NFL (2024 Season)

[Ted$8roadFan]

Congrats to the champs. The Niners did almost everything they had to do to win, but it wasn't enough to overcome Mahomes.

[webny99]

Congrats to the champs. The Niners did almost everything they had to do to win, but it wasn't enough to overcome Mahomes.

They also kept missing opportunities time after time that you just knew would cost them in the end.

[1995hoo]

Ugh. Can't wait for more Taylor Swift spam.

Happy for her and her boyfriend.

All has now become clear!

[tmoore952]

49ers fired their DC.

[Henry]

There's been a deadly shooting at the victory parade in downtown Kansas City. Apparently, some fans don't know how to celebrate responsibly...

[KeithE4Phx]

There's been a deadly shooting at the victory parade in downtown Kansas City. Apparently, some fans don't know how to celebrate responsibly...

One dead, identified as a Kansas City radio personality.  21 injured including several children, and three people detained, although not yet identified as suspects.  One of the detainees was shown on TV being led away by cops wearing either orange long-johns or a prison/jail uniform (hard to tell from a distance).

The investigation is still ongoing, likely for several more days, and little info other than what I mentioned has been released by the cops or the city.

[Max Rockatansky]

Apparently one of the gunmen got tackled and thumped by fans.

[Ted$8roadFan]

49ers fired their DC.

Steve Wilks became the fall guy.

[NWI_Irish96]

49ers fired their DC.

Steve Wilks became the fall guy.

In the Super Bowl, they allowed only one TD in regulation to the defending champs, and that TD came after a muffed punt gave them the ball inside the 20.

Should have fired the Special Teams coach instead.

[webny99]

49ers fired their DC.

Steve Wilks became the fall guy.

In the Super Bowl, they allowed only one TD in regulation to the defending champs, and that TD came after a muffed punt gave them the ball inside the 20.

Should have fired the Special Teams coach instead.

They also could not stop anything in the final two drives, although the impact of the defense being gassed at that point is probably underrated.

To me the 49ers and Bills losses to the Chiefs felt very similar. Both teams needed someone to step up and make a game winning play and no one did, so ultimately all three units and the coaching staff each deserve about 25% of the blame.

[tmoore952]

49ers fired their DC.

Steve Wilks became the fall guy.

In the Super Bowl, they allowed only one TD in regulation to the defending champs, and that TD came after a muffed punt gave them the ball inside the 20.

Should have fired the Special Teams coach instead.

I'm not sure why/how it is the 49ers Special Teams coach fault that the Chiefs kick glanced off the leg of one of the 49ers players covering the play, thus making the ball live for everyone. That seems to me to be a lot more uncontrollable than say, if the 49ers receiver fumbled the ball. Is that even coachable? I assume the 49ers player would look at the Chiefs receiver to have some idea where the ball may be headed (you certainly wouldn't look up). But you still have to assume that the person you are running to is actually going to attempt to catch the ball, which isn't always the case.

[jakeroot]

Best halftime show: Carol Channing, Super Bowl IV

Objectively an interesting choice...she doesn't typically appear on the "best of" lists for Super Bowl performances. But then I just bought an Anne Murray vinyl a couple weeks ago, if that provides any indication of the importance of subjectivity when deciding the "best". Some of us, regardless of age, just have older preferences.

In my lifetime, I remember quite liking the Prince halftime show. But then I'm also a fan of Prince.

[tmoore952]

Best halftime show: Carol Channing, Super Bowl IV

Objectively an interesting choice.

I met her at a Philadelphia-area department store in 1976. She was giving a public performance, but it was mostly talking. Very interesting woman.

In looking this up SB VI halftime show on Wikipedia, it mentioned that Ella Fitzgerald and Al Hirt also performed, as well as others.

SB IV halftime also had other performers besides Channing.

The earlier posts, as well as those discussing them, mply (at least to me) that Channing was the only performer at these two shows. Not the case either time.

[webny99]

What is everyone going to be keeping an eye on this offseason as we barrel towards another season?

I am sensing a certain degree of lethargy with the NFL right now as it feels a bit like the Brady years when the Patriots were so inevitable that it became boring and predictable. Hopefully that will change next season, but at least for right now, the Chiefs own the NFL.

Most of the AFC has a locked in QB, but I will be interested to see what happens with the rest of the AFC West, and a bunch of NFC teams including the Bears, Vikings, Giants, Commanders, and the entire NFC South.

And of course, how do the Bills find their way to an inevitable 4th straight divisional round playoff loss.

[jlam]

Currently, uniforms. And hoping that (Travis) Kelce gets traded to the Bears.

