NFL (2020-2024)

[mgk920]

Eh, my Vikings lost to the Lions, but I'm actually more assured that they're actually good and not just a flash in the pan. Darnold played pretty well against a very good Lions D.

That was one of the worst 15 second drills that I have seen in a long time, too.

Mike

[mgk920]

5. Rodgers looks OLD af. Davonte can't help turn back the clock.

Yep, you might return to the field after recovering from a torn Achilles tendon, but you'll NEVER play at the same level again.  He should retire.

Mike

[Max Rockatansky]

5. Rodgers looks OLD af. Davonte can't help turn back the clock.

Yep, you might return to the field after recovering from a torn Achilles tendon, but you'll NEVER play at the same level again.  He should retire.

Mike

Rodgers is washed up.  Nobody wants to call yet in the media but they will as the season goes on.

[SEWIGuy]

5. Rodgers looks OLD af. Davonte can't help turn back the clock.

Yep, you might return to the field after recovering from a torn Achilles tendon, but you'll NEVER play at the same level again.  He should retire.

Mike

Rodgers is washed up.  Nobody wants to call yet in the media but they will as the season goes on.

He was washed up before the injury. He wasn't that good in 2022 either.

[thspfc]

The Jets looked awful tonight... could they make into the playoffs (they're 2-5 now)?

Answer: definitely not, especially with the remaining teams they have to play against.

@ Patriots
vs. Texans
@ Cardinals
vs. Colts
vs. Seahawks
@ Dolphins
@ Jaguars
vs. Rams
@ Bills
vs. Dolphins

That's a very weak schedule. Problem is, the Jets are the easy game on everyone else's schedule too.

[Max Rockatansky]

5. Rodgers looks OLD af. Davonte can't help turn back the clock.

Yep, you might return to the field after recovering from a torn Achilles tendon, but you'll NEVER play at the same level again.  He should retire.

Mike

Rodgers is washed up.  Nobody wants to call yet in the media but they will as the season goes on.

He was washed up before the injury. He wasn't that good in 2022 either.

Right, hence the 8-9 season. Something was off with him that entire year but he was also coming up off an MVP season in 2021.

[JayhawkCO]

Eh, my Vikings lost to the Lions, but I'm actually more assured that they're actually good and not just a flash in the pan. Darnold played pretty well against a very good Lions D.

That was one of the worst 15 second drills that I have seen in a long time, too.

Mike

Yeah, why whoever caught it (Nailor?) didn't lateral it to the guy on the sideline so he could get out of bounds is beyond me.

[webny99]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

[SEWIGuy]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

Since they started their Super Bowl run in the 2019 season, they have been top six in point differential every season. They are seventh now.

[JayhawkCO]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

When you're winning largely by defense, by necessity your point differential won't be all that high if you're not scoring a ton of points.

[jgb191]

As a Texans fan, I hated the way Deshaun Watson bailed on our team because he was upset with a coaching change that was absolutely necessary.  But I really feel for him and the Cleveland Browns; I would have liked to see him lead the Browns to the Vince Lombardi trophy....it would have vindicated, maybe even justified, his trade.  He still has next year and the year after that to try and make it happen.


For the fifth time in the last six road games at an NFC field, the Texans lost on a walk-off score, most recently yesterday at Green Bay; the Texans were just yards away (perhaps even inches away) from sealing a win via sacking Jordan Love for a safety score in Lambeau Field before McManus could nail the game-winning field goal..  If this disappointing pattern continues, then Brandon Aubrey would be connecting a walk-off field goal next month at Jerry's world when the Texans go to Arlington.  Overall, the Texans lost eleven (11) such games in their team's history.

And it looks like the Eagles have gotten it together to look to retake their NFC East division, especially considering Jayden Daniel's injury.  If the Commanders want any hope of a Wild Card, they need Daniels to recover quickly.

Seven teams have exactly five (5) wins already -- three in the AFC and four in the NFC.  I still see a wide-open race in both conferences to clinch the top seed and a first-round exemption of the playoffs.

