might be the first good thing the Jets have done this year, they manage to barely lose to the Raiders to preserve their draft pick.
If preserving the draft pick is the goal, then aren't all 12 losses a good thing?
They've actually been competitive in a number of their games, with one-score losses to the Pats, Chargers, and now Raiders, plus a late blown lead against the Broncos. They're so skilled at losing that I'd actually think less of them if they had won those four and were 4-8 right now.
You literally think losing is better than winning.
Seriously. When the Bears were 4-1 you said that they should be 1-4. You also ripped on the Packers (who were 13-3 and in the NFC title game) for winning. Of course the Bears are now 5-7 and you don't hear a peep about how they should be 10-2 or something, despite, count it, five of their seven losses coming by one possession. On the other end of the spectrum, the Packers are 9-3, steamrolling most of the teams they play (all but two of their wins have been by multiple possessions, and all but one of their losses have been by one possession), and there's no talk about how they should be 11-1. Now the Jets are 0-12 and you think they would be WORSE if they were 4-8?
What is going on here? Can you explain this?
-
My goodness. You'd think it would be obvious why 0-12 is better than 4-8: because 0-12 sets you up for long term success.
I really don't think we need to hash over the Bears and Packers again. It's unnecessary and doesn't do anybody any good. Of course my position isn't that teams should be "ripped on" for winning, but sometimes a team's record reflects luck as much as it does skill/talent; that's just the nature of sports, and not an indictment of any particular team.
-
Not to feel like I’m trying to pick on you, but it goes further than just lose today and win tomorrow. The Jets ownership and front office is one of the biggest jokes in pro sports. The team has nothing and drafting Lawrence means nothing if they can’t hire a good staff and field a team around him. While Lawrence is the unquestioned #1 pick, I do wonder if NY is the right place for him to be successful. I’m not the biggest follower of college football but he doesn’t seem like a guy to me who will adjust to handing the adversity of losing and publications like the NY Post won’t hesitate to throw him on the front page with a mocking headline after his first poor start.
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
The 1-point Safety scored by the Offense/against the Defense (as when the Try begins) is much more likely than the 1-point Safety scored by the Defense/against the Offense (as when the Try begins). But when the Offense/“Trying” team scores a 1-point Safety, it is functionally the same thing as successfully converting the PAT kick thru the uprights, awarding 1 point in addition to the 6 pt TD.
The Offensive 1-point Safety has happened in CFB a few times. The Defensive 1-point Safety, I’m not sure has happened at any level of football, because it takes a ridiculous set of circumstances to make it happen. It would almost *have* to be done intentionally
I expect we’ll see an Offensive 1-point Safety in the NFL sometime. Next week or in the next decade, who knows, but I think it will happen. It is an odd play, but it at least has realistic circumstances where it could happen
-
Not to feel like I’m trying to pick on you, but it goes further than just lose today and win tomorrow. The Jets ownership and front office is one of the biggest jokes in pro sports. The team has nothing and drafting Lawrence means nothing if they can’t hire a good staff and field a team around him. While Lawrence is the unquestioned #1 pick, I do wonder if NY is the right place for him to be successful. I’m not the biggest follower of college football but he doesn’t seem like a guy to me who will adjust to handing the adversity of losing and publications like the NY Post won’t hesitate to throw him on the front page with a mocking headline after his first poor start.
Understood: I'm not expecting the Jets to go 19-0 in 2021 even if they do get Lawrence. Presumably, they will be hiring a new coach and getting some other players with their draft picks, and from what I understand, ownership and the fans believe in the GM, so hopefully he's able to turn things around.
I guess my point about 4-8 is that if you're 4-8 with nothing, you might as well be 0-12 with nothing and at least have the pick. Otherwise you'll just keep being 4-12 or 6-10 every season for the duration, and that offers even less promise.
I'm not sure Lawrence is a good fit for New York either. "Tanking for Trevor" has been hyped up to such a degree that I'm worried expectations have gotten out of line. Being at the center of the NYC sports universe is a lot of pressure even for an established star, much less a 21-year old from the South. (He's younger than me, which is just crazy every time I think about it!)
-
....
I guess my point about 4-8 is that if you're 4-8 with nothing, you might as well be 0-12 with nothing and at least have the pick. Otherwise you'll just keep being 4-12 or 6-10 every season for the duration, and that offers even less promise.
....
The Washington Bullets teams in the 1980s were a perfect example of the phenomenon you describe. They were thoroughly mediocre. From 1982 to 1990, they finished right around .500 (a few games above or a few games below) every year; they missed the playoffs twice, but for five straight years they made the playoffs and lost in the first round every time. That was the perfect example of where you didn't want to be: Not good enough to make a run in the playoffs, but not bad enough to get a good draft pick that could change your franchise.
Even recognizing, of course, that basketball is unique in terms of being the one sport where a single player can sometimes fundamentally change a team's fortunes, the description you give reminds me of that. Football is arguably more susceptible than basketball to screwing up this sort of thing, of course, because even if you pick an outstanding quarterback, he may not be much help if, for example, you don't have a decent offensive line that can keep him on his feet long enough to throw the ball.
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
Better yet, has any NFL team at any point in any game ever had a score of 4?
On November 25, 1923, the Racine Legion beat the Chicago Cardinals 10—4. Only time a team finished with four points. There have been two other times when a team had four points at some point during a game, most recently in 1950.
I seem to recall a college football game ending with a 6—4 score some years back. I’ll have to look for that one. Edited to add: October 2004. Iowa beat Penn State 6—4.
Back in 1974 in SoCal, there was a high school score of 7-4. The NFL record for safeties in a game is 3. I believe it was the Rams who set it against the Giants.
Rick
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
Has any CFL team ended a game with only 1 point (a "rouge" point)?
Better yet, has any NFL team at any point in any game ever had a score of 4?
On November 25, 1923, the Racine Legion beat the Chicago Cardinals 10—4. Only time a team finished with four points. There have been two other times when a team had four points at some point during a game, most recently in 1950.
I seem to recall a college football game ending with a 6—4 score some years back. I’ll have to look for that one. Edited to add: October 2004. Iowa beat Penn State 6—4.
Back in 1974 in SoCal, there was a high school score of 7-4. The NFL record for safeties in a game is 3. I believe it was the Rams who set it against the Giants.
Rick
You're correct, and apparently all three of them occurred in the same quarter, which is even weirder.
I attended a college football game (the 2008 Gator Bowl) in which UVA scored two safeties, both of which involved Texas Tech's quarterback being called for intentional grounding in the end zone. A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. I believe that a defensive two point conversion has only happened twice in the NFL: a Saints/Panthers game in 2015 and a Chiefs/Falcons game in 2016. The latter was extremely signficant:
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. ...
:rolleyes: That was not his point.
-
Hail to the Redskins!
-
Hail to the Redskins!
Coming from a Steelers fan, good game. Washington played a hell of a game and the Steelers did not play like a 11-0 (now 11-1) team. Between this game and the Ravens game, our receivers dropped way too many passes.
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. ...
:rolleyes: That was not his point.
"That was not the point", proceeds to not state the point . . .
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. ...
:rolleyes: That was not his point.
"That was not the point", proceeds to not state the point . . .
The point was it was only for 2 points, not 6 points.
-
Wow, the Giants beat the Seahawks, and the Football Team beats the unbeaten Steelers.
That's two of the biggest upsets of the season in one week! The NFC East just never fails to be entertaining!
-
You'd think it would be obvious why 0-12 is better than 4-8
The draft is an educated guessing game at best and a lottery at worst. Obviously this year there's a large gap between the top pick and second pick, but Lawrence is the best prospect in almost a decade according to most experts, so this is not how it usually is. Last year, you had Burrow, Tua, and Herbert all at the top of the draft, and all of them look like franchise quarterbacks. There's not too much difference there, and if there is, it's actually Herbert, who was the last picked of the three, at the top. In 2018 you had Mayfield at #1 (meh), Darnold at #3 (ick), Allen at #7 (boom!), and Rosen at #10 (big yikes). Then you had Lamar at #32. In 2017? Trubisky is the top QB taken, before Mahomes and Watson. 2016? The best QB in the draft doesn't come off the board until the fourth round (Prescott). So there will be memes about sucking (tank for Tua, bomb for Burrow, tank for Trevor, etc.) until the sun burns out. But you still have to hit on the pick. And in three of the last four drafts, the team with the top pick messed up. If you gave me a choice right now to play for the 0-12 Jets or the 4-8 Panthers, I would play for the Panthers in a heartbeat, because I don't like losing. I would rather play for an actual team with an actual coach and have a worse lottery ticket, than play for a joke team with a joke coach and have a better lottery ticket.
-
I like having two games on Monday. I'd like to see the Thursday games (except for opening week and Thanksgiving) moved to Monday. I know the players would like having fewer Thursday games.
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. ...
:rolleyes: That was not his point.
"That was not the point", proceeds to not state the point . . .
The point was it was only for 2 points, not 6 points.
Who cares? Points are points.
-
A more memorable safety for me was on the day after Thanksgiving in 1994 when one of our guys intercepted NC State's two-point conversion attempt and ran it back 100 yards (NC State still won the game 30—27). As my father said at the time, "That's a lot of work for just two points."
I mean, not really. It takes like 18-19 seconds for me to run 100 yards, and I'm slower than most college football players. ...
:rolleyes: That was not his point.
"That was not the point", proceeds to not state the point . . .
The point was it was only for 2 points, not 6 points.
Who cares? Points are points.
Points only count unless you're playing horseshoes and hand grenades! :D
-
It's official: With a 34-24 win over the 49ers, the Hail Murray play cost the Bills a sweep of the NFC West this season.
-
It's official: With a 34-24 win over the 49ers, the Hail Murray play cost the Bills a sweep of the NFC West this season.
And we’d be all alone in the 7 seed with a little margin for error if you hadn’t messed up. :bigass:
-
It's official: With a 34-24 win over the 49ers, the Hail Murray play cost the Bills a sweep of the NFC West this season.
And we’d be all alone in the 7 seed with a little margin for error if you hadn’t messed up. :bigass:
Bills dropped 143 points on the NFC West, should've been an easy sweep, smh...
My big takeaway from this week though, is that the AFC is proving to be the much stronger conference this year. The 6-6 Vikings are in the #7 spot; the 6-6 Pats, meanwhile, are all the way back in the #10 spot, hardly even in the mix with the Raiders, Browns, Ravens, Dolphins, and loser of Colts-Titans all ahead of them in the race for for the 3 wild card slots.
-
Vikings and Cards are 6-6, and a glut are 5-7 including the Lions, Bears, Giants, Football Team, and 49ers. WSH/SF this week is basically an elimination game but the Niners are trending downward. Bears have quit. Lions will likely lose to Green Bay. Cardinals/Giants is a game Arizona has to win at this point. Vikings will probably lose to Tampa Bay so I’m hoping the Cards fall to the Giants.
-
Not to bring up the Hail Murray again, but it's also the only thing standing between the Cardinals and a 5-game losing streak, so that does set up an interesting Cards-Giants matchup that the Giants really need to win too with the Browns and Ravens on the horizon.
-
Vikings and Cards are 6-6, and a glut are 5-7 including the Lions, Bears, Giants, Football Team, and 49ers. WSH/SF this week is basically an elimination game but the Niners are trending downward. Bears have quit. Lions will likely lose to Green Bay. Cardinals/Giants is a game Arizona has to win at this point. Vikings will probably lose to Tampa Bay so I’m hoping the Cards fall to the Giants.
As a Giants fan, I'm also hoping the Cards fall to the Giants :-D
Also, as a Giants fan, of all the teams the Steelers could lose to, it just HAD to be Washington :banghead:
-
Mildly interesting to note that the last Washington victory over Pittsburgh was on November 17, 1991, at old Three Rivers Stadium to push the Redskins to 11—0; they then lost the following week en route to a 14—2 regular season and a win in Super Bowl XXVI. The 11—0 aspect is kind of amusing in light of Pittsburgh's record going into yesterday’s game.
I was there the last time a Washington team won at Heinz Field before yesterday–the 2011 Winter Classic.
The earlier kickoff yesterday was nice, although 5:00 is awfully early on the East Coast. It’d be nice if they’d kick off the Monday night games around 6:30 or 7:00 on a regular basis. Easier to stay awake to the end of the game!
-
Vikings and Cards are 6-6, and a glut are 5-7 including the Lions, Bears, Giants, Football Team, and 49ers. WSH/SF this week is basically an elimination game but the Niners are trending downward. Bears have quit. Lions will likely lose to Green Bay. Cardinals/Giants is a game Arizona has to win at this point. Vikings will probably lose to Tampa Bay so I’m hoping the Cards fall to the Giants.
Wish the Pats were in the NFC this year.
-
Back in 1974 in SoCal, there was a high school score of 7-4. The NFL record for safeties in a game is 3. I believe it was the Rams who set it against the Giants.
Rick
I was on the high school football team which lost 4-0 in 1984.
-
I was on a HS team that won a game 6-2. With a 6-0 lead, stopped them on 4th and goal, burned their 3 timeouts, then the punter ran around in the end zone for 5 seconds to run out the clock.
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
The 1-point Safety scored by the Offense/against the Defense (as when the Try begins) is much more likely than the 1-point Safety scored by the Defense/against the Offense (as when the Try begins). But when the Offense/“Trying” team scores a 1-point Safety, it is functionally the same thing as successfully converting the PAT kick thru the uprights, awarding 1 point in addition to the 6 pt TD.
The Offensive 1-point Safety has happened in CFB a few times. The Defensive 1-point Safety, I’m not sure has happened at any level of football, because it takes a ridiculous set of circumstances to make it happen. It would almost *have* to be done intentionally
I expect we’ll see an Offensive 1-point Safety in the NFL sometime. Next week or in the next decade, who knows, but I think it will happen. It is an odd play, but it at least has realistic circumstances where it could happen
I thought it HAS happened defensively - someone blocked the kick, ran it back, but was caught up to and force-fumbled the ball out of bounds. Not at a high level, but on video.
-
Scorigami is a fun concept.
https://nflscorigami.com
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
The 1-point Safety scored by the Offense/against the Defense (as when the Try begins) is much more likely than the 1-point Safety scored by the Defense/against the Offense (as when the Try begins). But when the Offense/“Trying” team scores a 1-point Safety, it is functionally the same thing as successfully converting the PAT kick thru the uprights, awarding 1 point in addition to the 6 pt TD.
The Offensive 1-point Safety has happened in CFB a few times. The Defensive 1-point Safety, I’m not sure has happened at any level of football, because it takes a ridiculous set of circumstances to make it happen. It would almost *have* to be done intentionally
I expect we’ll see an Offensive 1-point Safety in the NFL sometime. Next week or in the next decade, who knows, but I think it will happen. It is an odd play, but it at least has realistic circumstances where it could happen
I thought it HAS happened defensively - someone blocked the kick, ran it back, but was caught up to and force-fumbled the ball out of bounds. Not at a high level, but on video.
That isn’t a Safety, tho. That would be a Touchback - ball fumbled forward into the EZ then out of bounds is a Touchback, which on a PAT play means the try is unsuccessful
Other than an Intentional Safety (Offense intentially runs backwards into their own EZ and takes a knee at the snap), for it to happen “naturally” would have to be something such as: Defense gets the ball on the Try, runs it back, fumbles the ball somewhere short of the Goal Line but inside the 5. The Offense pursues, recovers the ball in the field of play, and decides, for some reason, to run back into the EZ and gets tackled in the EZ or steps out of bounds.
Maybe it is a do or die play that the Offense needs the points to win or lose, so some sort of incentive to make a miracle happen - but in that scenario, the Defense should simply take a knee when they get the ball. Like I said, within the rules, but takes an outlandish set of circumstances to actually make it happen
-
With all the schedule shake-ups the NFL has had to date, it's worth pointing out that this is the first calendar week we've encountered with games on three weeknights: Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
The first Tuesday game, Bills-Titans in Week 5, pushed the Bills TNF game to the following Monday, so we only had Mon/Tue that week.
Then last week, Ravens-Steelers on Wednesday pushed the Ravens TNF matchup back to today, so we only had Mon/Wed last week.
-
With all the schedule shake-ups the NFL has had to date, it's worth pointing out that this is the first calendar week we've encountered with games on three weeknights: Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
The first Tuesday game, Bills-Titans in Week 5, pushed the Bills TNF game to the following Monday, so we only had Mon/Tue that week.
Then last week, Ravens-Steelers on Wednesday pushed the Ravens TNF matchup back to today, so we only had Mon/Wed last week.
Along those lines, as long as the Christmas Day game goes forward as scheduled, this will be the first NFL season, maybe ever?, to have games contested on each of the 7 days of the week, across the course of a season
At this point, the only day of the week we are missing is Friday, and Dec 25th is a Friday
-
Dez finally caught it
-
With all the schedule shake-ups the NFL has had to date, it's worth pointing out that this is the first calendar week we've encountered with games on three weeknights: Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
The first Tuesday game, Bills-Titans in Week 5, pushed the Bills TNF game to the following Monday, so we only had Mon/Tue that week.
Then last week, Ravens-Steelers on Wednesday pushed the Ravens TNF matchup back to today, so we only had Mon/Wed last week.
Along those lines, as long as the Christmas Day game goes forward as scheduled, this will be the first NFL season, maybe ever?, to have games contested on each of the 7 days of the week, across the course of a season
At this point, the only day of the week we are missing is Friday, and Dec 25th is a Friday
You don’t say.
I was just looking ahead at the remainder of this season's schedule and I note there are Saturday games later this month and a Friday game on Christmas. That means, assuming today's game goes off as currently scheduled and that those other games happen as scheduled, that the NFL will have played regular-season games on every day of the week this season (so far, we have Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; today would add Wednesday, and then Friday and Saturday are noted above). I wonder whether that's ever happened before.
-
Whoops! Sorry...
-
Cowboys lose again, and in pretty much the same fashion that they've been losing all year. Got gashed in the run game for nearly 300 yards. The offense moved the ball (388 yards and 29 first downs), but missed field goals and a dropped touchdown negated some of it. CeeDee Lamb is a quality player but it's obvious that he wasn't the right pick for Dallas. They need a leader on defense, and they need a lot of help at defensive tackle and linebacker. IMO they should get rid of some of their expensive offensive linemen. Trade them away for draft picks. And Jerry Jones, being the stubborn guy that he is, would never do this, but Zeke needs to go. He ran wild behind the league's best o-line for a few years but now that the o-line has regressed, it's showing that he's not an elite running back. His fitness isn't up to par. A team would probably give up a second round pick for him, third round at worst. All of that frees up cap space and allows the Cowboys to sign Dak and do a mini-rebuild.
-
Another schedule-related oddity that just occurred to me is that the Bills never traveled to a Pacific Coast state this season despite playing the AFC West AND the NFC West. They hosted the Rams, Chargers, and Seahawks, so that left the 49ers game as the only opportunity, and that, of course, ended up being played in Arizona.
So across 8 games they got Arizona x2, Colorado (upcoming) and Nevada; no West Coast OR Kansas City!
You can be pretty confident that's never happened before, especially since it's rare for teams to get both those divisions in the same year to begin with, and this is the first year with an NFL team in Nevada.
-
My big takeaway from this week though, is that the AFC is proving to be the much stronger conference this year. The 6-6 Vikings are in the #7 spot; the 6-6 Pats, meanwhile, are all the way back in the #10 spot, hardly even in the mix with the Raiders, Browns, Ravens, Dolphins, and loser of Colts-Titans all ahead of them in the race for for the 3 wild card slots.
To add to this, I've been browsing around on FiveThirtyEight's NFL predictions (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-nfl-predictions/?ex_cid=rrpromo) and the AFC is really starting to stand out as hierarchical compared to the NFC.
You've got the best team in the league in the Chiefs, the second-best at least record-wise in the Steelers, a total of 9 teams with at least a 40% chance to make the playoffs, and then a group of 6 teams (Jets, Jaguars, Bengals, Chargers, Broncos, Texans) at the bottom of the barrel that are either eliminated or de-facto eliminated. That leaves the Patriots as the only AFC team with between a 1% and 40% chance to make the playoffs, and they're at 4%. That is a stunning have/have not divide and lack of mediocre/average teams.
Now compare that to the NFC, which thanks to the nature of the NFC East has zero teams mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, only the Falcons and Panthers eliminated from division contention, and five teams (Niners, Bears, Lions, Cowboys, Eagles) with between a 1% and 40% chance to make the playoffs. Then you've got an 8-8 finish as the #7 seed very much in play for both the Vikings and the Cardinals, while a 10-6 AFC team might miss out even with the extra playoff spot.
-
Patriots probably missing this year, just hope they win out so they keep their winning season streak.
-
Patriots probably missing this year, just hope they win out so they keep their winning season streak.
Patriots need to rebuild next year IMO. Belichick can’t save that team, there’s just not enough talent, especially on offense.
-
A lot of blowouts today. Only two of the seven 1PM games were decided by one score, and those two were pretty lopsided too before getting close at the end.
-
Cowboys win today. People will whine and say that it's not in their best interest long term, but they're only a game and a half back in the NFC East right now, and that gap could narrow if the name redacted lose to the Niners. Cowboys also play the Giants in week 17. So if Washington and New York stumble down the stretch, who knows. And at the end of the day the Cowboys don't need a super high draft pick. A mid first round pick is fine for them.
-
Philly won in SF, so here's the latest:
* Washington Eagles
* Philadelphia 49ers
* San Francisco Football Team
San Francisco are now the Rams. In the interest of clarity, I guess we now have the Los Angeles NFC Football Team ("NFC" being necessary because of their other team).
Los Angeles Bears
Chicago Football Team (next Sunday: home against New Orleans)
Chicago really likes clinging to that "Football Team" thing!
Chicago Texans
Houston Football Team
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
The 1-point Safety scored by the Offense/against the Defense (as when the Try begins) is much more likely than the 1-point Safety scored by the Defense/against the Offense (as when the Try begins). But when the Offense/“Trying” team scores a 1-point Safety, it is functionally the same thing as successfully converting the PAT kick thru the uprights, awarding 1 point in addition to the 6 pt TD.
