View Full Version : NFL 2019 Season
cricket
09-07-19, 01:44 PM
It finally kicks off Sunday night and the product is as strong as ever.
Can anyone stop the Patriots or is this the year they go 19-0?
What becomes of Antonio Brown?
Can Patrick Mahomes pick up where he left off last year?
Who are your surprise teams?
cricket
09-07-19, 06:07 PM
What becomes of Antonio Brown?
Lol
jiraffejustin
09-07-19, 06:11 PM
Man... Patriots are so smooth.
Be interesting to see if this goes more Randy Moss or more Josh Gordon.
I've got Brown in fantasy and it's been a bit of a roller coaster and I still don't know if I'm happy or not.
cricket
09-07-19, 08:18 PM
I've got Brown in fantasy and it's been a bit of a roller coaster and I still don't know if I'm happy or not.
They have so many weapons at receiver and in the backfield that you wouldn't think 1 guy would have a huge year. Who knows.
Yeah, that's usually the case. Though he's big on the short/crossing routes, unlike most other guys who can serve as deep threats, so I can see a Welkery type year. Who knows. There's not a lot of precedent for this stuff.
rauldc14
09-08-19, 10:17 PM
So is Lamar Jackson that good or are the Dolphins that bad?
Pats looking pretty decent for week one. Still some things to iron out, but they look fairly locked in so far...
Steelers are just blowing every short yardage conversion attempt. Bad.
cricket
09-09-19, 01:35 PM
Tough break for the Jags with Nick Foles going down for an extended amount of time. You hate to see anybody get hurt. Except Tyreke Hill.
The Ravens that good or are the Fins that bad?
I think the best thing for the Pats about getting AB is keeping him from the Chiefs, Hawks, Boys, Pack, etc. He could have put some teams over the top.
rauldc14
09-09-19, 01:40 PM
The Patriots won't go 19-0 but if be damned if their first games aren't the easiest of anybody's.
The Patriots won't go 19-0 but if be damned if their first games aren't the easiest of anybody's.
I am a die-hard Pats fan and even I think their first half schedule looks rigged.
Yeah, SOS had them literally with the easiest of any team, IIRC, statistically speaking. Pretty weird. You'd assume the algorithm for schedule generation would be a little more advanced these days, but :shrug:.
Tough break for the Jags with Nick Foles going down for an extended amount of time. You hate to see anybody get hurt. Except Tyreke Hill.
Yeah, hard to feel bad for that dude. For real life reasons, not because I drafted Sammy Watkins. That's just the cherry on the sonovabitch sundae.
The Ravens that good or are the Fins that bad?
Yeah, the Week 1 game we have to play every year with like a dozen teams. Seems like the answer is usually both to some degree. It can be particularly silly when one of the awful teams is one everyone expected to be good, like Cleveland. Opinions are probably really diverging with them right now.
I think the best thing for the Pats about getting AB is keeping him from the Chiefs, Hawks, Boys, Pack, etc. He could have put some teams over the top.
Reportedly Colbert had a much higher asking price for contenders as a potential trade partner than he did for the Raiders for exactly this sort of reason. Thanks AB. :rolleyes:
rauldc14
09-09-19, 02:48 PM
I never bought into that Browns hype. I say 7-9.
cricket
10-23-19, 08:23 PM
Teddy Bridgewater is 5-0 since taking over as the Saints starting QB. I guess that's evidence that Drew Brees isn't as good as he's made out to be?
:D
"5-0" isn't the relevant stat if we're talking about Bridgewater, particularly since two of those wins came with 12 and 13 points, respectively. He may not have messed those games up, but he didn't win those for them, either.
Anyway, looking at his actual stats suggests he has played quite well, but it's only been over a few games, so I'm inclined to think he's playing a little over his head. Note how many close games they've been winning: that's not sustainable. If he reverts to his mean even a bit, those close wins are going to turn into close losses.
But as a general response, sure, Bridgewater's success is a potentially meaningful data point that any reasonable person would have to use to reconsider and reevaluate some of the things they thought about that situation. Even though I expect, with more time, they'll be a lot less to explain. If he does, then I will definitely conclude that the Saints as a whole--at least the Saints of the last couple years--are a bigger part of Brees' longevity than previously believed.
chawhee
10-24-19, 12:37 AM
I'm still undecided on Brissett for the Colts for similar reasons. He isn't really winning games for them, but he's holding his own. They could have a legitimate shot at winning that division after all the despair of Andrew Luck retiring and leaving the Colts as +400 or something favorites to win the AFC South going into the year.
cricket
10-24-19, 08:11 PM
"5-0" isn't the relevant stat if we're talking about Bridgewater, particularly since two of those wins came with 12 and 13 points, respectively. He may not have messed those games up, but he didn't win those for them, either.
Anyway, looking at his actual stats suggests he has played quite well, but it's only been over a few games, so I'm inclined to think he's playing a little over his head. Note how many close games they've been winning: that's not sustainable. If he reverts to his mean even a bit, those close wins are going to turn into close losses.
