National Football League Thread

[Conker]

Im going Chiefs and 49ers but expect anything and don't underestimate the Titans or the Packers, hopefuly they are great Championship games

[DamagingRob]

50 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

And next week, I can't wait to see San Fran absolutely slap the smug off Rodgers' face.  Good lord I hate that man.

All is forgiven.

[djb5f]

 Chiefs and 49ers are my picks.  

 

First time no Eastern team in one of the conference title games since when?  Patriots seem to be there every year so it would have been a long time ago.

 

 

[PerryToxteth]

9 hours ago, grimydawg said:

The Browns have hired the same OC from the Vikings.  After yesterdays performance, I'm extremely optimistic for my Browns  **drinks the rest of the day**

 

Stefanski had been a career position coach, until late last season when Zimmer fired John DiFilippo.  He did enough to keep his job into this season and his playcalling was just adequate. You won't find many Viking fans crying over his loss.

My thinking was why would he want to go join the Lake Erie Circus? Or having wacko Flying J guy as his boss? My best guess is that as a career position coach, it was time to cash in. Make your big money and if you get fired (like everyone else in CLE), so what? Nobody will blame you for failing in Cleveland. Then you can go back to coaching a position somewhere else, except you got a whole lot more money in the bank. 

7 minutes ago, djb5f said:

 Chiefs and 49ers are my picks.  

 

First time no Eastern team in one of the conference title games since when?  Patriots seem to be there every year so it would have been a long time ago.

 

 

My pick? Anybody but Green Bay! 

[Zio_Sam87]

Despite I really wanted Seattle to advance and face them in the Championship, GB should be an "easier" matchup...we never lost against non-mobile QB this year... Sure it won't be as easy as the week 12 game!

Edited January 13, 2020 by Zio_Sam87

[Matto_lsi]

10 hours ago, Zio_Sam87 said:

Despite I really wanted Seattle to advance and face them in the Championship, GB should be an "easier" matchup...we never lost against non-mobile QB this year... Sure it won't be as easy as the week 12 game!

 

I personally did not.  Seattle probably deserved it more, but when the Niners play them anything can happen, and that usually ends up being bad for us.  There's no guarantees in this game, but I'm much happier facing the Packers, even if they get the upset win.  If they do, however, it'll be pretty sad.  Cause they had a straight up Pats route to the SB this year, as cupcake as it gets, and I don't feel they should be rewarded for that.  But at this point, that's up to the Niners.  They better come to play next weekend.

[djb5f]

12 minutes ago, Matto_lsi said:

 

I personally did not.  Seattle probably deserved it more, but when the Niners play them anything can happen, and that usually ends up being bad for us.  There's no guarantees in this game, but I'm much happier facing the Packers, even if they get the upset win.  If they do, however, it'll be pretty sad.  Cause they had a straight up Pats route to the SB this year, as cupcake as it gets, and I don't feel they should be rewarded for that.  But at this point, that's up to the Niners.  They better come to play next weekend.

 

how so?  They went 13-3 in the regular season and beat Seattle and would have won @SF.  KC's path to the Super Bowl is much more cupcake than that (home vs. Texans and Titans both middling teams for most of the season).  Talk about an ideal path.

[Matto_lsi]

1 minute ago, djb5f said:

 

how so?  They went 13-3 in the regular season and beat Seattle and would have won @SF.  KC's path to the Super Bowl is much more cupcake than that (home vs. Texans and Titans both middling teams for most of the season).  Talk about an ideal path.

 

Would have won in SF?  You know they play next week, right?  And how so?  Really?  Who they did beat this year?  Who did they even play?! Chicago (twice, 8-8), Denver (7-9), Philly (who beat them, 9-7), Dallas (8-8), Detroit (twice, 3-12-1), Oakland (7-9), Chargers (5-11), Carolina (5-11), Giants (4-12), and Redskins (3-13).  That is the definition of cupcake.  They only had 4 hard games all year if you count both games against the Vikings, and KC, and the Niners destroyed them in their regular season match-up.  They got lucky that they got home field advantage and 2 weeks rest and played a depleted Seahawks team that was on the road the last few weeks.  Plenty more deserving teams in the NFC.