The Offensive 1-point Safety has happened in CFB a few times. The Defensive 1-point Safety, I’m not sure has happened at any level of football, because it takes a ridiculous set of circumstances to make it happen. It would almost *have* to be done intentionally
I expect we’ll see an Offensive 1-point Safety in the NFL sometime. Next week or in the next decade, who knows, but I think it will happen. It is an odd play, but it at least has realistic circumstances where it could happen
Something I just realized is that, in college football, it's now possible for a game to end 1-0. The 1-point safety can only be scored on a conversion attempt, which until this year has always required a preceding touchdown, but beginning last year, the 5th overtime on consist of alternating 2-point conversion attempts with no preceding touchdown. It's probably a billion to one odds that a game ever gets to a 5th OT tied 0-0, but if it did, then it could end 1-0.
-
Jets might actually go 0-16 holly crap
-
Eagles stun the Saints, 24-21.
It's exactly the kind of upset that everyone should have easily seen coming, and no one ever does.
-
Eagles stun the Saints, 24-21.
It's exactly the kind of upset that everyone should have easily seen coming, and no one ever does.
Since Wentz came into the league, the Eagles are 35-33-1 with him and 11-3 without him. :hmmm:
-
I find it mildly annoying when teams clinch their division this early, but alas, the Packers have clinched the NFC North and the Chiefs have clinched the AFC West.
And Washington with a commanding lead in the NFC East... you hate you see it! :-D
(Packers, not Saints, have clinched their division. Edited to reflect.)
-
I find it mildly annoying when teams clinch their division this early, but alas, the Saints have clinched the NFC South and the Chiefs have clinched the AFC West.
And Washington with a commanding lead in the NFC East... you hate you see it! :-D
And the Packers have also clinched the NFC North. Go Pack Go!
-
I find it mildly annoying when teams clinch their division this early, but alas, the Saints have clinched the NFC South and the Chiefs have clinched the AFC West.
And Washington with a commanding lead in the NFC East... you hate you see it! :-D
And the Packers have also clinched the NFC North. Go Pack Go!
Whoops, my bad. You are correct, it's the Packers that have clinched, not the Saints.
Although the Saints have clinched a playoff spot, the Bucs still have a mathematical pathway to the division title.
-
(I still want to see a game end with a 6—1 score, but insofar as I’m aware, no NFL team has ever scored a one-point safety.)
The 1-point Safety scored by the Offense/against the Defense (as when the Try begins) is much more likely than the 1-point Safety scored by the Defense/against the Offense (as when the Try begins). But when the Offense/“Trying” team scores a 1-point Safety, it is functionally the same thing as successfully converting the PAT kick thru the uprights, awarding 1 point in addition to the 6 pt TD.
The Offensive 1-point Safety has happened in CFB a few times. The Defensive 1-point Safety, I’m not sure has happened at any level of football, because it takes a ridiculous set of circumstances to make it happen. It would almost *have* to be done intentionally
I expect we’ll see an Offensive 1-point Safety in the NFL sometime. Next week or in the next decade, who knows, but I think it will happen. It is an odd play, but it at least has realistic circumstances where it could happen
Something I just realized is that, in college football, it's now possible for a game to end 1-0. The 1-point safety can only be scored on a conversion attempt, which until this year has always required a preceding touchdown, but beginning last year, the 5th overtime on consist of alternating 2-point conversion attempts with no preceding touchdown. It's probably a billion to one odds that a game ever gets to a 5th OT tied 0-0, but if it did, then it could end 1-0.
CFB OT is such a joke, and this further change to the already gimmick OT is just worse
I’d rather see the games end in Ties than deciding winners in this ridiculous format
Football isn’t played as Innings, and it certainly isn’t played alternating single plays.
Good for you, CFB. Good for you.
-
I find it mildly annoying when teams clinch their division this early, but alas, the Saints have clinched the NFC South and the Chiefs have clinched the AFC West.
And Washington with a commanding lead in the NFC East... you hate you see it! :-D
And the Packers have also clinched the NFC North. Go Pack Go!
And owing to the Saints' loss to the Eagles, the Packers now have the #1 seed and first-round bye in the NFC. Both teams are now 10-3, with the Packers having the tiebreak (head-to-head).
:nod:
Mike
-
Patriots probably missing this year, just hope they win out so they keep their winning season streak.
They're not eliminated from the playoffs yet, but with the Bills monster win last night, they are out of the division race.
It would be very Bills-esque if the division comes down to Bills-Dolphins Week 17, but even that seems unlikely since they've got a 2-game lead now.
-
Who knew that starting a kick returner at quarterback doesn't work that well. Saints need to get Brees back so that come playoff time, they can lose a tight game in heartbreaking fashion instead of getting their doors blown off.
-
I've added the Giants to my list of wildly overhyped teams by the media this season. It was really annoying last week. They squeak past the Seahawks because Wilson missed a wide open reciever on the biggest play of the game, and the media was literally acting like they had a shot at the Super Bowl. The list also includes:
- Eagles (preseason hype)
- Cardinals (Kyler Murray hype, hAiL mUrRaY hype)
- Dolphins (all the hype about their defense, only for Mahomes to throw for 393 yards and put up 33 points)
-
Agree with the first three even though the Cardinals are still even money to make the playoffs.
As for the Dolphins, they probably aren't making it to the Super Bowl, but if they make the playoffs period, Flores has to be Coach of the Year. It's to their defense's credit that they had 3 interceptions to even keep it close against the Chiefs.
-
I've added the Giants to my list of wildly overhyped teams by the media this season. It was really annoying last week. They squeak past the Seahawks because Wilson missed a wide open reciever on the biggest play of the game, and the media was literally acting like they had a shot at the Super Bowl. The list also includes:
- Eagles (preseason hype)
- Cardinals (Kyler Murray hype, hAiL mUrRaY hype)
- Dolphins (all the hype about their defense, only for Mahomes to throw for 393 yards and put up 33 points)
There's almost always going to be a team or two named before the season that is expected to make the playoffs that doesn't. And vice-versa.
After all, gambling odds work the same way too.
-
I've added the Giants to my list of wildly overhyped teams by the media this season. It was really annoying last week. They squeak past the Seahawks because Wilson missed a wide open reciever on the biggest play of the game, and the media was literally acting like they had a shot at the Super Bowl. The list also includes:
- Eagles (preseason hype)
- Cardinals (Kyler Murray hype, hAiL mUrRaY hype)
- Dolphins (all the hype about their defense, only for Mahomes to throw for 393 yards and put up 33 points)
There's almost always going to be a team or two named before the season that is expected to make the playoffs that doesn't. And vice-versa.
After all, gambling odds work the same way too.
Yeah, I don't mind preseason hype when it's justified. But you can't look at that roster and say that they have a shot at the playoffs (in a normal division at least). Of course being in the NFC East makes things different.
-
That Ravens-Browns MNF matchup was probably the best NFL game of the year.
-
That Ravens-Browns MNF matchup was probably the best NFL game of the year.
New Browns played like the Pre-Ravens Browns tonight.
-
After a week of mostly dud games, wow, that one delivered. Definitely top-3 of the year along with the Hail Murray game and Seahawks-Cards Week 7.
Both Bengals-Browns games were great too, but the stakes were much higher tonight. And ultimately, the Ravens needed that one more - the Browns still have the better record!
-
With just 3 weeks remaining, you can choose your own results and game out various playoff scenarios here (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-nfl-predictions/?ex_cid=rrpromo).
-
Ravens win essentially eliminates the Patriots. Oh well.
-
My top 10 games list so far: (keep in mind that this is entirely subjective to my tastes)
10. 49ers at Patriots, week 7: This might seem like an odd choice, but IMO this game was the real death of the Patriots' two decade dynasty. It was this game that showed us once and for all that the Patriots' reign was over.
9. Browns at Cowboys, week 4: I walked away from the TV when it was 41-14. 20 minutes later I came back and it was 41-38. There was just so much chaos overall in this game - Jarvis Landry throwing a touchdown pass, Browns rushing for 300 yards, Dak Prescott throwing for 500 yards, and the accidental two point conversion. This game wins the "you can't make this stuff up" category.
8. Packers at Saints, week 3: Hall of Fame QB matchups rarely disappoint, and this was no exception. Alvin Kamara had arguably the best performance by any running back in any game this season - in a losing effort.
7. Chiefs at Buccaneers, week 12: See: Hall of Fame QB matchups. Tyreek Hill went crazy in the first quarter, and at that point it looked like a blowout. Brady had a mistake-prone game, especially by his standards, but there were a few vintage Brady moments in the second half.
6. Falcons at Cowboys, week 2: The most predictable unpredictable game ever. That onside kick was one of the only moments in NFL history when basically anyone who knows anything about football could have made a better play than the guys on the field.
5. Chiefs at Raiders, week 11: A classic back and forth shootout.
4. Bills at Cardinals, week 10: Only reason it's not higher is because nobody would have cared if it weren't for the catch by Hopkins.
3. Ravens at Browns, week 14: Had a little bit of everything. Lamar Jackson set the MNF record for rushing yards by a QB. Then, Maker Bayfield magically figured out how to handle adversity, and led the Browns back, only for Justin Tucker to win it with a long field goal.
2. Seahawks at Cardinals, week 7: I didn't watch any of it but I heard it was great.
1. Patriots at Seahawks, week 2: Pretty much what September is supposed to be in the NFL. Deep touchdowns, great performances, and lots of irony. LOTS of irony.
-
My top 10 games list so far: (keep in mind that this is entirely subjective to my tastes)
...
5. Chiefs at Raiders, week 11: A classic back and forth shootout.
4. Bills at Cardinals, week 10: Only reason it's not higher is because nobody would have cared if it weren't for the catch by Hopkins.
3. Ravens at Browns, week 14: Had a little bit of everything. Lamar Jackson set the MNF record for rushing yards by a QB. Then, Maker Bayfield magically figured out how to handle adversity, and led the Browns back, only for Justin Tucker to win it with a long field goal.
2. Seahawks at Cardinals, week 7: I didn't watch any of it but I heard it was great.
1. Patriots at Seahawks, week 2: Pretty much what September is supposed to be in the NFL. Deep touchdowns, great performances, and lots of irony. LOTS of irony.
Totally agree with your top five, although the order could be argued.
The next five are much more subjective. I'd throw at least one of the Browns-Bengals games in there, and Bills-Rams in Week 3 was pretty wild as well with the second-biggest blown lead in NFL history, a last second touchdown, and a glut of controversial calls.
And for wild finishes, don't forget Lions-Falcons (the accidental Gurley touchdown game).
As for blowouts, my pick for most enjoyable is Niners 17, Dolphins 43. I can't even tell you why, and it's certainly nothing against the Niners, but I just found that to be such a fun beatdown in what may have turned out to be one of Fitzmagic's last starts for Miami.
-
That Ravens-Browns MNF matchup was probably the best NFL game of the year.
New Browns played like the Pre-Ravens Browns tonight.
Right down to the shocking and unbelievable choke.
-
What a hilarious loss for the Raiders. They suck.
-
'Tis be another long off-season for Mr. Gruden and company. This once-Oakland Raiders, but hilariously named Las Vegas Raiders team is such a joke in the grand scheme of the NFL landscape. Sure. You could say that with the Jets of which management has been very bland lately. You could potentially say that for Detroit. Man that team is awful. Dallas can't seem to find an identity on defense. And I don't know what's with all the hubbub regarding Josh Allen. He isn't great, but from what I could briefly glean from the talk shows, looks like Allen is on the improvement. Houston? Gosh, what a mess. Baltimore is a bit of a question mark, not because of the QB or his style of play, but mainly how the plays are mapped out and how often those plans get scuppered when Lamar Jackson is having to scramble. This 2020 Patriots team? Yuck. They can't seem to draft newcomers worth diddly mush.
-
Jon Gruden was wearing an Oakland Raiders hat for the first half against the Chargers: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/12/18/jon-gruden-wore-oakland-hat-says-someone-tricked-him/
-
This is the guy you pay 10 million a year for, gets you an average football team :-D
-
What a hilarious loss for the Raiders. They suck.
They managed to stay above .500 all season against a tough schedule. They're the only team that's beat the Chiefs. They're the only team outside the AFC North that's beat the Browns.
And yet... their 421 points allowed is an NFL-worst, and their sorry defense makes them look like the Chargers... against the Chargers! I mean, come on. You can't get blown out by the Falcons, barely escape the Jets, allow 44 points to the Colts, lose to the Chargers in overtime in Week 15, and make the playoffs. Playoff teams don't do any of those things, much less all four. What a collapse.
FiveThirtyEight has their playoff chances down to 2%, with a 9% chance if they win out, and both of those feel too high. The way the AFC is shaping up, it's more likely that an 11-5 team would miss out than a 9-7 team would make it.
-
It really seemed like neither team wanted to win towards the end...between Badgley's miss, Mariota's interception, Badgley's 2nd miss, AJ Cole borking the hold on Carlson's 65-yard attempt, Raiders coming up just short of a TD in OT... Great game though!
...their sorry defense makes them look like the Chargers... against the Chargers!
Even Joe Buck took a dig at them early in the game...
"Marcus Mariota on the sideline, he doesn't appear to be warming up yet...well, he probably knows he has a while, with this defense." *Troy Aikman starts chuckling in the background* "Sorry, cheap shot!"
-
I was disappointed in the botched hold. I wanted to see how close he'd come on the 65-yard attempt.
-
What a hilarious loss for the Raiders. They suck.
They managed to stay above .500 all season against a tough schedule. They're the only team that's beat the Chiefs. They're the only team outside the AFC North that's beat the Browns.
And yet... their 421 points allowed is an NFL-worst, and their sorry defense makes them look like the Chargers... against the Chargers! I mean, come on. You can't get blown out by the Falcons, barely escape the Jets, allow 44 points to the Colts, lose to the Chargers in overtime in Week 15, and make the playoffs. Playoff teams don't do any of those things, much less all four. What a collapse.
FiveThirtyEight has their playoff chances down to 2%, with a 9% chance if they win out, and both of those feel too high. The way the AFC is shaping up, it's more likely that an 11-5 team would miss out than a 9-7 team would make it.
The NFC is a joke but I am really excited for the AFC playoffs. There are four or five teams that I think could upset Kansas City and win the conference. (sorry Baltimore, you're not included in that group).
-
The NFC is a joke but I am really excited for the AFC playoffs. There are four or five teams that I think could upset Kansas City and win the conference. (sorry Baltimore, you're not included in that group).
Four or five is quite a few. That's basically the rest of the playoff field if you exclude the Ravens.
-
Houston? Gosh, what a mess.
Bill O'Brien, in a futile attempt to get into the playoffs, has ruined this team through stupid moves that will cost them at least 5 years until they could potentially reach playoff contention again. Deshaun Watson is all that's keeping the Texans from being worse than the Jets.
I think the team should trade Watson to the Patriots, trade Watt to the Steelers, trade McKinnie plus some wide recievers to whoever, and start afresh. That would give those guys an opportunity to play on an actual professional football team.
-
Houston? Gosh, what a mess.
Bill O'Brien, in a futile attempt to get into the playoffs, has ruined this team through stupid moves that will cost them at least 5 years until they could potentially reach playoff contention again. Deshaun Watson is all that's keeping the Texans from being worse than the Jets.
They were trying to go all in for a Super Bowl run last year. That bombed and now they're left with the broken pieces and salary cap issues.
-
One very interesting trade would be the Texans giving Deshaun Watson, a second round pick, and a third round pick to the Cowboys in return for Dak Prescott and Dallas' first round pick. It would never happen, but on paper it sounds good. The Texans need a first round pick and the Cowboys need to get out of the Dak contract situation somehow.
-
It's official. With a 48-19 win over the Broncos, the Bills win the AFC East for the first time in 25 YEARS!
Where were you 25 years ago? I wasn't even alive! Neither was Josh Allen, he was born 6 months later, in May 1996.
-
It's official. With a 48-19 win over the Broncos, the Bills win the AFC East for the first time in 25 YEARS!
Where were you 25 years ago? I wasn't even alive! Neither was Josh Allen, he was born 6 months later, in May 1996.
I was alive by then ;)
Not that I recall much from that year, I was very young at the time.
Nonetheless, I am very pleased to see the Bills win the AFC East for the first time in 25 years. I just hope that they don’t get kicked out of the playoffs or lose the Super Bowl, whatever comes first this post-season.
-
Seahawks are the 6th team to clinch a playoff spot; Rams will likely be the 7th. The final NFC spot looks like it will come down to the Bears and Cardinals. Vikings still have a slim chance, Niners will be eliminated if the Cardinals win.
The Pats have been eliminated after a loss to the Dolphins, who are very much still in it. They need to win out and get some help from the Ravens, Browns, or Colts, all likely playoff teams that will be endangered if the last two weeks go wrong. As for the Raiders... yikes. Nothing went their way today. With getting in over the 10-win Colts or Titans now out of reach, it looks like their only path is winning out, Bills beating Dolphins, and either Browns or Ravens losing out against creampuff schedules.
-
Seahawks are the 6th team to clinch a playoff spot; Rams will likely be the 7th. The final NFC spot looks like it will come down to the Bears and Cardinals. Vikings still have a slim chance, Niners will be eliminated if the Cardinals win.
The Pats have been eliminated after a loss to the Dolphins, who are very much still in it. They need to win out and get some help from the Ravens, Browns, or Colts, all likely playoff teams that will be endangered if the last two weeks go wrong. As for the Raiders... yikes. Nothing went their way today. With getting in over the 10-win Colts or Titans now out of reach, it looks like their only path is winning out, Bills beating Dolphins, and either Browns or Ravens losing out against creampuff schedules.
Rams just lost to the Jets.
-
... It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Jets 23, Rams 20
1. 2.Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. 3. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. 4. Bills 30, Cardinals 3
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Next game the Jets win is on this list by default.
If it's this season, then yes. :)
As promised. Didn't think it would happen, but you just never know.
-
Seahawks are the 6th team to clinch a playoff spot; Rams will likely be the 7th. The final NFC spot looks like it will come down to the Bears and Cardinals. Vikings still have a slim chance, Niners will be eliminated if the Cardinals win.
The Pats have been eliminated after a loss to the Dolphins, who are very much still in it. They need to win out and get some help from the Ravens, Browns, or Colts, all likely playoff teams that will be endangered if the last two weeks go wrong. As for the Raiders... yikes. Nothing went their way today. With getting in over the 10-win Colts or Titans now out of reach, it looks like their only path is winning out, Bills beating Dolphins, and either Browns or Ravens losing out against creampuff schedules.
Rams just lost to the Jets.
The Rams have one problem. It's not their offense, it's not their defense, it's not their coach or GM. It's their tendency to absolutely stink once every three weeks. Think about it:
Week 1-2: good
Week 3: bad
Week 4-5: good
Week 6: bad
Week 7 and 9: good
Week 8: bad
Week 10 and 11: good
Week 12: bad
Week 13-14: good
Week 15: bad
So they're going to win the NFC West at 11-5, then lose at home to the Seahawks or Buccaneers.
-
... It's tough to pick the top 5 worst losses so far because the Falcons and Chargers have so many to choose from... but here's what I'd go with:
1. Jets 23, Rams 20
1. 2.Vikings 26, Seahawks 27
2. 3. Falcons 39, Cowboys 40
3. 4. Bills 30, Cardinals 3
5. Falcons 22, Lions 23
Next game the Jets win is on this list by default.
If it's this season, then yes. :)
As promised. Didn't think it would happen, but you just never know.
J-E-T-S Jets-Jets-Jets.
Finally, we win a game this season!
-
Was anyone surprised at all when the Falcons squandered a 24-7 lead to the Bucs? I honestly feel a little bit bad for those players. It has to be so demoralizing. And now the media can't blame the coach either, because they don't have a permanent coach.
In other news (if you can call it that?), the Cowboys win their second straight to improve to 5-9. The Niners celebrating after a meaningless hail mary in a game that they were completely outplayed in and lost was disgusting, and really sums up their season. But the situation with Dallas is a prime example of why you shouldn't tank the moment things look bad. They are now a game back of first in the division. They still need to win out and have Washington lose out, but their playoff hopes are higher right now than they've been at any point in the last three months.
-
Was anyone surprised at all when the Falcons squandered a 24-7 lead to the Bucs? I honestly feel a little bit bad for those players. It has to be so demoralizing. And now the media can't blame the coach either, because they don't have a permanent coach.
... The Niners celebrating after a meaningless hail mary in a game that they were completely outplayed in and lost was disgusting, and really sums up their season. ...
Disgusting? That's pretty harsh. The Niners have been decimated this season plus having to move to Arizona for their home games. Of course they still lost, but you have to give them a bit of a break.
As for the Falcons blown lead, yeah, it was total script, but that last first down they handed the Bucs was what I thought was disgusting.
Seahawks are the 6th team to clinch a playoff spot; Rams will likely be the 7th.
...
Rams just lost to the Jets.
I hadn't looked at the game prior to posting. It did enter my mind that I was possibly handing the Jets their first win of the season by posting that.
The Rams being the seventh team to clinch a playoff spot, however, has not been ruled out. It just won't be today.
-
With three divisions already decided and two more on the cusp of being decided, the NFC East is the only division with more than two teams still in contention. Washington can clinch if they win out, but all four teams still have a shot.
-
With three divisions already decided and two more on the cusp of being decided, the NFC East is the only division with more than two teams still in contention. Washington can clinch if they win out, but all four teams still have a shot.
Simplest scenarios for each team:
Washington - win out
Giants - have a better record than Washington by at least one game over the next two weeks
Cowboys - win out and Washington lose out
Eagles - win out, Washington lose out, Giants lose at least once
-
Whoa, the Burrow-less Bengals with a monster upset over the Steelers!
I don't dare even say what this could mean for Week 17... but I like it, a lot!
-
Whoa, the Burrow-less Bengals with a monster upset over the Steelers!
I don't dare even say what this could mean for Week 17... but I like it, a lot!
Week 15 became Upset Weekend
2 of the bottom 3 teams in the League (also in the AFC) scored big upset wins
In terms of Week 17...all but guarantees Steelers/Browns will be SNF, and could very well end up being the AFCN Title Game
-
This AFC playoff picture is getting spicy. Interestingly enough, the Ravens are the only team in the picture that doesn't control their own destiny. Browns, Colts, and Dolphins are all in if they win out.
If the Dolphins win out to clinch a spot, things get very interesting for the Browns and Ravens, as one of them is going to miss out... unless the Colts drop the Pittsburgh game, which puts their spot in a lot of peril because it gives the Titans a big advantage in the division race, and both the Browns and Ravens have the head-to-head tiebreaker.
