National Football League Thread

[djb5f]

3 hours ago, majob said:

McCarthy can't turn straw into gold. The Cowboys are on a third string qb with no real o-line, defense, or receiving corps. Not to mention the entire NFC East is a flaming garbage dumpster. Jones could fire McCarthy but I doubt it when most of the team's woes aren't his fault.

The WR core is good but that OL is picking guys up off the street.  All 5 gone from a year ago due to injury and relying on rookies, mostly undrafted free agents.  The 3rd string QB won’t last long.  Dak was playing all-world and was the only thing keeping the Cowboys competitive.

 

Defense has also be ransacked by injury at linebacker and in the secondary, not that it was ever going to be a strength and Mike Nolan should be out of a job at a minimum.

 

I know every team has injuries (see fans lamenting above), but from what I can see, the injury bug has hit the Cowboys, Eagles, and 49ers hardest.

 

35 minutes ago, acasser said:

Dallas could still find a way to win that Division, too.  Somebody has to, right?

 

I actually think the WFT might win it at 6-10.  They have a good defense up front, enough to overpower the makeshift OL’s of Philly and Dallas.

[skidmarkgn]

7 hours ago, Bluefalcon2210 said:

What do we think the chances are that the Cowboys fire Mccarthy at the end of the season? or maybe even before?

 

No way he'd be willing the eat the money it would cost to fire McCarthy after year 1.

[Bluefalcon2210]

4 hours ago, Zio_Sam87 said:

Jones could fire himself and do a favour to the entire league ?

everybody wishes for that but it's never gonna happen

[Zio_Sam87]

4 hours ago, djb5f said:

I actually think the WFT might win it at 6-10.  They have a good defense up front, enough to overpower the makeshift OL’s of Philly and Dallas.

 

Or 5-11 since they lost to NY... Maybe the sixth could be Detroit or Cinci?

[acasser]

11 hours ago, djb5f said:

 

I actually think the WFT might win it at 6-10.  They have a good defense up front, enough to overpower the makeshift OL’s of Philly and Dallas.

 

If I were a betting man, I'd be inclined to put money on Philadelphia finding a way to make it to 6-9-1.  Which is either winning all four of their remaining division games, or winning three and finding a win outside the division.  Though I must confess I'm not sure where I see the latter happening unless they catch Bad Baker Mayfield in a few weeks.

 

Washington could get to six wins just by winning their divisional slate.  Or because they have a few friendly-looking non-divisional games coming up -- both Cincinnati and Detroit are on their schedule in the next three weeks, plus Dallas and the Giants to round out Washington's next four.  But this is also a team that has already lost to the Giants and the only reason Big Blue isn't the worst team in football is because the Jets still exist.  (And maybe Atlanta as well; your mileage may vary.)

 

But I think it's safe to say that we are quite possibly witnessing the worst division in the history of the NFL and the worst playoff team that will ever host a postseason game.

[djb5f]

24 minutes ago, acasser said:

 

If I were a betting man, I'd be inclined to put money on Philadelphia finding a way to make it to 6-9-1.  Which is either winning all four of their remaining division games, or winning three and finding a win outside the division.  Though I must confess I'm not sure where I see the latter happening unless they catch Bad Baker Mayfield in a few weeks.

 

Washington could get to six wins just by winning their divisional slate.  Or because they have a few friendly-looking non-divisional games coming up -- both Cincinnati and Detroit are on their schedule in the next three weeks, plus Dallas and the Giants to round out Washington's next four.  But this is also a team that has already lost to the Giants and the only reason Big Blue isn't the worst team in football is because the Jets still exist.  (And maybe Atlanta as well; your mileage may vary.)

 

But I think it's safe to say that we are quite possibly witnessing the worst division in the history of the NFL and the worst playoff team that will ever host a postseason game.

Yeah, I think so too as far as the worst division under the current divisional format anyway.  We’ve had some really bad divisional winners like the 7-win Panthers and the 7-win Seahawks but this one is likely even worse.

 

People made fun of the NFC East last year understandably but both the Cowboys and Eagles were good enough to win a home playoff game.  The Eagles likely would have if not for the suspect shot on Wentz by Clowney.  This year, the NFC East winner has no shot.