[NWI_Irish96]

As a Texans fan, I hated the way Deshaun Watson bailed on our team because he was upset with a coaching change that was absolutely necessary.  But I really feel for him and the Cleveland Browns; I would have liked to see him lead the Browns to the Vince Lombardi trophy....it would have vindicated, maybe even justified, his trade.  He still has next year and the year after that to try and make it happen.


For the fifth time in the last six road games at an NFC field, the Texans lost on a walk-off score, most recently yesterday at Green Bay; the Texans were just yards away (perhaps even inches away) from sealing a win via sacking Jordan Love for a safety score in Lambeau Field before McManus could nail the game-winning field goal..  If this disappointing pattern continues, then Brandon Aubrey would be connecting a walk-off field goal next month at Jerry's world when the Texans go to Arlington.  Overall, the Texans lost eleven (11) such lost games in their team's history.

And it looks like the Eagles have gotten it together to look to retake their NFC East division, especially considering Jayden Daniel's injury.  If the Commanders want any hope of a Wild Card, they need Daniels to recover quickly.

Seven teams have exactly five (5) wins already -- three in the AFC and four in the NFC.  I still see a wide-open race in both conferences to clinch the top seed and a first-round exemption of the playoffs.

I watched most of that game. Houston was way, way too conservative in the red zone, trying too hard to run clock and make the Packers burn time outs, and not trying nearly hard enough to score a touchdown.

[JayhawkCO]

As a Texans fan, I hated the way Deshaun Watson bailed on our team because he was upset with a coaching change that was absolutely necessary.  But I really feel for him and the Cleveland Browns; I would have liked to see him lead the Browns to the Vince Lombardi trophy....it would have vindicated, maybe even justified, his trade.  He still has next year and the year after that to try and make it happen.

I'd feel bad if he weren't a really shitty human.

[webny99]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

Since they started their Super Bowl run in the 2019 season, they have been top six in point differential every season. They are seventh now.

I see that as a function of winning consistently, not winning by a lot. Of course your point differential will be ~near the top of the league when it's getting consistently added to over the course 12-14 games a year, even if it's not by much each week. Doesn't mean that their in-game performances have been dominant (some games have, but relatively few).

When you're winning largely by defense, by necessity your point differential won't be all that high if you're not scoring a ton of points.

But of course, if you're not scoring a ton of points, you're not really a dominant team...

[JayhawkCO]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

Since they started their Super Bowl run in the 2019 season, they have been top six in point differential every season. They are seventh now.

I see that as a function of winning consistently, not winning by a lot. Of course your point differential will be ~near the top of the league when it's getting consistently added to over the course 12-14 games a year, even if it's not by much each week. Doesn't mean that their in-game performances have been dominant (some games have, but relatively few).

When you're winning largely by defense, by necessity your point differential won't be all that high if you're not scoring a ton of points.

But of course, if you're not scoring a ton of points, you're not really a dominant team...

I'd argue that if you allow zero points per game, but you score seven points per game, you are infinitely better than every other team.

[webny99]

When you're winning largely by defense, by necessity your point differential won't be all that high if you're not scoring a ton of points.

But of course, if you're not scoring a ton of points, you're not really a dominant team...

I'd argue that if you allow zero points per game, but you score seven points per game, you are infinitely better than every other team.

This gets into a floor/ceiling argument. I disagree, because even though allowing 0 is ideal, I'd much rather not be capped at scoring 7. Consistently allowing 10-20 points or fewer but being able to score 30-40 at will is what I'd consider dominance. The 49ers and Bills are better examples than the Chiefs in recent history, but the Chiefs have consistently won in the playoffs. I suppose you could say they've "dominated" in the playoffs, but not by overwhelming the scoreboard, so that seems like a different sense of the term.

[JayhawkCO]

When you're winning largely by defense, by necessity your point differential won't be all that high if you're not scoring a ton of points.

But of course, if you're not scoring a ton of points, you're not really a dominant team...

I'd argue that if you allow zero points per game, but you score seven points per game, you are infinitely better than every other team.