[djb5f]

3 minutes ago, Matto_lsi said:

 

Would have won in SF?  You know they play next week, right?  And how so?  Really?  Who they did beat this year?  Who did they even play?! Chicago (twice, 8-8), Denver (7-9), Philly (who beat them, 9-7), Dallas (8-8), Detroit (twice, 3-12-1), Oakland (7-9), Chargers (5-11), Carolina (5-11), Giants (4-12), and Redskins (3-13).  That is the definition of cupcake.  They only had 4 hard games all year if you count both games against the Vikings, and KC, and the Niners destroyed them in their regular season match-up.  They got lucky that they got home field advantage and 2 weeks rest and played a depleted Seahawks team that was on the road the last few weeks.  Plenty more deserving teams in the NFC.

 

By would have won at SF, I am talking about next week's game.  Beating Seattle and winning at SF is not a gimme path which is what is required to make it to the Super Bowl.  They can't do so much about their schedule.  It is what it is.  The Seahawks themselves were very fortunate to beat the Eagles in the playoffs and that is only after Clowney knocked out Wentz early in the game.

 

I would like to see the Chiefs in the Super Bowl but they benefitted more from a easy path (AFC West where the 3 other teams were under .500, and you can't design an easier path than home wins over Houston and Tennessee).  Heck. SF's path is quite easy too, home against the Vikings/Cousins and by some accounts an inflated Packers team. 

 

 

[Zio_Sam87]

36 minutes ago, Matto_lsi said:

 

I personally did not.  Seattle probably deserved it more, but when the Niners play them anything can happen, and that usually ends up being bad for us.  There's no guarantees in this game, but I'm much happier facing the Packers, even if they get the upset win.  If they do, however, it'll be pretty sad.  Cause they had a straight up Pats route to the SB this year, as cupcake as it gets, and I don't feel they should be rewarded for that.  But at this point, that's up to the Niners.  They better come to play next weekend.

 

Well, I preferred Seattle because of "Championship West Game", not because I thought it would be easier

[Matto_lsi]

3 minutes ago, djb5f said:

 

By would have won at SF, I am talking about next week's game.  Beating Seattle and winning at SF is not a gimme path which is what is required to make it to the Super Bowl.  They can't do so much about their schedule.  It is what it is.  The Seahawks themselves were very fortunate to beat the Eagles in the playoffs and that is only after Clowney knocked out Wentz early in the game.

 

I would like to see the Chiefs in the Super Bowl but they benefitted more from a easy path (AFC West where the 3 other teams were under .500, and you can't design an easier path than home wins over Houston and Tennessee).  Heck. SF's path is quite easy too, home against the Vikings/Cousins and by some accounts an inflated Packers team. 

 

 

 

You're talking about just playoff games (for the most part).  There was an entire 16-game season before that.  And whether a team gets easy scheduling or not, they still get the benefit of it.  Niners had one of the HARDEST routes to the super bowl.  They played almost every good team in the league and won almost every game, and only lost the 3 they did in the final seconds of each of those games.  Cherry picking a single game out of 16-19 games and saying they have an easy path cause of that one game is absolute BS, especially considering some of the impressive wins they had earlier in the season. 

[Zio_Sam87]

Just now, Matto_lsi said:

 

You're talking about just playoff games (for the most part).  There was an entire 16-game season before that.  And whether a team gets easy scheduling or not, they still get the benefit of it.  Niners had one of the HARDEST routes to the super bowl.  They played almost every good team in the league and won almost every game, and only lost the 3 they did in the final seconds of each of those games.  Cherry picking a single game out of 16-19 games and saying they have an easy path cause of that one game is absolute BS, especially considering some of the impressive wins they had earlier in the season. 

 

Add that they had "the easy Vikings/Cousins" because "the SB Saints" can't have the job done

[djb5f]

Just now, Matto_lsi said:

 

You're talking about just playoff games (for the most part).  There was an entire 16-game season before that.  And whether a team gets easy scheduling or not, they still get the benefit of it.  Niners had one of the HARDEST routes to the super bowl.  They played almost every good team in the league and won almost every game, and only lost the 3 they did in the final seconds of each of those games.  Cherry picking a single game out of 16-19 games and saying they have an easy path cause of that one game is absolute BS, especially considering some of the impressive wins they had earlier in the season. 

 

Are you forgetting the first half of the season?   The 49ers went 8-0 by not facing a single playoff team (and really no one in contention to make the playoffs entering the final week or two)!

 

Looking at the full schedule, the 49ers played 5 playoff teams (Sea x2, Bal, NO, GB), the same number that the Packers faced.  We are talking about a minimal difference in schedules.  You don't want to count Philly, but they looked on par with Seattle in the 2 matchups).  Even if you don't count Philly as a quality team (selective bias), the difference is not much, 5 games vs. 4.

 

I think SF is better and should win barring a choke but the schedule argument does not hold much water.