[NWI_Irish96]

What is everyone going to be keeping an eye on this offseason as we barrel towards another season?

I am sensing a certain degree of lethargy with the NFL right now as it feels a bit like the Brady years when the Patriots were so inevitable that it became boring and predictable. Hopefully that will change next season, but at least for right now, the Chiefs own the NFL.

Most of the AFC has a locked in QB, but I will be interested to see what happens with the rest of the AFC West, and a bunch of NFC teams including the Bears, Vikings, Giants, Commanders, and the entire NFC South.

And of course, how do the Bills find their way to an inevitable 4th straight divisional round playoff loss.

The Bears will have an impact on just about every team in the draft with their decision to either trade Justin Fields and draft Caleb Williams with the #1 overall pick, or keep Fields and trade the pick.

I'm hoping the Bears trade the pick, not because I prefer Fields over Williams, but because they desperately need the help they would get with the haul of picks that would come with trading out of #1. Specifically, I'm hoping they can land left tackle Joe Alt after trading down.

[JayhawkCO]

Currently, uniforms. And hoping that (Travis) Kelce gets traded to the Bears.

Out of curiosity, why would he?

[webny99]

The Bears will have an impact on just about every team in the draft with their decision to either trade Justin Fields and draft Caleb Williams with the #1 overall pick, or keep Fields and trade the pick.

I'm hoping the Bears trade the pick, not because I prefer Fields over Williams, but because they desperately need the help they would get with the haul of picks that would come with trading out of #1. Specifically, I'm hoping they can land left tackle Joe Alt after trading down.

There seems to be growing consensus that they will draft a QB and move on from Fields. I am not so sure that's what they should do or what they will do. I would feel differently if it was a full reset with a new head coach and GM, but now it just seems like an odd dynamic to try to upgrade on Fields. They kind of already committed to him by trading down last year. Why would you not do the same this year after he improved significantly last season? They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields. If he isn't, the whole regime is essentially a failure and probably gets fired, and Stroud led the Texans to the divisional playoffs, so that's a really high bar to clear. The Bears are typically a conservative operation, and the safe option here is to keep Fields and get a haul for the #1 pick, so I could still see it happening even if the consensus disagrees.

[triplemultiplex]

This is the Bears you're talking about.  They'll botch the decision no matter what they do.

[thspfc]

The Bears will have an impact on just about every team in the draft with their decision to either trade Justin Fields and draft Caleb Williams with the #1 overall pick, or keep Fields and trade the pick.

I'm hoping the Bears trade the pick, not because I prefer Fields over Williams, but because they desperately need the help they would get with the haul of picks that would come with trading out of #1. Specifically, I'm hoping they can land left tackle Joe Alt after trading down.

There seems to be growing consensus that they will draft a QB and move on from Fields. I am not so sure that's what they should do or what they will do. I would feel differently if it was a full reset with a new head coach and GM, but now it just seems like an odd dynamic to try to upgrade on Fields. They kind of already committed to him by trading down last year. Why would you not do the same this year after he improved significantly last season? They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields. If he isn't, the whole regime is essentially a failure and probably gets fired, and Stroud led the Texans to the divisional playoffs, so that's a really high bar to clear. The Bears are typically a conservative operation, and the safe option here is to keep Fields and get a haul for the #1 pick, so I could still see it happening even if the consensus disagrees.

No, as I've said many times here and elsewhere the question is very simple and none of the baggage matters.

Who is more likely to be a franchise quarterback: Fields or Williams?

"Odd dynamic", "already kinda committed", "why not do the same", "he improved", "safe option", "could have had Stroud", whatever. Just noise. The goal is to have a good quarterback. If you think Fields is more likely to become a franchise QB than Williams, that's a different discussion entirely (I disagree, but I know that's not necessarily what you're saying). If you don't think Fields is more likely to become a franchise QB than Williams, then you trade Fields and draft Williams, end of story.

If Williams doesn't work out, the entire regime will be fired. If Fields doesn't work out, the entire regime will also be fired. So that point falls flat.

They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields.

It's hard to even articulate how bizarre this take is because it's just like elementary level common sense has failed you here.

Say I find berries growing on a bush in the woods, and they look tasty so I eat a few. After a few minutes I feel nauseous and dizzy. Hmm, seems like the berries are poisonous. I should stop eating the berries, right? By your logic, no, I should keep eating them, because in order for my initial decision to eat them to be justified, I have to become better off after eating berries than I was before. I'm not better off right now, so my only choice is to eat more.

