NFL (2024 Season)

[epzik8]

I'm FAR more afraid of Joe Flacco at this moment in time than I am of Lamar, Patrick, Josh, Tua, Dak, Jalen or Brock.

[thspfc]

I'm FAR more afraid of Joe Flacco at this moment in time than I am of Lamar, Patrick, Josh, Tua, Dak, Jalen or Brock.

I'm not.

[Henry]

One more week, and 11 teams are still alive (6 NFC, 5 AFC). The six teams in both South Divisions have a title to play for (with only the Panthers and Titans out of it for sure). Also, it's going to come down to the Packers and Vikings in the NFC North, and knowing that I hate Green Bay with a passion, I hope the Bears and Vikings win their respective season finales, especially since the Lions are playing in a game that won't matter for them, since they already locked up their first division title in 30 years (back when it was called the NFC Central).

[triplemultiplex]

At the start of the season, I pegged this year's Pack as an 8-8 team (yeah, yeah; 17 games, whatever).  And here we are.
Love is a competent quarterback, I can at least say.  If he can start hitting deep receivers in stride, that will be a huge next step.  Presently, almost every deep throw, the receiver has to either lay out for it or wait for the ball.  A lot to ask, but a lot about Love's game is looking pretty good.  I think we can work with this.  Get these young receivers developed, keep drafting great linemen, and then above all, get the goddamn defense's house in order and the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

[webny99]

...
the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

Fortunately, the 17-game season didn't change the nature of the term "January football" that much. Sure, the last week of the regular season is now in January, but that often contains a bunch of playoff games anyways, and the first three rounds of the playoffs are still guaranteed to be in January. The only game that's not is the Super Bowl, but that was already the case even with 16 games.

[tmoore952]

...
the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

Fortunately, the 17-game season didn't change the nature of the term "January football" that much. Sure, the last week of the regular season is now in January, but that often contains a bunch of playoff games anyways, and the first three rounds of the playoffs are still guaranteed to be in January. The only game that's not is the Super Bowl, but that was already the case even with 16 games.

Super Bowl was in January with a 16 game season for the most part (although there may have been one Feb 1 exception IIRC) before the bye week came along. After that, it has always been in February.

[webny99]

...
the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

Fortunately, the 17-game season didn't change the nature of the term "January football" that much. Sure, the last week of the regular season is now in January, but that often contains a bunch of playoff games anyways, and the first three rounds of the playoffs are still guaranteed to be in January. The only game that's not is the Super Bowl, but that was already the case even with 16 games.

Super Bowl was in January with a 16 game season for the most part (although there may have been one Feb 1 exception IIRC) before the bye week came along. After that, it has always been in February.

Are you referring to the regular season bye week or the one before the Super Bowl? Either way, the Super Bowl has been in February since the 2001 season.

[Big John]

^^ The Super Bowl was always held in January through the 2000 season (Jan 2001) Then in February the next year because of 9/11, then back to January 2003.  Then it was always in February since the 2003 season (Feb 2004).

[tmoore952]

...
the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

Fortunately, the 17-game season didn't change the nature of the term "January football" that much. Sure, the last week of the regular season is now in January, but that often contains a bunch of playoff games anyways, and the first three rounds of the playoffs are still guaranteed to be in January. The only game that's not is the Super Bowl, but that was already the case even with 16 games.

Super Bowl was in January with a 16 game season for the most part (although there may have been one Feb 1 exception IIRC) before the bye week came along. After that, it has always been in February.

Are you referring to the regular season bye week or the one before the Super Bowl? Either way, the Super Bowl has been in February since the 2001 season.

I was referring to the regular season bye week, but I stand corrected.

I know (for the most part, there have been some exceptions) that there have been 2 weeks before the SB since at least the late '70s.

I did not realize that the SB had been in Feb for 20 years. Even so, there were about 24 seasons with 16 game schedule (started 1978) + January SB, so I'm not that senile.

What was the change in early 2000s that caused permanent shift of SB into Feb? I remember there was a change to delay the opening of the season a week to get it off of Labor Day weekend (due to bad attendance and/or bad TV ratings), but I'm not sure when that was.

[Ted$8roadFan]

...
the Packers can continue to be competitive and play a LOT of January football.  (Yeah, yeah again; 17 games. You know what I mean.)

Fortunately, the 17-game season didn't change the nature of the term "January football" that much. Sure, the last week of the regular season is now in January, but that often contains a bunch of playoff games anyways, and the first three rounds of the playoffs are still guaranteed to be in January. The only game that's not is the Super Bowl, but that was already the case even with 16 games.