The Browns could be in a situation where their playoff berth depends on getting to 12-4 and beating the Steelers to win the division... and if they do it, the 11-5 Ravens miss the playoffs. Now that is a juicy storyline.
-
This AFC playoff picture is getting spicy. Interestingly enough, the Ravens are the only team in the picture that doesn't control their own destiny. Browns, Colts, and Dolphins are all in if they win out.
If the Dolphins win out to clinch a spot, things get very interesting for the Browns and Ravens, as one of them is going to miss out... unless the Colts drop the Pittsburgh game, which puts their spot in a lot of peril because it gives the Titans a big advantage in the division race, and both the Browns and Ravens have the head-to-head tiebreaker.
The Browns could be in a situation where their playoff berth depends on getting to 12-4 and beating the Steelers to win the division... and if they do it, the 11-5 Ravens miss the playoffs. Now that is a juicy storyline.
Miami is going to lose at least once in their next two games. Baltimore has been nearly perfect against sub-.500 teams in the Lamar era, so they should win out. With the way things are currently trending, the Colts (won five of their last six) will beat the Steelers this weekend, and the Steelers will lose to the Browns (also won five of their last six). If the Titans lose to Green Bay, that puts Indy in the driver's seat in the AFC South. Guess who they get to play in week 17?
So I predict the standings will be as follows:
1. Chiefs: 15-1 or 14-2, depending on whether or not they play their starters in week 17
2. Bills: 13-3
3. Browns: 12-4
4. Colts: 12-4
5. Steelers: 11-5
6. Titans: 11-5
7. Ravens: 11-5
At this point I'm kind of hoping the Dolphins miss the playoffs because yesterday I listened to Colin Cowherd compare Tua, a rookie QB who is averaging less than 200 passing yards per game, and Brian Flores, who has a career losing record as a head coach, to Brady and Belichick. I always like to see him be wrong, even if he almost never admits it.
-
As much I'd like to see it, I'd be shocked if the Browns win the AFC North. The script is all written for a close, exciting loss in Week 17.
Remember, the Ravens blew out the Browns the first time around, and were coming into the Monday night game on a big losing streak. This sets up very similarly.
Miami is going to lose at least once in their next two games.
...
At this point I'm kind of hoping the Dolphins miss the playoffs because yesterday I listened to Colin Cowherd compare Tua, a rookie QB who is averaging less than 200 passing yards per game, and Brian Flores, who has a career losing record as a head coach, to Brady and Belichick. I always like to see him be wrong, even if he almost never admits it.
The Dolphins are a better all-around team than the Raiders, so I trust them there, and then it depends on whether the Bills play their starters in Week 17. They might be locked into the #2 seed.
The Brady-Belichick comparison seems premature, but there's definitely some parallels to the 2001 Patriots. Flores is a great coach, I think he deserves Coach of the Year but it will likely only happen if they make the playoffs.
If the Titans lose to Green Bay, that puts Indy in the driver's seat in the AFC South. Guess who they get to play in week 17?
The team they lost to in Week 1! It's not going to happen, but it would be amusing if this otherwise winless Jaguars season was bookended by wins over the Colts.
-
Whoa, the Burrow-less Bengals with a monster upset over the Steelers!
I don't dare even say what this could mean for Week 17... but I like it, a lot!
I have a bad feeling that Pittsburgh is going to end up 11-5. The way they're playing right now, it is completely possible. Usually, 11-5 is not a bad thing. However, it is if you started 11-0.
Unfortunately, I think this is it for Big Ben. His age and last year's elbow surgery seem to be catching up w/ him. Plus, our OC is awful at play-calling. Very short shovel pass, a run with no gain, an incomplete deep pass, punt. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'm hoping Pittsburgh trades up in the draft and selects one of the available QBs in the first round.
-
Whoa, the Burrow-less Bengals with a monster upset over the Steelers!
I don't dare even say what this could mean for Week 17... but I like it, a lot!
I have a bad feeling that Pittsburgh is going to end up 11-5. The way they're playing right now, it is completely possible. Usually, 11-5 is not a bad thing. However, it is if you started 11-0.
Unfortunately, I think this is it for Big Ben. His age and last year's elbow surgery seem to be catching up w/ him. Plus, our OC is awful at play-calling. Very short shovel pass, a run with no gain, an incomplete deep pass, punt. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'm hoping Pittsburgh trades up in the draft and selects one of the available QBs in the first round.
Father Time has caught up to Big Ben
-
Whoa, the Burrow-less Bengals with a monster upset over the Steelers!
I don't dare even say what this could mean for Week 17... but I like it, a lot!
I have a bad feeling that Pittsburgh is going to end up 11-5. The way they're playing right now, it is completely possible. Usually, 11-5 is not a bad thing. However, it is if you started 11-0.
Unfortunately, I think this is it for Big Ben. His age and last year's elbow surgery seem to be catching up w/ him. Plus, our OC is awful at play-calling. Very short shovel pass, a run with no gain, an incomplete deep pass, punt. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'm hoping Pittsburgh trades up in the draft and selects one of the available QBs in the first round.
Father Time has caught up to Big Ben
Nicely done... :clap:
-
Father Time has caught up to Big Ben
Nicely done... :clap:
Indeed! Can't believe I missed that the first time I read it.
-
How's this for a surprise: No Thursday Night Football this week, but there will be a Christmas Day game for the first time in a while (Vikings at Saints). I can see why the NFL wants to avoid playing on 12/24-12/25 and 12/31-1/1 if it can avoid that.
-
How's this for a surprise: No Thursday Night Football this week, but there will be a Christmas Day game for the first time in a while (Vikings at Saints). I can see why the NFL wants to avoid playing on 12/24-12/25 and 12/31-1/1 if it can avoid that.
Usually when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday, most of that week’s NFL action gets pushed to Christmas Eve Saturday with a special national game or two on Christmas Day Sunday.
-
Here we go again with the December scheduling conversation.
Once again, all week 17 games are on a Sunday. No Thursday, Saturday, or Monday games.
-
Here we go again with the December scheduling conversation.
Once again, all week 17 games are on a Sunday. No Thursday, Saturday, or Monday games.
For many seasons now the week 17 games have been within divisions and most start at the same time. This is to cut down on playoff positioning hanky-panky. It's the same reason why FIFA now schedules the third games of the first round (group play) within each group in the World Cup to start at the same time.
Mike
-
I think the all-divisional week 17 is stupid and I was never in favor of it. 11 seasons too many of that format.
-
Here we go again with the December scheduling conversation.
Once again, all week 17 games are on a Sunday. No Thursday, Saturday, or Monday games.
For many seasons now the week 17 games have been within divisions and most start at the same time. This is to cut down on playoff positioning hanky-panky. It's the same reason why FIFA now schedules the third games of the first round (group play) within each group in the World Cup to start at the same time.
Mike
Even more than avoiding hanky-panky, having all the games on the same day ensures that playoff opponents are on equal rest.
-
If it were not for the TV Broadcast Deals with CBS, FOX, and NBC and needing to fill 3 separate Sunday Broadcast windows, really all the Week 17 games should all be 4-4:30 EST Kickoffs - all playing at the same time
Guaranteeing an Intradivision game in W17 greatly increases the chances that CBS, FOX, and/or NBC will get to broadcast a Division Title Game - again, done due to the TV contracts
MLB does similar for Game 162 - All games start in the 4-4:30 EDT timeframe, so any “Final Day” Playoff/Divisional Pennant situations end up being contested at the same time. Obviously, MLB can’t guarantee an Intradivisional, or even Intraleague, game for Week 17, as each Division and each League has an odd numeber of teams
-
Here we go again with the December scheduling conversation.
Once again, all week 17 games are on a Sunday. No Thursday, Saturday, or Monday games.
But the two posts before yours were talking about this week, which is Week 16. Normally there would have been a Thursday game, but they moved it to Friday since today is Christmas.
-
But the two posts before yours were talking about this week, which is Week 16. Normally there would have been a Thursday game, but they moved it to Friday since today is Christmas.
A Christmas Day Late Afternoon game is a much better TV product than a Christmas Eve Night game. Not a shock that TNF got bumped to Christmas Friday
-
I think the all-divisional week 17 is stupid and I was never in favor of it. 11 seasons too many of that format.
I'm sure it's probably done so that the league will get some games being played for the division title, but curious why you're against it.
-
To bring up another point that's been mentioned many times already... we need a game today to ensure a game is played on every day of the week. :-P
-
If it were not for the TV Broadcast Deals with CBS, FOX, and NBC and needing to fill 3 separate Sunday Broadcast windows, really all the Week 17 games should all be 4-4:30 EST Kickoffs - all playing at the same time
The league has tended lately to put games that matter (or don't matter) in the same time slot. If there's a bunch of games being played by teams not making the playoffs, they'll generally be 1pm games. For games that have major playoff implications, they'll be 4pm games. Games that may have some seeding implications could go in either time slot. The single bye in each conference may make things interesting too.
-
To bring up another point that's been mentioned many times already... we need a game today to ensure a game is played on every day of the week. :-P
As long as they time a commercial so everyone can flip to TBS to watch Ralphie visit the Chinese restaurant.
-
The single bye in each conference may make things interesting too.
It's not particularly interesting in the AFC because the Chiefs can clinch with a win this week. The NFC may be more interesting, with 4 teams technically still in contention. But, for teams like the Bills and Steelers, it's still worth playing for the #2 seed so you can host the divisional round.
It is going to be weird for a team that played on wild card weekend to be hosting the divisional round. Crazily, if seeds 2-4 all lost, the #5 seed would host the divisional round, which has never been possible before.
-
I think the all-divisional week 17 is stupid and I was never in favor of it. 11 seasons too many of that format.
Disagree.
-
If I were to critique the Week 17 schedule (which may become Week 18 before too long): I like the Divisional Matchups
But I would put your oppenent and game site on a set rotation. That final week will be a known before the schedule is announced, fine, but that way there is a regular rotation for W17 opponents thru a Division
I think it is a little bit unbalanced when the Bears haven’t played the Lions (and therefore Vikings/Packers) in Week 17 since 2015
Bears/Vikings and Packers/Lions in Week 17 was 4 years in a row, 2016-2019
Bears/Packers and Vikings/Lions will be Week 17 this year, but most recent before was back in 2013
Packers have got to play the Lions a lot for W17 lately
-
The Bucs have clinched a playoff berth for the first time since 2007.
The Cardinals, meanwhile, blew their chance to be in control of the final NFC wild card spot. Their loss to the Niners leaves the door wide open for the Bears, who have the tiebreaker and can clinch just by winning out. It also puts the Rams in peril: if they lose to the Seahawks and the Bears win out, Cardinals-Rams Week 17 is an elimination game.
-
What a hilarious loss for the Raiders. They suck.
... their 421 points allowed is an NFL-worst, and their sorry defense makes them look like the Chargers... against the Chargers! I mean, come on. You can't get blown out by the Falcons, barely escape the Jets, allow 44 points to the Colts, lose to the Chargers in overtime in Week 15, and make the playoffs. Playoff teams don't do any of those things, much less all four. What a collapse.
Quoted for emphasis now that the Raiders have been eliminated from the playoffs.
Not sure what was worse, the Chargers loss, or the loss last night.
-
Why do highly-paid NFL coaches get such basic, yet critical decisions wrong?
Down 23-22 with 3rd and goal on the 1, with 1:05 left and your opponent out of time outs, you score the touchdown 100% of the time, rather than kneel down to run the clock down and kick the FG.
Being up 5 (or 7 if you get the 2 point conversion) with 1:01 left has a higher win probability than being up 2 with 0:19 left.
-
I agree, but with just :19 remaining, I think 31 other defenses could've still kept the opponent out of field goal range.
The real gutsy move would've been to kneel on 3rd down and run it in for a TD on 4th down. Risky, but with that sorry defense, it has to be an option.
-
The world will explode if the Cowboys win the NFC East next week. All that needs to happen is a Cowboys win vs the former media loverboys Giants, and a Washington loss vs Philadelphia. There are still people who think Dallas should have tanked the season when they started 2-7. :-D :-D
-
Also, the Eagles are eliminated. I can already see the future: the Hurts novelty wears off midway through 2021. He finishes 2021 with 21 touchdowns and 16 interceptions or some below average statline like that. The media babies him for two more years, focusing on a four game stretch when he was good instead of the rest of his career, before it becomes apparent that he's not the answer, and the cycle repeats itself with a different quarterback. I will be revisiting this post in 2023.
-
A lot went down today, but my biggest takeaway is that a 10-win (possibly 11-win) team from the AFC will miss the playoffs, while a NFC East team with a losing record will host a playoff game.
At this point it's very unlikely that the NFC team is favored in the Super Bowl.
-
If the Bears win their last game, or the Cardinals lose theirs, the Bears will become the third team in NFL history to make the playoffs after losing 6 straight during the season.
-
Be interesting to see who starts at QB for the Redskins next week.
-
A lot went down today, but my biggest takeaway is that a 10-win (possibly 11-win) team from the AFC will miss the playoffs, while a NFC East team with a losing record will host a playoff game.
At this point it's very unlikely that the NFC team is favored in the Super Bowl.
You're assuming that Kansas City makes it.
-
A lot went down today, but my biggest takeaway is that a 10-win (possibly 11-win) team from the AFC will miss the playoffs, while a NFC East team with a losing record will host a playoff game.
At this point it's very unlikely that the NFC team is favored in the Super Bowl.
Poor Rivers.
-
At this point it's very unlikely that the NFC team is favored in the Super Bowl.
You're assuming that Kansas City makes it.
Not at all. I think if any team can beat the Chiefs and get to the Super Bowl, they're going to be favored.
Poor Rivers.
How come? If they beat the Jags, they've still got a very decent shot to make the playoffs.
-
Chiefs haven’t played all that well over the last month-plus. Some people are comparing them to the 2011 Packers, who went 15-1 but got bounced handily by the Giants in their first playoff game.
-
Chiefs haven’t played all that well over the last month-plus. Some people are comparing them to the 2011 Packers, who went 15-1 but got bounced handily by the Giants in their first playoff game.
8 one-score wins is the most in the league this year. That includes a sweep of the NFC South by 11 points total.
It's almost like they need to be in a hole before they're motivated to snap to life. They're still doing enough to win, but just barely in the case of yesterday against the Falcons.
-
Chiefs haven’t played all that well over the last month-plus. Some people are comparing them to the 2011 Packers, who went 15-1 but got bounced handily by the Giants in their first playoff game.
8 one-score wins is the most in the league this year. That includes a sweep of the NFC South by 11 points total.
It's almost like they need to be in a hole before they're motivated to snap to life. They're still doing enough to win, but just barely in the case of yesterday against the Falcons.
Chiefs are not peaking at the right time like the Bills, Packers, and Ravens are. This year we're seeing a lot of good teams fall off as the season goes on. Steelers, Titans, Saints, Browns, Rams, and Seahawks and Chiefs to an extent. That probably has something to do with the chaos of training camp and no preseason.
-
Be interesting to see who starts at QB for the Redskins next week.
It won't be Haskins: He was just released.
-
Be interesting to see who starts at QB for the Redskins next week.
It won't be Haskins: He was just released.
Yikes. I hope it's Alex Smith.
-
Four teams scored 40+ points this weekend. Two of them were NFC North teams. The other two were playing NFC North teams.
-
The Bears scoring 30+ points in four straight games is one of the more head-scratching December developments.
-
The Bears scoring 30+ points in four straight games is one of the more head-scratching December developments.
Their entire season is a head-scratching development. Started 5-1, including beating Tampa Bay, while having a world-beating defense combined with minimal offensive performance, losing 6 straight as the offense gradually improved but the defense got worse, capped off by blowing a 10 point lead to abysmal Detroit with under 3 minutes left, then finally exploding on offense (against admittedly awful defenses) with the defense flashing signs of improvement.
Now the season hinges on beating Green Bay, which would be hopeless if not for the fact that the Packers have wrapped up the #1 seed and aren't likely to play their best players much, if at all.
Yet none of that is nearly as head-scratching as the Jets suddenly winning two straight and blowing their shot at Trevor Lawrence.
-
Be interesting to see who starts at QB for the Redskins next week.
It won't be Haskins: He was just released.
Yikes. I hope it's Alex Smith.
So in 2019, the Panthers fired Ron Rivera after he lost to Haskins.
In 2020, Rivera fired Haskins after he lost to the Panthers.
What will 2021 bring?
-
Now the season hinges on beating Green Bay, which would be hopeless if not for the fact that the Packers have wrapped up the #1 seed and aren't likely to play their best players much, if at all.
Bears can still get in with a loss to the Pack, but the Rams (possibly sans Jared Goff) also have to beat the Cardinals
Bears own the tiebreaker over the Cardinals. I haven’t dived deep enough into the tie-breakers to see why, but there is a reason the Bears moved into the 7 spot and the Cards to the 8, now both with the same records and same NFC records. If the Rams win and the Bears lose, Rams are the 6, and Bears are the 7
After looking it up, the tiebreaker is Common Opponents - Lions, Giants, Panthers, Rams. Bears are 3-2 against those teams/Split with Lions, Ws over Giants & Panthers, L to the Rams. Cardinals are currently 1-3 with the 2nd Rams game to go - best the can finish in common opponents is 2-3 with a win on Sunday (W vs Giants, Ls to Rams G1, Giants, Panthers)
If the Cards beat the Rams and the Bears win, it is a 3-way tie at 9-7. By rule, Ties within a Division are broken first. Right now, Rams and Cardinals are both 2-3 in the NFC West. If the Cards win, they will get the #2 spot in the NFC West. so the Rams fall out. Then it is head-to-head Cards and Bears for #6 - Bears own Common Opponents, and get the 6 and Cardinals the 7, and the Rams are 1st team out
If the Cardinals win and the Packers win, then the Bears are out
-
So in 2019, the Panthers fired Ron Rivera after he lost to Haskins.
In 2020, Rivera fired Haskins after he lost to the Panthers.
What will 2021 bring?
Panthers fire Haskins after losing to Ron Rivera? :-D
-
Now the season hinges on beating Green Bay, which would be hopeless if not for the fact that the Packers have wrapped up the #1 seed and aren't likely to play their best players much, if at all.
Whoa, the Packers don't have the #1 seed locked up just yet.
They can clinch it by beating the Bears or by the Seahawks losing, which would force, at worst, a tie with the Saints (in which they have the head-to head tiebreaker).
If the Packers lose, though, it gets messy. The Saints can only clinch the bye with a win and a Seahawks win. Because of the head to head loss to the Packers, they're in a weird scenario where they need the Seahawks to also win to force a 3-way tie. Seahawks get the bye themselves only if they win and the Saints and Packers both lose.
Yet none of that is nearly as head-scratching as the Jets suddenly winning two straight and blowing their shot at Trevor Lawrence.
Everyone seemed to just assume they'd go 0-16, but in hindsight it should've been obvious that it might not happen. It's totally ridiculous that they would've had to go 0-16 to get the pick, which the coaches and players clearly wanted to avoid. They'd been surprisingly competitive in quite a few games, and they fired the defensive coordinator after the blown ending to the Raiders game which a true "tanking for Trevor" team wouldn't have done.
The Jags were much more obviously tanking IMO.
-
The Bills notched their first 12-win season since 1993, and first sweep of the Patriots since 1999 last night. You hate to see it! :biggrin:
Now, the key question for the AFC playoff picture is whether the Bills and Steelers will play their starters in Week 17.
My guess is Bills Yes (why not keep rolling and clinch the #2 seed?), Steelers No (basically missed their bye this season, have looked like they need some rest, and can't get the #2 seed anyways if the Bills win).
https://www.nfl.com/news/debrief-breaking-down-afc-playoff-picture-entering-week-17
-
Now, the key question for the AFC playoff picture is whether the Bills and Steelers will play their starters in Week 17.
My guess is Bills Yes (why not keep rolling and clinch the #2 seed?), Steelers No (basically missed their bye this season, have looked like they need some rest, and can't get the #2 seed anyways if the Bills win).
Tomlin announced earlier that Ben and some starters will NOT start against Cleveland. Which sets up Mason Rudolph vs Myles Garret 2.0
I also certainly didn't hate seeing the Patriots lose again....... but that certainly doesn't involve any kind of Bills love.
-
Now, the key question for the AFC playoff picture is whether the Bills and Steelers will play their starters in Week 17.
My guess is Bills Yes (why not keep rolling and clinch the #2 seed?), Steelers No (basically missed their bye this season, have looked like they need some rest, and can't get the #2 seed anyways if the Bills win).
Tomlin announced earlier that Ben and some starters will NOT start against Cleveland. Which sets up Mason Rudolph vs Myles Garret 2.0
I also certainly didn't hate seeing the Patriots lose again....... but that certainly doesn't involve any kind of Bills love.
Don't be surprised if the Steelers' announcement leads to the Bills resting.
-
McDermott is 🤐 but said the possibility of fans at the playoff game(s) was a factor in their decision.
With the good rhythm they've got going, I hope Allen at least plays the first half, but we won't be finding out for now.
-
I expect the Chiefs, Steelers, and Bills to rest starters. It might actually be benficial for the Bills or Steelers to get the third seed, because there's a good chance Baltimore, one of the hottest teams in the league, ends up at 7. Then again, Lamar hasn't exactly been great in the postseason. The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
-
It might actually be benficial for the Bills or Steelers to get the third seed, because there's a good chance Baltimore, one of the hottest teams in the league, ends up at 7.
I don't believe Baltimore can end up at 7 if they beat the Bengals and finish 11-5. They've got the tiebreaker over both the Browns and Colts, so it would have to involve the Colts winning the South, which can only happen if the Titans lose and finish 10-6.
The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
And possibly miss out on the #1 seed? I think the #1 seed is more valuable. Lambeau is the number one place other teams don't want to travel in January.
-
The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
And possibly miss out on the #1 seed? I think the #1 seed is more valuable. Lambeau is the number one place other teams don't want to travel in January.
It is also *BEAR WEEK*. Regardless of the standings, you WIN that game!
:nod:
Mike
-
It might actually be benficial for the Bills or Steelers to get the third seed, because there's a good chance Baltimore, one of the hottest teams in the league, ends up at 7.