 

We are going to start to get really bad Wildcards some seasons too.  7 teams in each conference out of 16 making it!  What were they thinking?  Oh yeah, $$$$.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by djb5f

[Matto_lsi]

With the new playoff format, I'm hoping to see entire divisions in the playoffs.  For instance, based on how the season has started, it's not outside the realm of possibility for the entire NFC West to make it in.  Really the only thing standing in the way of that is the fight between TB and NO in the south and the Bears and Pack in the north.  If one of each falter in the second half of the year and all the NFC West teams finish strong, it could happen (unless there's a rule against it, but I didn't see one, the info I found basically just said another wildcard team from the conference would be added).  Of course I'm rooting for my Niners either way.  Despite a lukewarm start, they're really not doing too bad.  They might be in last place in their division, but considering only 4 of the other 12 teams in the conference have a better record (and one of those has played one fewer game, so it might be even) and they still have a winning record in the best division in football, and have had some catastrophic injuries to overcome, and have the 3rd best net points statistic in the conference, I think they're doing just fine.  They know how to score and keep other teams from scoring.  The trick will be winning division games and staying healthy.  But I really wouldn't be surprised at all if all 4 teams in the West finished with a 10+ win season and all 4 teams in the East finished with under 10 wins each.  Since it's possible for a team to 'win' their division with a 3-13 record, I'm hoping for that exact result in the East, just to rekindle the discussion of disqualifying a division winner who doesn't stack up.  Every year a team finishes under .500, it comes up again.  Every year there's a excuse.  I truly love the one of 'they had to play the other teams in their division twice', as if playing 3 other terrible teams twice is a justification for handing someone a playoff game (a HOME game, no less).  Honestly, who's better: the 6 or 7 win team that got 6 easy games against crappy division opponents, or the 10 win team who finished 3rd or 4th in their division but gets left out of the playoffs cause the 1st and 2nd place team won 12-14 games apiece?  Obvious answer is obvious.  But this year could set a new standard for pathetic division winners.  It's very possible the NFC East winner finishes with as low as 4 or 5 wins.  That would be awesome.

 

But looking ahead only to next week, I'm nervous.  Yes, the Niners blew the Pats out of the water, and on the road to boot.  But with the exception of Brady's 4th quarter theatrics, they did the same thing 8 years ago, also on the road.  Remember that game?  I do.  Niners were up 31-3 halfway through the 3rd quarter.  They ended up winning that game by a touchdown, but it got close near the end.  And what happened the next week?  After flying back from New England, they flew into Seattle, just like they have to do next week.  And what happened in that game?  They got absolutely destroyed 13-42.  I'm seeing a lot of parallels from that season, and it worries me.  So I hope the Niners come to play next week, and that history doesn't repeat itself.

[djb5f]

Is the NFC West that good?  Hard to know as they have been feasting on two really bad divisions (NFC East and AFC East) to inflate their records.  
 

If they were playing the NFC South or North and say the AFC North instead, their records would be much different.

[Matto_lsi]

15 minutes ago, djb5f said:

Is the NFC West that good?  Hard to know as they have been feasting on two really bad divisions (NFC East and AFC East) to inflate their records.  
 

If they were playing the NFC South or North and say the AFC North instead, their records would be much different.

 

The NFC north? You mean like the Bears who faced the Lions, Giants, Falcons, and Panthers and are currently getting blown out by the Rams?  They're 1-2 against teams with winning records.  Or the Packers, who've faced the Vikings, Lions, Falcons, and Texans? 1-1 against teams with winning records.  LOL!

 

NFC South?  Bucs faced Panthers, Broncos, Chargers, and Raiders and are 1-2 against teams with winning records.  Saints faced Raiders, Lions, Chargers, and Panthers and are 1-1 against teams with winning records.

