National Football League Thread

[Zio_Sam87]

25 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

Can't deny the east is pretty awful but nationally it still gets the most attention.  I just thought schedule flexing was reserved for pushing out garbage teams who aren't playing for anything at the end of the season so they could be replaced with games that matter, guess I was wrong on that one.

Consider that they flexed SEA-PHI so they can put GB-SF...

Now consider that every time they play on Night I have to watch the game the next day (I'm 9 hours ahead so it's too hard for me to watch live), we lose both with that decision

[djb5f]

'Hawks/Eagles is a very good game with huge playoff ramifications; they just want the best possible game in GB-SF and they have the flex rules to allow it.

 

Didn't the Seahawks win the NFC West one year at 7-9?  Same year that they beat the Saints on the TD run where Lynch grabbed his junk while jumping into the end zone?  Cardinals made the SB at 9-7 and nearly won it!  So I don't want to hear about the NFC West teams complaining when it benefited them for years.

 

Only fair game that the Seahawks (or 49ers) will have to go on the road with a gaudy record.  And possibly lose to the Cowboys again like last year's 4v5 playoff game.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by djb5f

[skidmarkgn]

23 minutes ago, djb5f said:

'Hawks/Eagles is a very good game with huge playoff ramifications; they just want the best possible game in GB-SF and they have the flex rules to allow it.

 

Didn't the Seahawks win the NFC West one year at 7-9?  Same year that they beat the Saints on the TD run where Lynch grabbed his junk while jumping into the end zone?  Cardinals made the SB at 9-7 and nearly won it!  So I don't want to hear about the NFC West teams complaining when it benefited them for years.

 

Only fair game that the Seahawks (or 49ers) will have to go on the road with a gaudy record.  And possibly lose to the Cowboys again like last year's 4v5 playoff game.

 

 

 

In defense of at least some of the West's fans, I know I personally hated that Seattle got to host that game against the Saints, just like I hated how Dallas got to host last year and I'll hate it if Seattle or San Fran has to travel there again this year.  I know that most here disagree but playoff seeding, IMO, is a flawed system, even if it's "my" team that benefits from it.

[djb5f]

3 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

In defense of at least some of the West's fans, I know I personally hated that Seattle got to host that game against the Saints, just like I hated how Dallas got to host last year and I'll hate it if Seattle or San Fran has to travel there again this year.  I know that most here disagree but playoff seeding, IMO, is a flawed system, even if it's "my" team that benefits from it.

 

True definitely flawed, but it makes for a more compelling regular season with more on the line with each division game.  Division races would not mean much without it. 

 

It is not exactly fair but life is not fair.  The two division winners with the best records get the most benefit, as they only have to win 2 games with one hosting both of them.  Trying to remember how many teams have made the Super Bowl from "Wild Card weekend".  AFC not many because of the Pats.  Steelers way back when (against Seahawks?).  Packers when they beat the Steelers.  Cardinals against the Steelers.  I am sure there are several others?

[Zio_Sam87]

14 minutes ago, djb5f said:

 

True definitely flawed, but it makes for a more compelling regular season with more on the line with each division game.  Division races would not mean much without it. 

 

It is not exactly fair but life is not fair.  The two division winners with the best records get the most benefit, as they only have to win 2 games with one hosting both of them.  Trying to remember how many teams have made the Super Bowl from "Wild Card weekend".  AFC not many because of the Pats.  Steelers way back when (against Seahawks?).  Packers when they beat the Steelers.  Cardinals against the Steelers.  I am sure there are several others?

 

2007 Giants

 

From wiki: The 2007 New York Giants are the only NFC East team to win a Super Bowl as a Wild Card team, and the only NFL team in history to win the Super Bowl as a 5th Seed in either Conference

Edited November 13, 2019 by Zio_Sam87

[Matto_lsi]

10 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

In defense of at least some of the West's fans, I know I personally hated that Seattle got to host that game against the Saints, just like I hated how Dallas got to host last year and I'll hate it if Seattle or San Fran has to travel there again this year.  I know that most here disagree but playoff seeding, IMO, is a flawed system, even if it's "my" team that benefits from it.