The initial decision to eat berries was the Bears decision to pass on Stroud and keep Fields. Feeling nauseous and dizzy is the Bears watching Stroud ball out while Fields continues to sputter and not improve at a fast enough rate. Now, the decision to keep Fields again is the decision to shove a dozen more berries down your throat, a choice that by all indications will kill you. You're reasoning that this is the correct decision because you somehow can't just admit that you made a mistake by eating the berries in the first place (passing on Stroud)?

[webny99]

There seems to be growing consensus that they will draft a QB and move on from Fields. I am not so sure that's what they should do or what they will do. I would feel differently if it was a full reset with a new head coach and GM, but now it just seems like an odd dynamic to try to upgrade on Fields. They kind of already committed to him by trading down last year. Why would you not do the same this year after he improved significantly last season? They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields. If he isn't, the whole regime is essentially a failure and probably gets fired, and Stroud led the Texans to the divisional playoffs, so that's a really high bar to clear. The Bears are typically a conservative operation, and the safe option here is to keep Fields and get a haul for the #1 pick, so I could still see it happening even if the consensus disagrees.

No, as I've said many times here and elsewhere the question is very simple and none of the baggage matters.

Who is more likely to be a franchise quarterback: Fields or Williams?
...

If Williams doesn't work out, the entire regime will be fired. If Fields doesn't work out, the entire regime will also be fired. So that point falls flat.

It's two different questions being asked.

• First, who is more likely to be a franchise QB? If you draft a franchise QB, you keep your job. (FWIW, I would give a slight edge to Williams.)
• Second, who is more likely to be a bust? If you draft a bust, you lose your job...

...but you already have 3 years of information on one of the choices, and that's a huge factor. I would give Williams a slightly higher chance of being a bust, given how much of a crapshoot the draft is, and the information we have about Fields which is that he is a good player that has improved over time. IMO, Fields is unlikely to implode with more pieces around him that you could add with the draft haul. You would not have the draft capital to add those pieces if you draft Williams, so Williams has to be significantly better, not just a little bit better. So, is the risk worth the reward? Those two questions have to be weighed in tandem. You can't only look at the upside without looking at the downside.

They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields.

It's hard to even articulate how bizarre this take is because it's just like elementary level common sense has failed you here.

Say I find berries growing on a bush in the woods, and they look tasty so I eat a few. After a few minutes I feel nauseous and dizzy. Hmm, seems like the berries are poisonous. I should stop eating the berries, right? By your logic, no, I should keep eating them, because in order for my initial decision to eat them to be justified, I have to become better off after eating berries than I was before. I'm not better off right now, so my only choice is to eat more.

The initial decision to eat berries was the Bears decision to pass on Stroud and keep Fields. Feeling nauseous and dizzy is the Bears watching Stroud ball out while Fields continues to sputter and not improve at a fast enough rate. Now, the decision to keep Fields again is the decision to shove a dozen more berries down your throat, a choice that by all indications will kill you. You're reasoning that this is the correct decision because you somehow can't just admit that you made a mistake by eating the berries in the first place (passing on Stroud)?

OK, I was honestly expecting some pushback on this from a Bryce Young angle, but not from this angle.

I just don't understand why the berries are poisonous in this analogy. Fields is not a terrible QB. Stroud is better, but we didn't know that before. It's more like... I don't know, there's 100 berry bushes and you can only eat from one bush at a time. 20 of the bushes are poisonous, 60 have berries that turn mushy in various degrees before you can eat them (but are still edible), and 20 win you a Super Bowl. Do you risk switching to a new bush? If you were going to risk it, why would you waste a whole year eating from the bush you have now only to find out that (a) the berries you're eating now are getting juicier and more flavorful, while (b) the risk of picking a new bush is essentially unchanged?

That's why I emphasized that it's the same people making the decisions. It's completely illogical to pass on a QB last year but go for one this year unless you think it's a 100% guarantee that this year's best QB is as good or better than last year's best QB. It's great for the coach/GM to be self-aware and acknowledge they made a mistake by passing last time, but their goal is not to do the opposite thing just because they were wrong last time... in fact, that's a sure fire way to get it wrong again. Their goal to win games (and therefore keep their jobs), and that's where the risk/reward comes into play. If they're going to draft Williams, they need to be very certain that he will be a franchise QB (essentially synonymous with "as good as Stroud or better").

[DenverBrian]

Currently, uniforms. And hoping that (Travis) Kelce gets traded to the Bears.

Out of curiosity, why would he?

Indeed. If Kelce were to leave the Chiefs (and he won't), I'd expect he'd want the Chargers or Rams. <cough>LA/TS<cough>

[JayhawkCO]

Re: the Fields conversation, I think thspfc and webny99 are both missing another option/angle here.