 

AFC North is irrelevant as those teams don't feature in the NFC playoff matchups, and each NFC team only faces 4 AFC teams each season.  I do admit that they have an impressive division so far, but same argument can be made.  Steelers have faced Giants, Broncos, Texans, and Eagles and only beat 2 teams with winning records.  Ravens faced Texans, Bengals, Washington, and Eagles and are 1-1 against teams with winning records.  Browns faced Bengals, Washington, and Cowboys and are 1-2 against teams with winning records.  Wait a second, aren't they too 'feasting' on NFC East teams? hmmm

 

Now I'm not saying the NFC West is doing a whole lot better, since they've faced the same level of non-competition, but to say that their records are inflated cause they haven't faced teams from other divisions whose records are also inflated by only playing terrible teams, isn't much of an argument.  The only team that stands out is the undefeated Steelers, but like all the rest, their schedule has been pretty easy too.  If the NFC West had played teams with inflated records from these other divisions, maybe their records would be much different instead.

[djb5f]

Yeah, I am just saying as the Rams are 5-2, but 4-0 against the NFC East and 1-2 against everyone else.

 

Not that the NFC West isn’t good, it is just that their records have been propped up a bit.  You can’t say the NFC East is the worst division in the history of football and then not factor it into the West’s W/L record.  
 

A lot of season left to separate to contenders from the pretenders.

 

PS - AFC North is not irrelevant.  Each NFC division plays its 4 intra-conference games against a specific AFC division.  NFC East has the AFC North this year and yes, the AFC North will continue to feast.  NFC West has the AFC East.
 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by djb5f

[Matto_lsi]

1 hour ago, djb5f said:

Yeah, I am just saying as the Rams are 5-2, but 4-0 against the NFC East and 1-2 against everyone else.

 

Not that the NFC West isn’t good, it is just that their records have been propped up a bit.  You can’t say the NFC East is the worst division in the history of football and then not factor it into the West’s W/L record.  
 

A lot of season left to separate to contenders from the pretenders.

 

PS - AFC North is not irrelevant.  Each NFC division plays its 4 intra-conference games against a specific AFC division.  NFC East has the AFC North this year and yes, the AFC North will continue to feast.  NFC West has the AFC East.
 

 

 

 

 

Right, but the Rams just clobbered one of the teams in the divisions you mentioned above.  And the Niners beat the Rams last week.  And as I noted, every team in the divisions you mentioned have propped up records.

 

I said I agree they've had little competition, but my point was so have the other divisions.  All the teams with 4, 5, and 6 win records have each only played a couple games against teams that aren't doing terrible this season.  So everyone's record is propped up.  And again, the NFC West isn't the only division playing the NFC East, so is the AFC North who you singled out as being so much better than the West.  You implied all the teams in the West would be hurting if they faced them, as well as the NFC North and South, and there's no evidence whatsoever that'd be true.  Since everyone in those 4 divisions has had an equal number of 'easy' competitors and have similar records, I'd say they're probably evenly ranked.

 

And yes, the NFC West is the best division in football, you look at the W/L record to determine that.  Not only do they have a combined 19 wins - which is more than any other division in either conference - but they are the only division where every team has a winning record.  On the cusp of mid-season, that means something.

 

And I know how the schedule is setup, especially concerning which AFC division teams each NFC division plays each season.  I've been a football fan for over 30 years.  The AFC North is irrelevant.  None of the teams in the NFC from the 3 divisions we're talking about will play anyone from the AFC North this season, outside of the SB.  The NFC East is terrible without even considering the games they've played against the AFC North.  And when I spoke about the chances of the NFC West teams all making the playoffs, and considered their main contenders being the top 2 teams in each the NFC North and NFC South, yes, the AFC North is completely and 100% irrelevant.  The only possibility for any of the relevant NFC teams to play an AFC North team is if they make the SB, and that has no bearing on who makes the playoffs.  And since there's no way for them to play each other during the season, when it could actually affect their record and playoff chances, the AFC North is irrelevant in a discussion about who is best in the NFC and whether or not the NFC West can get all 4 teams into the playoffs.

 

But you are right, there is a lot of season left to be played.  I never disagreed with that.  I simply said that the main factor to potentially denying a sweep by the NFC West would be 4 teams in 2 other divisions and whether or not they falter down the stretch.  There really wasn't anything inflammatory in what I said, but it seems there always has to be a contrarian on internet message boards.

[skidmarkgn]

Didn't know until today that the reason Atlanta lost on Sunday was because they scored a TD with under a minute left to play... just... wow.

[acasser]

Atlanta didn't lose because they scored a TD with a minute to play.