I don't believe Baltimore can end up at 7 if they beat the Bengals and finish 11-5. They've got the tiebreaker over both the Browns and Colts, so it would have to involve the Colts winning the South, which can only happen if the Titans lose and finish 10-6.
The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
And possibly miss out on the #1 seed? I think the #1 seed is more valuable. Lambeau is the number one place other teams don't want to travel in January.
Ah, I didn't know the Seahawks could still get the 1 seed.
-
The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
And possibly miss out on the #1 seed? I think the #1 seed is more valuable. Lambeau is the number one place other teams don't want to travel in January.
It is also *BEAR WEEK*. Regardless of the standings, you WIN that game!
:nod:
Mike
F that. It is PACKER WEEK!
Icing on the cake: WIN, AND YOU ARE IN! With the bonus (?), that if Da Bears beat the Fudgies...there is a decent chance that the two will have a rematch in the Wild Card Round
-
The Packers should rest their starters, but I don't know if they will. Chicago will be out for blood, so it would be smart to not put star players in Khalil Mack's way.
And possibly miss out on the #1 seed? I think the #1 seed is more valuable. Lambeau is the number one place other teams don't want to travel in January.
It is also *BEAR WEEK*. Regardless of the standings, you WIN that game!
:nod:
Mike
F that. It is PACKER WEEK!
Icing on the cake: WIN, AND YOU ARE IN! With the bonus (?), that if Da Bears beat the Fudgies...there is a decent chance that the two will have a rematch in the Wild Card Round
This is something I always look forward to. BEAR DOWN!!!
-
Great, then some of us have to decide which one of you to root for. :banghead: :meh:
Although for me, it’s not a decision. Melt the cheese with fire, every time.
-
12 of this week's 16 games have playoff or seeding implications, which has to be a record (partly due to the expanded playoffs).
Outside the AFC West matchups, the only other games with no implications are Vikings-Lions and Jets-Patriots.
-
12 of this week's 16 games have playoff or seeding implications, which has to be a record (partly due to the expanded playoffs).
Outside the AFC West matchups, the only other games with no implications are Vikings-Lions and Jets-Patriots.
Falcons/Bucs, Saints/Panthers, and 49ers/Seahawks have only seeding implications. The way the NFL has set up the week 17 schedule doesn't make sense to me. I would have all the playoff berth/division title games in the 3:25 slot. So that would be MIA/BUF, PIT/CLE, DAL/NYG, BAL/CIN, JAX/IND, TEN/HOU, AZ/LAR, and WFT/PHI. That would be maximum chaos. To balance it out, LAC/KC and NO/CAR would be moved back to the 12:00 slot. Then GB/CHI would be SNF.
The playoff picture, particularly in the AFC, is going to come down to teams resting starters as much as anything. Steelers aren't playing their starters, to that makes it much easier for the Browns to get in. Bills haven't yet said anything, so I feel like there's a good chance that their stars play a limited amount or not at all. That is good news for the Dolphins.
-
12 of this week's 16 games have playoff or seeding implications, which has to be a record (partly due to the expanded playoffs).
Outside the AFC West matchups, the only other games with no implications are Vikings-Lions and Jets-Patriots.
Falcons/Bucs, Saints/Panthers, and 49ers/Seahawks have only seeding implications. The way the NFL has set up the week 17 schedule doesn't make sense to me. I would have all the playoff berth/division title games in the 3:25 slot. So that would be MIA/BUF, PIT/CLE, DAL/NYG, BAL/CIN, JAX/IND, TEN/HOU, AZ/LAR, and WFT/PHI. That would be maximum chaos. To balance it out, LAC/KC and NO/CAR would be moved back to the 12:00 slot. Then GB/CHI would be SNF.
It's because they don't want games to be neutered by other results. Say GB/CHI goes to SNF. Seattle, Arizona, and New Orleans all lose in the afternoon. Now there is zero meaning to GB/CHI when it kicks off and you're likely to see backups play most of the game.
-
The way the NFL has set up the week 17 schedule doesn't make sense to me. I would have all the playoff berth/division title games in the 3:25 slot. So that would be MIA/BUF, PIT/CLE, DAL/NYG, BAL/CIN, JAX/IND, TEN/HOU, AZ/LAR, and WFT/PHI. That would be maximum chaos. To balance it out, LAC/KC and NO/CAR would be moved back to the 12:00 slot. Then GB/CHI would be SNF.
I agree it doesn't make perfect sense: Basically they can't have it so that a team could clinch or be eliminated from a playoff spot in a time slot before they take the field. Makes sense to have the AFC South games in the middle window. Presumably the other AFC win-and-in games are not included because they don't necessarily affect any other games. Colts are the only AFC team that needs help from other teams to get in, but even if CLE, MIA, and BAL all win, they'll still have a chance at the division if the Titans slip up.
It's because they don't want games to be neutered by other results. Say GB/CHI goes to SNF. Seattle, Arizona, and New Orleans all lose in the afternoon. Now there is zero meaning to GB/CHI when it kicks off and you're likely to see backups play most of the game.
Yeah, GB/CHI can't be SNF because the Packers might have already clinched the bye, and the Bears might have already clinched a playoff berth. Unfortunately, but also fittingly for this year/season, WAS/PHI really is the only option for SNF.
-
GB/CHI was already a SNF game as well. Sunday after Thanksgiving
-
GB/CHI was already a SNF game as well. Sunday after Thanksgiving
Both ends of a divisional matchup can be on SNF. The only one I can think of immediately is Cowboys vs. Giants in 2011, but that was the one that finally ended that persistent urban legend.
-
It would make by far the most sense to have all AFC games in one time slot and all NFC games in the other, then just pick one game without cross-implications for the night.
-
Historically the "early slot" has been regarded as less desirable.
Maybe whichever conference has the more interesting matchups (the AFC this year IMO) would play at 4:25 ET and the other conference would be relegated to 1:00 ET.
-
It would make by far the most sense to have all AFC games in one time slot and all NFC games in the other, then just pick one game without cross-implications for the night.
The problem with this is that it could mean starting West Coast games at 10:00 AM local time unless all games were scheduled for other time zones in that week (which may not be possible if the goal is to have all in-division games in the final week of the season, seeing as how the NFC West has three Pacific Time teams–Seattle, San Francisco, and LA–and one Mountain Time team in Phoenix).
Edited to add: I guess if the AFC had the early slot it would be feasible as long as Los Angeles always had a road game to end the season, since the rest of the AFC West is Las Vegas, Denver, and Kansas City.
-
Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?
-
Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?
No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?
-
Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?
No, but to be honest, I've really enjoyed the expansion from 12 to 14 so far. If this year is any indication, it will make playoff races much more enticing. Just take last season as an example. In week 17 there would have been one wild card spot up for grabs in the NFC. The Rams, Eagles, Cowboys, Bears, and Buccaneers all would have been fighting for it. Instead, there was no wild card spot to play for.
-
With that many teams in the playoffs, the first round of playoffs should consist of more than one game. If it's two games, and each team wins one, compare the margin of victory; this is equivalent to the way soccer handles 2-game playoffs. If it's three games, the typical two out of three works well.
-
Also, the Eagles are eliminated. I can already see the future: the Hurts novelty wears off midway through 2021. He finishes 2021 with 21 touchdowns and 16 interceptions or some below average statline like that. The media babies him for two more years, focusing on a four game stretch when he was good instead of the rest of his career, before it becomes apparent that he's not the answer, and the cycle repeats itself with a different quarterback. I will be revisiting this post in 2023.
Yeah, we played that game in Philadelphia already. :thumbdown: :ded: :poke:
-
Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?
No, but to be honest, I've really enjoyed the expansion from 12 to 14 so far.
Absolutely same here. I like only one team getting the bye and the spiciness of the Week 17 matchups.
This year in particular is crazy in the AFC with five 10-5 teams. It certainly worked out for maximum chaos this time, but I'd expect in the future that at least some of those wild card berths would be clinched by now.
No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?
But it wouldn't be that different from what we have now. The only difference is the #1 seed would play the #8 seed instead of having the bye.
-
There is a problem with television showings. Three games per Saturday and Sunday is fit table. But if a 4th game per weekend were added, that would be a scheduling nightmare
-
Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?
No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?
Baseball plays 162 games and then eliminates two of the 10 playoff teams in single games. That’s arguably worse.
-
There is a problem with television showings. Three games per Saturday and Sunday is fit table. But if a 4th game per weekend were added, that would be a scheduling nightmare
Baseball doesn't have a problem with it, somehow. Start the east coast game at noon and go every 3 hours.
-
I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.
Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks, and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?
-
I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.
Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks, and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?
The Ravens example is a one-off, compared to what normally happens. The risk of having an injury to a starter in a meaningless game is much greater than the risk of losing the first playoff game after sitting the starters and then a week off.
-
It works out for some teams and not for others. Maybe with the Chiefs sputtering a bit lately, best to take a week off and come back with a fresher mind.
-
I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.
Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks, and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?
I can answer this in three words: football is painful.
-
I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.
Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks, and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?
I can answer this in three words: football is painful.
Basically. It's always smart to rest the best players and save them for the more important game.
-
Interesting. I kind of figured I'd be in the minority here, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Are there any other high profile examples prior to the Ravens last year?
-
2009 Saints rested starters for Week 17 and won the Super Bowl.
-
2009 Saints rested starters for Week 17 and won the Super Bowl.
Same with the 2017 Eagles and 2014 Patriots.
-
The Bills dropped 56 points on the league's best defense to wrap up the season with 501 points (a team record); finished 13-3 for the first time since 1991; swept the division for the first time this century, and remain undefeated (6-0) since Hail Murray, with a +119 point differential (avg. +19.83) in those six wins.
Josh Allen is now the Bills' single-season passing yards leader with 4,543, surpassing Drew Bledsoe's 2002 campaign.
-
I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.
-
I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. ...
I think I remember the discussion you're referring to. Could very well be true, but it wasn't me that said it.
On the subject of the Browns, with them and the Bucs now ending their postseason droughts, the Jets are the only team not to have made the postseason in the last 6 years.
31/32 teams in 6 years (and 29/32 teams in 5 years, subtracting the Bengals and Broncos) has to be a record. It certainly is a record this century given the long droughts the Bills and Browns endured, and it could possibly be an all-time record.
-
I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.
In the 2010 season, the Bears and Packers played three times, but the Packers only won 2. In 2011, they only played twice.
In 1941, they played three times with the Bears winning two.
They've never played 4 times in a season.
-
Dolphins end up on the outside at the end of the day, and Ryan Fitzpatrick reaches 16 seasons without a playoff appearance. He twice has been win and in Week 17 and both times his team lost (2014 Jets).
-
I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.
In the 2010 season, the Bears and Packers played three times, but the Packers only won 2. In 2011, they only played twice.
In 1941, they played three times with the Bears winning two.
They've never played 4 times in a season.
What he means is calendar year: Week 17 of the 2010 season when Green Bay beat the Bears was technically in January 2011. Then three weeks later the Packers beat Chicago again in the MFC Championship game. Several months later during the scheduled 2011 season Green Bay beat Chicago twice more.
-
The Houston Football Team win the Snyder Prize by finishing the season with the “Football Team” moniker under the forum’s game.
-
Dolphins end up on the outside at the end of the day, and Ryan Fitzpatrick reaches 16 seasons without a playoff appearance. He twice has been win and in Week 17 and both times his team lost (2014 Jets).
It would've been fun to see Fitzpatrick in the playoffs, but ultimately, they still overachieved this season. They got very lucky against the Raiders, and still needed to win a big game with Tua to get in, and that didn't happen. And at the end of the day, I don't think either team wanted a rematch next week.
-
The Houston Football Team win the Snyder Prize by finishing the season with the “Football Team” moniker under the forum’s game.
To confirm how this all shook out:
Washington Eagles
Philadelphia 49ers
San Francisco Rams
Los Angeles (NFC) Bears
Chicago Texans
Houston Football Team
-
The Houston Football Team win the Snyder Prize by finishing the season with the “Football Team” moniker under the forum’s game.
To confirm how this all shook out:
Washington Eagles
Philadelphia 49ers
San Francisco Rams
Los Angeles (NFC) Bears
Chicago Texans
Houston Football Team
We were awfully close to "Football Team" ending up with a playoff team.
-
Honestly, the Houston deserves it. I was pretty wrong about predicting they would go 7-9 (plus they lost in one of the worst ways possible). And keep in mind they did this with a quarterback who won the passing title for the entire NFL!
-
Also fun fact about the Houston game: The Titans became the 2nd team in history to beat an opponent twice in a season whilst giving up 35+ points both times. The stranger thing is the only other time this happened was in 1960 when the NY Titans (Jets) beat the Dallas Texans (KC Chiefs) twice that year under the same circumstances. So both times this has happened in the NFL, it was Titans-Texans.
-
Packers have the number 1 seed in the NFC, but IMO, they shouldn’t be the favorites until they prove themselves. They always find a creative way to choke or get steamrolled in the playoffs.
With as much talent as Aaron Rodgers has, I can’t believe they haven’t been able to get back to the Super Bowl in a decade. The Packers have failed Rodgers.
-
I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.
In the 2010 season, the Bears and Packers played three times, but the Packers only won 2. In 2011, they only played twice.
In 1941, they played three times with the Bears winning two.
They've never played 4 times in a season.
What he means is calendar year: Week 17 of the 2010 season when Green Bay beat the Bears was technically in January 2011. Then three weeks later the Packers beat Chicago again in the MFC Championship game. Several months later during the scheduled 2011 season Green Bay beat Chicago twice more.
Ah, OK, yes the Packers beat the Bears 4 times during calendar year 2011.
Another weird quirk involving the Bears - 14 years ago, the Bears and Colts became the first teams with black head coaches to reach the Super Bowl. Today they became the first teams to be #7 playoff seeds.
-
Also fun fact about the Houston game: The Titans became the 2nd team in history to beat an opponent twice in a season whilst giving up 35+ points both times.
If Ravens-Browns on MNF was the game of the year, Texans-Titans was definitely series of the year. Both games were absolute thrillers.
-
Man it feels great to finally see the Browns playoff drought come to an end
-
The AFC North has three playoff teams, and would have even under the previous format because the Ravens are #5 and Browns are #6.
Ravens-Titans is a tantalizing matchup next week.
With the expansion to 14 teams, the extra two teams are Colts and Bears. Colts are definitely deserving and would have been only the second 11-5 team in history to miss out. Bears are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but they've had a heck of a ride this season, and they're definitely more worthy than the Cardinals IMO.
Full Wild Card Weekend schedule here: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-2021-postseason-schedule
-
Packers have the number 1 seed in the NFC, but IMO, they shouldn’t be the favorites until they prove themselves. They always find a creative way to choke or get steamrolled in the playoffs.
With as much talent as Aaron Rodgers has, I can’t believe they haven’t been able to get back to the Super Bowl in a decade. The Packers have failed Rodgers.
Look at the other NFC contenders though . . . Saints are even worse chokers, Seahawks can never get past the divisional, Rams are highly inconsistent, Bears and WFT/Giants are not good. Buccaneers are the only team that I don't see significant flaws in other than Green Bay. There's a good chance the Bucs will play the Packers at Lambeau in the divisional round, and that would more or less be the NFC Championship in my mind. Yes, the Saints did hammer the Bucs twice, but I don't think the Saints will make it past the divisional without screwing up in a new hilarious way.
-
Washington wins the NFC Least with a 7-9 record, completing an awesome comeback story for Alex Smith.
Hilariously, the Eagles and Bengals both finish the season 4-11-1... a tied record because of the tie game. :-D
Can't help but wonder if the Eagles preferred a loss (and a higher draft pick) over sending the 6-10 Giants to the playoffs... and really, who can blame them?
-
Washington wins the NFC Least with a 7-9 record, completing an awesome comeback story for Alex Smith.
Hilariously, the Eagles and Bengals both finish the season 4-11-1... a tied record because of the tie game. :-D
Can't help but wonder if the Eagles preferred a loss (and a higher draft pick) over sending the 6-10 Giants to the playoffs... and really, who can blame them?
Based on the 4th and Goal from the 4, along with immediately bringing in the backup QB for the final 20~ minutes of the game, the draft pick was more important that who made the playoffs.
I would have loved to see a 6-10 team be the Division winner though, which the Giants would've been if Washington lost.
-
Based on the 4th and Goal from the 4, along with immediately bringing in the backup QB for the final 20~ minutes of the game, the draft pick was more important that who made the playoffs.
Not to mention at least pretending to try to win the game.
I was primarily rooting against Dan Snyder, but I too was also rooting for a 6-10 team to sneak into the playoffs.
-
The second half was brutal. Also got tired of Al and Cris constantly musing what Giants fans thought about any particular play:event. They weren’t there.
-
The Giants-Cowboys game could very well have turned out differently if Mike McCarthy had remembered he had a challenge flag on Dante Pettis's 10-yard catch right before the Giants hit that 50 yard FG. Sure looked like an incomplete pass to me, which would in all likelihood have forced the Giants to punt and the Cowboys would have gotten the ball back just one point down instead of four.
And for that reason I'm glad Washington won in the end - the result of that early game didn't matter anyway.
-
Based on the 4th and Goal from the 4, along with immediately bringing in the backup QB for the final 20~ minutes of the game, the draft pick was more important that who made the playoffs.
Not to mention at least pretending to try to win the game.
I was primarily rooting against Dan Snyder, but I too was also rooting for a 6-10 team to sneak into the playoffs.
The team was trying to win the game. Other than the QB substitution, the players weren't mailing it in and there wasn't a wholesale removal of key players.
-
The second half was brutal. Also got tired of Al and Cris constantly musing what Giants fans thought about any particular play:event. They weren’t there.
I agree. Ultimately, I'm sure Giants fans still hate the Eagles just as much or more than they did before, but that was an annoying few hours in between.
-
Based on the 4th and Goal from the 4, along with immediately bringing in the backup QB for the final 20~ minutes of the game, the draft pick was more important that who made the playoffs.
Not to mention at least pretending to try to win the game.
I was primarily rooting against Dan Snyder, but I too was also rooting for a 6-10 team to sneak into the playoffs.
The team was trying to win the game. Other than the QB substitution, the players weren't mailing it in and there wasn't a wholesale removal of key players.
I never wanna be *that* guy that says a team mailed it in.
Buttttttttt.....
When a team doesn't start their franchise QB and removes their starting QB only down by 3 points to put in the 3rd stringer as if it was a pre-season game, I can't say they were playing at 100% here. Hurts had a bad game overall when you look at the QB rating, although he did score two TDs on his own. Do I think they played to lose...probably not. But then again, the Redskins played as if they really didn't care if they made it or not. Limping into the playoffs would be an overstatement here.
The Giants were caught in an unfortunate situation...but then again, they were 6-10.
Pederson's coaching here certainly raised some eyebrows though... https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30648412/philadelphia-eagles-doug-pederson-says-was-coaching-win-washington-wanted-get-nate-sudfeld-some-reps is just one of several stories and Facebook "opinions" by broadcast reporters that questioned his desire to win this game.
The second half was brutal. Also got tired of Al and Cris constantly musing what Giants fans thought about any particular play:event. They weren’t there.
I agree. Ultimately, I'm sure Giants fans still hate the Eagles just as much or more than they did before, but that was an annoying few hours in between.
My wife was really annoyed at the announcers with the amount of praise they were giving in the multiple times they talked about Washington's comeback stories.
The 2nd half though...what can you say - the announcers know a garbage game when they see one. They joked about the fans in the stadium (0). The best thing they saw were the overhead nighttime shots of the city (pre-recorded; it was a lousy weather day/night in Philly). From a Road Enthusiast perspective, they had a great time-lapse shot of the traffic on the Ben Franklin Bridge and some marine traffic on the Delaware River, in which the camera would've been located on the tower on the Jersey side of the bridge, facing towards Center City Philly.
They also said, or started to say, the 'Redskins' 3 times, all late in the game, which shows the lack of concentration they had by that point.
-
Packers have the number 1 seed in the NFC, but IMO, they shouldn’t be the favorites until they prove themselves. They always find a creative way to choke or get steamrolled in the playoffs.
With as much talent as Aaron Rodgers has, I can’t believe they haven’t been able to get back to the Super Bowl in a decade. The Packers have failed Rodgers.
Look at the other NFC contenders though . . . Saints are even worse chokers, Seahawks can never get past the divisional, Rams are highly inconsistent, Bears and WFT/Giants are not good. Buccaneers are the only team that I don't see significant flaws in other than Green Bay. There's a good chance the Bucs will play the Packers at Lambeau in the divisional round, and that would more or less be the NFC Championship in my mind. Yes, the Saints did hammer the Bucs twice, but I don't think the Saints will make it past the divisional without screwing up in a new hilarious way.
True, but I'm still not confident because the Packers always seem to find a way to mess it up. I really want to see Aaron Rodgers get a second Super Bowl, or at least appear in one. This is his best shot in years, but we'll see.
-
Packers have the number 1 seed in the NFC, but IMO, they shouldn’t be the favorites until they prove themselves. They always find a creative way to choke or get steamrolled in the playoffs.
With as much talent as Aaron Rodgers has, I can’t believe they haven’t been able to get back to the Super Bowl in a decade. The Packers have failed Rodgers.
Look at the other NFC contenders though . . . Saints are even worse chokers, Seahawks can never get past the divisional, Rams are highly inconsistent, Bears and WFT/Giants are not good. Buccaneers are the only team that I don't see significant flaws in other than Green Bay. There's a good chance the Bucs will play the Packers at Lambeau in the divisional round, and that would more or less be the NFC Championship in my mind. Yes, the Saints did hammer the Bucs twice, but I don't think the Saints will make it past the divisional without screwing up in a new hilarious way.
GB has had many other seasons in the past 10 years where they were the clear favorite yet exited in either the Wild Card, 1st, or conf rounds. 2 Super Bowl wins in over 25 years of two HoF QBs, I am shocked fans did not revolt like 5 or 6 years ago against management.
-
The 2020 NFC East is officially NOT the worst division in NFL history. Its record of 23-40-1 is one game better than the 2014 NFC South, at 22-41-1. Ha!
-
I never wanna be *that* guy that says a team mailed it in.
Buttttttttt.....
....
Are you saying it Hurts to be a New York NFC Football Team fan this morning?
:bigass:
-
Packers have the number 1 seed in the NFC, but IMO, they shouldn’t be the favorites until they prove themselves. They always find a creative way to choke or get steamrolled in the playoffs.