If they're still not sure on Fields, but they're optimistic, they could basically stall by trading the pick to someone who they think will be bad next year no matter what they do. I know it's not an exact science, but I think most of us had Carolina (whose pick Chicago is using) in the bottom 3 in the NFL before the season started. If Chicago can get the exact same kind of deal as they did last year (very high pick this year, a first rounder next year, plus stuff), it kicks the can down the line for one more year and they'll have more time to evaluate. Obviously, if they think Caleb Williams is the second coming of Patrick Mahomes (take that, Brady lovers) then this doesn't work. But if they just think he's a, say, Herbert quality QB at worst? They could just wait until the 2025 draft and replace Fields then. It's not Williams vs. Fields; it's Williams vs. Fields for a year and then they can figure it out.

[thspfc]

There seems to be growing consensus that they will draft a QB and move on from Fields. I am not so sure that's what they should do or what they will do. I would feel differently if it was a full reset with a new head coach and GM, but now it just seems like an odd dynamic to try to upgrade on Fields. They kind of already committed to him by trading down last year. Why would you not do the same this year after he improved significantly last season? They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields. If he isn't, the whole regime is essentially a failure and probably gets fired, and Stroud led the Texans to the divisional playoffs, so that's a really high bar to clear. The Bears are typically a conservative operation, and the safe option here is to keep Fields and get a haul for the #1 pick, so I could still see it happening even if the consensus disagrees.

No, as I've said many times here and elsewhere the question is very simple and none of the baggage matters.

Who is more likely to be a franchise quarterback: Fields or Williams?
...

If Williams doesn't work out, the entire regime will be fired. If Fields doesn't work out, the entire regime will also be fired. So that point falls flat.

It's two different questions being asked.

• First, who is more likely to be a franchise QB? If you draft a franchise QB, you keep your job. (FWIW, I would give a slight edge to Williams.)
• Second, who is more likely to be a bust? If you draft a bust, you lose your job...

...but you already have 3 years of information on one of the choices, and that's a huge factor. I would give Williams a slightly higher chance of being a bust, given how much of a crapshoot the draft is, and the information we have about Fields which is that he is a good player that has improved over time. IMO, Fields is unlikely to implode with more pieces around him that you could add with the draft haul. You would not have the draft capital to add those pieces if you draft Williams, so Williams has to be significantly better, not just a little bit better. So, is the risk worth the reward? Those two questions have to be weighed in tandem. You can't only look at the upside without looking at the downside.

As I said, everyone in that organization is on thin ice, and simply avoiding a monumental bust won't be enough to save them. They need to make it happen now, and they need to go with whichever QB gives them the best chance to do that. Another year of mediocre play from both Fields and the team as a whole will have them all fired.

The 3 years of information we have on Fields is that he entered the league as one of the worst passers of all starting QBs and has marginally improved each year since, to being a merely below average passer. We also know that he's essentially useless in the final five minutes of close games, and has literally not once in his career been the main reason the Bears won a game. The same cannot be said of any franchise quarterback ever.

It's been shown time and time and time and time again in this league over the past decade or so that if you don't have the guy at QB, you are not going to find sustained success. To me, the difference in outlook between Williams and Fields has to be quite small in order for the trade compensation to come into play.

I don't think it's quite small; I think Fields is not a franchise QB and never will be. Why should I believe year 4 will be different? Different as in, we're not having these conversations again a year from now. Will he continue to improve? Probably. Will year 4 actually be different, though?

The Packers know they have their guy. The Texans know it. The Chiefs and Bengals and Chargers knew it within 8 NFL starts. The Ravens knew it within two seasons. The Eagles knew it midway through Hurts' second full season as a starter. The Bills knew it with Allen, who is a good example of a late blooming QB, by the middle of his third season when he was in the MVP conversation.

And with Fields? Everyone's still arguing about it after 3 years and it's somehow the storyline of the entire offseason. That's just not where you want to be. The only precedent I can think of for a QB who played at Fields' level or lower through his first 3 seasons eventually becoming a semi-long term starter is Geno Smith, and it took him almost a decade.

All that is to say, I'll take a 50% chance over a 10% chance. If that means sacrificing draft picks, so be it. Those draft picks won't look so nice when the entire team is being held back by a subpar QB again.

They could have had CJ Stroud last year, so Caleb Williams has to be better than Stroud for it to make sense to move on from Fields.

It's hard to even articulate how bizarre this take is because it's just like elementary level common sense has failed you here.

Say I find berries growing on a bush in the woods, and they look tasty so I eat a few. After a few minutes I feel nauseous and dizzy. Hmm, seems like the berries are poisonous. I should stop eating the berries, right? By your logic, no, I should keep eating them, because in order for my initial decision to eat them to be justified, I have to become better off after eating berries than I was before. I'm not better off right now, so my only choice is to eat more.