 

I greatly dislike playoff seeding.  I really hope the league changes it so record is the only factor in determining the 6 teams per conference who make the playoffs.  I also am getting tired of the current division structure.  You have some divisions where all 4 teams are brutal, physical powerhouses, beat each other senseless all year, but only one gets to play in the post season.  Then you have cupcake divisions where all but one team stinks, artificially inflating their record to make it look like they're unbeatable.  And before you jump to conclusions and think I'm ragging on that one team in particular here, keep in mind that yes I'm a lifelong Niners fan, but my family is from Indy and I've been a Colts fan since the mid-90s as well.  As great as Manning was (and I still support the notion that his football knowledge and skill makes him the best GB in NFL history, plus all his records and accomplishments don't hurt), you have to admit that most years in the 2000s the Colts had a pretty weak division that allowed them to post 12-14 wins each season.  And as you can see from the results of most of those seasons, they didn't last long in the playoffs against strong opponents.  It would be impossible to have an NFL season where every team played every other team once.  It'd take too long, there would be too many injuries, it just wouldn't work.  But abandoning divisions and having some kind of rotating or flex schedule would give us a much truer picture of who the best teams are.  Maybe play the first 8 games each year rotating through 8 different opponents each year for 4 years.  Then the second half of the season would group the top 16 and the bottom 16 by record at the midway point of the season, and each group of 16 would play some combination of 8 of the teams in that group.  At the end of the year, the 8 best teams from the top 16 would go to the playoffs and the top 4 from the bottom 16 would be wildcards.  Or go simply by record for all 32 at that point.  Either way, better than it is now, imo.  Yes, I know this sounds crazy, and I doubt I have any support, but it's very frustrating to watch good teams miss the playoffs or be wildcards and have to play on the road just cause their schedule and division were crazy hard, meanwhile mediocre and shitty teams snake in with 4th place division titles and sometimes wildcard spots just cause.

[MidnightDragon]

Myles Garrett is probably going to get suspended. Fucking idiot!

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

I'm not even gonna bother commenting on how I would have in the past...but wow would that have been a day in Orlando. 

 

Fuckin ref had a notepad to read from for all that hahahaha. 

 

95 needs to be banned from the league. 

 

I also wonder if Villanueva has strict orders not to get involved in things like that.

[MidnightDragon]

Just now, Avatar_Of_Battle said:

I'm not even gonna bother commenting on how I would have in the past...but wow would that have been a day in Orlando. 

 

Fuckin ref had a notepad to read from for all that hahahaha. 

 

95 needs to be banned from the league. 

 

I also wonder if Villanueva has strict orders not to get involved in things like that.

I think he’s still in the reserves, so probably wouldn’t be a good look.

[Yuna4353]

7 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

Myles Garrett is probably going to get suspended. Fucking idiot!

I am pretty sure that will cause him a suspension for the rest of the season.  I would also like to add that people are saying that Rudolph started it but Garett should get suspended for what  he did afterward 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yuna4353

[djb5f]

3 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

Myles Garrett is probably going to get suspended. Fucking idiot!

he should be brought up on assault charges.  Absolutely vicious and uncalled for.

I guess Cleveland-Pittsburgh is the new Cincinnati-Pittsburgh.

[MidnightDragon]

4 minutes ago, Yuna4353 said:

I am pretty sure that will cause him a suspension for the rest of the season 

Not much appealing it when he did it on national TV and millions of people saw it.

Edited November 15, 2019 by MidnightDragon

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

1 minute ago, MidnightDragon said:

I think he’s still in the reserves, so probably wouldn’t be a good look.

 

I'm thinking more of his Ranger background. He would likely get in more trouble all around. And yeah I'm gonna sound like "that guy" but he probably could've done major damage out there. 

[Yuna4353]

Just now, MidnightDragon said:

Not much appealing it when he did it on national TV and millions of people saw it.

Yea if it not the rest of the season then something wrong with the league because it just wasn't right. 

[MidnightDragon]

Wel, Baker didn’t even try to defend him  and said it was inexcusable and Kitchens isn't really trying to sugarcoat it. At least Rudolph seems OK. Still, shows how much control he really has over the team...and the media is letting Kitchens have it. Still, some people are defending that son of a bitch for acting like a thug!

