NFL Thread - 2020

[SWC75]

People hate Brady because he’s the best ever. You can come up with reasons why you do but it’s just because he’s won so much. Same reason people hate LeBron and were starting to hate the Warriors even though everybody loved them when the run started.

The Mahomes/Chiefs love will turn to hate in the next year or two

Yeah. What would be the point of hating Nick Foles?

 

[MikeSU02]

It’s crazy how since the 1994 Green Bay has had Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers every year and they only have 2 SBs.
They are competitive and 2 titles but it feels like they should have more.

Maybe those QBs are a little overrated.

 

[SWC75]

I don’t agree with you. I think Rodgers pads his stats.

It doesn’t matter, Rodgers is going to win. Then, in retrospect, it will seem dumb bc Mahomes actually is this MVP and also best player.

Mahomes wins next week, gets SB MVP, and Rodgers MVP story won’t matter. It will be relegated to those other awards that make no sense when you look at it in the long run.

How does he "pad his stats"? His job is to get the ball into the end zone. He does it.

He didn't do it well enough today. That's why he lost. If he'd padded his stats today, the packers would be in the Super Bowl.

It's a silly take.

 

[Alsacs]

I don’t agree with you. I think Rodgers pads his stats.

It doesn’t matter, Rodgers is going to win. Then, in retrospect, it will seem dumb bc Mahomes actually is this MVP and also best player.

Mahomes wins next week, gets SB MVP, and Rodgers MVP story won’t matter. It will be relegated to those other awards that make no sense when you look at it in the long run.

Mahomes is like MJ till he retired or Shaq in the early 00’s. They were the best players in the league but they didn’t get the MVP every year.
Media wants a new story every year.

 

[Alsacs]

Maybe those QBs are a little overrated.

I think Favre was but Rodgers has been the victim of terrible coaching for a good portion of his career that he has personally carried.

 

[SWC75]

Both losing teams tried for two when they didn't need to and it negatively impacted their situation at the end of the game.

 

[Alsacs]

Just looking at that is nuts.

 

[MikeSU02]

How does he "pad his stats"? His job is to get the ball into the end zone. He does it.

He didn't do it well enough today. That's why he lost. If he'd padded his stats today, the packers would be in the Super Bowl.

It's a silly take.

His job is to win. I’m not arguing this anymore.

What’s going to seem silly is that Rodgers won the MVP when Mahomes got to rest the last week of the season and then rolled through the playoffs while Rodgers lost again and threw another coach under the bus.

I think Mahomes is the MVP.

 

[MikeSU02]

I think Favre was but Rodgers has been the victim of terrible coaching for a good portion of his career that he has personally carried.

I think Favre is overrated.

Rodgers is great. But the fact of the matter is that he throws everyone under the bus.

 

[SWC75]

Mahomes is like MJ till he retired or Shaq in the early 00’s. They were the best players in the league but they didn’t get the MVP every year.
Media wants a new story every year.

Some players are the victims of the thinking that an MVP needs to exceed expectations. Willie Mays won 2 MVPs in 22 years, one in his first big year and one in his last big year. In between he had tens straight years in his prime when somebody else won MVP. That included seasons when he hit 51, 49 and 47 home runs. Some of the players he lost to were also superstars like Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks and Frank Robinson. But Willie was clearly superior to Don Newcombe, Dick Groat and Maury Wills. In 1962, Wills won because he'd broken Cobb's record for steals with 105. Maury scored 130 runs that year. So did Willie. Willie hit 49 homers and drove in 141 runs. Maury drove in 42. Willie's team won the pennant in a playoff with the Dodgers. And yet Maury was MVP.

 

[bpo57]

Both losing teams tried for two when they didn't need to and it negatively impacted their situation at the end of the game.

It's currently an epidemic of foolishness in the NFL when it comes to going for two.

 

[ForCuseSake]

The bills were stellar this year. Their deficiencies can easily be addressed in 1 offseason. Hell of a run.

my wife, a bills fan, locked me out of the bedroom and is currently ignoring me.

My wife is diehard Bills fan, Orchard Park born & raised.

I’ve been part therapist/part chew toy for the past few weeks.

 

[bpo57]

My wife is diehard Bills fan, Orchard Park born & raised.

I’ve been part therapist/part chew toy for the past few weeks.

Were you both together during the two Super Bowls that Dallas and Buffalo played in the 90s? I can understand if you can't remember that far back.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Were you both together during the two Super Bowls that Dallas and Buffalo played in the 90s? I can understand if you can't remember that far back.

Thankfully, no

Cute, I missed the last part.

Edit - It’s not like you having to recall ND’s last national title.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

It's currently an epidemic of foolishness in the NFL when it comes to going for two.

going for two is similar to playing Pott odds in poker. it makes sense in a "money game" where over time, you for sure will be better off playing the pot odds...even if it means you are likely to lose a single hand but will make it up in future big winning hands... BUT in a tourney with no re-buy in...you have to think differently...cause calling an all in based purely on pot odds and implied pot odds, means you are likely to lose and be out of that specific tourney.