But as a general response, sure, Bridgewater's success is a potentially meaningful data point that any reasonable person would have to use to reconsider and reevaluate some of the things they thought about that situation. Even though I expect, with more time, they'll be a lot less to explain. If he does, then I will definitely conclude that the Saints as a whole--at least the Saints of the last couple years--are a bigger part of Brees' longevity than previously believed.
I was actually completely joking. Everyone knows who Drew Brees is, but a team with good talent and coaching can come together and find other ways to win. It's just that their ceiling and floor are both lower. One of the best NBA bets historically is to bet on a team the first game that they're missing their star player. This type of success can last a little bit longer in the NFL simply because there are many more players that can make an impact.
cricket
10-24-19, 08:13 PM
I'm still undecided on Brissett for the Colts for similar reasons. He isn't really winning games for them, but he's holding his own. They could have a legitimate shot at winning that division after all the despair of Andrew Luck retiring and leaving the Colts as +400 or something favorites to win the AFC South going into the year.
I like him. He has great intangibles and he is talented, although I'm sure he needs a better supporting cast than Luck would. You need that anyway though to go far.
I was actually completely joking. Everyone knows who Drew Brees is, but a team with good talent and coaching can come together and find other ways to win. It's just that their ceiling and floor are both lower. One of the best NBA bets historically is to bet on a team the first game that they're missing their star player. This type of success can last a little bit longer in the NFL simply because there are many more players that can make an impact.
Oh sure, I figured it was mostly facetious. But I think it's actually a reasonable question to ask, or at least it will be if Bridgewater continues to play anywhere near this well. I'll be pretty surprised if he does, though, and even if his overall numbers look better than expected, I suspect it's probably narrowing the number of ways they can win substantially.
Definitely doing a great job over there, though. Brees should come back to another contender.
NedStark09
10-24-19, 10:31 PM
Id Wait till after the By the put Brees in. If there not loosing and Teddy playing good. Way the NFC is There record is pretty good. Brees should be put in not in a Rush unless loose a game or 2.
jiraffejustin
10-24-19, 11:22 PM
Is it too early to call Dwayne Haskins a bust?
This is the Internet, it's never too early to have an opinion.
cricket
12-22-19, 02:30 PM
A lot of talk in New England about what Brady will do after this year. Of course it's either retire, stay in N.E., or play somewhere else. A few insiders believe he will play somewhere else and there are some signs that point to that. Normally my thought would be that I want him to play here as long as possible, but thinking about N.E. with a new QB while Brady plays for another team is just too fascinating for me to root against. I'd love to see it.
Same. For me, the big question is what Belichick would do, hypothetically, if Brady wanted to stay but holds on too long, which lots of these guys do. Normally I'd say he'd be cold-blooded enough to do whatever he thinks he needs to, but this might be the one exception.
Not sure what team would give Brady much at this point, though. Hasn't been a great year, and there's no long-term future in it, so the types of teams and situations where it makes any sense are really narrowed down, and would have to take an optimistic view of the guy on top of that. A guess a big part of it would be what kind of pay cut he'd be willing to take. Taking less to stay in NE might feel really different than taking less to go somewhere else. At a certain point these guys have all the money they'll ever need and it's more about the idea of it.
It'd be very intriguing, though, if it plays out that way.
cricket
12-22-19, 03:14 PM
Same. For me, the big question is what Belichick would do, hypothetically, if Brady wanted to stay but holds on too long, which lots of these guys do. Normally I'd say he'd be cold-blooded enough to do whatever he thinks he needs to, but this might be the one exception.
Not sure what team would give Brady much at this point, though. Hasn't been a great year, and there's no long-term future in it, so the types of teams and situations where it makes any sense are really narrowed down, and would have to take an optimistic view of the guy on top of that. A guess a big part of it would be what kind of pay cut he'd be willing to take. Taking less to stay in NE might feel really different than taking less to go somewhere else. At a certain point these guys have all the money they'll ever need and it's more about the idea of it.
It'd be very intriguing, though, if it plays out that way.
Yep Belichick is the guy that would move on from him, but then Brady is the one guy that Kraft might have something to say about. He's always taken less, but obviously he doesn't need the money. What you hear is that it may have bothered him to only get a 1 year deal. Some of the teams that have been floated around are the Chargers, Titans, Bears, Broncos, and Dolphins. I think he'll get 30 million a year for 3 years easy if he wants it. Part of that is the fanfare that'd go with it. He's had a poor year but there's a lot of reasons for it. I actually don't think he's lost much at all and it wouldn't surprise me to see him win another MVP.
Yep Belichick is the guy that would move on from him, but then Brady is the one guy that Kraft might have something to say about. He's always taken less, but obviously he doesn't need the money. What you hear is that it may have bothered him to only get a 1 year deal. Some of the teams that have been floated around are the Chargers, Titans, Bears, Broncos, and Dolphins. I think he'll get 30 million a year for 3 years easy if he wants it. Part of that is the fanfare that'd go with it.