 

Atlanta lost because their defense couldn't make a fucking stop.  Seriously, all you had to do was not let the Detroit Lions drive 75 yards in 64 seconds with 0 timeouts.  Make a fucking play and don't blame the guy who actually did something that gave you a lead.

 

I know Atlanta is a bad team, but this one is on their shitty defense crapping the bed.  Again.

 

Besides, we all know that if Todd Gurley had gone down at the 2 and the Falcons had taken two knees to run out the clock, their kicker would have doinked the chip shot off the upright and the Lions would have won that way.

[skidmarkgn]

I know I'm supposed to hate the 9ers or whatever because I'm a Seahawks fan but man, this game's becoming brutal to watch.  Injury after injury to San Fran.

[Conker]

What a finish it was in Denver with the Broncos winning wth a td on the last play to tie then the pat to win it, another 1 score loss for the Chargers who at 1 point lead by 21

[acasser]

There isn't much to think about where my team is concerned, so I spend my Sundays pondering vaguely philosophical thoughts about other NFL teams.  Which leads me to pose this question:

 

What are we supposed to think about the Cleveland Browns?  Are they a good team?  Are they a not-good team?  Do they simply play to the level of their competition?  Are they just a mediocre team in that they get clobbered by good teams but find a way to beat bad teams?  Are they simply fortunate this year that their schedule includes the NFC East, the AFC South, and the Jets and that they've got enough talent to parlay that into 10-6 or 11-5 and a wipeout in the Wild Card Round?

 

And can we ask the same question about the Colts, the one seemingly good team the Browns have beaten?  Indy may or may not have a tougher schedule depending on how you wish to weigh the non-Conference slate and the extra games against divisional rivals, but it's not like the Colts have beaten anybody good unless you believe the Bears qualify under that moniker.  And Indy has a TERRIBLE loss on their resume (1-6 Jacksonville).

 

....

 

As for the Jets?  I think pretty much everybody was happy with today's results.  Fantasy players who own Patrick Mahomes and important pieces of that receiving corps and who didn't bench the guys for reasons got a bushel of points.  (Owners of any KC running backs, not so much.)  Chiefs fans got a laugher of a win.  Chad Henne fans got to see their guy play about ten minutes of mop-up and complete a couple of passes.  People who laid the points even got a cover out of the issue.

 

And Jets fans got one step closer to seeing their team pick #1 overall.  Though with our luck, Trevor Lawrence will pull the same shit that Peyton Manning did twenty-odd years ago and decide to return to school for his senior season.

[Conker]

1 hour ago, acasser said:

There isn't much to think about where my team is concerned, so I spend my Sundays pondering vaguely philosophical thoughts about other NFL teams.  Which leads me to pose this question:

 

What are we supposed to think about the Cleveland Browns?  Are they a good team?  Are they a not-good team?  Do they simply play to the level of their competition?  Are they just a mediocre team in that they get clobbered by good teams but find a way to beat bad teams?  Are they simply fortunate this year that their schedule includes the NFC East, the AFC South, and the Jets and that they've got enough talent to parlay that into 10-6 or 11-5 and a wipeout in the Wild Card Round?

 

And can we ask the same question about the Colts, the one seemingly good team the Browns have beaten?  Indy may or may not have a tougher schedule depending on how you wish to weigh the non-Conference slate and the extra games against divisional rivals, but it's not like the Colts have beaten anybody good unless you believe the Bears qualify under that moniker.  And Indy has a TERRIBLE loss on their resume (1-6 Jacksonville).

 

....

 

As for the Jets?  I think pretty much everybody was happy with today's results.  Fantasy players who own Patrick Mahomes and important pieces of that receiving corps and who didn't bench the guys for reasons got a bushel of points.  (Owners of any KC running backs, not so much.)  Chiefs fans got a laugher of a win.  Chad Henne fans got to see their guy play about ten minutes of mop-up and complete a couple of passes.  People who laid the points even got a cover out of the issue.

 

And Jets fans got one step closer to seeing their team pick #1 overall.  Though with our luck, Trevor Lawrence will pull the same shit that Peyton Manning did twenty-odd years ago and decide to return to school for his senior season.