 

[BuffOrange]

Both losing teams tried for two when they didn't need to and it negatively impacted their situation at the end of the game.

So what. Most teams that are still losing after a 2nd half TD ultimately lose the game. Like the Browns who kicked a pat last week, or like the Rams who went for 2 and got it.

 

[Melancer46]

Both losing teams tried for two when they didn't need to and it negatively impacted their situation at the end of the game.

I'd argue both losing teams weren't nearly aggressive enough.

I think the Bills were probably screwed even if McDermott had been more aggressive, but that game was there for the taking for Green Bay and LaFleur royally messed up.

 

[samspann1]

Ideas for SB prop bets:

O/U on total defensive holding/illegal contact penalties
O/U on cheap shots exchanged between the Chiefs DL and Bucs OL (including, w/o limitation, punches, and pushing guys over piles after the whistle)

 

[NineOneSeven]

I'd argue both losing teams weren't nearly aggressive enough.

I think the Bills were probably screwed even if McDermott had been more aggressive, but that game was there for the taking for Green Bay and LaFleur royally messed up.

Yeah LaFleur's decisions were WAY, WAY worse.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I'd argue both losing teams weren't nearly aggressive enough.

I think the Bills were probably screwed even if McDermott had been more aggressive, but that game was there for the taking for Green Bay and LaFleur royally messed up.

I think kicking the FG was the right move there upon further reflection. At the time I did not.

now this takes some thought but hear me out.

-If GB goes for it on 4th and scores a TD, AND then converts the 2 pt attempt, the game is tied with around 2 minutes left.

-GB must stop Tampa then short of successful FG range to force OT.

-If GB instead kicks the FG, given they had 3 TO and the 2 minute warning, they likely have to stop Tampa from getting two first downs to get the ball back..

-If GB does stop Tampa after GB kicks a fg , they then get the ball back in regulation, with a chance to WIN without even going to OT.

so the way I see this thing shaking out...either way, they have to stop Tampas offense from getting multiple first downs. Two first downs likely gets Tampa very close to winning FG range anyway if Green Bay had went for the TD and tied it...and if GB instead goes for the FG, two TB first downs ends it via running out the clock.

so why do we think GB could stop Tampa from getting into FG range if they couldnt stop them from converting two first downs and running out the clock?

 

[Newhouser]

KC wins this game unless Brady is perfect.

GB was stupid.
KC isn’t.

I agree but its funny how the Andy Reid doesn't do dumb stuff narrative has changed since his Eagles days.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think kicking the FG was the right move there upon further reflection. At the time I did not.

now this takes some thought but hear me out.

-If GB goes for it on 4th and scores a TD, AND then converts the 2 pt attempt, the game is tied with around 2 minutes left.

-GB must stop Tampa then short of successful FG range to force OT.

-If GB instead kicks the FG, given they had 3 TO and the 2 minute warning, they likely have to stop Tampa from getting two first downs to get the ball back..

-If GB does stop Tampa after GB kicks a fg , they then get the ball back in regulation, with a chance to WIN without even going to OT.

so the way I see this thing shaking out...either way, they have to stop Tampas offense from getting multiple first downs. Two first downs likely gets Tampa very close to winning FG range anyway if Green Bay had went for the TD and tied it...and if GB instead goes for the FG, two TB first downs ends it via running out the clock.

so why do we think GB could stop Tampa from getting into FG range if they couldnt stop them from converting two first downs and running out the clock?

The gymnastics to get to that point prove how poor of a decision it was.

 

[Melancer46]

I think kicking the FG was the right move there upon further reflection. At the time I did not.

now this takes some thought but hear me out.

-If GB goes for it on 4th and scores a TD, AND then converts the 2 pt attempt, the game is tied with around 2 minutes left.

-GB must stop Tampa then short of successful FG range to force OT.

-If GB instead kicks the FG, given they had 3 TO and the 2 minute warning, they likely have to stop Tampa from getting two first downs to get the ball back..

-If GB does stop Tampa after GB kicks a fg , they then get the ball back in regulation, with a chance to WIN without even going to OT.

so the way I see this thing shaking out...either way, they have to stop Tampas offense from getting multiple first downs. Two first downs likely gets Tampa very close to winning FG range anyway if Green Bay had went for the TD and tied it...and if GB instead goes for the FG, two TB first downs ends it via running out the clock.

so why do we think GB could stop Tampa from getting into FG range if they couldnt stop them from converting two first downs and running out the clock?

The simple answer is that two first downs = not even at midfield yet, much less in FG range.

Tying the game and giving up two first downs = likely headed to OT with 50/50 shot at winning.

Kicking the field goal and giving up two first downs = game over.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The key matchup of the SB is the Buccaneer Dline against the Chiefs Oline. If the Bucs win it will be because the dominate that matchup.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The simple answer is that two first downs = not even at midfield yet, much less in FG range.

Tying the game and giving up two first downs = likely headed to OT with 50/50 shot at winning.

Kicking the field goal and giving up two first downs = game over.

you're assuming two first downs are only 20 yards...