Oh, some team would definitely give him a decent chunk of money just for the press/attention. There's a lot of inept owners who overpay for Proven Winners too, at various levels of responsibility for that winning, because they think they'll bring a Winning Attitude or a Winning Culture or what have you. It doesn't usually end well.
I actually don't think he's lost much at all and it wouldn't surprise me to see him win another MVP.
I'd, uh, take that bet, to put it mildly.
cricket
12-22-19, 03:59 PM
I'd, uh, take that bet, to put it mildly.
He really hasn't lost much if anything, and if he went anywhere else, there's a variety of characters that might want to join him; Gronk, A.B., OBJ, Edelman, and Amendola would all be possibilities. And he'd be highly motivated.
Yeah...I'd take that bet. Without hesitation.
I'd link some stats or analysis or whatever but I don't think that's the plane these kinds of beliefs usually operate on. And I doubt motivation is the issue.
Sure hope we get to find out, though. It'd be mighty interesting.
cricket
12-22-19, 04:14 PM
Yeah...I'd take that bet. Without hesitation.
I'd link some stats or analysis or whatever but I don't think that's the plane these kinds of beliefs usually operate on. And I doubt motivation is the issue.
Sure hope we get to find out, though. It'd be mighty interesting.
Stats or analysis?
Both, in concert, since that's usually the only way either is any good. And because I know literally any stat, no matter how straightforward or definitive-seeming, will get drowned out by the dozens of circumstantial things that exist on all teams at all times, and could theoretically be used to cast doubt on any performance-related conclusion.
I'm pretty sure most analysis would, too, though, so I don't think the distinction matters much in this case.
cricket
12-22-19, 04:58 PM
Both, in concert, since that's usually the only way either is any good. And because I know literally any stat, no matter how straightforward or definitive-seeming, will get drowned out by the dozens of circumstantial things that exist on all teams at all times, and could theoretically be used to cast doubt on any performance-related conclusion.
I'm pretty sure most analysis would, too, though, so I don't think the distinction matters much in this case.
The stats are poor and would get drowned out, but for good reason. There's a local radio host who's an ex-NFL player and he thinks Brady is having one of his best years. I think that's going a little too far but I understand where he's coming from.
There's a lot to cover but I'll make it as quick as possible. Last year their rookie left tackle missed the entire year. They traded for Trent Brown who played well, then signed a record breaking deal this past offseason. Then that same rookie who missed all of last season got put on IR this year. He was eligible to come back, and has, but you're still talking about a guy who has played only a couple of NFL games. The left tackle who has played most of the year was rated the worst in the league. Their best and most consistent lineman, center David Andrews, will miss the entire year. His backup has missed time, as has the other lineman. Gronk retired and they didn't replace him. He was maybe the best blocking TE in football, and his backup, Dwayne Allen was also an exceptional blocker. They're both gone and their replacements are the worst in the league at blocking and receiving. Last year the Pats used a fullback more than any team in the league. He was a huge part of the running game. He is on IR and so is his backup. They have been using a defensive player in that role. What you end up with is no defense respecting your run game, and you don't have a back who's a breakaway threat on top of that. Of course all of this means poor pass protection as well. Sure enough, Brady leads the league In throwaways. On top of that, when James White is in the game, he is the back that leads the NFL in percentage where the team is most likely to throw the ball. When Sony Michel is in the game, he is the back with the highest percentage for the team being most likely to run. So there's predictability. Now onto the receivers; they do not have a guy who can stretch the field. Not only that, but the only guy who creates any separation at all is Edelman. He is so hurt that he shouldn't even be playing. But when you have no deep threat, the defense doesn't have to play the whole field. So you've got the defense crowding the intermediate routes; they don't have to respect the run, and Brady has had poor protection. He still has 22 TDS vs 7 interceptions, and he's been playing with an injured right elbow. This isn't like the end of Manning with his noodle arm. Brady is the same. There's a lot of reasons for his poor stats and it's really the offense as a whole.
"Brady has had a lot to contend with" and "Brady has declined precipitously" are not mutually exclusive ideas. Note that this is happening against one of the league's easiest schedules, and that he's had weak receiving corps before, and so on. There is always another piece of context to muddy the water with if the straightforward interpretation isn't to our liking. Which is the whole point.
cricket
12-22-19, 06:06 PM
"Brady has had a lot to contend with" and "Brady has declined precipitously" are not mutually exclusive ideas. Note that this is happening against one of the league's easiest schedules, and that he's had weak receiving corps before, and so on. There is always another piece of context to muddy the water with if the straightforward interpretation isn't to our liking. Which is the whole point.
He has had weak receiving corps before but not this type of snowball effect to the entire offense. And while those two things are not mutually exclusive, I just haven't seen the decline. I see the same guy.
Not much to say then, since he looks awfully different to me (and not just this year), and apparently a number of others.
Maybe he'll do something interesting this offseason and we'll get to see what happens.