With as much talent as Aaron Rodgers has, I can’t believe they haven’t been able to get back to the Super Bowl in a decade. The Packers have failed Rodgers.
Look at the other NFC contenders though . . . Saints are even worse chokers, Seahawks can never get past the divisional, Rams are highly inconsistent, Bears and WFT/Giants are not good. Buccaneers are the only team that I don't see significant flaws in other than Green Bay. There's a good chance the Bucs will play the Packers at Lambeau in the divisional round, and that would more or less be the NFC Championship in my mind. Yes, the Saints did hammer the Bucs twice, but I don't think the Saints will make it past the divisional without screwing up in a new hilarious way.
GB has had many other seasons in the past 10 years where they were the clear favorite yet exited in either the Wild Card, 1st, or conf rounds. 2 Super Bowl wins in over 25 years of two HoF QBs, I am shocked fans did not revolt like 5 or 6 years ago against management.
The fans did, but management was in denial there was a problem. When the Packers had the meltdown in Seattle in 2014 and they came back in 2015 and regressed, they should have fired everyone afterwards. That right there exposed just how much GB management cares about winning. Rodgers has been carrying the Packers for years.
Imagine if he had the kind of teams Brady had in New England........
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eq5HL5NXIAAesJG?format=jpg&name=medium)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eq5HL5QXAAMD6rl?format=jpg&name=medium)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eq3Qf6ZWMAYGtJd?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Somebody tweeted that the most enthusiasm they'd seen all season from the Giants' offense was last night on Twitter.
-
We're now up to 6 head coaching vacancies: Texans, Falcons, Lions, Jets, Jaguars, and Chargers.
I'm surprised by the Chargers. I figured Anthony Lynn saved his job with 4 straight wins to end the season. Just goes to show how much I know, I guess. 7-9 isn't a horrific record, but going 3-9 capped by the terrible 45-0 shutout against the Patriots must have sealed it. The Chargers are absolutely a 10- or 12-win playoff team with a better coach and the talent they've got.
-
Closing thoughts re: Eagles - Looking at Hurts' stats, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been lifted. Looking at Wentz' news stories lately, I see no reason why he would have been played. He's done in Philly. Hurts has a way to go. They would not have won that game without Wentz.
-
Closing thoughts re: Eagles - Looking at Hurts' stats, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been lifted. Looking at Wentz' news stories lately, I see no reason why he would have been played. He's done in Philly. Hurts has a way to go. They would not have won that game without Wentz.
Pedersen’s post game presser indicated his decision was no more than “kid rode the bench all season and deserved to play” . That’s how high school works, not the NFL. Here’s my problem with it is that although Hurts wasn’t great (he did score both TDs though), is it immediately became clear why you don’t just switch QBs for fun. First, he fumbled the snap and Washington recovered. Your center was used to Hurts being back there, not this guy. Then a drive or two later, he missed an open WR on an out route and on the next play a WR had to make a great play to come back to an easy comeback route. The WRs were used to the niches of working with Hurts on these routes, not this guy’s. Hurts still gave them the best chance to win.
-
Closing thoughts re: Eagles - Looking at Hurts' stats, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been lifted. Looking at Wentz' news stories lately, I see no reason why he would have been played. He's done in Philly. Hurts has a way to go. They would not have won that game without Wentz.
Pedersen’s post game presser indicated his decision was no more than “kid rode the bench all season and deserved to play” . That’s how high school works, not the NFL. Here’s my problem with it is that although Hurts wasn’t great (he did score both TDs though), is it immediately became clear why you don’t just switch QBs for fun. First, he fumbled the snap and Washington recovered. Your center was used to Hurts being back there, not this guy. Then a drive or two later, he missed an open WR on an out route and on the next play a WR had to make a great play to come back to an easy comeback route. The WRs were used to the niches of working with Hurts on these routes, not this guy’s. Hurts still gave them the best chance to win.
What is Philly's incentive to win? They get a worse draft pick. Want to give teams incentives to go all-out to win in Week 17? Make the draft order more of an NBA-style lottery rather than strictly by record. Also, have a bonus pool for teams that win Week 17. If winning that game is worth $25K a person, that QB change doesn't happen.
-
Closing thoughts re: Eagles - Looking at Hurts' stats, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been lifted. Looking at Wentz' news stories lately, I see no reason why he would have been played. He's done in Philly. Hurts has a way to go. They would not have won that game without Wentz.
Pedersen’s post game presser indicated his decision was no more than “kid rode the bench all season and deserved to play” . That’s how high school works, not the NFL. Here’s my problem with it is that although Hurts wasn’t great (he did score both TDs though), is it immediately became clear why you don’t just switch QBs for fun. First, he fumbled the snap and Washington recovered. Your center was used to Hurts being back there, not this guy. Then a drive or two later, he missed an open WR on an out route and on the next play a WR had to make a great play to come back to an easy comeback route. The WRs were used to the niches of working with Hurts on these routes, not this guy’s. Hurts still gave them the best chance to win.
What is Philly's incentive to win? They get a worse draft pick.
How many times do I need to answer this question in this thread? Do you guys just not have any competitive values?
The Eagles' incentive to win is that winning is fun and losing is not.
-
The media has been going bonkers over Pederson today, but I agree with some others in this thread. Hurts was awful and he deserved to be benched. He's earned the chance be the Eagles' QB next year with his play over his first three starts, but I agreed with the choice to bench him in that moment.
-
It was basically known before the game that Sudfeld might play. Stuff like that happens with some frequency, it's just getting so much attention because it was a close, prime-time game, and the season finale, no less.
I think there's an unspoken rule that you play to win in a game that high profile... and the Eagles definitely could have won! But as far as the organization/coaching staff/fans are concerned, the will to kick the Giants out of the the playoffs and keep the #6 pick > the will to win a meaningless game in a lost season while dropping three spots in the draft. And it's not even that close.
It's too bad there wasn't a true division title game with both teams playing to win, but ultimately, the entire NFC East got what they deserved. It was a weird and certainly fitting way to end to the regular season.
-
It's also being overlooked that Washington should have been playing for their playoff lives, but yet may have gotten lucky that the Eagles seemingly gave up. Washington was the favorite to win, yet they failed to cover the spread (-6.5), even against a very injured starting Eagles lineup.
It was a bleak performance by Washington overall, and if Hurts remained in the game that probably would have been the bigger story.
-
It was basically known before the game that Sudfeld might play. Stuff like that happens with some frequency, it's just getting so much attention because it was a close, prime-time game, and the season finale, no less.
I think there's an unspoken rule that you play to win in a game that high profile... and the Eagles definitely could have won! But as far as the organization/coaching staff/fans are concerned, the will to kick the Giants out of the the playoffs and keep the #6 pick > the will to win a meaningless game in a lost season while dropping three spots in the draft. And it's not even that close.
Kick the Giants out . . . and let the Washington Football Team in. Yep, big difference there. :rolleyes:
6th pick to 9th pick? A solid starter to a solid starter? Massive difference there. :rolleyes:
Lol
-
I think there's an unspoken rule that you play to win in a game that high profile... and the Eagles definitely could have won! But as far as the organization/coaching staff/fans are concerned, the will to kick the Giants out of the the playoffs and keep the #6 pick > the will to win a meaningless game in a lost season while dropping three spots in the draft. And it's not even that close.
Kick the Giants out . . . and let the Washington Football Team in. Yep, big difference there. :rolleyes:
6th pick to 9th pick? A solid starter to a solid starter? Massive difference there. :rolleyes:
Neither of those are a big difference to you and me, but I was referring to the perspective of the Eagles organization/coaches/fans (not necessarily players). I think they hate the Giants way more than they hate Washington, and they would certainly never live it down if they let the 6-10 Giants into the playoffs, especially if the Giants then went on a playoff run (remembering that they were a 2pt conversion away from overtime against the Bucs earlier this season).
As for the pick, three spots in the draft is worth way more than a Week 17 win in a lost season, especially since they're near the top of the draft.
-
Circling da Bears' game in New Orleans on my calendar right now! I'm so glad the playoffs got expanded, because under the old format, they would've been eliminated already.
-
I think there's an unspoken rule that you play to win in a game that high profile... and the Eagles definitely could have won! But as far as the organization/coaching staff/fans are concerned, the will to kick the Giants out of the the playoffs and keep the #6 pick > the will to win a meaningless game in a lost season while dropping three spots in the draft. And it's not even that close.
Kick the Giants out . . . and let the Washington Football Team in. Yep, big difference there. :rolleyes:
6th pick to 9th pick? A solid starter to a solid starter? Massive difference there. :rolleyes:
Neither of those are a big difference to you and me, but I was referring to the perspective of the Eagles organization/coaches/fans (not necessarily players). I think they hate the Giants way more than they hate Washington, and they would certainly never live it down if they let the 6-10 Giants into the playoffs, especially if the Giants then went on a playoff run (remembering that they were a 2pt conversion away from overtime against the Bucs earlier this season).
As for the pick, three spots in the draft is worth way more than a Week 17 win in a lost season, especially since they're near the top of the draft.
I speak from expierence when I say that ending a season on a loss in sports is the equivalent of pulling your teeth out. Winning that game would have created so much more optimism in the locker room going into next year.
-
Even though we got shafted by our arch rivals (I for one am not surprised it happened), I'm just hoping the Giants do at least decent in the draft. Only thing is we still have Gettleman at the helm smdh. Still I think the Eagles would've put up a better effort if the Cowboys would've had that shot instead of us. I'm kinda wishing the WSH/PHI game was the early game instead of DAL/NYG :-D
-
Wild Card predictions:
Bills 38, Colts 17
Seahawks 23, Rams 17
Buccaneers 31, WFT 7
Titans 35, Ravens 34
Bears 20, Saints 17
Steelers 26, Browns 21
My Super Bowl prediction just in case: Packers 26-18 Bills, Aaron Jones MVP
-
Bills escape with a 27-24 win over the Colts that undoubtedly cost everyone in Western NY a few years off their lives. Colts had a missed FG AND went for a 4th&3 right before halftime that also would've been an easy FG. Then at the end a controversial fumble call that went the Colts way.
But hey, a win's a win.
-
The Seahawks' first home playoff loss since 2004 is a very disappointing end to a 12-4 season, although you have to hand it to the Rams for what they've overcome. No disrespect to the Rams, but the NFC divisional round is a lot less juicy now that the Seahawks aren't involved.
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
Agreed with your first point, but did you mean Seattle?
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
Agreed with your first point, but did you mean Seattle?
Washington won the Division, so they hosted.
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
Agreed with your first point, but did you mean Seattle?
No, I mean Washington State in regards to COVID restrictions. I believe the no fans in attendance is a State thing.
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
Agreed with your first point, but did you mean Seattle?
No, I mean Washington State in regards to COVID restrictions. I believe the no fans in attendance is a State thing.
Ah, OK. Got confused because Washington the Football Team also played yesterday.
-
Seattle can't play defense and it came back to haunt them, I don't find the result today too surprising. It doesn't help that Washington didn't allow at least some crowd in the stands IMO.
Agreed with your first point, but did you mean Seattle?
I assumed he meant the state government wasn’t allowing fans and that it robbed Seattle of an aspect of home-field advantage.
-
The Seahawks just beat the Rams in Seattle two weeks ago. Rams just came to play and Seattle didn't.
-
I suppose this is off-topic, but WTF makes beer, insurance, and truck companies think repeatedly watching their lame TV commercials is going to result in my dropping serious coin for their products?
-
I suppose this is off-topic, but WTF makes beer, insurance, and truck companies think repeatedly watching their lame TV commercials is going to result in my dropping serious coin for their products?
They have to show something between plays, they already analyze the game while it's in progress, and it's not election season anymore. What would you rather have them do?
-
Ben Roethlisberger breaks the all time record for completions in a game. I kind of figured this could happen after the Steelers got behind 28-0 in the first quarter, but I didn't actually start tracking it until the drive that made it 35-23 in the 3rd. Steelers got beat, kind of badly, but it's fun to see a record set that might not be broken for a long time.
-
I suppose this is off-topic, but WTF makes beer, insurance, and truck companies think repeatedly watching their lame TV commercials is going to result in my dropping serious coin for their products?
I think advertisements have proven themselves worth the revenue by now, after 70+ years on TV...
-
The Divisional Round is now set, and unlike previous years, there were no massive Wild Card upsets, so there are 8 very good teams remaining. You could certainly argue it's the 8 best teams in the league. Interestingly, the 3 and 4 seeds got completely swept, so both conferences are left with seeds 1, 2, 5 and 6. Had the Bills or Saints slipped up - and the Bills came very close - we would've had a 5 seed HOSTING the Divisional Round. :-o
AFC: 5 Ravens at 2 Bills, 6 Browns at 1 Chiefs
NFC: 5 Bucs at 2 Saints, 6 Rams at 1 Packers
-
I suppose this is off-topic, but WTF makes beer, insurance, and truck companies think repeatedly watching their lame TV commercials is going to result in my dropping serious coin for their products?
I'd rather see those commercials than ads for feminine hygiene products and the like....
-
The Browns' 3 signature wins this season have all been very similar: stun the opponent by jumping out to a monster lead early, and then coast to victory. Happened against the Cowboys and Titans in the regular season and now the Steelers.
The Steelers might be a great defense in the regular season, but this is brutal. They've given up 93 points in their last two playoff appearances.
-
The Browns' 3 signature wins this season have all been very similar: stun the opponent by jumping out to a monster lead early, and then coast to victory. Happened against the Cowboys and Titans in the regular season and now the Steelers.
The Steelers might be a great defense in the regular season, but this is brutal. They've given up 93 points in their last two playoff appearances.
To be fair, their offense had a pretty big hand in giving up points last night.
-
The Divisional Round is now set, and unlike previous years, there were no massive Wild Card upsets, so there are 8 very good teams remaining. You could certainly argue it's the 8 best teams in the league. Interestingly, the 3 and 4 seeds got completely swept, so both conferences are left with seeds 1, 2, 5 and 6. Had the Bills or Saints slipped up - and the Bills came very close - we would've had a 5 seed HOSTING the Divisional Round. :-o
AFC: 5 Ravens at 2 Bills, 6 Browns at 1 Chiefs
NFC: 5 Bucs at 2 Saints, 6 Rams at 1 Packers
The Browns' win was definitely an upset, and close to a massive upset, depending how you want to term that. They were generally 5.5 or 6 point underdogs against the Steelers. The Rams were a FG underdog.
Some writing was on the wall: Pittsburgh was 1-4 in their last 5 games. Browns struggled down the stretch too. But probably a little too much history at play here with the Steelers playoff success over time and the Browns not even making the playoffs for quite a while.
-
The Steelers might be a great defense in the regular season, but this is brutal. They've given up 93 points in their last two playoff appearances.
To be fair, their offense had a pretty big hand in giving up points last night.
With the fumble and the picks, sure. It was a team meltdown. But after the first quarter, the offense did everything possible to will them back into it. They could've won if the defense got some stops in the fourth quarter.
(And the "93 points in 2 games" stat is only possible because of the 2018 loss to the Jaguars, which was just as bad if not worse defensively. 45 points a week after the Bills held them to 10!)
-
The Browns' win was definitely an upset, and close to a massive upset, depending how you want to term that. They were generally 5.5 or 6 point underdogs against the Steelers. The Rams were a FG underdog.
Being the nerd that I am, I tend to go by FiveThirtyEight's predictions (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-nfl-predictions/games/?ex_cid=rrpromo), and they had the Browns with a decent 38% chance.
Contrast that to Titans/Ravens last year when they had Titans only at 12%.
Some writing was on the wall: Pittsburgh was 1-4 in their last 5 games. Browns struggled down the stretch too. But probably a little too much history at play here with the Steelers playoff success over time and the Browns not even making the playoffs for quite a while.
Oh, absolutely. JuJu's quote certainly helped fire up the Browns. And the COVID situation helped, narrative-wise, because the whole week was spent writing the Browns off and lamenting "what could have been" if they had their coach and other key players. Turns out it doesn't matter if everyone else shows up!
-
The Philadelphia Football Team fired their coach.
-
Ravens actually got better by getting worse from last year compared to this year, if that makes any sense. In 2019 they rolled through the regular season while local and national media lapped up their attractiveness and trash talking, only to get embarrassed the first time they faced real adversity, when they went down 14-0 in the playoffs. This season, they had to take a hard look at themselves and make important changes after a midseason stretch when they lost four out of five and were bound to miss the playoffs. Then they got behind 10-0 early in the playoffs, and were able to keep fighting because it wasn't the first time they faced adversity.
All I've heard about the Ravens, though, is that Lamar "busted the narrative" of playoff failure. If this was all on the greatness of Lamar, then why did he only score 20 points on a Titans defense that absolutely stinks?
- Gave up 30 to the Jags
- Gave up 30 to the Vikings
- Gave up 36 to the Texans
- Gave up 27 to the Steelers
- Gave up 31 to the Bengals
- Gave up 34 to the Colts
- Gave up 26 to the Colts
- Gave up 41 to the Browns
- Gave up 25 to the Lions
- Gave up 40 to the Packers
- Gave up 38 to the Texans
So excuse me if I'm not super impressed by this. Ravens defense won that game, Lamar just did what he had to.
Kevin Stefanski is probably going to win coach of the year, but I don't think he should. It's not like he took a 6-10 roster and went 11-5. Think back to the 2019 offseason. Most people had the Browns going 10-6 or 11-5 in 2019. Then Freddie Kitchens turned out to be the worst head coach of the entire decade (yes, worse than Gase), and they went 6-10. The Browns' roster is really good, all Stefanski has had to do is be merely average to above average. My pick for coach of the year would be McDermott.
-
The Philadelphia Football Team fired their coach.
Ron Rivera is now the longest-tenured coach in the NFC Least by virtue of being hired before Judge and McCarthy.
-
Ravens actually got better by getting worse from last year compared to this year, if that makes any sense. In 2019 they rolled through the regular season while local and national media lapped up their attractiveness and trash talking, only to get embarrassed the first time they faced real adversity, when they went down 14-0 in the playoffs. This season, they had to take a hard look at themselves and make important changes after a midseason stretch when they lost four out of five and were bound to miss the playoffs. Then they got behind 10-0 early in the playoffs, and were able to keep fighting because it wasn't the first time they faced adversity.
It does. I think this version of the Ravens is more dangerous precisely for that reason. I think the Hail Murray had a similar effect for the Bills who took the loss into their bye week and then won six straight afterwards.
Kevin Stefanski is probably going to win coach of the year, but I don't think he should. It's not like he took a 6-10 roster and went 11-5. Think back to the 2019 offseason. Most people had the Browns going 10-6 or 11-5 in 2019. Then Freddie Kitchens turned out to be the worst head coach of the entire decade (yes, worse than Gase), and they went 6-10. The Browns' roster is really good, all Stefanski has had to do is be merely average to above average. My pick for coach of the year would be McDermott.
There's a lot of good candidates this year. I think it would've been Flores if the Dolphins made the playoffs. McDermott is definitely in the mix, but I'm obliged to give Matt LeFleur some credit, too. Despite what I've said about their record last year, 26-6 is an incredible record for his first two seasons.
-
I hope Washington allows Taylor Heinicke the opportunity to compete for the starting job in the 2021 season. He had a really good performance against the Bucs. Plus, an incredible play on that 8 yard touchdown run he had!
(this message brought to you by a fellow ODU alum)
-
I hope Washington allows Taylor Heinicke the opportunity to compete for the starting job in the 2021 season. He had a really good performance against the Bucs. Plus, an incredible play on that 8 yard touchdown run he had!
(this message brought to you by a fellow ODU alum)
He should at least be in the running. Smith is injury prone and they got rid of Haskins so unless they draft a QB or trade for one then he might have a shot.
-
And the coaching carousel continues... With the Jets hiring Saleh and the Jags hiring Urban Meyer, we're down to 5 head coaching vacancies: Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Lions, and Texans.
-
And the coaching carousel continues... With the Jets hiring Saleh and the Jags hiring Urban Meyer, we're down to 5 head coaching vacancies: Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Lions, and Texans.
Falcons hired Arthur Smith, so make it four.
-
So the Packers are back in the NFC Championship game. Do you think they can actually win it this time? They have a pretty bad track record in these games.
-
So the Packers are back in the NFC Championship game. Do you think they can actually win it this time? They have a pretty bad track record in these games.
Yeah they need to show up. If they lose again again in the Championship round, that fanbase may riot
-
I have confidence in the Packers, even going up against the only team to soundly beat them this year. Rodgers is on a mission this year, playing the best football of his career. Tampa Bay isn't stopping him this time, not at Lambeau. And the Packers defense is greatly improved since the last time they played as well. Packers win 27-20.
-
I hope you're right. It's just seems like the NFC Championship game always brings out the flaws in the Packers and they they can almost never win it. They need to make a huge statement on Sunday.
I really want to see Aaron Rodgers win a second Super Bowl.
-
Packers are very similar to the Saints. Having good teams year after year only to get knocked out in the 1st or 2nd rounds of the playoffs. They can make a big statement and break the narrative if they can win on Sunday against TB
-
With the conference championships again on the horizon, what were the best AFC/NFC championships of the past decade?
For the AFC, Pats 37/Chiefs 31 (OT) in the 2018-19 playoffs. Don't like the result, but it was undeniably a great game.
For the NFC, Seahawks 28/Packers 22 (OT) in the 2014-15 playoffs. One of the wildest games in NFL history period, much less the playoffs.
-
With the conference championships again on the horizon, what were the best AFC/NFC championships of the past decade?
For the AFC, Pats 37/Chiefs 31 (OT) in the 2018-19 playoffs. Don't like the result, but it was undeniably a great game.
For the NFC, Seahawks 28/Packers 22 (OT) in the 2014-15 playoffs. One of the wildest games in NFL history period, much less the playoffs.
Hey, it looks like we could have a Brady/Mahomes rematch in the Super Bowl this post-season.
-
Hey, it looks like we could have a Brady/Mahomes rematch in the Super Bowl this post-season.
Of the four potential Super Bowl matchups, that one is by far my least-favorite.
-
As a Bears fan, I've been conditioned to strongly dislike the Packers.
As a Notre Dame grad and fan, I've been conditioned to strongly dislike Michigan, including Tom Brady.
I may not even watch the NFC Championship game and will be rooting for the AFC team in the Super Bowl regardless of matchup.
