Week 14 GDT: Raiders at Rams - JMD = New Rich?

[big_palooka]

2 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

Should*(I usually voice text). every game is winnable except the chiefs. This is where those jaguar and Colts loses start to look really stupid 

Why is that game not winnable? They were a Devante toe drag away from beating them early this year. 

[ronjon1990]

40 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Why is that game not winnable? They were a Devante toe drag away from beating them early this year. 

I'd say it's winnable. 

Chiefs are about to play Houston, Denver twice, and Seattle prior to us, and they're realistically the most likely team to lock up their playoff seed by New Years given everyone else competing for the 1 or 2 seed has a tougher road ahead. 

Anything could conceivably happen, but I sort of doubt they play their key starters much against us. 

Frankly, we may not play a legit starting QB the rest of the season lol. 

Not that he was great this year, but our final stretch went from Stafford, Jones before he lost his mojo, Pickett, Jimmy G, and Mahomes to Wolford, Jones/Zappe/who knows with them, Pickettoff, Purdy boy, and maybe Chad Henne. 

Literally has to be the easiest stretch of QB opposition in the league. 

[Bitty 2.0]

37 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I'd say it's winnable. 

Chiefs are about to play Houston, Denver twice, and Seattle prior to us, and they're realistically the most likely team to lock up their playoff seed by New Years given everyone else competing for the 1 or 2 seed has a tougher road ahead. 

Anything could conceivably happen, but I sort of doubt they play their key starters much against us. 

Frankly, we may not play a legit starting QB the rest of the season lol. 

Not that he was great this year, but our final stretch went from Stafford, Jones before he lost his mojo, Pickett, Jimmy G, and Mahomes to Wolford, Jones/Zappe/who knows with them, Pickettoff, Purdy boy, and maybe Chad Henne. 

Literally has to be the easiest stretch of QB opposition in the league. 

Especially if the pass rush keeps looking good. It's just not worth the risk. KC is by far the front runner for the SB

[Jeremy408]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Why is that game not winnable? They were a Devante toe drag away from beating them early this year. 

Be honest I think it's winnable but they'll probably be some stupid play call or some thing. The words the Raiders will find a way to raider that up. That said, the same could be said about all of the games that are left. Point being, we're gonna always have the more talented team. That was the problem whenever I looked at it. It's always been what are we gonna do when we actually get on the field.

[Jeremy408]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

I'd say it's winnable. 

Chiefs are about to play Houston, Denver twice, and Seattle prior to us, and they're realistically the most likely team to lock up their playoff seed by New Years given everyone else competing for the 1 or 2 seed has a tougher road ahead. 

Anything could conceivably happen, but I sort of doubt they play their key starters much against us. 

Frankly, we may not play a legit starting QB the rest of the season lol. 

Not that he was great this year, but our final stretch went from Stafford, Jones before he lost his mojo, Pickett, Jimmy G, and Mahomes to Wolford, Jones/Zappe/who knows with them, Pickettoff, Purdy boy, and maybe Chad Henne. 

Literally has to be the easiest stretch of QB opposition in the league. 

I understand the rationale but I don't see Kc just mailing it in against a division rival.

[big_palooka]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

I'd say it's winnable. 

Chiefs are about to play Houston, Denver twice, and Seattle prior to us, and they're realistically the most likely team to lock up their playoff seed by New Years given everyone else competing for the 1 or 2 seed has a tougher road ahead. 

Anything could conceivably happen, but I sort of doubt they play their key starters much against us. 

Frankly, we may not play a legit starting QB the rest of the season lol. 

Not that he was great this year, but our final stretch went from Stafford, Jones before he lost his mojo, Pickett, Jimmy G, and Mahomes to Wolford, Jones/Zappe/who knows with them, Pickettoff, Purdy boy, and maybe Chad Henne. 

Literally has to be the easiest stretch of QB opposition in the league. 

I see what you're trying to do. Through several posts now, I see you.

1 hour ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Especially if the pass rush keeps looking good. It's just not worth the risk. KC is by far the front runner for the SB

They are? They can't handled again by the Bengals who seem to have their number. I'd take the Eagles over them right now as well.

 

[ronjon1990]

26 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

I see what you're trying to do. Through several posts now, I see you.

Say we have an easy run of QBs coming up? Lol

We do. 