 

[PerryToxteth]

50 minutes ago, Matto_lsi said:

 

I personally did not.  Seattle probably deserved it more, but when the Niners play them anything can happen, and that usually ends up being bad for us.  There's no guarantees in this game, but I'm much happier facing the Packers, even if they get the upset win.  If they do, however, it'll be pretty sad.  Cause they had a straight up Pats route to the SB this year, as cupcake as it gets, and I don't feel they should be rewarded for that.  But at this point, that's up to the Niners.  They better come to play next weekend.

 

  Sorry, but if your route to the Super Bowl requires you to go on the road for a playoff victory, it's not a 'cupcake' path. As others have said, KC doesn't earn the top seed, yet hosts the No. 4 and 6 seeds. That seems more cupcake than GB.

  And stop with the regular season griping. This isn't college football. Teams haze ZERO say in their scheduling. It's pointless to argue about it, bc it won't be fair until we have a 31-week season.  The NFL attempts to weigh it based on last season's record; the entire reason SF faced GB in the regular season was bc both missed the playoffs the previous season.

Can't believe you just made me defend the Packers!   

[Matto_lsi]

3 minutes ago, djb5f said:

 

Are you forgetting the first half of the season?   The 49ers went 8-0 by not facing a single playoff team (and really no one in contention to make the playoffs entering the final week or two)!

 

Looking at the full schedule, the 49ers played 5 playoff teams (Sea x2, Bal, NO, GB), the same number that the Packers faced.  We are talking about a minimal difference in schedules.  You don't want to count Philly, but they looked on par with Seattle in the 2 matchups).  Even if you don't count Philly as a quality team (selective bias), the difference is not much, 5 games vs. 4.

 

I think SF is better and should win barring a choke but the schedule argument does not hold much water.

 

 

I'd say the Seahawks (twice), Ravens, Saints, and Rams (twice) was much harder than what the Packers faced.  Let's look at the strength of schedule...

 

Niners: 103-104-1 (128-126-2 if you count division rivals twice)

Packers: 94-113-1 (115-139-2 if you count division rivals twice)

 

There's also this - http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

Niners are ranked 11th, Packers are 27th (higher ranking means harder)

 

And this - https://www.radio.com/sports/nfl/2020-nfl-strength-of-schedule-rankings

Packers 16th, Niners 25th (higher tanking means easier)

 

23 minutes ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

  Sorry, but if your route to the Super Bowl requires you to go on the road for a playoff victory, it's not a 'cupcake' path. As others have said, KC doesn't earn the top seed, yet hosts the No. 4 and 6 seeds. That seems more cupcake than GB.

  And stop with the regular season griping. This isn't college football. Teams haze ZERO say in their scheduling. It's pointless to argue about it, bc it won't be fair until we have a 31-week season.  The NFL attempts to weigh it based on last season's record; the entire reason SF faced GB in the regular season was bc both missed the playoffs the previous season.

Can't believe you just made me defend the Packers!   

 

Depends who you face on the road.  Just cause you're on the road doesn't mean its super hard.  And again, everyone has to go on the road at least 8 times, so while its the playoffs now, good teams still had to win on the road to get to where they are now.  And we're only talking about this now because when I said Seattle (who went on the road twice in the playoffs) was more deserving than the Packers (who have had one playoff game at home), I was met with some nonsense about the Niners having it easy, which is very far from the truth.  Whether you choose to defend the Packers or not is up to you, but I hold by what I said.  The Seahawks, despite the fact that I don't like them, had a harder season than the Packers, and had a harder road in the playoffs than the Packers, and I felt they were more deserving of their playoff spot.  Packers got lucky that their regular season schedule allowed them to slip into a cushy bye week and then play a beat up Seahawks team at home.  I don't think Packers would have stood a chance if the game was in Seattle or if Seattle was healthy.  Argue that all you want.

[djb5f]

1 hour ago, Matto_lsi said:

 

I'd say the Seahawks (twice), Ravens, Saints, and Rams (twice) was much harder than what the Packers faced.  Let's look at the strength of schedule...