Meanwhile, looking to the future of the position, this boy is nuts:
https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1208833227462340608
Between Jackson and Mahomes, it looks like the next-gen QB is "somehow throws off-balance the way other dudes used to throw with a full step...oh and also Michael Vick's legs just cuz."
This sums up my thoughts on Brady:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReONR213fP0
cricket
12-23-19, 03:01 PM
Jackson and Mahomes are fun to watch, but the best ability is availability, and I fear that they will have injury issues.
cricket
12-23-19, 04:07 PM
Not much to say then, since he looks awfully different to me (and not just this year), and apparently a number of others.
Maybe he'll do something interesting this offseason and we'll get to see what happens.
The arm strength gets tested in camp and it's as strong as ever. They also test running speed and oddly enough he's faster than he was as a rookie. How would you say he's regressed?
Whoops, never replied to this.
I'd say he's regressed in most major ways: just straight-up less zip on his throws, most notably. Barnwell was saying the same thing. Schatz, too, IIRC, and he's a huge Pats fans if that matters to anyone. Seems like less precision on the softer ones, too: lots of throwing behind guys or at their feet; I seem to recall it happened with Michel during the Bills game in a situation where a properly led throw (or even just an okay one) would've let him waltz into the end zone.
He seems more hesitant, too, and quicker to throw the ball away to avoid getting hit. I think that's probably smart, mind you, and it obviously doesn't happen in isolation, but it's something you'd expect an older player to do to manage their health, as well.
cricket
01-04-20, 10:34 AM
Whoops, never replied to this.
I'd say he's regressed in most major ways: just straight-up less zip on his throws, most notably. Barnwell was saying the same thing. Schatz, too, IIRC, and he's a huge Pats fans if that matters to anyone. Seems like less precision on the softer ones, too: lots of throwing behind guys or at their feet; I seem to recall it happened with Michel during the Bills game in a situation where a properly led throw (or even just an okay one) would've let him waltz into the end zone.
He seems more hesitant, too, and quicker to throw the ball away to avoid getting hit. I think that's probably smart, mind you, and it obviously doesn't happen in isolation, but it's something you'd expect an older player to do to manage their health, as well.
He still throws with plenty of zip on some passes and his arm strength tests as good as ever. Maybe that's not the same, I don't know. I had to look up those people, and I can't say I have any reason to value the opinion of Schatz or Barnwell. They seem like dime a dozen types while I couldn't figure out who IIRC is. He is throwing the ball away more, but he's actually doing it less often when he seems like he doesn't need to. That's why it seems to me to be more a product of less time and nobody open. Avoiding negative plays has always been a major focal point for him, and it is sometimes frustrating to watch. There's been people saying for years at certain points that he's on the decline, and it was inevitable to happen this year when anyone who follows the team knew the offense was going to be a struggle. Sometimes he will make a throw, and the instant reaction was where the hell was he throwing it. Then you come to find out the receiver was in the wrong spot. That's what he does when the offense is working, he throws to a spot rather than to a receiver, and the receiver is supposed to be there. He also talks about throwing to places where only the receiver can get it and where a receiver won't take a big hit. This can make throws not appear to be the most accurate even if he puts them right where he wants. One of the biggest talking points here has always been how long it takes receivers to learn the offense and get in Brady's "circle of trust". Brady could have some blame in this; he did skip voluntary OTA's the past 2 years. It just makes it very hard to tell if his skills are in decline when physically he's just as strong, and there's a lack of timing and skill in the rest of the offense. Throw in his elbow injury and Edelman's injury and that's why I don't want to rush to judge when I've seen it before and it was predictable for this year. All that said, he has missed throws and has shown visible frustration for most of the season.
cricket
01-04-20, 10:37 AM
Playoffs start today; who is everyone's Super Bowl pick?
I think I would have to go with KC. They can take Jackson and the Ravens out of their comfort zone by getting a lead on them. I see SF as the best all around team in the NFC, but I'm not a big believer in Jimmy G yet.
He still throws with plenty of zip on some passes and his arm strength tests as good as ever. Maybe that's not the same, I don't know.
I'd be curious to know how those arm tests work. But I wouldn't expect it to be the same as in-game especially for an older player whose primary issue, you'd think, would be the wear and tear of the season.
I saw one of the highlights from last week's game and there was a throw with a little more oomph on it, and I thought, wow, haven't seen that in awhile. Then I realized how telling it was that I was surprised by even a moderately hard throw. So then I brought up some old highlights from a decade ago, and the difference was pretty stark. Especially on the move.
I had to look up those people, and I can't say I have any reason to value the opinion of Schatz or Barnwell. They seem like dime a dozen types while I couldn't figure out who IIRC is.
Oh, IIRC just means "if I recall correctly."
I can't account for your impression of either, not knowing what you saw, but you might value their opinions if you read them for a bit, simply because they're both right a lot. And they watch more games than either of us, if that's your preferred knowledge metric.
He is throwing the ball away more, but he's actually doing it less often when he seems like he doesn't need to.
