Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 Veteran
  1. Mandela effect in the NFL

    I'm not sure if it qualifies, but the reaction to the missed PI call was crazy. There's no way that the Saints just knee it and play for the field goal, as in that scenario the Rams would have been left with almost 20-ish seconds left - plenty of time to get into FG range for Zuerlein to attempt a long FG. Assuming they run the ball, and Payton was caught mic'd saying he wanted to score a TD, it's likely the Rams allow them to score, in which case the Rams have 1:30 and a TO to go down and tie the game - considering how much they were going through the Saints defense, a definite possibility that the game still goes to OT. The third option and smartest choice would have been to run the ball and tell the RB not to score - but Payton showed that this would be unlikely when he passed on first down after the two minute warning. People determined that one of the most aggressive coaches in NFL history would suddenly play so conservatively.. In either of the first two scenarios, the game could have still gone to OT. It was an egregious missed call, but it did not decide the game - one play never does. And the irony is that the Saints were the benefactor of two blown PI calls that went against the Steelers earlier in the season, which ultimately cost the Steelers a playoff spot. And of course back in 2009 you had the NFL apologizing to the Vikings for a missed call that could have altered the outcome of the NFCCG. That doesn't even get into the specific game itself, in which there were multiple blown calls throughout the game for both teams. When you combine all of these things, the outrage was shocking to me. And while the team would never acknowledge this, I will go to my grave thinking that the country's reaction affected the team's play in the Super Bowl.
  2. Top 10 runningbacks gonig into 2019

    Six by my count. Which would have the offense under 24 ppg. But that doesn't take into account FGs off a short field. Middle of the pack feels about right. I personally trust yards or yards/play more than points - Bears were 20th in yards/play. I think that points can be fluky (ST/defensive TDs, INT returns to the redzone, etc.) but yards let you know how consistently your offense is beating the defense anywhere on the field. Can be misleading too, but it's what I prefer.
  3. Top 10 runningbacks gonig into 2019

    I think points can be the deceiving stat. Chicago was 9th in points scored but their defense scored them quite a few TDs, and then short fields that lead to FGs shouldn't be credited to the offense.
  4. Top QB/WR Duo for the 2019 season

    Goff/Kupp will be the one that comes out of nowhere to be near the top this year
  5. Yep my opinion. I never pay attention to the Packers Super Bowl odds because they have Rodgers and are typically inflated. I have the Steelers as favorites in the AFCN (until I see the Browns play and win a few games), while I have the Packers as the third best team in their own division. Outside of their divisions, I think the NFC is stronger than the AFC. So even if I had them similarly rated, I'd give the Steelers better odds. In reality though, I don't think either team will get there.
  6. Teams better than the Steelers in the AFC: Patriots Chargers Chiefs (if Tyreek Hill plays) Teams better than the Packers in the NFC: Rams Saints Eagles Vikings Bears Falcons (maybe) Cowboys (maybe) So, Steelers - easily
  7. Bold prediction: Chargers AFC Super Bowl LIV representative

    I'm never picking anyone for the Super Bowl from the AFC other than the Patriots until Tom Brady retires. Now if this thread was a "we know the Pats will represent the AFC, but if they didn't then who would?" - I'm on board.
  8. It's both and it's hit or miss. This past year was probably the best coaching job BB has ever had - I believe the Patriots were a worse team than both the Chiefs and Rams, yet beat both teams. I think they were probably worse than the Seahawks overall. Falcons - honestly, before that game, I thought they were much better than ATL - but being down 28-3 made me rethink that. Panthers, Eagles, Eagles, Giants and Giants - they were IMO clearly better than all four of those teams Worse than the Rams in their first Super Bowl His two best coaching jobs came at the expense of my favorite team 17 years apart. Aside from those two games, you had the Seahawks and Falcons games where BB and TB probably overcame the roster. But the other five they were clearly superior (considering Foles), and ironically they are only 2-3 in those Super Bowls.
  9. NFC North: Who wins it this year?