This gets into a floor/ceiling argument. I disagree, because even though allowing 0 is ideal, I'd much rather not be capped at scoring 7. Consistently allowing 10-20 points or fewer but being able to score 30-40 at will is what I'd consider dominance. The 49ers and Bills are better examples than the Chiefs in recent history, but the Chiefs have consistently won in the playoffs. I suppose you could say they've "dominated" in the playoffs, but not by overwhelming the scoreboard, so that seems like a different sense of the term.

I don't think it's quite the same thing as floor/ceiling, because there's nothing preventing a team scoring more than seven in my hypothetical. I'd argue the less variance in both your points allowed and points scored could probably be the statistic most applied to "dominance". If you put up north of 30 every game, your offense is dominant. If you can score a ton but also have a dud from time to time, that's less dominant.

To get a little mathy, the Chiefs are averaging 24.3 points per game scored this year against 17.2 points allowed. The standard deviation of their points scored/allowed are 3.8 and 4.8 respectively, with a higher number there meaning more variability from average. So based on previous results, if KC scored their "average worst" amount of points, they'd score 20.5 points (24.3 - 3.8 points of variance). If they'd do their "average worst" on defense, they'd allow 22 points (17.2 + 4.8 points of variance). So, if they play their worst game on both side of the ball at the same time, they're losing by 1.5 points on average.

Let's compare to San Francisco last year. They averaged 28.9 points per game, allowing 17.5. Their standard deviations for offense and defense were 8.7 and 8.1 respectively. So if the Niners played their "average worst" game on both sides of the ball at the same time, they'd lose by 5.5 points per game, as shown by abs((28.9 - 8.7) - (17.5 + 8.1)) .

[webny99]

This gets into a floor/ceiling argument. I disagree, because even though allowing 0 is ideal, I'd much rather not be capped at scoring 7. Consistently allowing 10-20 points or fewer but being able to score 30-40 at will is what I'd consider dominance. The 49ers and Bills are better examples than the Chiefs in recent history, but the Chiefs have consistently won in the playoffs. I suppose you could say they've "dominated" in the playoffs, but not by overwhelming the scoreboard, so that seems like a different sense of the term.

I don't think it's quite the same thing as floor/ceiling, because there's nothing preventing a team scoring more than seven in my hypothetical. I'd argue the less variance in both your points allowed and points scored could probably be the statistic most applied to "dominance". If you put up north of 30 every game, your offense is dominant. If you can score a ton but also have a dud from time to time, that's less dominant.

...

I'll be honest, this was a lot more math than I was prepared for on a Monday afternoon.

I think what you're saying is the Chiefs never have a bad game, and even when they do, they're still winning or coming pretty close to it. From another perspective, they're also coming close to losing on a regular basis, but not actually losing. They're playing with their food, and still making the needed plays to win the ball game in the end. I get that, but I don't think "dominance" is the right term to describe that, and I don't think it should come as any surprise that this is part of what I and many others find annoying about the Chiefs of the Mahomes era.

[JayhawkCO]

This gets into a floor/ceiling argument. I disagree, because even though allowing 0 is ideal, I'd much rather not be capped at scoring 7. Consistently allowing 10-20 points or fewer but being able to score 30-40 at will is what I'd consider dominance. The 49ers and Bills are better examples than the Chiefs in recent history, but the Chiefs have consistently won in the playoffs. I suppose you could say they've "dominated" in the playoffs, but not by overwhelming the scoreboard, so that seems like a different sense of the term.

I don't think it's quite the same thing as floor/ceiling, because there's nothing preventing a team scoring more than seven in my hypothetical. I'd argue the less variance in both your points allowed and points scored could probably be the statistic most applied to "dominance". If you put up north of 30 every game, your offense is dominant. If you can score a ton but also have a dud from time to time, that's less dominant.

...

I'll be honest, this was a lot more math than I was prepared for on a Monday afternoon.

I think what you're saying is the Chiefs never have a bad game, and even when they do, they're still winning or coming pretty close to it. From another perspective, they're also coming close to losing on a regular basis, but not actually losing. They're playing with their food, and still making the needed plays to win the ball game in the end. I get that, but I don't think "dominance" is the right term to describe that, and I don't think it should come as any surprise that this is part of what I and many others find annoying about the Chiefs of the Mahomes era.