Boy, it sure doesn't seem this way to me. It seems like he's doing it preemptively more and more, presumably because he doesn't trust himself to evade it. Which is prudent, but is exactly the kind of thing a smart aging player does to account for their declining skills.
That's why it seems to me to be more a product of less time and nobody open. Avoiding negative plays has always been a major focal point for him, and it is sometimes frustrating to watch. There's been people saying for years at certain points that he's on the decline, and it was inevitable to happen this year when anyone who follows the team knew the offense was going to be a struggle. Sometimes he will make a throw, and the instant reaction was where the hell was he throwing it. Then you come to find out the receiver was in the wrong spot.
Sure, this is all true. Football teams are complicated machines, which is as much an argument for spreading credit around in the good times as it is for absolving an individual of blame in the bad ones. Can't be just one or the other, though.
The key thing, for me, is that all of this stuff is potentially true of any struggling QB. Explanations that could apply to anyone are always a little suspect, because they're hard to falsify (usually by design). Ditto any explanation that posits a lot of mistakes consistently happening on just one side of the equation. Regardless, this is why I've tried to note examples of throwing behind receivers or at the feet, since those kinds of mistakes are usually a little clearer. Or as clear as it's gonna be in a sport as interconnected as football.
and that's why I don't want to rush to judge when I've seen it before and it was predictable for this year. All that said, he has missed throws and has shown visible frustration for most of the season.
He's definitely seemed more frustrated than usual, though that fits any interpretation.
Like I said, maybe he'll switch teams and we'll see the situation a bit more clearly. But I'm good placing my bets now: Father Time, in his customary knockout, albeit a round later than in previous generations since QBs all seem to get a few extra years these days.
Re: NFC. I'm pretty much the same regarding San Francisco and Jimmy, but he's still coming back from surgery, so it wouldn't shock me if he had some settling in still to do. Hard to say. I wouldn't wanna put anything down in the whole conference, though, particularly between SF and NO. I'd go SF by a nose but that'd be a big stay away otherwise.
Baltimore's the obvious chalk in the AFC, and I think that's correct. But if anyone can do it this year, yeah, probably KC.
I feel pretty confident those are the four best teams, but I'm not especially confident of any particular matchup. Should be a really interesting playoff.
So sure, if forced to pick: Ravens over 49ers.
Hey Fredrick
01-04-20, 12:42 PM
Ravens in the AFC because of home field over KC. The Packers might be the worst 13-3 team ever and I don't think they get past the Saints unless the Saints gets some of that Saints luck going for em (all bad). NFC Championship - coin flip between SF and NO and hopefully it's NO. I've always have more fun in NO than SF and I just love a town where the hotel staff tells you upon arrival "Whatever you do, don't take a right out of the hotel. Go left." Reminds me of home.
cricket
01-04-20, 12:59 PM
The only thing about the Saints, and I'm not actually sure about seedings, is wouldn't they have to win in GB? I don't know much about the Packers, but it would be a dome team playing in cold weather.
I'm really not sure what I think about Green Bay. Record's good, they're "winning ugly" as they say, but I'm not sure if that's just how they're gameplanning or if Rodgers has genuinely lost something. I had him in fantasy and watched him a fair bit, and I slightly lean towards the latter. It's really hard to say, though. They seemed to lean into specific plans really, really hard, and it often switched from game to game.
Hey Fredrick
01-05-20, 11:16 AM
Rodgers hasn't been the same since returning from the last broken collarbone. He's a perfect example of the stats don't always tell the entire story because stat wise he still looks pretty good but when you actually watch him play his accuracy and decision making isn't anywhere close to what it was.
How about that NE - Tenn. game? Favorite moment was Vrabel taking the delay of game, then a false start to keep the clock running and Belichick losing his mind over it. That was such a Belichick move and the fact that it was a former Patriot doing it was perfect. I'm not much of a lip reader but my impression was that Belichick thought it was a severe case of bull shirt.
cricket
01-05-20, 11:36 AM
How about that NE - Tenn. game? Favorite moment was Vrabel taking the delay of game, then a false start to keep the clock running and Belichick losing his mind over it. That was such a Belichick move and the fact that it was a former Patriot doing it was perfect. I'm not much of a lip reader but my impression was that Belichick thought it was a severe case of bull shirt.
What's funny is that he did the exact same thing about six weeks ago. I haven't looked at anything about the game yet but it must've been some kind of other issue with the time.
Yeah, he did it to the Jets. He said after that game he felt it was a loophole and it should (and probably would) be closed. I dunno what he could've been mad about; "why didn't you close the loophole midseason after I used it"? :laugh: Probably just upset it rebounded like that in the moment, even though I'm not sure it was the best move from Vrabel, anyway.
cricket
01-05-20, 12:09 PM
I seen to remember in the Jets game the announcer saying they should just decline the penalty. Maybe that's what Belichick was trying to do and they wouldn't let him? Idk.
rauldc14
01-05-20, 12:15 PM
For some reason I can see Minnesota winning today, if only EVERYONE is riding high on the Saints.