Super Bowl was in January with a 16 game season for the most part (although there may have been one Feb 1 exception IIRC) before the bye week came along. After that, it has always been in February.

Are you referring to the regular season bye week or the one before the Super Bowl? Either way, the Super Bowl has been in February since the 2001 season.

I was referring to the regular season bye week, but I stand corrected.

I know (for the most part, there have been some exceptions) that there have been 2 weeks before the SB since at least the late '70s.

I did not realize that the SB had been in Feb for 20 years. Even so, there were about 24 seasons with 16 game schedule (started 1978) + January SB, so I'm not that senile.

What was the change in early 2000s that caused permanent shift of SB into Feb? I remember there was a change to delay the opening of the season a week to get it off of Labor Day weekend (due to bad attendance and/or bad TV ratings), but I'm not sure when that was.

I believe it happened in the 2001 season sometime after the 9/11 attacks.

[Big John]

There was no bye week prior to the Super Bowl in the 2001 season.  The Superdome was booked the weekend after the scheduled date.  After everything was pushed back a week because of 9/11, the NFL had to pay a good amount of money to get the following event to reschedule. Two years later the NFL permanently put in a bye week before the Super Bowl.

[tmoore952]

There was no bye week prior to the Super Bowl in the 2001 season.  The Superdome was booked the weekend after the scheduled date.  After everything was pushed back a week because of 9/11, the NFL had to pay a good amount of money to get the following event to reschedule. Two years later the NFL permanently put in a bye week before the Super Bowl.

I believe that (2001) was one of the exceptions I was referring to, where there was no bye week before SB. There has been a bye week before SB for most years for as long as I have been watching the NFL (mid 1970s), and actually online it says there has been a bye week all the way back to (what we now call) the first Super Bowl in 1967 (it was called the NFL-AFL Championship Game at the time).

So that isn't what pushed the SB permanently into February.

I looked it up -- the last time the NFL opened on Labor Day weekend was in the 2000 season. So everything must have slipped a week starting in 2001 due to opening a week later (and that season was further complicated by 9/11). But by then, the date of the Super Bowl had already been set until the one in early 2003, so the bye week did not return until early 2004 -- and starting then the SB has permanently been in February.

[NWI_Irish96]

There was no bye week prior to the Super Bowl in the 2001 season.  The Superdome was booked the weekend after the scheduled date.  After everything was pushed back a week because of 9/11, the NFL had to pay a good amount of money to get the following event to reschedule. Two years later the NFL permanently put in a bye week before the Super Bowl.

I believe that (2001) was one of the exceptions I was referring to, where there was no bye week before SB. There has been a bye week before SB for most years for as long as I have been watching the NFL (mid 1970s), and actually online it says there has been a bye week all the way back to (what we now call) the first Super Bowl in 1967 (it was called the NFL-AFL Championship Game at the time).

So that isn't what pushed the SB permanently into February.

I looked it up -- the last time the NFL opened on Labor Day weekend was in the 2000 season. So everything must have slipped a week starting in 2001 due to opening a week later (and that season was further complicated by 9/11). But by then, the date of the Super Bowl had already been set until the one in early 2003, so the bye week did not return until early 2004 -- and starting then the SB has permanently been in February.

This is how I remember it. TV ratings weren't great on Labor Day weekend, so that's why they pushed the start of the season, and the subsequent pushing of the Super Bowl had to lag a few years because the venues were already booked. This led to two Super Bowls on my birthday. This year would have been the third but the 17th game added three years ago pushed it back yet another week.

[webny99]

^^ The Super Bowl was always held in January through the 2000 season (Jan 2001) Then in February the next year because of 9/11, then back to January 2003.  Then it was always in February since the 2003 season (Feb 2004).

Yes, thanks for clarifying. It was not full time in February until the 2003 season.

[tmoore952]

I looked it up -- the last time the NFL opened on Labor Day weekend was in the 2000 season. So everything must have slipped a week starting in 2001 due to opening a week later (and that season was further complicated by 9/11). But by then, the date of the Super Bowl had already been set until the one in early 2003, so the bye week (before the SB) did not return until early 2004 -- and starting then the SB has permanently been in February.

I did look it up rather than rely on my faulty memory. I have the correct years above. The SB in early 2004 was for the 2003 season.

I also remember the NFL not being happy with bad attendance and/or bad TV ratings on Labor Day weekend, which prompted their move off of that weekend.

[tmoore952]

As I also mentioned in my earlier post, there has (almost all the time) been a bye week before the Super Bowl, with the early 2000s being exceptions to that rule, not the end of an older rule.