-
With the conference championships again on the horizon, what were the best AFC/NFC championships of the past decade?
For the AFC, Pats 37/Chiefs 31 (OT) in the 2018-19 playoffs. Don't like the result, but it was undeniably a great game.
For the NFC, Seahawks 28/Packers 22 (OT) in the 2014-15 playoffs. One of the wildest games in NFL history period, much less the playoffs.
Hey, it looks like we could have a Brady/Mahomes rematch in the Super Bowl this post-season.
Please no. I’m tired of seeing Brady in the Super Bowl.
-
Don't let the final score or cries about the fumble touchback rule decieve you: the Browns got dominated by the Chiefs. Think, if Butker makes that extra point and that chip shot FG, now it's 26-17. If KC turns even one of those four FG drives into TDs, now it's 30-17. If Mahomes doesn't get hurt, it's even more than that because they scored on all but one of their drives until Mahomes went down. Baker was not impressive at all, it was checkdown after checkdown all game. Stefanski's defenisve gameplan was not too bad, but on offense, it was terrible. Landry, arguably their best player, had 7 receptions for 20 yards. That's less than 3 yards per catch. Ick.
It was a little sad to see Brees go out on such a disappointing game, but I think that was more about the Tampa defense than it was the Saints "offense" (?). They smothered all of the plays that the Saints did to perfection all year long.
The NFC title game is almost a reverse of what the narrative around Bucs/Saints game was. I would certainly say that Tampa is a better roster than New Orleans, but the Saints won in dominating fashion in the regular season. Tampa crushed the Packers in the regular season despite most agreeing that Green Bay has the better team. So for that reason I am inclined to pick Green Bay, but it's also hard to pick against Brady . . .
-
Hey, it looks like we could have a Brady/Mahomes rematch in the Super Bowl this post-season.
Of the four potential Super Bowl matchups, that one is by far my least-favorite.
I would love to see Brady/Mahomes in the Super Bowl. Really there's not a bad Super Bowl matchup left. Bucs/Bills would be very lacking in terms of history but it wouldn't be a dull game.
-
Being a lifelong Packer fan, I hope the Packers do beat the Buccaneers in the NFC Championship Game. But I am highly pessimistic about their chances, given their Week 6 performance in Tampa. As for the AFC Championship game, I expect the Chiefs will get Patrick Mahomes back from concussion protocol and they will defeat the Bills to get back to the Super Bowl for the second straight year. I will hold off on making predictions about who will win the Super Bowl until the current four teams left are narrowed down to two.
-
Don't let the final score or cries about the fumble touchback rule decieve you: the Browns got dominated by the Chiefs.
Well, it was a minimum six-point swing, and they lost by five, so...
Bucs/Bills would be very lacking in terms of history but it wouldn't be a dull game.
Come on now. Brady and the Bills have almost as much history as Brady and the Bill!
-
Don't let the final score or cries about the fumble touchback rule decieve you:
Not saying that Cleveland deserved to win, but it is a stupid rule. You can lose possession without actually losing possession. In this case it was compounded by the fact that an illegal hit dislodged the ball but that is not reviewable. If the NFL wants to say that only deliberate head to head contact is a penalty and instant replay can't determine intent, I get that, but when head to head contact forces a fumble there ought to be a remedy for that.
Another stupid rule is that a kickoff that is in bounds can be considered out of bounds by being touched by a player who is out of bounds. It's a cheap way to get better field position and needs to be changed.
-
As long as Pretty Boy Brady gets completely annihilated on Sunday I will be happy, but I would prefer the Bills as a "new face" in the Bowl.
-
As long as Pretty Boy Brady gets completely annihilated on Sunday I will be happy, but I would prefer the Bills as a "new face" in the Bowl.
You mean an old face, because they lost four in a row from 1991 to '94!
-
As long as Pretty Boy Brady gets completely annihilated on Sunday I will be happy, but I would prefer the Bills as a "new face" in the Bowl.
You mean an old face, because they lost four in a row from 1991 to '94!
I put it in quotes for a reason, but they haven't been there in a long time.
-
A Bills/Bucs superbowl would be epic, whatever the outcome. The Bills would be America's team for the moment, with out of state TV people babbling about chicken wings and lake effect and whatnot. If the Bills vanquish their ancient enemy, it'll be like the Red Sox in 2004. No table would be safe. But if, if, he who shall not be named gets a 7th ring, immediately after leaving the team where he earned his first 6, then we would know 2020 was not quite over.
-
Two matchups I wouldn't mind seeing for the SB with the 4 teams left
GB/KC: rematch of SB 1
Bills/Bucs: Two random teams that have had droughts making it to the big game
-
If the Tampa Bay Football Team make it, it'll give the Brady worshippers one more thing to trumpet, as they would become the first team to play in a Super Bowl at their home stadium. (It's bound to happen someday now that the game isn't being held at non-NFL venues in the same metropolitan area, such as the various games played at the Rose Bowl, or Super Bowl XIX at the old Stanford Stadium before it was demolished and rebuilt.)
-
If the Tampa Bay Football Team make it, it'll give the Brady worshippers one more thing to trumpet, as they would become the first team to play in a Super Bowl at their home stadium. (It's bound to happen someday now that the game isn't being held at non-NFL venues in the same metropolitan area, such as the various games played at the Rose Bowl, or Super Bowl XIX at the old Stanford Stadium before it was demolished and rebuilt.)
I can only imagine those Vikings fans still lamenting the fact that they never got a chance to play for the Lombardi Trophy in their own building a couple of years back.
-
Philip Rivers is retiring after 16 seasons with the Chargers and 1 season with the Colts.
The two-minute drill attempt against the Bills in the Wild Card Round is such a fitting way for his NFL career to conclude.
https://www.colts.com/news/retirement-philip-rivers-statement-17-nfl-seasons-san-diego-chargers-2020-season
-
Don't be surprised if Drew Brees hangs it up too, after the Saints' loss to their division rivals from Tampa Bay. At least he has one Super Bowl ring.
-
At least he has one Super Bowl ring
. . . that should be heavily tainted by Bountygate but somehow is not, while Brady and Belichick have legacies of cheating over pretty much nothing. To be fair, Bountygate was out of Brees' control (supposedly; wouldn't be surprised if the media purposely left him out of the controversy) and he did get robbed of a more legitimate trip to the SB a few years ago.
-
As a Vikings fan, I can't really be bothered by the bounty shit as much as we turned it over 5 times in that game along with a slew of other devastating errors. I didn't even want them to change the OT rules just because my team got fucked by them. Our defense didn't stop them in OT.
-
The Pack will do fine against Tampa if they don't cough the ball up three times. That's the only reason the first game got out of hand.
I'm predicting an State Farm super bowl. ;)
-
My top 10 games list so far: (keep in mind that this is entirely subjective to my tastes)
10. 49ers at Patriots, week 7: This might seem like an odd choice, but IMO this game was the real death of the Patriots' two decade dynasty. It was this game that showed us once and for all that the Patriots' reign was over.
9. Browns at Cowboys, week 4: I walked away from the TV when it was 41-14. 20 minutes later I came back and it was 41-38. There was just so much chaos overall in this game - Jarvis Landry throwing a touchdown pass, Browns rushing for 300 yards, Dak Prescott throwing for 500 yards, and the accidental two point conversion. This game wins the "you can't make this stuff up" category.
8. Packers at Saints, week 3: Hall of Fame QB matchups rarely disappoint, and this was no exception. Alvin Kamara had arguably the best performance by any running back in any game this season - in a losing effort.
7. Chiefs at Buccaneers, week 12: See: Hall of Fame QB matchups. Tyreek Hill went crazy in the first quarter, and at that point it looked like a blowout. Brady had a mistake-prone game, especially by his standards, but there were a few vintage Brady moments in the second half.
6. Falcons at Cowboys, week 2: The most predictable unpredictable game ever. That onside kick was one of the only moments in NFL history when basically anyone who knows anything about football could have made a better play than the guys on the field.
5. Chiefs at Raiders, week 11: A classic back and forth shootout.
4. Bills at Cardinals, week 10: Only reason it's not higher is because nobody would have cared if it weren't for the catch by Hopkins.
3. Ravens at Browns, week 14: Had a little bit of everything. Lamar Jackson set the MNF record for rushing yards by a QB. Then, Maker Bayfield magically figured out how to handle adversity, and led the Browns back, only for Justin Tucker to win it with a long field goal.
2. Seahawks at Cardinals, week 7: I didn't watch any of it but I heard it was great.
1. Patriots at Seahawks, week 2: Pretty much what September is supposed to be in the NFL. Deep touchdowns, great performances, and lots of irony. LOTS of irony.
I'm updating and expanding my list, with something of a playoffs bias due to the one and done nature of them:
20. Buccaneers at Falcons, week 15
19. Ravens at Titans, wild card
18. Browns at Cowboys, week 4
17. Cowboys at Giants, week 17
16. Dolphins at Raiders, week 16
15. Packers at Saints, week 3
14. Chiefs at Buccaneers, week 12
13. Falcons at Cowboys, week 2
12. Buccaneers at Saints, divisional
11. Chiefs at Raiders, week 11
10. Bills at Cardinals, week 10
9. Buccaneers at WFT, wild card
8. Colts at Bills, wild card
7. Ravens at Browns, week 14
6. Seahawks at Cardinals, week 7
5. Titans at Texans, week 17
4. Browns at Steelers, wild card
3. Browns at Chiefs, divisional
2. Patriots at Seahawks, week 2
1. Buccaneers at Packers, NFC championship
-
1. Buccaneers at Packers, NFC championship
Other than the Packers coming back to make it a close game, there wasn't anything really exciting to make it a really great game. The only memorable thing to come out of it is Tampa will be the 1st team to host and play in the Superbowl.
-
Other than the Packers coming back to make it a close game
I wish they hadn't. Makes the end result all the worse.
Packers probably did deserve to lose, but that PI at the end really shouldn't have been called given the holds the Bucs had gotten away with over the course of that game.
-
Bucs played like ass in the second half offensively, but GB couldn't do anything with the mistakes. GB's coaching today was similarly rectal with the poor defensive call allowing the Bucs to get the Hail Mary TD and then obviously kicking the field goal down 8 with 3 minutes left.
-
Bucs played like ass in the second half offensively, but GB couldn't do anything with the mistakes. GB's coaching today was similarly rectal with the poor defensive call allowing the Bucs to get the Hail Mary TD and then obviously kicking the field goal down 8 with 3 minutes left.
Everything compounded. First mistake was chasing the points by going for 2 too early, which left them down 8 instead of down 7. Next mistake was Rodgers not running on 3rd and goal. Probably doesn't score but at least gets to a more manageable 4th and goal, where they can go for it (but should have anyway).
If I had a head coaching vacancy, I'd be hiring Todd Bowles.
-
Bucs played like ass in the second half offensively, but GB couldn't do anything with the mistakes. GB's coaching today was similarly rectal with the poor defensive call allowing the Bucs to get the Hail Mary TD and then obviously kicking the field goal down 8 with 3 minutes left.
Everything compounded. First mistake was chasing the points by going for 2 too early, which left them down 8 instead of down 7. Next mistake was Rodgers not running on 3rd and goal. Probably doesn't score but at least gets to a more manageable 4th and goal, where they can go for it (but should have anyway).
If I had a head coaching vacancy, I'd be hiring Todd Bowles.
He would've definitely been able to run it close if not in. They didn't talk about it on TV but it was a huge missed opportunity.
-
What ultimately killed the Packers was turnovers. First, the Bucs turned two Packers turnovers into 14 points, but the Packers could only turn 3 Brady picks into 6 points. And they might have as well gone for it on 4th and goal. If they score, they can tie it with a two point conversion. If they don't make it, the Bucs get the ball back and run out the clock, just the same as having kicked the field goal. Might as well take your shot while you can. But there were many missed opportunities. A couple bad calls by the refs when there weren't many didn't help either. They missed a PI call against the Bucs on Lazard on Rodgers' pick, and then called a ticky tack PI on the Packers later in the game. No matter how you look at it though, as often seems to be with the Packers, it was one big case of coulda, woulda, shoulda.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
-
I guess will have to cross "no team has ever played the Super Bowl at home" off the list of things that have never happened before. I was just reading that the NFL was planning on not having any team arrive in Tampa until a couple of days before the game, but if half your participants already live there then how does that go? It would seem a little unfair that Tampa Bay could get to train nearby the game while "staying at home" while Kansas City has to train up at their place until a couple of days before. On the bright side, Kansas City is a very good team so that point could be negated.
And what's up with Tampa being in three major championships this past year. They were in the Stanley Cup (and won,) the World Series and now the Super Bowl. I know that having a city like New York or Los Angeles or Boston doing this isn't unheard of but a metropolitan area a bit smaller like Tampa Bay it seems weird. When you include the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals then the state of Florida has been represented in all four of the last major league championships.
-
The Chiefs don't deserve a second straight Super Bowl, and Tom Brady certainly doesn't deserve a tenth, but such is life. It was over the second I posted that Chiefs-Bucs was my least-favorite matchup. Now I'm left with so much disgust about both teams that I have zero rooting interests, which I guess makes the next few weeks less stressful, if nothing else.
I know there's plenty of disappointed Packers fans on here, but I might be even more disappointed. Who should be more disappointed?
With the Bills, this is the second straight year where they've had a meltdown once they get into unfamiliar territory. Last year it was the Wild Card game, this year they made it past that (the Colts matchup was a trap game if there ever was one...), then got past the divisional round thanks to DC Leslie Frazier's great plan to stop the Ravens. But then as soon as they had to go on the road for the championship, things got off the rails. This is absolutely a team that could win the Super Bowl. I'd say the next step is to win a road playoff game... something they still haven't done this century.
With the Packers, this is now 4 of the past 7 NFC Championships that they've made and lost, which is depressing, but still a positive sign that you can be very good consistently. Again, absolutely a team that could win the Super Bowl. I don't kill the draft pick: There's no way Rodgers has a lights-out MVP campaign and gets you the #1 seed without that pick. It's just weird that they still ended up in the same spot they did last year, although it was a much more even matchup this time around. I'm more perplexed than disappointed, though... is this just bad luck, or do they have a fatal flaw that's being overlooked?
With regards to today's performances specifically, I would point to coaching on the part of both the Bills and Packers. McDermott and LeFleur both had to be expecting potential shootouts, and neither were aggressive enough in key situations.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
Well, you can go back to draft night and they opted for luxury over need with their top two picks. That may not have made a difference this year, but maybe for next year. It was a deep receiver draft, and they passed on those; lots of receivers taken after GB's round 1 selection made immediate impacts in 2020. It showed when they played good teams how inadequate MVS and Lazard are as secondary options.
-
As for the playoffs as a whole, they've been mediocre to good, depending on how you define it. Only 5/12 games finished within one score, but all of the other seven were two-score games, so a notable lack of blowouts.
The Bills own the most lopsided win and the most lopsided loss of the playoffs, with the Ravens and Chiefs games both being decided by 14 points. They also own the closest game of the playoffs with the 3-point win over the Colts. So, a heck of an interesting postseason ride, even if it didn't end how anyone in Western NY wanted it to.
-
I guess will have to cross "no team has ever played the Super Bowl at home" off the list of things that have never happened before. I was just reading that the NFL was planning on not having any team arrive in Tampa until a couple of days before the game, but if half your participants already live there then how does that go? It would seem a little unfair that Tampa Bay could get to train nearby the game while "staying at home" while Kansas City has to train up at their place until a couple of days before. On the bright side, Kansas City is a very good team so that point could be negated.
And what's up with Tampa being in three major championships this past year. They were in the Stanley Cup (and won,) the World Series and now the Super Bowl. I know that having a city like New York or Los Angeles or Boston doing this isn't unheard of but a metropolitan area a bit smaller like Tampa Bay it seems weird. When you include the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals then the state of Florida has been represented in all four of the last major league championships.
Bear in mind that the Chiefs already played in TB (and won, 27-24) this season. So they're at least familiar with what will be a subdued Super Bowl setting compared with previous years. And it certainly does appear that Florida is being rewarded by being somewhat loose when it comes to COVID-19 restrictions.
-
As for the playoffs as a whole, they've been mediocre to good, depending on how you define it. Only 5/12 games finished within one score, but all of the other seven were two-score games, so a notable lack of blowouts.
The Bills own the most lopsided win and the most lopsided loss of the playoffs, with the Ravens and Chiefs games both being decided by 14 points. They also own the closest game of the playoffs with the 3-point win over the Colts. So, a heck of an interesting postseason ride, even if it didn't end how anyone in Western NY wanted it to.
The Bears were behind 21-3 until scoring on the final play of the game, so that was the most lopsided loss even though the final margin was less than 14.
-
...And it certainly does appear that Florida is being rewarded by being somewhat loose when it comes to COVID-19 restrictions.
That is a cruel twist, although I don't know how the Florida teams winning have much to do with COVID. The NHL season was played entirely in Canada. MLB was played without any fans. Football left it up to each team (and their respective jurisdiction's limits) when it came to fans, and the Bucs managed to win 3 games in the playoffs on the road, all mainly in stadiums with opposing fans present.
-
As for the playoffs as a whole, they've been mediocre to good, depending on how you define it. Only 5/12 games finished within one score, but all of the other seven were two-score games, so a notable lack of blowouts.
The Bills own the most lopsided win and the most lopsided loss of the playoffs, with the Ravens and Chiefs games both being decided by 14 points. They also own the closest game of the playoffs with the 3-point win over the Colts. So, a heck of an interesting postseason ride, even if it didn't end how anyone in Western NY wanted it to.
The Bears were behind 21-3 until scoring on the final play of the game, so that was the most lopsided loss even though the final margin was less than 14.
Yeah, it should've been 28-3. It definitely felt more like a blowout than the score showed.
-
I'm updating and expanding my list, with something of a playoffs bias due to the one and done nature of them:
...
10. Bills at Cardinals, week 10
9. Buccaneers at WFT, wild card
8. Colts at Bills, wild card
7. Ravens at Browns, week 14
6. Seahawks at Cardinals, week 7
5. Titans at Texans, week 17
4. Browns at Steelers, wild card
3. Browns at Chiefs, divisional
2. Patriots at Seahawks, week 2
1. Buccaneers at Packers, NFC championship
What makes Bucs-Packers #1?
Colts-Bills was the best game of the playoffs so far, and it's not even that close IMO.
Sure, Browns-Steelers was a saucy narrative and a lot of fun, but it wasn't a great game by any stretch.
-
Bucs played like ass in the second half offensively, but GB couldn't do anything with the mistakes. GB's coaching today was similarly rectal with the poor defensive call allowing the Bucs to get the Hail Mary TD and then obviously kicking the field goal down 8 with 3 minutes left.
Everything compounded. First mistake was chasing the points by going for 2 too early, which left them down 8 instead of down 7. Next mistake was Rodgers not running on 3rd and goal. Probably doesn't score but at least gets to a more manageable 4th and goal, where they can go for it (but should have anyway).
If I had a head coaching vacancy, I'd be hiring Todd Bowles.
Going for two was the right call there IMO. If St. Brown didn’t drop it, the Packers would have been down 31-28 and only needing a field goal if they got the ball back. But the defense shot themselves in the foot with jersey grabbing for no reason and walking slowly off the field during substitutions when the Bucs were already at the line of scrimmage. Whine about the refs, but Green Bay didn’t deserve to win the game. They played quite badly.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
All the clamoring was about them not drafting a WR, but what they really need is a cornerback to replace Kevin King, who was basically the biggest reason they lost the game yesterday on multiple levels.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
All the clamoring was about them not drafting a WR, but what they really need is a cornerback to replace Kevin King, who was basically the biggest reason they lost the game yesterday on multiple levels.
I'm tired of the excuses. The fact is there is always something wrong on one side of the ball or another. I would demand a trade if I were Rodgers at this point.
-
Bucs played like ass in the second half offensively, but GB couldn't do anything with the mistakes. GB's coaching today was similarly rectal with the poor defensive call allowing the Bucs to get the Hail Mary TD and then obviously kicking the field goal down 8 with 3 minutes left.
Everything compounded. First mistake was chasing the points by going for 2 too early, which left them down 8 instead of down 7. Next mistake was Rodgers not running on 3rd and goal. Probably doesn't score but at least gets to a more manageable 4th and goal, where they can go for it (but should have anyway).
If I had a head coaching vacancy, I'd be hiring Todd Bowles.
Going for two was the right call there IMO. If St. Brown didn’t drop it, the Packers would have been down 31-28 and only needing a field goal if they got the ball back. But the defense shot themselves in the foot with jersey grabbing for no reason and walking slowly off the field during substitutions when the Bucs were already at the line of scrimmage. Whine about the refs, but Green Bay didn’t deserve to win the game. They played quite badly.
Yeah, a lot of bitching today about that call, but that goes with the game. While a lot was made about similar-type calls not being called earlier, this one was such a blatant violation that it really deserved to be called.
Maybe a little more surprising...late in the Bills game, after a QB sack, there were 3 personal fouls against Buffalo and 1 against KC. The refs termed it "Off-setting", and they were gracious in not throwing out 73 or 76 of Buffalo to make sure things didn't get out of hand. That momentarily saved Buffalo, who managed a long FG on the next play.
-
Maybe a little more surprising...late in the Bills game, after a QB sack, there were 3 personal fouls against Buffalo and 1 against KC. The refs termed it "Off-setting", and they were gracious in not throwing out 73 or 76 of Buffalo to make sure things didn't get out of hand. That momentarily saved Buffalo, who managed a long FG on the next play.
That was a chaotic sequence. I get their frustration, but everyone, including Allen, needed to be more mature in that situation.
#73 is Dion "Shnowman" Dawkins, probably the Bills' 2nd-most beloved player after Allen.
-
I see the Packers kept up their playoff narrative :-D
-
And what's up with Tampa being in three major championships this past year. They were in the Stanley Cup (and won,) the World Series and now the Super Bowl. I know that having a city like New York or Los Angeles or Boston doing this isn't unheard of but a metropolitan area a bit smaller like Tampa Bay it seems weird. When you include the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals then the state of Florida has been represented in all four of the last major league championships.
Philadelphia, in 1980, had all 4 of their teams in the finals (NHL, NBA, World Series, & Super Bowl), though only the Phils won.