 

Niners: 103-104-1 (128-126-2 if you count division rivals twice)

Packers: 94-113-1 (115-139-2 if you count division rivals twice)

 

There's also this - http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

Niners are ranked 11th, Packers are 27th (higher ranking means harder)

 

And this - https://www.radio.com/sports/nfl/2020-nfl-strength-of-schedule-rankings

Packers 16th, Niners 25th (higher tanking means easier)

 

 

Depends who you face on the road.  Just cause you're on the road doesn't mean its super hard.  And again, everyone has to go on the road at least 8 times, so while its the playoffs now, good teams still had to win on the road to get to where they are now.  And we're only talking about this now because when I said Seattle (who went on the road twice in the playoffs) was more deserving than the Packers (who have had one playoff game at home), I was met with some nonsense about the Niners having it easy, which is very far from the truth.  Whether you choose to defend the Packers or not is up to you, but I hold by what I said.  The Seahawks, despite the fact that I don't like them, had a harder season than the Packers, and had a harder road in the playoffs than the Packers, and I felt they were more deserving of their playoff spot.  Packers got lucky that their regular season schedule allowed them to slip into a cushy bye week and then play a beat up Seahawks team at home.  I don't think Packers would have stood a chance if the game was in Seattle or if Seattle was healthy.  Argue that all you want.

 

Fair enough. The Packers schedule was lighter than average (skewed a little by them putting 13 losses on opponents), whereas the 49ers schedule was pretty average (also skewed from putting 13 losses on opponents).  People mocked SF's schedule in the 1st half of the schedule only, which was truly awful not playing anyone competing for the playoffs.  Their back-half of the schedule was loaded and not surprisingly, where they picked up some losses.

 

BTW, your second link is a predictor of 2020 schedules based on 2019 records so not relevant to 2019 schedules

 

I don't think Seattle would have beaten GB at home but we will never know.  They did a nice job making a game out of it in the 2nd half but still had no answer for Davante Adams.  The Legion of Boom became the Legion of Busted Coverage.

 

If Seattle were healthy, that is another story; of course, if they were healthy, they likely win the NFC West so it would have been the 49ers on the road.

Edited January 13, 2020 by djb5f

[Zio_Sam87]

2 hours ago, Matto_lsi said:

There's also this - http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

Niners are ranked 11th, Packers are 27th (higher ranking means harder)

 

Three of the five lower ranking can't get 10 wins, LOL!

[djb5f]

32 minutes ago, Zio_Sam87 said:

 

Three of the five lower ranking can't get 10 wins, LOL!

that scheduling “analysis” is based on their own composite power ratings which has both the Rams and the Cowboys ahead of several playoff teams including the Titans, Seahawks, and Texans.  

 

http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/team-power-rankings.php

 

 

[kidson2004]

19 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

Think the Super Bowl will be Chiefs and 49ers, but this playoffs have been insane, so anything is possible.

Could be, but with this being the 100th NFL Season, I think it’ll be Chiefs/Packers rematch 100 years later. 

[djb5f]

41 minutes ago, kidson2004 said:

Could be, but with this being the 100th NFL Season, I think it’ll be Chiefs/Packers rematch 100 years later. 

That would be pretty epic and exactly what the NFL brass are hoping for.  Green Bay has Rodgers and a huge national brand.  KC has Mahomes and a high flying offense.

 

Disaster scenario would be Tennessee vs. SF from a ratings perspective.  It’s the Super Bowl so it will get good numbers but GB vs. KC would drum up more interest for sure.

 

 

[skidmarkgn]

6 hours ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

 And stop with the regular season griping. This isn't college football. Teams haze ZERO say in their scheduling. It's pointless to argue about it, bc it won't be fair until we have a 31-week season.  

 

I don't think anyone's super upset or asking for a change but facts are facts.  Every year some teams have it way easier than others during the regular season and they reap the benefits from it.  This year, In the NFC, no one reaped more than the Packers.  

[DamagingRob]

If it's Green Bay vs. Kansas City in the Super Bowl, all I'm gonna say is this: the State Farm guy better show up. 

[skidmarkgn]

*Incoming wall of text so bear with me*

 

LSU just finished their title game and now Burrow gets to (most likely) go get his teeth kicked in with the Bengals.  Every year I bring up a way to change the draft that I heard on the radio and this year I did a small bit of leg-work to see how it would hypothetically go.

The change is only with non-playoff teams.  The #1 pick goes to the team with the best record who missed the playoffs, #2 goes to the next best team and so on.  Once all the non-playoff teams have had their picks, the playoff teams go as normal with the SB winner picking @32.  I love this idea, the teams who would be picking in the top 5-10 most likely won't need a QB and the teams that would take a guy like Burrow could probably actually put him in a situation to succeed instead of a dumpster-fire tank-bowl winner.  Speaking of which, bye-bye tanking, no reward for intentionally putting a shitty product on the field.  