It's probably the biggest mismatch of the first round, but obviously anything can happen. For me the big thing is that for Minnesota to win they'll probably have to win a fairly high-scoring affair, and that's not really how they're built. But I guess we'll see.
To be honest I just find the AFC way more interesting right now. I'm already looking ahead to a likely BAL-KC conference championship. Might be the first game I sit down to watch start to finish, "normally," in awhile.
Genuinely impressed by the Vikings D so far.
Box score is crazy, though. Looks like Minnesota's run almost twice as many plays. Not sure it's feasible to keep the Saints' offense down, but they sure seem to have kept them off the field.
Wyldesyde19
01-05-20, 05:10 PM
At the local Wildwings watching this game and it’s such a good game.
Wyldesyde19
01-05-20, 05:12 PM
FYI: Baltimore vs New Orleans was my absolute dream matchup.
I live in Maryland (Hagerstown, about 90 mins from Baltimore) so the atmosphere would be electric if I could snag tix to the Ravens playoffs.
cricket
01-05-20, 05:27 PM
Good call Raul. I didn't have faith in the Saints overall but I thought they'd win today. That last play might have been offensive PI, must suck to be a fan of that team lately.
Yeah, Saints have gotten some really rough calls (or non-calls) in some huge moments the last few years, last year being the really awful one. There's a lot of what-could-have-been with them since that one title, and the bum luck might've cost them at least one more.
Anyway, Vikings seemed to limit their touches and just barely hung on at the end. That turnover completely saved their season, though, with how New Orleans was driving, and another 40 seconds on the clock and I think they win in regulation, too.
Great game, which is all you can ask for without a clear rooting interest. Is it just me or have NFL playoff games been really good more often than not the last decade?
chawhee
01-05-20, 09:31 PM
Incredible first round of the playoffs this year, as Yoda mentioned. Both big underdogs win, no blowouts...
Second round might not be nearly as exciting: both AFC favorites got the matchups they wanted (flip the opponents and it's way more interesting), and none of the lines are lower than -4 right now, and two of them are pushing -10 (the AFC ones).
Ryan Tannehill. Wow.
https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1216176339452977153
chawhee
01-12-20, 12:03 AM
Titans won't get another double digit underdog line against the Chiefs will they?
doubledenim
01-12-20, 07:10 AM
*And Vegas slides all that Super Bowl money into the coffers*
Really hard to believe that Lamar Jackson didn't show up, regardless of whatever Tennessee did. James Hardenesque.
cricket
01-12-20, 11:09 AM
I didn't think Baltimore would lose until next week but I can't say I'm shocked. For as talented and exciting that Jackson is, the key to beating him is always to make him throw. What does that say about a QB? He will make plenty of plays, but he's not someone who can control the game consistently through the air, at least not yet.
His passing stats were tremendous, too, though it's obviously very hard to tease out the interaction between the two, since every play is play action. Just anecdotally, it looks worse than it is, since that first INT was a deflection, and the sack-fumble was more in his decisions as a runner. The receivers had three drops in the first quarter alone, I think it was.
The losing team almost always has a ton of pass attempts these days, regardless, for the same reason those stats about how X team wins when Y gets Z amount of rushing yards are always pointless. Yeah, of course they do: they run a lot when they've got a lead!
Anyway, yesterday was one of the first times I saw him in real time since a lot earlier in the year, and geez, I can't believe how fast he accelerates. There've been some fast QBs over the years, but what seems to make him special is how quickly he goes from "standing flat-footed in the pocket" to "sprinting past the linemen." It seems to take no time.
WOW. Chiefs fell behind 24-0 and it looked like the two biggest favorites were both going out early, but they scored 41 unanswered points and lead by double digits now. Insane.
chawhee
01-13-20, 10:44 AM
KC a 7.5 favorite against TEN, and SF hovering around a 7.5 favorite against GB. Both are tempting underdog bets....
Still don't know what to make of Green Bay. :shrug:
Guess we'll find out this week.
Chiefs pull off a record-breaking win/comeback and their biggest hurdle to the Super Bowl blows it. Great weekend for Andy Reid's squad, odds-on favorite now. Sure looking like an all-Montana Super Bowl.
https://twitter.com/RossTuckerNFL/status/1216217201419673600
That Mahomes run before halftime was absurd. He didn't even look interested in scrambling at all, then he just stopped on a dime before going out of bands and took off.
Thinking he might be the best running/passing package in the game. He's not the insane runner Lamar Jackson is, but he's still great at it, he's a better passer, and he's in a better situation with Andy Reid. Lots of weapons, for sure, but so far today he's spreading it around a ton, too. Probably should've won a title last year, and he's sure looking like he might this year.
Really fun player to watch.
That's it for the Titans' amazing run. Still a great year for them. Hard not to root for, and they played pretty well today, too. Offense was decent, Tannehill had a good game, just seemed like KC really sold out on containing Henry and assuming their offense would put up 30+, and that's what happened.