Cleveland, in 2016 had the Cavs and the Monsters (AAA level minor league hockey) win championships, and the Indians made the World Series...followed by the Browns going 0-16.
-
Tampa also had their minor league (tier 2) soccer team advance to the championship game, which unfortunately ended up being cancelled due to a covid outbreak.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
All the clamoring was about them not drafting a WR, but what they really need is a cornerback to replace Kevin King, who was basically the biggest reason they lost the game yesterday on multiple levels.
I'm tired of the excuses. The fact is there is always something wrong on one side of the ball or another. I would demand a trade if I were Rodgers at this point.
What teams have the cap space and the right situation for him? Indianapolis perhaps. New England could work - if Rodgers was capable of putting his ego aside for the good of his team, which he is not.
-
The Packers have some serious problems. How can you keep getting this close and failing. There’s always something wrong one way or another with the team when they get to the NFC Championship game.
I’m not convinced management really cares about winning. While they have been marginally better in recent years since reassigning Ted Thompson (RIP), they still really haven’t been going “all in” on winning and being more aggressive in improving the team. The Jordan Love pick last year tells you all you need to know.
All the clamoring was about them not drafting a WR, but what they really need is a cornerback to replace Kevin King, who was basically the biggest reason they lost the game yesterday on multiple levels.
I'm tired of the excuses. The fact is there is always something wrong on one side of the ball or another. I would demand a trade if I were Rodgers at this point.
What teams have the cap space and the right situation for him? Indianapolis perhaps. New England could work - if Rodgers was capable of putting his ego aside for the good of his team, which he is not.
Neither is Brady.
-
Will Deshaun Watson end up getting traded? I can't believe it could happen. Buckle up, because pretty much every team could be in the mix except for a handful. My full "Who could use Deshaun Watson?" rankings, excluding the AFC South:
1. 49ers
2. Broncos
3. Bears
4. Patriots
5. Lions (if Stafford goes elsewhere)
6. Washington
7. Jets
8. Panthers
9. Dolphins
10. Saints (if Brees retires)
11. Eagles
12. Giants
13. Rams
14. Cardinals
15. Raiders
16. Browns
17. Vikings
18. Steelers (if Big Ben returns)
19. Falcons
20. Cowboys
21. Bucs
22. Bengals
23. Ravens
24. Seahawks
25. Chargers
26. Packers
27. Bills
28. Chiefs
-
Will Deshaun Watson end up getting traded? I can't believe it could happen. Buckle up, because pretty much every team could be in the mix except for a handful. My full "Who could use Deshaun Watson?" rankings, excluding the AFC South:
1. 49ers
2. Broncos
3. Bears
4. Patriots
5. Lions (if Stafford goes elsewhere)
6. Washington
7. Jets
8. Panthers
9. Dolphins
10. Saints (if Brees retires)
11. Eagles
12. Giants
13. Rams
14. Cardinals
15. Raiders
16. Browns
17. Vikings
18. Steelers (if Big Ben returns)
19. Falcons
20. Cowboys
21. Bucs
22. Bengals
23. Ravens
24. Seahawks
25. Chargers
26. Packers
27. Bills
28. Chiefs
Jets should be much higher on that list. Their coaching/system ruins young quarterbacks. Get someone already established and they've got a shot.
-
Jets should be much higher on that list. Their coaching/system ruins young quarterbacks. Get someone already established and they've got a shot.
My thinking is that Darnold has potential, and I'd be really interested to see what Saleh can do with him. Obviously if he gets traded, they're much higher.
-
Jets should be much higher on that list. Their coaching/system ruins young quarterbacks. Get someone already established and they've got a shot.
My thinking is that Darnold has potential, and I'd be really interested to see what Saleh can do with him. Obviously if he gets traded, they're much higher.
Saleh is a defensive coach, so in terms of Darnold's development, he won't be the guy for that.
-
Jets should be much higher on that list. Their coaching/system ruins young quarterbacks. Get someone already established and they've got a shot.
My thinking is that Darnold has potential, and I'd be really interested to see what Saleh can do with him. Obviously if he gets traded, they're much higher.
Saleh is a defensive coach, so in terms of Darnold's development, he won't be the guy for that.
Also, Darnold had potential before the Jets drafted him. Look at what happened to Mark Sanchez and Geno Smith.
-
Jets should be much higher on that list. Their coaching/system ruins young quarterbacks. Get someone already established and they've got a shot.
My thinking is that Darnold has potential, and I'd be really interested to see what Saleh can do with him. Obviously if he gets traded, they're much higher.
Saleh is a defensive coach, so in terms of Darnold's development, he won't be the guy for that.
Also, Darnold had potential before the Jets drafted him. Look at what happened to Mark Sanchez and Geno Smith.
There's no denying the unending QB problems the Jets have had, but I think Saleh was a great hire for head coach. That's not everything, but it's a monster step in the right direction. (It would be Mike LeFleur working directly with Darnold, obviously).
-
I think it's now accurate to say that Rodgers is a great regular season qb. But in the post season however he is garbage. He is now 1-4 in NFC championship games and his one and only win came against a Bears team with Caleb Haney at qb. That isn't saying much. Two of those losses were blowouts against the Falcons and 49ers.
-
I think it's now accurate to say that Rodgers is a great regular season qb. But in the post season however he is garbage. He is now 1-4 in NFC championship games and his one and only win came against a Bears team with Caleb Haney at qb. That isn't saying much. Two of those losses were blowouts against the Falcons and 49ers.
There was a weird stat going around about Rodgers this week... something like he's never come back from down more than a point against a team with a winning record? Crazy if true.
-
Will Deshaun Watson end up getting traded? I can't believe it could happen.
So sick of the Watson drama. Seriously - you can't tell me that a WIDE RECEIVERS coach for the 32ND RANKED PASSING OFFENSE is a good hire. But he's being a little whiner by not doing simple basic respect acts like returning calls from the team. My wild guess is that the organization isn't going to be interested in giving him what he wants if he can't show them the tiniest ounce of respect. Watson is going nowhere and he is going to continue to get credit for putting up good stats en route to bad playoffs-less seasons (while guys like Dak Prescott get heavily scrutinized - remember when Dak was breaking all kinds of records during the Cowboys' 1-3 start? People were ripping him), just so that the media can keep painting the picture of the Texans organization being the bad guys.
-
It's unbelievable that a top-5 QB coming off a statistically great season finished with a 4-12 record. What has the Texans organization done to earn Watson's respect? Nothing. Of course there's media hype because it this is unlike anything that's ever happened in NFL history, but it couldn't be more obvious that the organization is at fault. You simply cannot ever, ever let things get to this point with your franchise QB.
-
It's unbelievable that a top-5 QB coming off a statistically great season finished with a 4-12 record. What has the Texans organization done to earn Watson's respect? Nothing. Of course there's media hype because it this is unlike anything that's ever happened in NFL history, but it couldn't be more obvious that the organization is at fault. You simply cannot ever, ever let things get to this point with your franchise QB.
Outside the "Love ya Blue" Houston Oilers of the late '70s, what happened with DeShaun Watson is typical Houston NFL behavior. I don't blame DeShaun for wanting out.
Considering both Bob McNair (Texans) and Bud Adams (Oilers) were veterans of the oil&gas business, maybe oil&gas ownership should be considered a red flag. Compare that with the Fertitta brothers owning the successful Houston Rockets and Jim Crane owning the Houston Astros, neither of whom are that heavily involved in Houston's hometown big industry.
-
It's unbelievable that a top-5 QB coming off a statistically great season finished with a 4-12 record. What has the Texans organization done to earn Watson's respect? Nothing. Of course there's media hype because it this is unlike anything that's ever happened in NFL history, but it couldn't be more obvious that the organization is at fault. You simply cannot ever, ever let things get to this point with your franchise QB.
The only thing they did wrong was not hand the keys of the organization to Watson. How dare them hire a GM by themselves, rather than let their young quarterback do it for them? Players should never, ever have final say over management descisions off the field. Then, Watson tried to manipulate the franchise into hiring his head coaching pick. In doing so, instead of trying to have a real conversation (he stopped returning calls), he threatened to force his way out. And I'll reiterate. Brady and Mahomes are often highly praised for their W/L records. Prescott gets knocked for putting up good stats but mediocre W/L records. The Texans went 4-12. Yet Watson is catching no blame for any of it. This is a huge clown show on the part of Watson and the media. Whether or not wins are truly a QB stat is beyond the point. Let's just enforce the rules equally please.
-
The only thing they did wrong was not hand the keys of the organization to Watson. How dare them hire a GM by themselves, rather than let their young quarterback do it for them? Players should never, ever have final say over management descisions off the field. Then, Watson tried to manipulate the franchise into hiring his head coaching pick. In doing so, instead of trying to have a real conversation (he stopped returning calls), he threatened to force his way out. And I'll reiterate. Brady and Mahomes are often highly praised for their W/L records. Prescott gets knocked for putting up good stats but mediocre W/L records. The Texans went 4-12. Yet Watson is catching no blame for any of it. This is a huge clown show on the part of Watson and the media. Whether or not wins are truly a QB stat is beyond the point. Let's just enforce the rules equally please.
Of course Watson isn't going to have final say in management decisions. He just wanted to be in the conversation for the head coach hire, which is 100% fair. Again, you expect a clown show from the media because it's an unprecedented situation, but the organization created the situation in the first place. Things like this do not happen in competent organizations, period. How could you blame Watson for having enough of it?
Also, why on Earth would he catch blame for their record? He should be credited for their record, because they're 0-16 without him.
-
I blame a lot of the 4-12 record on the past mistakes of the coaching staff, particularly Bill O'Brien and Cal McNair. Years before O'Brien was fired, many other Texans fans I knew already wanted him out during the Osweiler fiasco. Webny, you're very right that Watson was all keeping the team from being 0-16, every position is garbage other than kicker, linebacker, and quarterback. I'm just not really a fan of the Texans much anymore because of their management. I really hope Watson and Watt excel with a different team.
-
The only thing they did wrong was not hand the keys of the organization to Watson. How dare them hire a GM by themselves, rather than let their young quarterback do it for them? Players should never, ever have final say over management descisions off the field. Then, Watson tried to manipulate the franchise into hiring his head coaching pick. In doing so, instead of trying to have a real conversation (he stopped returning calls), he threatened to force his way out. And I'll reiterate. Brady and Mahomes are often highly praised for their W/L records. Prescott gets knocked for putting up good stats but mediocre W/L records. The Texans went 4-12. Yet Watson is catching no blame for any of it. This is a huge clown show on the part of Watson and the media. Whether or not wins are truly a QB stat is beyond the point. Let's just enforce the rules equally please.
Of course Watson isn't going to have final say in management decisions. He just wanted to be in the conversation for the head coach hire, which is 100% fair. Again, you expect a clown show from the media because it's an unprecedented situation, but the organization created the situation in the first place. Things like this do not happen in competent organizations, period. How could you blame Watson for having enough of it?
Also, why on Earth would he catch blame for their record? He should be credited for their record, because they're 0-16 without him.
I don't blame him for wanting out. I blame him for acting immature by not giving them the time of day.
And I guess we're now giving credit to QBs for 4-12 records. I think this fiasco has broken the NFL and its media
-
Whoa. Matthew Stafford to the Rams and Jared Goff (plus some draft picks) to the Lions.
https://www.nfl.com/news/silver-jared-goff-excited-to-be-with-lions-franchise-that-wants-appreciates-him?campaign=Twitter_atn
-
^^ The draft picks are two 1sts and a 3rd
-
There have only been three of the past 20 seasons that none of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Ben Roethisberger started in the Super Bowl.
XXXVII: Brad Johnson vs Rich Gannon
XLVII: Joe Flacco vs Colin Kapernick
LIV: Patrick Mahomes vs Jimmy Garropolo
-
So the last Super Bowl to be played before the whole Brady/Manning/Big Ben madness started would be XXXV, when Trent Dilfer faced off against Kerry Collins.
Brady has faced Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Donovan McNabb, Eli Manning* (twice), Russell Wilson, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles*, Jared Goff and Patrick Mahomes (TBD)
Manning has faced Jay Cutler, Drew Brees*, Russell Wilson* and Cam Newton
Big Ben has faced Matt Hasselbeck, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers*
*--indicates that they lost against their opposing QB
-
So the last Super Bowl to be played before the whole Brady/Manning/Big Ben madness started would be XXXV, when Trent Dilfer faced off against Kerry Collins.
Brady has faced Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Donovan McNabb, Eli Manning* (twice), Russell Wilson, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles*, Jared Goff and Patrick Mahomes (TBD)
Manning has faced Jay Cutler"Rex Grossman is our quarterback", Drew Brees*, Russell Wilson* and Cam Newton
Big Ben has faced Matt Hasselbeck, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers*
*--indicates that they lost against their opposing QB
-
Honestly, I really don't see any competition to the Bucs in the NFC for next season. Packers and Seahawks always screw up in the playoffs. Rams maybe, but that's it. I would not be surprised at all to see the Bucs back in the Super Bowl next year regardless of this year's result. In fact, I'm more confident about the Bucs being in next year's Super Bowl than I am about the Chiefs doing the same. Chiefs have real competition - Bills and Browns most notably, and there are a host of others like the Ravens, Titans, Colts, and Dolphins.
-
Honestly, I really don't see any competition to the Bucs in the NFC for next season. Packers and Seahawks always screw up in the playoffs. Rams maybe, but that's it. I would not be surprised at all to see the Bucs back in the Super Bowl next year regardless of this year's result. In fact, I'm more confident about the Bucs being in next year's Super Bowl than I am about the Chiefs doing the same. Chiefs have real competition - Bills and Browns most notably, and there are a host of others like the Ravens, Titans, Colts, and Dolphins.
I've said this before and I'll say it again--the NFL really needs to drop the Conferences and operate as a single, 8-division league. Get better teams in the playoffs and better matchups in the playoffs.
-
Honestly, I really don't see any competition to the Bucs in the NFC for next season. Packers and Seahawks always screw up in the playoffs. Rams maybe, but that's it. I would not be surprised at all to see the Bucs back in the Super Bowl next year regardless of this year's result. In fact, I'm more confident about the Bucs being in next year's Super Bowl than I am about the Chiefs doing the same. Chiefs have real competition - Bills and Browns most notably, and there are a host of others like the Ravens, Titans, Colts, and Dolphins.
The Rams sure better be in the mix. They need to make the Super Bowl or the Goff trade is basically a disaster IMO. I think it's a distasteful trade on their part and strongly suspect the Lions will be viewed as the winners of the trade in the long term.
And don't forget the Niners. They could easily make the Super Bowl with an upgrade at QB and maybe even without one, as they did last year. It's underrated how close they were to 16-0 last year, with their three losses being a last-second Falcons TD, a last-second Ravens FG, and in overtime against the Seahawks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again--the NFL really needs to drop the Conferences and operate as a single, 8-division league. Get better teams in the playoffs and better matchups in the playoffs.
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
-
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
Best 8 teams make the playoffs, single elimination.
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again--the NFL really needs to drop the Conferences and operate as a single, 8-division league. Get better teams in the playoffs and better matchups in the playoffs.
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
Eight division winners seeded 1-8 and six wildcards seeded 9-14 all in a single tournament. This year, you would have had (1) Kansas City and (2) Buffalo receiving byes, with first round matchups of (3) Green Bay vs (14) Miami, (4) Pittsburgh vs (13) LA Rams, (5) New Orleans vs (12) Indianapolis, (6) Seattle vs (11) Cleveland, (7) Tennessee vs (10) Tampa Bay, and (8) Washington vs (9) Baltimore
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again--the NFL really needs to drop the Conferences and operate as a single, 8-division league. Get better teams in the playoffs and better matchups in the playoffs.
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
Eight division winners seeded 1-8 and six wildcards seeded 9-14 all in a single tournament. This year, you would have had (1) Kansas City and (2) Buffalo receiving byes, with first round matchups of (3) Green Bay vs (14) Miami, (4) Pittsburgh vs (13) LA Rams, (5) New Orleans vs (12) Indianapolis, (6) Seattle vs (11) Cleveland, (7) Tennessee vs (10) Tampa Bay, and (8) Washington vs (9) Baltimore
Why not eliminate divisions, too? Have it strictly based on record.
And 14 teams is too many for the playoffs. If each playoff round halves the number of teams, why does it take 16 games to go from 32 to 14, which is only barely more than halving?
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again--the NFL really needs to drop the Conferences and operate as a single, 8-division league. Get better teams in the playoffs and better matchups in the playoffs.
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
Eight division winners seeded 1-8 and six wildcards seeded 9-14 all in a single tournament. This year, you would have had (1) Kansas City and (2) Buffalo receiving byes, with first round matchups of (3) Green Bay vs (14) Miami, (4) Pittsburgh vs (13) LA Rams, (5) New Orleans vs (12) Indianapolis, (6) Seattle vs (11) Cleveland, (7) Tennessee vs (10) Tampa Bay, and (8) Washington vs (9) Baltimore
Why not eliminate divisions, too? Have it strictly based on record.
And 14 teams is too many for the playoffs. If each playoff round halves the number of teams, why does it take 16 games to go from 32 to 14, which is only barely more than halving?
Divisions will never go away because division rivals aren't going to give up playing each other twice a year.
Every sport has too many playoff teams. It's an inevitable byproduct of sports on TV.
-
Expanding the playoffs beyond a certain point is never a good idea from a pure competitive standpoint. It reduces the incentive for teams to truly get better.
-
Eight division winners seeded 1-8 and six wildcards seeded 9-14 all in a single tournament. This year, you would have had (1) Kansas City and (2) Buffalo receiving byes, with first round matchups of (3) Green Bay vs (14) Miami, (4) Pittsburgh vs (13) LA Rams, (5) New Orleans vs (12) Indianapolis, (6) Seattle vs (11) Cleveland, (7) Tennessee vs (10) Tampa Bay, and (8) Washington vs (9) Baltimore
Interesting. It looks even more chaotic than what we have now, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Coincidentally, the way it worked out every single matchup is an AFC-NFC matchup thanks to an 8-6 split in favor of the AFC and the two byes going to the AFC.
(Just out of curiousity, I'm assuming you used the normal tiebreakers to determine that Buffalo got the bye over Green Bay? Just looking at it quickly I'm actually coming up with Green Bay winning based on strength of victory, given that conference record is obsolete in this scenario.)
And 14 teams is too many for the playoffs. If each playoff round halves the number of teams, why does it take 16 games to go from 32 to 14, which is only barely more than halving?
14 is actually less than the other major leagues have, and they play more regular season games.
I thought the expanded playoffs this year made for a crazier Week 17 and a better wild-card weekend. Colts-Bills, one of the extra games, was arguably the best of the weekend. Also, the fact that the #2 seeds had to play set up a more interesting divisional round where you couldn't just assume the #1 and #2 seeds would roll over their opponents and into the championships.
-
Eight division winners seeded 1-8 and six wildcards seeded 9-14 all in a single tournament. This year, you would have had (1) Kansas City and (2) Buffalo receiving byes, with first round matchups of (3) Green Bay vs (14) Miami, (4) Pittsburgh vs (13) LA Rams, (5) New Orleans vs (12) Indianapolis, (6) Seattle vs (11) Cleveland, (7) Tennessee vs (10) Tampa Bay, and (8) Washington vs (9) Baltimore
Interesting. It looks even more chaotic than what we have now, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Coincidentally, the way it worked out every single matchup is an AFC-NFC matchup thanks to an 8-6 split in favor of the AFC and the two byes going to the AFC.
(Just out of curiousity, I'm assuming you used the normal tiebreakers to determine that Buffalo got the bye over Green Bay? Just looking at it quickly I'm actually coming up with Green Bay winning based on strength of victory, given that conference record is obsolete in this scenario.)
Yes, conference record tiebreaker would go away. I thought I was looking at the SOV column but I may have been looking at the SOS column, so some of the matchups could change.
-
The only change I would make is restructuring the playoffs for both conferences. Using this year's calendar:
1/10: Play-ins round: WC #2 (6 seed) vs WC #3 (7 seed)
1/16 and 1/17: Wild Card round: DIV #3 (3 seed) vs winner of Wild Card
DIV #4 (4 seed) vs WC #1 (5 seed)
1/23 and 1/24: Divisional round: DIV #1 (1 seed) vs lowest remaining seed
DIV #2 (2 seed) vs second lowest remaining seed
1/31: Conference championships: Divisional round winner vs divisional round winner
This would give the #1 and #2 seeds two-week byes and the #3-5 seeds one-week byes.
-
I thought I was looking at the SOV column but I may have been looking at the SOS column, so some of the matchups could change.
Ah, OK. Buffalo definitely owns that one. They had one of the toughest schedules, so tough that many people thought they could get much better as a team and still struggle to match their 10-6 record from 2019.
-
....
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
FWIW, the NHL isn’t using conferences during the current season. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs and the #1 seed plays #4 and #2 plays #3, with the winners of those matchups meeting in the second round (just like it was back in the 1980s). The four teams that emerge from that (qualifying for the round normally known as the "Conference Finals" but this year called the "Stanley Cup Semifinals") will be seeded 1—4 based on regular-season record and will be matched up based on that, with the winners advancing to the Stanley Cup Finals. Naturally, some commentators like the theoretical prospect for some Original Six matchups in the Finals that wouldn’t be possible in a standard year–Montreal v. Boston or Toronto v. the Rangers, for example.
That system probably works better for a league aligned like the NHL is, though, with only four divisions with either seven or eight teams each. The NFL's eight-division setup makes it less practical. The NHL a also has a long history of too many teams in the playoffs. But my point isn’t whether it’s an ideal idea–I’m just pointing out that a "no-conferences" system is being used somewhere.
-
....
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
FWIW, the NHL isn’t using conferences during the current season. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs and the #1 seed plays #4 and #2 plays #3, with the winners of those matchups meeting in the second round (just like it was back in the 1980s). The four teams that emerge from that (qualifying for the round normally known as the "Conference Finals" but this year called the "Stanley Cup Semifinals") will be seeded 1—4 based on regular-season record and will be matched up based on that, with the winners advancing to the Stanley Cup Finals. Naturally, some commentators like the theoretical prospect for some Original Six matchups in the Finals that wouldn’t be possible in a standard year–Montreal v. Boston or Toronto v. the Rangers, for example.