    I have no horse in this race. I dislike both teams evenly. But here is where I think the Vikings are better: QB - Cousins is not the best and is overpaid - but he's better than Trubisky RB - Cook has proven that he is capable of being a top 10 RB - Cohen is a nice player, but not that level - both teams have rookies that will look to make an impact WR/TE - biggest disparity on the teams - Vikings have one of the best while Bears are, at best, middle of the pack CB - Rhodes struggled last year - as did most of the Vikings - but I'll take the Vikings CBs for next year without much hesitation - the Bears letting Callahan go was a mistake IMO K - relevant considering.. Here's where the Bears are better: OL - but in terms of talent, I prefer the Vikings - giving the Bears the nod here because of how they performed last year Front 7 - Mack is listed as an OLB - giving this to the Bears, but whichever unit Mack is not a part of (DL or LB), I prefer the Vikings S People have a bad tendency to go off of the previous year - but the Bears from last year are the perfect example for why not to do that. I thought the Vikings were more talented last year, they just had a weird season. It happens. I don't think the Bears really got better this year - their defense is a near lock to be worse in some capacity, and Cordarelle Patterson doesn't move the needle much on offense. I do believe that their run game will be much improved - but I don't think there's enough around Trubisky for him to show marked improvement, and with the defense unable to uphold the standard from last year, I see a 10-6 team. On the flip side, the Vikings are right there with the most talented in the NFL.
  10. NFC North: Who wins it this year?

    Who ranked the Bears ahead of the Vikings last year? Who won or lost those head to head games doesn't mean much to me. In terms of talent, the Vikings have more of it than the Bears looking up and down their rosters. This time last year the Vikings and Eagles were thought to be locks to be good - they won 17 games between them. The Bears are the most logical candidate to come down - for multiple reasons.. 1. They play in a division with ARodgers, and the Vikings - only division to possibly field three contenders 2. Repeating that performance on defense will be nearly impossible 3. Trubisky is a question mark 4. Offensive talent is questionable at best - questions at WR and RB - last year it looked like the system is what made the offense "good", which needs to be air-quoted because ranking 21st in yards is NOT good. Ranking 9th in points is good, but when your defense gets turnovers at a near record pace, it's going to help your points scored 5. Schedule - the Vikings were on the road for New England, LA Rams and Seattle - the Bears got those three teams at home. The Vikings also had to play the Saints and Eagles while the Bears got TB and NYG (even though they lost). The Vikings went 1-4 in those five games while the Bears went 3-2 - if you flip it, I'm confident the records flip too, in which case the Vikings win the division at 10-5-1 while the Bears are 10-6 - even with the Bears sweeping them. To further this point, let's look at how teams outside the NFCW fared against the NFCW last year: Chargers - 3-1 Chiefs - 2-2 Broncos - 2-2 Raiders - 1-3 Vikings - 2-2 Packers - 1-3 Lions - 1-3 Bears - 4-0 The Rams were 7-1 at home, while Seattle is always a tough place to play - the Chargers, Chiefs and Vikings all had to come to both LA and Seattle - the Chargers beat Seattle, but didn't have far to travel - the teams that did have far to travel didn't win a game in LA or Seattle. Winning in the NFL takes some luck - that is taking nothing away from the Bears for last year. But this year is different, and last year everyone hyping up the Eagles and Vikings in the off-season should be a lesson for us. Their odds to win the division reflect this - it's a toss up.
  11. NFC North: Who wins it this year?

    If all the teams stay healthy, I can't see an argument for the Bears being a better team than the Vikings. I can see an argument saying it's a toss up, but not that the Bears are the team to beat.
  12. Best 2019 Offense and Defense

    I don't see the Chiefs or Bears repeating their performances (few teams do when they have a season that good). Offense - Colts - OL and QB were already great. RB needs to develop, which I'm projecting for Mack. Funchess is the type of WR that goes to an already good offense and becomes a good player. Loved the Parris Campbell pick too. Defense - it'll be a team that plays in LA - Chargers defense was already progressing to that point - I think the Rams will be MUCH better on D as well.
  13. NFC North: Who wins it this year?

    I'll be picking the Vikings. They had a disappointing year last year, but they're still one of the best rosters in the NFL. Take away QB and they are significantly better than the Bears and Packers rosters top to bottom. I like Cousins more than Trubisky and I don't think Rodgers will quite be able to overcome the talent disparity.
  14. Was Tony Dungy an elite head coach

    With a top 3 all time QB that isn't surprising. What was surprising was continually fielding poor defenses year after year for this "great" defensive coach.
  15. Was Tony Dungy an elite head coach

    HELL NO. When looking back over his career with Indy and Peyton, they underachieved like crazy. If he was even a *good/great* coach they would have won multiple titles.