Which then brought me to a different question:
Why, despite the Fall 1971 and Fall 1976 calendars being identical (meaning correspondence of days of the week to the dates) was Super Bowl VI played on Sunday Jan. 16. 1972, and Super Bowl XI played on Sunday Jan. 9, 1977?
Turns out that the 1971 regular season was played from Sept. 19-Dec 19, 1971, and the 1976 regular season was played from Sept. 12-Dec, 12, 1976 (one week earlier). These were both 14 game seasons (playoff structure must have been similar, if not identical). Note that neither season started on Labor Day weekend.

The next question for me was -- when did the NFL start playing on Labor Day weekend?
For this I looked at Philadelphia Eagles schedules, and the answer is no surprise.
1978 -- which was the first year of the 16 game schedule.
Last season for this (opening on Labor Day weekend) was 2000 season -- as discussed above.

[epzik8]

So why are the Ravens sitting Lamar tomorrow when 1) it didn't quite work out for them when they did it in 2019, and 2) the Steelers are still in playoff contention and the Ravens are imaginably going to want to have the honors of eliminating their biggest rival?

[webny99]

I'm not sure there's ever been a more "all in"  team than the 2021 Los Angeles Rams. After signing Stafford, OBJ, and (perhaps craziest of all) Von Miller, they had to win a Super Bowl. And after squeaking past the GOAT, grinding out a win over their toughest division rival, and closing strong against the hottest team in the league, the entire organization can now breathe a massive sigh of relief. Somehow, some way, they are Super Bowl 56 champions!

They did it in about the most improbable fashion possible, losing Robert Woods in November, backing in to a division title thanks to a Cardinals meltdown, avoiding Lambeau by letting the 49ers into the playoffs, ending Tom Brady's career despite a crazy comeback, and losing OBJ during the Super Bowl... but they found a way and won the trophy, and that's all that matters... what happens next, we'll see!

As another NFL regular season draws to a frenetic conclusion, I am reminded of this quote for a few different reasons.

One, it's crazy how much has happened with the Rams since this moment. Not only are they back in the playoffs, they're a surprise playoff entry after floating through one of the worst Super Bowl follow up campaigns in NFL history and undergoing what was widely viewed as a full teardown/rebuild this offseason.

Two, and I guess this is obvious, sometimes the little things that seem trivial at the time end up being extremely important factors in how the future plays out. And that point is never in finer distinction than Week 18 of the NFL season - there's the playoff race, the future of coaches, GM's, and players, and draft position for next year all on the line, and so many little moments will help shape how that plays out this weekend.

And that's where I think looking back on Week 18 two years ago is particularly instructive. In hindsight, it's painstakingly obvious that the way things played out was the "perfect storm" for a Rams Super Bowl run. If the Cardinals had beat the Seahawks that week, the Rams would have suddenly been in a different scenario, needing a win to avoid losing the division to the Cardinals. Instead, with the division clinched, their overtime loss to the 49ers wasn't as impactful - it still knocked them out of the #2 seed, but they only fell to the #4 seed rather than a Wild Card team. Simultaneously, however, the Rams loss allowed the 49ers into the playoffs. That ended up being an extremely critical combination, because the 49ers then went on a run, knocking off the Cowboys, then heading to Green Bay and knocking off the Packers in a wintry divisional round classic. It's never safe to assume anything, but if if the Rams had been the #2 seed and it had been the Saints or Eagles heading to Dallas instead, that would have set up an entirely different playoff field. In that scenario,  it seems highly unlikely that the remaining lowest seed pulls off an upset over Green Bay. With that being the case, the Rams likely would have had to travel to Green Bay at some point, and would have been significant underdogs in that scenario. Instead, the 49ers knocked off both the #3 and the #1 seeds, so the Rams got an easy home game, a nail-biter against #2 Tampa, and were able to return home for the NFC title game and squeak out a win against those same 49ers. With all that taken into account, it's pretty safe to say the Rams only made the Super Bowl because they got that exact combination of a Cardinals loss to clinch the division AND a loss of their own to let the 49ers into the playoffs in Week 18.

[tmoore952]

So why are the Ravens sitting Lamar tomorrow when 1) it didn't quite work out for them when they did it in 2019, and 2) the Steelers are still in playoff contention and the Ravens are imaginably going to want to have the honors of eliminating their biggest rival?

You and I both live in Ravens country (me in both Ravens and Commanders country being halfway between those two cities [and I am an Eagles fan as a Philly-area native]). Two of my neighbors are big Ravens fans.