I imagining after today the Rams will have more talk of are they as good as there record after the Dolphins easily had the 2ay with them, then you on other hand have Bengals aren’t as bad as there record is

[Conker]

Well that was one ugly Sunday night game, sums up NFC East, cowboys doing nothing, defense looked better surprisingly and Eagles Doing enough even with those Wentz turnovers, last td probably shouldn’t have been, but wouldn’t have helped the Cowboys who now host undefeated Steelers.

 

Jets Fire Sale continues https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/steelers-to-trade-for-jets-linebacker-avery-williamson-securing-devin-bush-replacement-for-second-half/

[kidson2004]

2 hours ago, acasser said:

There isn't much to think about where my team is concerned, so I spend my Sundays pondering vaguely philosophical thoughts about other NFL teams.  Which leads me to pose this question:

 

What are we supposed to think about the Cleveland Browns?  Are they a good team?  Are they a not-good team?  Do they simply play to the level of their competition?  Are they just a mediocre team in that they get clobbered by good teams but find a way to beat bad teams?  Are they simply fortunate this year that their schedule includes the NFC East, the AFC South, and the Jets and that they've got enough talent to parlay that into 10-6 or 11-5 and a wipeout in the Wild Card Round?

As a Browns fan, I say its more of them learning not to be a bad team anymore and their schedule. The injury bug hit this team at the worst time imaginable, but they're still over .500 in November; which is saying A LOT. They're usually in the running for a top 5 pick and have already packed up for Cancun lol. But I can see them going 11-5, at worst 10-6. But in order for them to be a good respectable team, they HAVE to beat both Baltimore and Pittsburgh while both are at their best. Find a way to beat better teams and THEN, they'll be a much better team.

[grimydawg___]

The Browns should have Nick Chubb and Teller after the bye week.  Garrett got banged up, too.  They beat the Colts.  So, they clearly can play against good teams.  The WRs had cinder blocks for hands today (counted six dropped passes).  They need to do something by the deadline, particular at the safety position.  Sendejo is trash.  They have the easiest remaining schedule on the league.  So, I don't see why they can't win another five games.  I'd rather then be in the mix for a playoff spot than being out by October.  They're beating teams they're supposed to.  That's a start.

 

As far as the schedule goes, its format is determined for years.  So, they can't help who they play.  This year is the AFC South and NFC East.  Next year will be the AFC West and NFC North, the AFC East opponent would be the Patriots, the South would be the Texans, and of course the division games, if the season ended today.

Edited November 2, 2020 by grimydawg___

[Zio_Sam87]

Niners played only two quarters before the meltdown in the third... Fourth was garbage time so it doesn't matter at all. And yet add 3 more injuries to the list. WTF.

As of Rams doubt, I can say that Dolphs aren't as bad as many would thing: they are a smart team. Of course all Rams Ws are from the Least, so next 4 (Seattle, TB, SF and Ari) will determine who they really are.

[skidmarkgn]

49ers injury list just got a whole lot worse.  I'm still wondering if they can hang an L on Green Bay on Thursday though.  Green Bay just showed what they can't do, and that's defend against a physical running team, which the 9ers are, especially with the starting QB out (which might be a blessing more than a curse this year).  I'm sure Green Bay will be as prepared for it as possible, especially with Kittle added to the gone for the year list but planning and executing are two different things.  Not sure if San Fran gets anyone back on defense for the game but if they can hold Green Bay's offense down at all the ball control game might just work.  I mean, the Vikings were lambs to the slaughter on Sunday and look how that turned out, so anything's possible right?

[acasser]

3 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

so anything's possible right?

 

Except for a Jets win.  That isn't possible.

 

Actually, I take that back.  Knowing the Jets, they'll win just enough to fuck up getting the #1 overall pick if Trevor Lawrence is going to leave Clemson.  Probably because they beat the Patriots once or twice in a year where that's a meaningless accomplishment, both from the perspective of the Patriots being a lousy team and from the perspective that the Jets ought to be trying for 0-16 at this point -- they almost certainly lose every draft tiebreak at 1-15 if the Houston/Jacksonville loser and the Giants are also there.

[skidmarkgn]

So what's the official soonest Daniel Jones can be called a bust?  Is it a 2 year minimum or can we just call it now?

[Zio_Sam87]

7 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

with Kittle added to the gone for the year list

 

Season is clearly over