That system probably works better for a league aligned like the NHL is, though, with only four divisions with either seven or eight teams each. The NFL's eight-division setup makes it less practical. The NHL a also has a long history of too many teams in the playoffs. But my point isn’t whether it’s an ideal idea–I’m just pointing out that a "no-conferences" system is being used somewhere.
This is a byproduct of temporarily realigned conferences due to restrictions with US-Canada travel. The 2021 playoff format makes it so only 1 Canadian team will cross into the US. in other leagues the Toronto teams have moved to the US for the year (Raptors to Tampa, Blue Jays to Buffalo), but moving 7 NHL franchises is much harder. Also, in this format the semifinals and finals are going to be the only times any of those teams played each other (compared to 8+ times during the regular season).
-
Bucs 35, Chiefs 24
-
....
How would the playoffs be structured with no conferences?
FWIW, the NHL isn’t using conferences during the current season. The top four teams in each division make the playoffs and the #1 seed plays #4 and #2 plays #3, with the winners of those matchups meeting in the second round (just like it was back in the 1980s). The four teams that emerge from that (qualifying for the round normally known as the "Conference Finals" but this year called the "Stanley Cup Semifinals") will be seeded 1—4 based on regular-season record and will be matched up based on that, with the winners advancing to the Stanley Cup Finals. Naturally, some commentators like the theoretical prospect for some Original Six matchups in the Finals that wouldn’t be possible in a standard year–Montreal v. Boston or Toronto v. the Rangers, for example.
That system probably works better for a league aligned like the NHL is, though, with only four divisions with either seven or eight teams each. The NFL's eight-division setup makes it less practical. The NHL a also has a long history of too many teams in the playoffs. But my point isn’t whether it’s an ideal idea–I’m just pointing out that a "no-conferences" system is being used somewhere.
This is a byproduct of temporarily realigned conferences due to restrictions with US-Canada travel. The 2021 playoff format makes it so only 1 Canadian team will cross into the US. in other leagues the Toronto teams have moved to the US for the year (Raptors to Tampa, Blue Jays to Buffalo), but moving 7 NHL franchises is much harder. Also, in this format the semifinals and finals are going to be the only times any of those teams played each other (compared to 8+ times during the regular season).
All of that is true, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making. webny99 asked about how you’d structure playoffs with no conferences and I cited this NHL season as an example. The reason why the NHL is doing it wasn’t relevant to his question, so I didn’t mention it.
-
With the Super Bowl again on the horizon, what have been the best Super Bowls of this century so far?
I'm no Pats fan, but it's tough to deny that they've been involved with some all-time great Super Bowls. In fact, it's pretty tough to come up with an answer for the best that didn't involve the Patriots. IMO it's either Pats-Falcons (2017), Pats-Seahawks (2015), or Pats-Giants (2008).
For those of you that enjoy the commercials, FiveThirtyEight has some fun analysis, including a look back at past commercials, here:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-bowl-ads/
-
Pats-Seahawks 2015 is probably one of my all time favorites with the 28-3 SB a close 2nd. Last years was pretty good
-
My prediction this year: the winner will legitimately be in dispute because of a borderline bad call.
-
Pats-Seahawks 2015 is probably one of my all time favorites with the 28-3 SB a close 2nd.
I agree. Pats-Seahawks was one for the ages. It's not as famous as 28-3 (case in point, we all know what 28-3 is without even mentioning any context), but it was better in terms of being a great game from start to finish. You knew it had the makings of something special when the Seahawks scored a late TD to tie it up at 14-14 going into halftime.
-
Pats-Seahawks 2015 is probably one of my all time favorites with the 28-3 SB a close 2nd. Last years was pretty good
My top two are Eagles/Pats and 28-3.
-
I watched the NFL Honors program last night. Toward the end, Peyton Manning's Hall of Fame election was announced. That announcement was preceded by one of his insurance commercials. And the announcement itself showed the Hall of Fame representative walking in on what looked like the filming of yet another commercial, to tell Manning the good news. Nice touches.
-
Go Bucs
-
NFL writer and Around the NFL Podcast legend Chris Wesseling has passed away at the age of 46 after battling cancer for several years.
Devestating. :-(
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-com-writer-podcaster-chris-wesseling-dies-at-age-46#
-
My prediction this year: the winner will legitimately be in dispute because of a borderline bad call.
Well, we don't know yet if the winner will be in dispute because of it, but ... there has definitely been some bad calls.
(edited to fix typo)
-
I'm only watching the SB up to half this year. As of that point, the Bucc's best player is the yellow flag. :banghead:
-
and buccs win with KC only scoring field goals.
-
and buccs win with KC only scoring field goals.
31-9, to be exact. The first and only blowout of the playoffs. The first and only multi-score loss of Mahomes' career. If you didn't see it coming, welcome to the NFL.
-
Tampa just plain out played and out coached Kansas City in every facet of the game. Those penalties through the game were for the most part pretty glaring because Tampa was having their way the entire time.
-
Hearing fireworks outside after the Bucs shellacking of the Chiefs.
Surprised at how one sided the game was, but maybe not as much with how many flags the refs threw.
And Florida Man even made an appearance.
Next NFL news will be the Carson Wentz trade.
-
Surprised at how one sided the game was, but maybe not as much with how many flags the refs threw.
I don't dispute that some of those calls were bad, but I don't think they changed the outcome of the game one bit. The Chiefs were simply outmatched at all levels tonight.
-
I'm only watching the SB up to half this year. As of that point, the Bucc's best player is the yellow flag. :banghead:
Yeah, but they were all pretty much justified.
-
What a performance by the tampa bay defense
-
Apparent explanation regarding the halftime gimp mask thing:
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2021/2/7/22271742/super-bowl-2021-halftime-show-the-weeknd-white-masks-explained?fbclid=IwAR29fIOVSwYhOPqayX4NQeRQaH3lgYZZ3qhJbHw6ce-e4BCN9MicQo0Jo4Q
I've already heard it called "trendy V for Vendetta."
-
and buccs win with KC only scoring field goals.
31-9, to be exact. The first and only blowout of the playoffs. The first and only multi-score loss of Mahomes' career. If you didn't see it coming, welcome to the NFL.
Meh, I'd call the AFC title game pretty much a blowout. Buffalo was no match for KC after getting the 9-spot.
-
Meh, I'd call the AFC title game pretty much a blowout. Buffalo was no match for KC after getting the 9-spot.
I call a blowout 17 or more points (at least 3 scores).
Yes, the Bills were outclassed (which made the SB very satisfying), but it was not on the same level. The Bills were ineffective in the red zone and had two terrible, mind-boggling FG's. If they convert both of those, it's a one-score game at the end. Even without that, they still had 6 scoring drives and scored 24 points and 2 TD's. Both were complete team losses, but the Chiefs was worse.
-
She said "crack."
-
Tom Brady wins again....... yawn.
Didn’t watch a second of the game.
-
Top to bottom the Bucs are the best team in the league. They don't have the best player at any one position, but they are extremely deep and have quality players everywhere. They are a worthy Super Bowl champion. The unsung heroes are their GM and scouting department. They've gotten great players through the draft like Evans, David, Barrett, Winfield, Godwin, Wirfs, I could go on, and they've also made smart free agent signings like Gronk, Fournette, AB, and of course Brady. Tampa will be back in this game a year from now, they have no real competition in the NFC.
-
Tom Brady wins again....... yawn.
Didn’t watch a second of the game.
They should do like Jeopardy! used to do and make it so that after you win so many times you get automatically replaced by someone new.
-
What a performance by the tampa bay defense
Yes, but one thing that I wasn't aware of until just before kickoff was that both of KC's starting OTs were out with injuries. If I'd known that, I could have told you Tampa's defense would dominate the game. You can't beat a good defense with two starting linemen out.
-
What a performance by the tampa bay defense
Yes, but one thing that I wasn't aware of until just before kickoff was that both of KC's starting OTs were out with injuries. If I'd known that, I could have told you Tampa's defense would dominate the game. You can't beat a good defense with two starting linemen out.
The blame is unfortunately going to bypass Mahomes and Reid entirely. I get that the Tampa defense was on top of their game, but Reid failed to adjust his gameplan and Mahomes repeatedly missed open throws or threw into triple coverage. Sadly, Mahomes is the new golden boy and he’s going to get treated as such by the media.
-
Goat
-
What a performance by the tampa bay defense
Yes, but one thing that I wasn't aware of until just before kickoff was that both of KC's starting OTs were out with injuries. If I'd known that, I could have told you Tampa's defense would dominate the game. You can't beat a good defense with two starting linemen out.
The blame is unfortunately going to bypass Mahomes and Reid entirely. I get that the Tampa defense was on top of their game, but Reid failed to adjust his gameplan and Mahomes repeatedly missed open throws or threw into triple coverage. Sadly, Mahomes is the new golden boy and he’s going to get treated as such by the media.
That's what Reid did best when he was in Philly...fail to adjust.
-
Tampa just plain out played and out coached Kansas City in every facet of the game.
As a non-fan...
When I read predictions of a high-scoring game, I expected it to be an offense-driven game with weak defense.
Instead, what I saw was that Tampa Bay played solid defense the entire game. And Kansas City had good defense for... umm, about the first four minutes? and then stopped.
Kansas City as a team failed miserably. However, some of those passes by Mahomes were incredible–if only they had been caught. There was more than one occasion when it looked hopeless for Mahomes, with no way out, and yet he somehow managed to throw a great pass. And then the receiver didn't catch it.
-
Le sigh...well, at least New England wasn't in it this time!
-
The blame is unfortunately going to bypass Mahomes and Reid entirely. I get that the Tampa defense was on top of their game, but Reid failed to adjust his gameplan and Mahomes repeatedly missed open throws or threw into triple coverage. Sadly, Mahomes is the new golden boy and he’s going to get treated as such by the media.
Yes, Mahomes and Reid should get *some* blame, but ultimately, it was the O-line issues that were too much to overcome. Mahomes was pressured on 52% of dropbacks, the most in Super Bowl history. He was on the run all night.
When I read predictions of a high-scoring game, I expected it to be an offense-driven game with weak defense.
Upthread, cabiness42 mentioned not knowing about the Chiefs' O-line issues until right before kickoff. But everyone that follows this stuff closely, including everyone in the media, knew all along and simply believed that Mahomes would overcome it. It's not that there was disrespect for the Bucs' defense, but people thought the Chiefs offense was so good that it wouldn't matter, hence the predictions for a high-scoring, shootout game.
In the end, it was a much greater mismatch than anyone could have predicted.
-
Tom Brady wins again....... yawn.
Didn’t watch a second of the game.
You know, I don't like TB because of the deflategate and the incident of Brady deciding to deflate the balls in the NFC title game in 2015. :pan:
But this game, (yawn) was a game that never existed. No one will outsmart Brady, and every other year this happens. 2019, 2017, 2015...
Congrats Arians for the win. But that TD by Gronk, was not. :clap: :clap: :popcorn:
-
The blame is unfortunately going to bypass Mahomes and Reid entirely. I get that the Tampa defense was on top of their game, but Reid failed to adjust his gameplan and Mahomes repeatedly missed open throws or threw into triple coverage. Sadly, Mahomes is the new golden boy and he’s going to get treated as such by the media.
Yes, Mahomes and Reid should get *some* blame, but ultimately, it was the O-line issues that were too much to overcome. Mahomes was pressured on 52% of dropbacks, the most in Super Bowl history. He was on the run all night.
When I read predictions of a high-scoring game, I expected it to be an offense-driven game with weak defense.
Upthread, cabiness42 mentioned not knowing about the Chiefs' O-line issues until right before kickoff. But everyone that follows this stuff closely, including everyone in the media, knew all along and simply believed that Mahomes would overcome it. It's not that there was disrespect for the Bucs' defense, but people thought the Chiefs offense was so good that it wouldn't matter, hence the predictions for a high-scoring, shootout game.
In the end, it was a much greater mismatch than anyone could have predicted.
One word. 🐐
-
The blame is unfortunately going to bypass Mahomes and Reid entirely. I get that the Tampa defense was on top of their game, but Reid failed to adjust his gameplan and Mahomes repeatedly missed open throws or threw into triple coverage. Sadly, Mahomes is the new golden boy and he’s going to get treated as such by the media.
Yes, Mahomes and Reid should get *some* blame, but ultimately, it was the O-line issues that were too much to overcome. Mahomes was pressured on 52% of dropbacks, the most in Super Bowl history. He was on the run all night.
When I read predictions of a high-scoring game, I expected it to be an offense-driven game with weak defense.
Upthread, cabiness42 mentioned not knowing about the Chiefs' O-line issues until right before kickoff. But everyone that follows this stuff closely, including everyone in the media, knew all along and simply believed that Mahomes would overcome it. It's not that there was disrespect for the Bucs' defense, but people thought the Chiefs offense was so good that it wouldn't matter, hence the predictions for a high-scoring, shootout game.
In the end, it was a much greater mismatch than anyone could have predicted.
One word. 🐐
I think that's a good note to retire this 32-page thread on. Rest in peace, 2020 NFL season
-
One word. 🐐
I think that's a good note to retire this 32-page thread on. Rest in peace, 2020 NFL season
Yeah, I was just noticing that, as of the 🐐 post, this thread has surpassed BASE-BALL and is now the third-longest sports thread of all time.
I can't think of any reason not to keep it going for 2021, so I've updated the title to NFL (2021 Season).
With Super Bowl 55 now in the books, my posts that follow will be (1) a review of all the questions I outlined in the OP, and (2) a spin forward to the year to come.
-
Here's a review of my questions for the 2020 season, as outlined in the OP (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26378.0):
Can teams that had unexpected success this year replicate that next year? (SF 49ers, Buffalo Bills, Tennessee Titans...)
Not much ambiguity here! A solid No for the 49ers, a solid Yes for the Titans, and an even more solid Yes for the Bills.
The 49ers suffered one crushing injury after another on both sides of the ball to finish 6-10, and, with a roster ready to contend, their QB situation remains unclear heading into the offseason. Meanwhile, the Titans pulled out several close wins with their high-powered offense to finally improve on their 9-7 record of the past four years and win the division for the first time since 2008. Despite the offense struggling in the Wild Card playoffs, improving the defense is the logical step towards sustained success.
The Bills were perhaps one of the most improved teams of the season despite their defensive regression thanks to Josh Allen's third-year growth and the offseason acquisition of Stefon Diggs (perhaps the greatest trade in NFL history in terms of how it worked out for both teams). Allen led the team to their first AFC championship in 27 years, and while the loss to the Chiefs was disappointing, there's every reason to think they'll be back.
Can teams that underperformed make a playoff run next year? (Dallas Cowboys, LA Rams, Cleveland Browns...)
Perhaps even less ambiguity here. No matter how you define "playoff run", both the Rams and Browns won a playoff game and made it to the Divisional Round, so it's a solid Yes for both of those teams, and a solid No for the Cowboys.
With Dak Prescott presumably returning from a devastating injury, the Rams going "Super Bowl or bust" in acquiring Matthew Stafford, and the Browns hitting a home run with Coach of the Year Kevin Stefanski, there's plenty of reason to think all three teams will be back in the postseason next year.
Will the Patriots extend their dynasty?
A solid No. Considering their lack of talent and multitude of COVID opt-outs, their 7-9 record is a testament to Belichick's greatness. A fresh start at QB and elsewhere is on the horizon.
Can the Ravens supplant the Chiefs as the team to beat in the AFC?
No disrespect to the Ravens, but this was perhaps the most laughable of my preseason insinuations. The Ravens are in a tough division and would be lucky to secure a top 5 ranking in the AFC. Their offseason focus should be clear: improve the passing game, because a great running game only goes so far in January.
Will the 2020 NFC West be the greatest division of all time?
No, and in fact, they weren't even the best division this season. The AFC North produced more playoff teams and was a better and tougher division all around. Those two are clearly the heavyweights, though.
Can the Saints overcome their run of postseason woes?
Why did I think it could happen? The divisional round loss to the Bucs wasn't quite as painful and gut-wrenching as the past three losses in terms of how it ended, but it was equally sad and depressing. They've got a great coach and great talent (and a very complicated cap situation), but I wouldn't rule them out as a contender next year with Jameis Winston at QB.
My way-to-early Super Bowl matchup for next year: Ravens vs. Saints! :nod:
Well, I tried. I mostly just went with what I wanted to see, which was a close game with the score in the 20's between powerful, talented teams with respectable defenses. In the end, both teams made the playoffs but lost in the divisional round.
-
A spin forward to 2021
With Super Bowl 55 in the books, it's once again time to start talking about the offseason and looking ahead to the 2021 NFL season!
There are a multitude of draft and free agency narratives in the NFL this year. Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, Carson Wentz, Jimmy Garoppolo and Deshaun Watson, just to scratch the surface. And that doesn't even consider Matthew Stafford and Jared Goff, who already traded places (https://www.nfl.com/news/lions-agree-to-trade-matthew-stafford-to-rams-in-blockbuster-deal-involving-jare#:~:text=Detroit%20will%20acquire%20Goff%2C%20a,exchange%20for%20Stafford%2C%20per%20Pelissero.&text=The%20Rams%20will%20inherit%20the,hit%20in%202021%2C%20per%20Pelissero.) before the Super Bowl.
Can teams that finished short of the playoffs make a postseason run next year? (Arizona Cardinals, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings)
Can teams that are a QB away from contention get the all-important position figured out? (Indianapolis Colts, Denver Broncos, San Francisco 49ers)
Will the Chiefs run it back to the biggest stage? Can the Bills and Packers get over the Championship hump?
Will the 2021 NFC South be among the league's best divisions? Will the Rams go on a Super Bowl run?
I can't wait to see all that and more unfold over the next 12 months! :coffee:
-
Can the Bills and Packers get over the Championship hump?
Don't know about the Bills, but the Packers are likely done now. I suspect they'll regress next year.
-
As far as I'm concerned regarding the NFC, there's the Bucs and Rams and a lot of nothing after that. Packers will probably post an attractive regular season record, but then self destruct in the playoffs like usual. Ditto for the Seahawks. Niners are the big question mark to me, it depends on who their QB is and how long their IR list becomes. I expect the AFC to be much more interesting. Chiefs, Bills, Colts, and Browns all have a legitimate shot IMO. If the Browns want to win, they're going to need their running game and defense to carry their mediocre at best quarterback. Ravens will be good in the regular season again, but I'm not wasting any time on them in the playoffs. Titans need a better defense.
Way-too-early playoff predictions:
AFC East: Bills division winners
AFC North: Ravens division winners, Browns wild card
AFC South: Colts division winners, Titans wild card
AFC West: Chiefs division winners, Chargers wild card
NFC East: Cowboys division winners
NFC North: Packers division winners, Vikings wild card, Bears wild card
NFC South: Buccaneers division winners
NFC West: Rams division winners, Seahawks wild card
-
What I would like to know is: will we be going to the 17-game schedule in 2021? That's what I've heard, anyway.
-
What I would like to know is: will we be going to the 17-game schedule in 2021? That's what I've heard, anyway.
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-plans-to-expand-regular-season-to-17-games-per-team-in-2021
Here's a story that indicates that it's going to happen but can't be announced until a media contract gets finalized. Regular season would start at the same time, end a week later, with the playoffs also being a week later. The extra game would be an interconference game against a team that finished in the same place. My guess is that it would alternate with all NFC teams being home one year and all AFC teams the next, so that teams within a conference competing for wildcard spots are all playing the same number of home games.
Also, if this goes through, for the forseeable future, Tom Brady and Rex Grossman will be the only QBs ever to lose on my birthday.
-
I don't get it. Why have another game that throws off the home/away balance?
-
I don't get it. Why have another game that throws off the home/away balance?
$$$
-
My guess is that it would alternate with all NFC teams being home one year and all AFC teams the next, so that teams within a conference competing for wildcard spots are all playing the same number of home games.
Not sure how it would work for home vs. away, but it would be the opposite conference team from the division your team hasn't seen for two years and won't see for two more. Sounds complicated, but using the Bills as an example:
They faced the NFC East in 2019 and won't again until 2023. So in 2021, they are two years away from any regularly scheduled games against the NFC East. As last year's division winner, they'll play Washington, while the Dolphins will play the Giants, the Pats will play the Cowboys, and the Jets will play the Eagles.
(Ironically, the last-place matchup whipped up on the first-place matchup in the 2019 regular season games. The Eagles beat the Bills 31-13 (it was the Bills only loss all season by more than a touchdown), while the Jets beat the Redskins 34-17.)
I don't mind an extra week of NFL action, but I'm not a fan of an odd number of games.
-
Don't be surprised if calls for an 18-game season come to be. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the current 16 games; why fix something that isn't broken? It's just change for the sake of change.
-
Don't be surprised if calls for an 18-game season come to be. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the current 16 games; why fix something that isn't broken? It's just change for the sake of change.
If they wanted more TV money, they could have just added a second bye for every team and still get 18 weeks worth of games.
-
Let's not forget the NFL's other motivation both for adding a 17th game and the new 7th seeds this year (allowing for 6 wild-card games):
-
Don't be surprised if calls for an 18-game season come to be. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the current 16 games; why fix something that isn't broken? It's just change for the sake of change.
If they wanted more TV money, they could have just added a second bye for every team and still get 18 weeks worth of games.
They did that in 1993 and it was a flop. Apparently most of the teams felt having two weeks off was too disruptive. The only other time they've played over 18 weeks was unplanned but entirely understandable (2001).
-
If they wanted more TV money, they could have just added a second bye for every team and still get 18 weeks worth of games.
They did that in 1993 and it was a flop. Apparently most of the teams felt having two weeks off was too disruptive. The only other time they've played over 18 weeks was unplanned but entirely understandable (2001).
Also, adding an extra bye week wouldn't increase the total number of games. In an 18 week season, the byes could be spread out over 14 weeks at most. At least 4 teams per week would be on bye for nearly the entire season, and timing two byes for each team would make the schedule even more complicated than it already is.
-
The NFL ownership wanted an 18-game season, bur the players union objected that plan. So the compromise was to make it a 17-team season.
-
Don't be surprised if calls for an 18-game season come to be. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the current 16 games; why fix something that isn't broken? It's just change for the sake of change.
If they wanted more TV money, they could have just added a second bye for every team and still get 18 weeks worth of games.
They did that in 1993 and it was a flop. Apparently most of the teams felt having two weeks off was too disruptive. The only other time they've played over 18 weeks was unplanned but entirely understandable (2001).