My take is that 1) they think 2019 won't repeat and 2) Steelers are not in even if they win, they need help.
----------------

As an Eagles fan, I'm going to go back a ways here for some of this, but whatever. I don't live and die by them, always take them with a grain of salt because of four reasons.
1). SB XV (big favorites going in, and blown out). 2). 1981 season (the next year) 6-0 start. Finished 10-6. Lost in WC round to Giants -- they were down 20-0 in first quarter due to muffed special teams play. 3). 1994. 7-2 start. Lost last 7 games to finish 7-9. 4). At least three different times since 1989 if I remember right -- they won 10 or 11 games and missed the playoffs because of tiebreakers.

2023 season is going to join these, most likely. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Washington could do us a big favor and upset Dallas on Sunday, but honestly the Eagles shouldn't have put themselves in a position where that was necessary.

[thspfc]

I'm not sure there's ever been a more "all in"  team than the 2021 Los Angeles Rams. After signing Stafford, OBJ, and (perhaps craziest of all) Von Miller, they had to win a Super Bowl. And after squeaking past the GOAT, grinding out a win over their toughest division rival, and closing strong against the hottest team in the league, the entire organization can now breathe a massive sigh of relief. Somehow, some way, they are Super Bowl 56 champions!

They did it in about the most improbable fashion possible, losing Robert Woods in November, backing in to a division title thanks to a Cardinals meltdown, avoiding Lambeau by letting the 49ers into the playoffs, ending Tom Brady's career despite a crazy comeback, and losing OBJ during the Super Bowl... but they found a way and won the trophy, and that's all that matters... what happens next, we'll see!

As another NFL regular season draws to a frenetic conclusion, I am reminded of this quote for a few different reasons.

One, it's crazy how much has happened with the Rams since this moment. Not only are they back in the playoffs, they're a surprise playoff entry after floating through one of the worst Super Bowl follow up campaigns in NFL history and undergoing what was widely viewed as a full teardown/rebuild this offseason.

And starting with this upcoming draft, they finally have their first round picks again. Everyone thought they would stink for years once the Super Bowl team broke apart - admittedly, myself included:

Cooper Kupp is going on IR with a high ankle sprain that requires surgery, basically ending the Rams season if it wasn't over already. I think Rams are gonna be one of the more interesting teams to watch this offseason. Of the core group that won the Super Bowl: Von Miller, Whitworth, and OBJ are already gone, and Donald, Stafford, and Ramsey have somewhat uncertain futures. Kupp and Floyd are under contract for a while yet but that seems to matter less and less each offseason.

There are rumors that McVay doesn't want to go through a rebuild. He could "retire" , go into broadcasting, then come back whenever there's an opening he likes. If that happens, the Rams, having traded away a ton of draft picks, could be in for a very rough next few seasons. Obviously worth it for the championship though.

If I got to choose any team's HC/GM pairing to start a new franchise, I would take McVay and Les Snead. They sold off years' worth of high picks and yet they've still drafted plenty of servicable starters over that span. Nacua and Kyren Williams have been absolute home runs from the late rounds. They reconstructed the defense in no time, largely through the draft, with the only remaining key pieces from the championship team being Donald and safety Jordan Fuller. It's incredible that they were able to replace as much talent as they did in so little time. As head coach, McVay has now overseen three very good to elite offenses comprised of mostly different players from the others; 2017-18, 2021, 2023. They have a great coach, a great quarterback, they draft well, and they're not afraid to bet on themselves with big acqusitions. No wonder they're good again. It's hard to say how much more Stafford and Donald have left in the tank - and even Kupp is getting up there in receiver years - but with a few more upgrades this offseason, we could be looking at a very quick resurrection and perhaps another 'all in' year in 2024.

Along those lines, it took the Eagles five years to properly rebuild the team post-championship, and only two to go from rock bottom to the Super Bowl, which is why Philly fans wanting Roseman gone is hilarious.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With 20 teams still able to win the Super Bowl, somehow I've heard more about the Bears than any of them this week. The worst-case scenario for Chicago is a defense-driven win at Green Bay to close out the season, compelling the team to stick with Fields because they're "on the right track" after a 5-1 finish and their first W over the Packers since 2018. And yes, they are on the right track, but not largely because of Fields. Bears fans want to stick with him because they literally don't know what a good QB in a Bears uniform looks like, and finally beating the rivals would make it impossible for them to realistically evaluate why this team still hasn't won more than 8 games since 'Covid' sounded like an upstart competitor of YouTube. Would the front office be able to resist the pressure? Who knows.

[jeffandnicole]

...Along those lines, it took the Eagles five years to properly rebuild the team post-championship, and only two to go from rock bottom to the Super Bowl, which is why Philly fans wanting Roseman gone is hilarious...

You should see the comments from Philly fans who they want gone this year, because of the last 5 weeks.  And the team is still in the running for winning the Division.