Always nice to see a guy like Tannehill find a situation that works for them, though. So hard to say which guys are busts and which just haven't found the right spot yet, sometimes. Good for him, and good for Henry and his big coming out party this year.
Travis Kelce is definitely drunk and it's great:
https://twitter.com/NFLonCBS/status/1219039165477785600
:rotfl:
Still don't know what to make of Green Bay. :shrug:
Guess we'll find out this week.
Okay I think I know now.
chawhee
01-19-20, 10:57 PM
I'll root for the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. It would be nice to see Andy Reid finally get a ring
Wyldesyde19
01-19-20, 11:27 PM
Was really hoping Green Bay would have won. I have rooted against San Francisco since 1988. And I’ll continue to do so it appears for this Super Bowl
Hey Fredrick
01-20-20, 10:37 AM
Should be a good Super Bowl. These are two best teams by far. No surprise about the Chiefs winning but I don't know if this falling behind early thing is going to work against San Fran.'s D. I wouldn't recommend trying it at any rate. Packers/Niners went down about like I expected, a repeat of week 12. That game did little to change my opinion that the Pack were the worst 13-3 team ever.
Yeah, what a weird season for Green Bay. I think they got as far as they reasonably could have with what they had. Tennessee, too.
Re: falling behind. I kinda want it to happen. :laugh: I wanna see what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object. I think I prefer the Chiefs, because I think they have that one thing nobody else can stop or duplicate right now, but who knows. We've seen great defenses neutralize great offenses in the big game before. I assume, like so many of those examples in the past, it'll simply come down to pass rush.
I think I prefer the Chiefs, because I think they have that one thing nobody else can stop or duplicate right now, but who knows.
Russell Wilson does the same things Patrick Mahomes does, and The Niners face him twice a year. The Chiefs can score points, so I don't think it will be a blowout, but I see San Francisco winning.
Russell Wilson does the same things Patrick Mahomes does, and The Niners face him twice a year. The Chiefs can score points, so I don't think it will be a blowout, but I see San Francisco winning.
I think Mahomes might be a tougher version of it, but this is a good point even so. Mahomes, as good as he's been the last two weeks, was facing two pretty bad pass defenses and SF has definitely had to gameplan for a QB who can beat you two ways.
I'm moderately confident Andy Reid can enact a strong offensive game plan that's more rushing-oriented, anyway, but it's true that he hasn't been tested the way San Francisco will presumably test him, either. The fact that they won with Jimmy G throwing eight passes is bananas. Not sure what the odds on Raheem Mostert as Super Bowl MVP are, but that's an intriguing bet.
doubledenim
01-20-20, 05:26 PM
Not sure what the odds on Raheem Mostert as Super Bowl MVP are, but that's an intriguing bet.
And puts the final nail in the coffin of any running back contract, not tendered by Jerry Jones.
Well, today's the day. Pretty excited, this has the potential to be one of the closer/better matchups, on paper, in years. That said, even a lot of the "worse" on-paper matchups produced unbelievable games, so I'm not sure if that matters.
The Chiefs probably drew the worst possible opponent for them here, because their run defense is very bad and San Francisco's run offense is great, and has looked great recently. It's hard to imagine the 49ers not putting up a decent point total barring turnovers or crazy special teams or something, because they should be able to move the ball reasonably well most of the game. And that means limited KC possessions. One also wonders if Mahomes can fend off their pass rush, which is much better than the ones on the defenses he's faced the last two weeks (which he destroyed). He's mobile enough it might not make a huge difference, but that seems like the game. And it seems like he'll need a few of those Houdini game-changing plays to match San Fran, assuming they do score at a solid clip with that running game.
Would say it's particularly big whether the Niners jump out to a lead, then, because they're built to just grind you down if they do. And Jimmy G, though he hasn't been asked to do much, is totally capable of keeping them in more of a shootout anyway, if he has to.
Can't wait to see what happens. Chiefs are only 1.5 point favorites, and I'm awfully tempted to say the 49ers are gonna pull this one out, just because of that huge run offense/run defense mismatch. I think if the Chiefs win it's going to be on the back of big, unpredictable plays like huge ST efforts, turnovers, or just pure Mahomes magic even as they generate an effective pass rush on him, all of which are pretty hard to predict because they turn on just a few moments. Ditto for the handful of downfield shots Garoppolo might take. Those kinds of plays are all really marginal, but they seem like they'll be what the game turns on.
Glad The Chiefs won. Officiating was terrible. Really getting sick of Goodell's lame NFL product.
Best commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEL3K3SdXM8
rauldc14
02-03-20, 07:59 AM
So glad the Chiefs won!
Great game. Happy the Chiefs won. Pretty bizarre, though, since the 49ers clearly did most of what they needed to. Their success rate matched KC's and under the hood they kinda "should" have won. Have to look closer, but I'm guessing it came down to sequencing and conversions. But they checked off most of the items they probably wanted to check off in order to win, and the Chiefs won anyway.
Easy to imagine KC being perennial contenders with Mahomes at the helm, in part because he didn't even have a particularly good game here.