The initial decision to eat berries was the Bears decision to pass on Stroud and keep Fields. Feeling nauseous and dizzy is the Bears watching Stroud ball out while Fields continues to sputter and not improve at a fast enough rate. Now, the decision to keep Fields again is the decision to shove a dozen more berries down your throat, a choice that by all indications will kill you. You're reasoning that this is the correct decision because you somehow can't just admit that you made a mistake by eating the berries in the first place (passing on Stroud)?

OK, I was honestly expecting some pushback on this from a Bryce Young angle, but not from this angle.

I just don't understand why the berries are poisonous in this analogy. Fields is not a terrible QB. Stroud is better, but we didn't know that before. It's more like... I don't know, there's 100 berry bushes and you can only eat from one bush at a time. 20 of the bushes are poisonous, 60 have berries that turn mushy in various degrees before you can eat them (but are still edible), and 20 win you a Super Bowl. Do you risk switching to a new bush? If you were going to risk it, why would you waste a whole year eating from the bush you have now only to find out that (a) the berries you're eating now are getting juicier and more flavorful, while (b) the risk of picking a new bush is essentially unchanged?

The analogy wasn't supposed to be that deep. It was just supposed to highlight the sunk cost fallacy in the statement. To simplify it further and remove the nuance:

1. I make a bad decision
2. I am faced with another decision: double down on my first decision or change plans

My rationale for making the second decision needs to be based on what I think the best choice is for me in that moment.

Which raises the question: what is the best choice? I explained above that I think the best choice is to draft Williams and trade Fields. Whether or not that's true is a different question entirely, and highly subjective. But what's not subjective is that making a decision that you believe is bad, just because that's the way you did it before, is stupid.

It's completely illogical to pass on a QB last year but go for one this year unless you think it's a 100% guarantee that this year's best QB is as good or better than last year's best QB.

No it's not. Additional information comes to light over time. This year is not last year.

Also, whenever the NFL draft is involved the value "100%" should never be brought up because it does not exist.

If you think Fields showed enough this year to make it the right choice at this moment, all things considered including draft capital, to stick with him over Williams? Be my guest. None of us have a crystal ball. But if you don't think so - if you agree that moving on is optimal - then I just don't understand how you bring yourself to these conclusions.

It's great for the coach/GM to be self-aware and acknowledge they made a mistake by passing last time, but their goal is not to do the opposite thing just because they were wrong last time... in fact, that's a sure fire way to get it wrong again.

I never said anything along the lines of "they got it wrong last time so they should do the opposite". That's not my reasoning at all.

Their goal is to win games (and therefore keep their jobs)

Yep

and that's where the risk/reward comes into play.

And my position is that in this risk/reward situation, they should trade Fields and draft Williams. I think that will help them win games and keep their jobs.

If they're going to draft Williams, they need to be very certain that he will be a franchise QB (essentially synonymous with "as good as Stroud or better").

If you think that Fields will be a franchise QB, I understand this position. If you don't - which it appears is the case - then no, you don't need to be certain, you just need to recognize that Williams has a very fair shot at becoming one, and Fields does not. I'll take 50% over 10%.


Every additional word I read regarding Justin Fields makes me more confident in my opinion, because the fact that these discussions are still happening screams loud and clear to me about what the Bears should do.

[webny99]

Re: the Fields conversation, I think thspfc and webny99 are both missing another option/angle here.

If they're still not sure on Fields, but they're optimistic, they could basically stall by trading the pick to someone who they think will be bad next year no matter what they do. I know it's not an exact science, but I think most of us had Carolina (whose pick Chicago is using) in the bottom 3 in the NFL before the season started. If Chicago can get the exact same kind of deal as they did last year (very high pick this year, a first rounder next year, plus stuff), it kicks the can down the line for one more year and they'll have more time to evaluate. Obviously, if they think Caleb Williams is the second coming of Patrick Mahomes (take that, Brady lovers) then this doesn't work. But if they just think he's a, say, Herbert quality QB at worst? They could just wait until the 2025 draft and replace Fields then. It's not Williams vs. Fields; it's Williams vs. Fields for a year and then they can figure it out.

That makes sense to me, and I would certainly expect them to be selective about who they trade the pick to if they do trade it.

But... your last sentence gives me pause because on the off chance Fields regresses, his trade value (which I think would be pretty high right now) could go down significantly, and there's no guarantee there will be any top QB prospects in 2025. If it's a repeat of 2022 with no potential franchise altering QB talents while Williams balls out somewhere else, that's a big yikes too.