[webny99]

With 20 teams still able to win the Super Bowl, somehow I've heard more about the Bears than any of them this week. The worst-case scenario for Chicago is a defense-driven win at Green Bay to close out the season, compelling the team to stick with Fields because they're "on the right track" after a 5-1 finish and their first W over the Packers since 2018. And yes, they are on the right track, but not largely because of Fields. Bears fans want to stick with him because they literally don't know what a good QB in a Bears uniform looks like, and finally beating the rivals would make it impossible for them to realistically evaluate why this team still hasn't won more than 8 games since 'Covid' sounded like an upstart competitor of YouTube. Would the front office be able to resist the pressure? Who knows.

I think that's because Bears-Packers is pretty clearly the NFC game of the week, especially since the playoff picture busts wide open if the Packers lose. It's a bummer the Bears lost so many close games early in the season or this could have been a win-and-in for both teams. It's still got plenty of juice though, Packers with a chance to flip last year's script, Bears with an opportunity to (likely) end the Packers season, and if Fields plays well in a win, Bears offseason intrigue will reach staggering new heights.

[tmoore952]

...Along those lines, it took the Eagles five years to properly rebuild the team post-championship, and only two to go from rock bottom to the Super Bowl, which is why Philly fans wanting Roseman gone is hilarious...

You should see the comments from Philly fans who they want gone this year, because of the last 5 weeks.  And the team is still in the running for winning the Division.

This is why it is nice to follow the Eagles from afar. I don't hear all of that stuff.

WIP (now WYSP? I know it is at WYSP's frequency) existed for 15 years before I left the area, guess it is the same (or worse) than before. (Philly's sports radio station)
---------------------------------------------
One nice thing about the recent breaking of the strict NFC on FOX, AFC on CBS, and road team network getting the interconference games is that -- for instance --- I will be able to watch/peruse both the Dallas-Washington game (on FOX) and the Eagles-Giants game (on CBS). Prior to that, if both Commanders and Eagles are playing at the same time (and obviously not playing each other), both games would have been on FOX --- and DC shows Commanders no matter what --- I had to rig my antenna and hope that Baltimore FOX station had the Eagles game -- which often does happen when the Eagles are good, since the eastern part of Baltimore broadcast area gets within 40 miles or so of Philly.

I usually have other things to do on Sunday, and it is very very rare that I sit down to watch a game without doing anything else. So not being able to see certain games is not a big deal to me. In previous years that might have been the case with this Sunday's Eagles game, but fortunately not now.

It could very well be that for all intents and purposes, this will be decided in the first hour, it all depends on Dallas.

[NWI_Irish96]

So why are the Ravens sitting Lamar tomorrow when 1) it didn't quite work out for them when they did it in 2019, and 2) the Steelers are still in playoff contention and the Ravens are imaginably going to want to have the honors of eliminating their biggest rival?

Given the weather, sitting key players seems like the right move.

[jeffandnicole]

...Along those lines, it took the Eagles five years to properly rebuild the team post-championship, and only two to go from rock bottom to the Super Bowl, which is why Philly fans wanting Roseman gone is hilarious...

You should see the comments from Philly fans who they want gone this year, because of the last 5 weeks.  And the team is still in the running for winning the Division.

This is why it is nice to follow the Eagles from afar. I don't hear all of that stuff.

WIP (now WYSP? I know it is at WYSP's frequency) existed for 15 years before I left the area, guess it is the same (or worse) than before. (Philly's sports radio station)

I'd say worse.  I don't even listen to it.  Callers drive me nuts.

One nice thing about the recent breaking of the strict NFC on FOX, AFC on CBS, and road team network getting the interconference games is that -- for instance --- I will be able to watch/peruse both the Dallas-Washington game (on FOX) and the Eagles-Giants game (on CBS). Prior to that, if both Commanders and Eagles are playing at the same time (and not playing each other), both games would have been on FOX --- and DC shows Commanders no matter what --- I had to rig my antenna and hope that Baltimore FOX station had the Eagles game -- which often does happen when the Eagles are good, since the eastern part of Baltimore broadcast area gets within 40 miles or so of Philly.

I usually have other things to do on Sunday, and it is very very rare that I sit down to watch a game without doing anything else. So not being able to see certain games is not a big deal to me. In previous years that might have been the case with this Sunday's Eagles game, but fortunately not now.

What's helped this year were all the prime-time games Eagles had.  They only had 3, 1pm games this year.  All 8pm Sun & Mon games are on TV.  Their 4pm games were often the Fox 'Game of the Week', which had nearly a nationwide audience. So that just left their Thu night game and the few 1pm games without a national TV coverage.