Ditto for the handful of downfield shots Garoppolo might take. Those kinds of plays are all really marginal, but they seem like they'll be what the game turns on.
This aged well, given that Garoppolo had Sanders open for the go-ahead score at the end there but overthrew him.
I think he's a pretty good QB, but last night he basically made all the throws he was supposed to and not many of the tougher ones, contra Mahomes, who was more the opposite early on but seemed to settle in. Think he'll be fine long-term, and it's not like they need to change the way they do things given how little you'd have to change to make them champions last night, but they could be downright scary if they lean on Garoppolo a little more and he responds. Which might at least get him in the habit of having to make those kinds of throws, as opposed to throwing eight passes and then taking two weeks off.
Captain Spaulding
02-03-20, 12:30 PM
As an Eagles fan, I'm very happy to see Andy Reid finally get that long overdue ring.
I also suspect that, in a few years time, we're going to be sick of seeing Mahomes and the Chiefs in the Superbowl every year, much like we are with Brady and the Patriots
Could be, though the threshold for that figures to be higher because they're a much more explosive/exciting team. I imagine being both exciting and consistent is pretty difficult, though.
rauldc14
02-03-20, 03:10 PM
I don't think they will really be a dynasty. Maybe one more in the next coming years but I don't see them over taking the league year by year like New England.
If anything, they will be the new version of Pittsburgh/Seattle.
chawhee
02-03-20, 11:09 PM
I don't think we are looking at the beginning of a dynasty here. One has to think that teams will figure them out soon. Keep in mind they came back from double digit deficits in each playoff win this year, so if teams would just hold their lead...
Could be, yeah. People always talk about dynasties like they were inevitable looking back, but the truth is it's probably impossible to have them unless you're good and lucky.
rauldc14
02-04-20, 11:41 AM
I'm expecting Lamar and the Ravens to come back with a vengeance next year.
Tough call. I think Jackson's probably easier to "figure out" than Mahomes, who just makes insane throws from positions and angles that we've never really seen (50 yards off his back foot in the Super Bowl? Huh?), but it's also easy to imagine him becoming a moderately better passer and being just as scary, at least for the next few years before the acceleration takes a little hit. Could be a fun few years in the AFC.
My God, the commitment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sEHv-iKrYU
cricket
02-15-20, 12:21 PM
I don't think they will really be a dynasty. Maybe one more in the next coming years but I don't see them over taking the league year by year like New England.
If anything, they will be the new version of Pittsburgh/Seattle.
I don't see a dynasty either. That QB is going to get a lot of money preventing them from keeping other players, and I fear he will have injury problems.
It'll certainly take some luck, like all dynasties do. But I think QBs taking less money to be on better teams is going to be an increasingly common thing, especially when they make so much so fast, and so much from endorsements.
Hey Fredrick
02-16-20, 11:01 AM
It's a well known fact that Giselle has been the MVP of the Pats dynasty. It's easy to take less money when your wife is pulling down 44 million a year. To Brady's credit he didn't need/want the "highest paid QB" label he could have held for the past decade plus.
It's a well known fact that Giselle has been the MVP of the Pats dynasty. It's easy to take less money when your wife is pulling down 44 million a year. To Brady's credit he didn't need/want the "highest paid QB" label he could have held for the past decade plus.
Gotta hope/image at some point a general league-wide reckoning is coming about teams who "hire" organizations the athletes own or have invested in, too. That seems to be an increasingly popular way to get around some of this stuff.
cricket
03-17-20, 10:37 AM
It's official, the Patriot's reign is over!
https://twitter.com/jazz_inmypants/status/1239907217010298880
Captain Spaulding
06-29-20, 07:14 AM
Curious to hear what cricket thinks of the Cam Newton signing.
jiraffejustin
06-29-20, 11:29 AM
Curious to hear what cricket thinks of the Cam Newton signing.
I'm not cricket, but I am excited about this signing. The implications it could have on the league are fascinating to me. Considering Cam signed a one-year "prove-it" deal for pretty cheap, what does he do if the Pats win a Super Bowl but don't wanna pay him big money? It's rare to see as much big-name movement and off-season intrigue surrounding the position with Brady to Tampa, Dak's contract dispute, everything surrounding the Saints' new and old QBs, Rivers to Indy, Aaron Rodgers seemingly unhappy in Green Bay, and now Cam Newton finally signing with New England. With Lamar and Mahomes being the new top guys at the position over the last few years, the landscape of the NFL QB position is possibly at its most interesting point in a long while.
Captain Spaulding
09-05-24, 03:29 PM
With the Chiefs kicking off the new season tonight, having now been to 4 of the last 5 Super Bowls and winning 3 of them, it seems apropos for me to bump this finely-aged bottle of wine from yours truly in 2020:
As an Eagles fan, I'm very happy to see Andy Reid finally get that long overdue ring.
I also suspect that, in a few years time, we're going to be sick of seeing Mahomes and the Chiefs in the Superbowl every year, much like we are with Brady and the Patriots
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.