Anyways, as it stands right now the draft would (if I did my tiny amount of research right) look like this:

 

* I have only taken the Rams 2020 1st round trade for Ramsey into account because that's the only trade I know off the top of my head*

 

#1 - Rams, 9-7 record.  Actually, it would be the Jags because of the Ramsey trade.

#'s 2,3,and 4, no idea what order they'd be but they all finished with 8 wins - Steelers, Cowboys and Bears.  Cowboys don't need a QB but the Steelers or Bears would be a great landing spot for Burrow if the Jags didn't already take him.

#'s 5-10 ,the 7 win teams - Jets, Colts, Broncos, Raiders, Falcons, Buccs.

 

And there's your top 10 picks.  

 

With the way it is, the Bengals, Redskins, Lions, Giants, Dolphins, Chargers, Cards Panthers, Browns, and Jags are the top 10 with the Bengals as #1, the Redskins and Lions at 2 and 3 and the Giants at 4.  Burrow's life is gonna suck for the first few years and who knows if the Bengals will build anything any time soon.  Redskins are a hot mess and are already ruining their rookie QB.  The Lions, I'll admit they have at least some potential to do something with their #3 pick but... I mean... it's the Lions.  The Giants are the one team that miiiiiiight be successfully rebuilding, but the jury's still out, Daniel Jones has his issues *cough* can't stop fumbling *cough* and Barkley's had one sensational season and one miserable season.  Honestly, I say f--k it.  Let the teams who are that one top pick away from being a contender have that top pick, the middle of the pack changes but not super dramatically and let the garbage teams that wallow in their ineptitude suffer on the bottom eternally.  Idiots like Dan Snyder can suck it and enjoy your 30th pick.

[Zio_Sam87]

1 hour ago, skidmarkgn said:

*Incoming wall of text so bear with me*

 

LSU just finished their title game and now Burrow gets to (most likely) go get his teeth kicked in with the Bengals.  Every year I bring up a way to change the draft that I heard on the radio and this year I did a small bit of leg-work to see how it would hypothetically go.

The change is only with non-playoff teams.  The #1 pick goes to the team with the best record who missed the playoffs, #2 goes to the next best team and so on.  Once all the non-playoff teams have had their picks, the playoff teams go as normal with the SB winner picking @32.  I love this idea, the teams who would be picking in the top 5-10 most likely won't need a QB and the teams that would take a guy like Burrow could probably actually put him in a situation to succeed instead of a dumpster-fire tank-bowl winner.  Speaking of which, bye-bye tanking, no reward for intentionally putting a shitty product on the field.  

Anyways, as it stands right now the draft would (if I did my tiny amount of research right) look like this:

 

* I have only taken the Rams 2020 1st round trade for Ramsey into account because that's the only trade I know off the top of my head*

 

#1 - Rams, 9-7 record.  Actually, it would be the Jags because of the Ramsey trade.

#'s 2,3,and 4, no idea what order they'd be but they all finished with 8 wins - Steelers, Cowboys and Bears.  Cowboys don't need a QB but the Steelers or Bears would be a great landing spot for Burrow if the Jags didn't already take him.

#'s 5-10 ,the 7 win teams - Jets, Colts, Broncos, Raiders, Falcons, Buccs.

 

And there's your top 10 picks.  

 

With the way it is, the Bengals, Redskins, Lions, Giants, Dolphins, Chargers, Cards Panthers, Browns, and Jags are the top 10 with the Bengals as #1, the Redskins and Lions at 2 and 3 and the Giants at 4.  Burrow's life is gonna suck for the first few years and who knows if the Bengals will build anything any time soon.  Redskins are a hot mess and are already ruining their rookie QB.  The Lions, I'll admit they have at least some potential to do something with their #3 pick but... I mean... it's the Lions.  The Giants are the one team that miiiiiiight be successfully rebuilding, but the jury's still out, Daniel Jones has his issues *cough* can't stop fumbling *cough* and Barkley's had one sensational season and one miserable season.  Honestly, I say f--k it.  Let the teams who are that one top pick away from being a contender have that top pick, the middle of the pack changes but not super dramatically and let the garbage teams that wallow in their ineptitude suffer on the bottom eternally.  Idiots like Dan Snyder can suck it and enjoy your 30th pick.

 

I may be wrong but I recall that good to great QB from draft were all picked far from first round in last 5+ years. Only exceptions should be Mahomes and Watson

[majob]

3 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

Rumor mill is that the Lions are going to take Tua at #3. Of course they take the guy who just broke his hip and will never play at the same level he once did.

Edited January 14, 2020 by majob