Edited November 15, 2019 by MidnightDragon

[grimydawg___]

Mason started it.  Don't cash a check you can't cash.

[MidnightDragon]

7 minutes ago, grimydawg said:

Mason started it.  Don't cash a check you can't cash.

There's a big difference between starting a fight and ripping a guy's helmet off and smashing him over the head with it. There's no justifying that. He could've seriously hurt Mason. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by MidnightDragon

[grimydawg___]

Just now, MidnightDragon said:

There's a big fucking difference between starting a fight and ripping a guy's helmet off and smashing him over the head with it. ZERO excuse for what he did.

Mason was trying to rip off Garrett's helmet first.  That's why he ripped his helmet off in the first place, or did you not see that part?

[MidnightDragon]

11 minutes ago, grimydawg said:

Mason was trying to rip off Garrett's helmet first.  That's why he ripped his helmet off in the first place, or did you not see that part?

Still doesn't justify what Garrett did. He went too far. If he had done something like that outside the stadium, he would've been arrested for assault. Hope Garrett gets the book thrown at him. He deserves it.

Edited November 15, 2019 by MidnightDragon

[grimydawg___]

1 minute ago, MidnightDragon said:

Yes, but Mason didn't beat Garrett over his uncovered head. What he did was MUCH worse. So you think potentially severe injury was deserved? That's messed up.

Did I say it was deserved?  Don't start a fight or bad things will likely happen.  It's really that simple.  Myles is going to be suspended for probably four games.

[MidnightDragon]

4 minutes ago, grimydawg said:

Did I say it was deserved?  Don't start a fight or bad things will likely happen.  It's really that simple.  Myles is going to be suspended for probably four games.

My guess is longer, but the NFL doesn't always make the smartest moves on suspensions.  

[grimydawg___]

Just now, MidnightDragon said:

My guess is longer, but the NFL doesn't always make the smartest moves on suspensions.  

Albert Haynesworth got five games for stomping on a dude's head, giving him stitches as a result.  We'll see.  Folks are soft   "He could have hurt him real bad."  Well how about not starting anything?

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

2 minutes ago, grimydawg said:

Mason was trying to rip off Garrett's helmet first.  That's why he ripped his helmet off in the first place, or did you not see that part?

 

I keep seeing this comment online and it baffles me. What in the hell does one have to do with the other? They were already fighting on the ground and unless there's other angles of it I can't tell who started it or where it started. I would take the bear hug to the ground as where it probably started as even the Steelers nearby looked puzzled by it. Trying to take off someone's helmet is in no way comparable to actually assaulting someone with one and good look trying that defense in court lmfao.. Does nobody think that maybe Mason didn't want to break his hand on a helmet? jesus christ...

 

2 minutes ago, grimydawg said:

Albert Haynesworth got five games for stomping on a dude's head, giving him stitches as a result.  We'll see.  Folks are soft   "He could have hurt him real bad."  Well how about not starting anything?

 

Like my comment above, where do you see that fight as starting? Again I see tons of people ONLY talking about Mason going after the helmet. If people are stupid enough to think that's where that started then well damn they all need to get some lasik done. (actually don't the guy involved in its development said it's bad lmfao.)

[grimydawg___]

@Avatar_Of_Battle Mason LITERALLY tried to rip his helmet off while they were on the ground.  Dude got salty and could have gotten seriously hurt because of it.  Quit defending the "victim" here.  Garrett went overboard, but Mason isn't innocent either.  Unfortunately, the fight is going to be the story of the game.  Otherwise, great win.

 

[ASILENTENIGMA]

Rudolph TRIED to rip Garrett's helmet off, and was unsuccessful.  Garrett ripped off the helmet AND took a swing with the helmet as a weapon.  Garrett went above and beyond anything Rudolph unsuccessfully attempted to do.  Rudolph isn't completely innocent, he'll get fined.  However, only one person got hit in the head with a helmet.  My guess is Garrett gets a 4 game suspension.  I would really like it if Garrett was suspended the rest of the year.  My ultimate wish would be for Garrett to get a year, 16 games, ban.  Send the message that there's no place for this in the NFL.  That's why I applauded the suspension for Burfict.  The NFL does not need these types of dirty plays at all.