I'm more scared of LA's D than offense. 

SF is a wildcard. They have no QB but they have talent. Same for Pittsburgh. Sorta same for New England. 

Since I also unequivocally said already I was concerned about evaluating key positions on D, I have no hidden motive. 

We may be playing meh QBs, but all of the team's have weapons, OL, D's, etc. If we make it to the QB or break up passes and have good games defensively, we did more than just beat the QB. Same as I'll defend Carr by saying he's not the only guy on the field, I'll defend opponents. I'm not hypocritical.

If we made the Superbowl by beating JUCO squads, I'm all here for it. But I don't see us making the playoffs anyway, so I'd rather see how our guys play against starters, not backups. The likelihood of playing against that many backups in a row isn't something we can rely on to happen year in, year out. 

[Devilshark69]

32 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I understand the rationale but I don't see Kc just mailing it in against a division rival.

I was at arrowhead about 12 yrs ago when they did, they were going to the show, we were stinking it up. We pummeled em 31-10. Matter of fact me and a KC fan were respectfully going back n forth and in the fourth qtr I said to the queef fan “sorry man, can’t win em all” he got all salty and said “yeah? Well at least we’re going to the playoffs!” To which I replied “yeah?....and you’re playing Baltimore so enjoy that game!” Needless to say the queefs got stomped that next week like 38-10. Classic!!! Now that being said, that was before Reid and mahomie, waaaay different team. 

[Devilshark69]

Btw, all of these games are winnable if we play like we’re capable of, and watch turnovers and stupid penalties. Imagine the game against the dolts without the pick six. 

[Bitty 2.0]

42 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

I see what you're trying to do. Through several posts now, I see you.

They are? They can't handled again by the Bengals who seem to have their number. I'd take the Eagles over them right now as well.

 

I was talking about the AFC and getting to the SB. The Bengals do have there number.

[NCOUGHMAN]

Baker mayfield on Thursday?

[bucksavage1]

Baker Mayfield may start Thursday instead of Perkins. I can’t decide if this is a positive or a negative. He was beyond awful with Carolina this season. Jamarcus , Ryan Leaf territory bad. However, he’s still was a starting QB this season and the Rams are a better organization than Carolina. 

[Geezy]

Doubt they play Mayfield on two days, kind of setting him up to fail there. Think that’s just smoke to make prep a little different this week. 

[Styrian Raider]

8 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Say we have an easy run of QBs coming up? Lol

We do. 

I'm more scared of LA's D than offense. 

SF is a wildcard. They have no QB but they have talent. Same for Pittsburgh. Sorta same for New England. 

Since I also unequivocally said already I was concerned about evaluating key positions on D, I have no hidden motive. 

We may be playing meh QBs, but all of the team's have weapons, OL, D's, etc. If we make it to the QB or break up passes and have good games defensively, we did more than just beat the QB. Same as I'll defend Carr by saying he's not the only guy on the field, I'll defend opponents. I'm not hypocritical.

If we made the Superbowl by beating JUCO squads, I'm all here for it. But I don't see us making the playoffs anyway, so I'd rather see how our guys play against starters, not backups. The likelihood of playing against that many backups in a row isn't something we can rely on to happen year in, year out. 

So basically you're saying, that if the D looks good against those teams, then it's only because of the "low level of competition" they're performing against and they're still trash. And if they're not looking good... well then they're still trash.

That's okay if you're thinking like that. But don't tell ever again, that you're trying to be somehow objective. Cause you're not.

 

I also never ever have seen comments from other fan bases, that wins against us were less worth it because "they didn't have Waller and Renfrow" or last year "we're only facing a ST coach and they lost their deep threat".

[Geezy]

6 hours ago, Styrian Raider said:

So basically you're saying, that if the D looks good against those teams, then it's only because of the "low level of competition" they're performing against and they're still trash. And if they're not looking good... well then they're still trash.

That's okay if you're thinking like that. But don't tell ever again, that you're trying to be somehow objective. Cause you're not.

 

I also never ever have seen comments from other fan bases, that wins against us were less worth it because "they didn't have Waller and Renfrow" or last year "we're only facing a ST coach and they lost their deep threat".

Exactly, no one discredits the Bengals for making the SB, because they beat an interim coach on the way.