Yes and no. That's not THAT far off from what I was mathing out. In general I was describing than it takes a pretty unlikely set of events to make the Chiefs actually lose whereas it was much more likely that the right conditions would exist that would make the Niners lose last year.

[thspfc]

Mahomes has been *statistically* one of the worst starting QBs in the league this season. Nobody cares, nor is there any reason to care. An incredible testament to how dominant that damn team has been.

Except they haven't been dominant for several seasons now. It's one score win after one score win after... you guessed it... one score win. And that includes playoffs. They've been about as far as mathematically possible from being dominant while still winning consistently.

I don't care about the specific definition of the term "dominate". KC owns the NFL right now. To suggest otherwise because they win by 3 or 7 points instead of 10 or 14 is silly.

But of course, if you're not scoring a ton of points, you're not really a dominant team...

One can only assume that you believe there are no dominant teams in the NFL. Unless you're suggesting that a team like the Cowboys, who lead the league in scoring in 2021, 22*, and 23 (*discounting games Dak missed in 2022), is/was dominant.

One thing that makes the NFL great is that there's multiple ways to win. Most sports have one META, a team that does it well almost always wins in the long run, a team that does it poorly almost always loses (3-point shooting in basketball, Guardiola possession ball in soccer, elite pitching and hitting home runs in baseball). Not the case in the NFL.

I think what you're saying is the Chiefs never have a bad game, and even when they do, they're still winning or coming pretty close to it.

That is literally what dominance is. And it's because of coaching and leadership.

From another perspective, they're also coming close to losing on a regular basis, but not actually losing. They're playing with their food, and still making the needed plays to win the ball game in the end.

Yawn. Teams that win make big plays in big moments. You have this cynical and distorted view because the team you root for usually doesn't make those plays. It's like you think the game ends after the 3rd quarter and if it's close Goodell flips a coin to decide who wins.

[jgb191]

I wonder what would have happened (what might have been) if Patrick Mahomes was taken first as the top pick by the Cleveland Browns instead of Myles Garrett.  Could Patrick have done equally well under a different leadership, system, culture than what he's been accustomed to in Kansas City.

[webny99]

You have this cynical and distorted view because the team you root for usually doesn't make those plays. It's like you think the game ends after the 3rd quarter and if it's close Goodell flips a coin to decide who wins.

Lol. I was reading with interest and considering responding seriously until I got to this. Not one word of that is true and everyone knows it (including you), so there's nothing to be gained by engaging further. Nice try though. 

[JayhawkCO]

You have this cynical and distorted view because the team you root for usually doesn't make those plays. It's like you think the game ends after the 3rd quarter and if it's close Goodell flips a coin to decide who wins.

Lol. I was reading with interest and considering responding seriously until I got to this. Not one word of that is true and everyone knows it (including you), so there's nothing to be gained by engaging further. Nice try though. 

To be fair, you still haven't responded to any of our requests for the independent investigation of referee bias that you claimed existed.

[Max Rockatansky]

You have this cynical and distorted view because the team you root for usually doesn't make those plays. It's like you think the game ends after the 3rd quarter and if it's close Goodell flips a coin to decide who wins.

Lol. I was reading with interest and considering responding seriously until I got to this. Not one word of that is true and everyone knows it (including you), so there's nothing to be gained by engaging further. Nice try though. 

To be fair, you still haven't responded to any of our requests for the independent investigation of referee bias that you claimed existed.

Not defending his arguments (and theories) has become an increasing webny staple forum wide.

[hobsini2]

I wonder what would have happened (what might have been) if Patrick Mahomes was taken first as the top pick by the Cleveland Browns instead of Myles Garrett.  Could Patrick have done equally well under a different leadership, system, culture than what he's been accustomed to in Kansas City.

I suspect not. Andy Reid is a great coach and has been for a long time. Cleveland hasn't developed a good QB since Kosar. Culture does play a big role.