NFL News & Notes

[Norm]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Me too, I just hate the way people treat players like Cobb and Matthews.  Hate it.  

Don't worry, when the Smith's leave, they will have been worthless overpaid overrated scrubs their entire Packer careers too.

[Norm]

40 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

Sandy Cheeks does okay in the middle of the ocean. But she is an exceptional squirrel, perhaps the exception that proves the point. 

Oh **** lolol

[Kepler]

17 minutes ago, Norm said:

Don't worry, when the Smith's leave, they will have been worthless overpaid overrated scrubs their entire Packer careers too.

It's really weird when you meet a fan who thinks all the packers players are scrubs until they leave, and then they become all pros or something lol. Pretty rare but I've met at least a couple guys like that.

[wgbeethree]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

 if you throw a fish in the desert, it ain’t gonna love.

Youre underestimating the power of love.

 

[Leader]

Cobb-watch

Two (2) receptions on four targets (of a total 29) for 23 yards + 0TDs.

The team had 246yds passing and 2TDs in their scrimmage against MIA.

 

 

[ReadyToThump]

Comparing the "vet" Jimmy Graham to our ex-vets like Matthews, Cobb and Perry is just asinine. Graham was is an overpaid FA who has done squat for our franchise. 

[vegas492]

On 9/20/2019 at 3:23 PM, Leader said:

I think the latest revelations that he'd "ganged up" on the artist - with his lawyer in a group chat - just made it too messy for NE to tolerate. I mean.....the stink was getting bad.

You get that from Twitter?   

Just having fun, Leader.  As far as AB goes...and the Patriots....they will move on and keep winning.  If AB is a cancer, to them he's a basal cell carcinoma that you simply burn or carve out of yourself and then are good to go.

And in the ole for what it is worth category...I feel like he was released because he intimidated that woman (via the texts) while a member of the Patriots.  This happened under their watch.  I feel like BB pretty much wiped the slate clean and told him the deal moving forward.  And AB simply didn't get it.  So out he goes.

And now?  I'm still not sick of eating the popcorn during this one.

[vegas492]

11 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Clay Matthews has a sack in each game this season.  Two tonight.  

Really want to tag a couple people here.  It’s not easy being a finesse pass rusher in a power rush scheme.  Happy for him.

With the Clay was....he was always gonna have a bounce back season once he found a new team.  

He was just done here.  But somewhere else?  New scheme?  New energy?  Yah, I figured he'd be one of those vets who pop for a season, then decline pretty sharply.  Kirwan talks about that quite a bit on the radio.  It's fascinating to hear him talk about those older guys and what you as a GM can expect out of them.

[Leader]

Ben Fennell:  Patriots defense is DOMINATING at a historic rate to start the season...

Scoring Efficiency: 1/37 2.7% (1st)
TD Efficiency: 0/37 0.0% (1st)
ZERO TDs allowed and only 1 scoring drive (on 37 drives) through 3 games?!
I don't care who you're playing - that's incredible.

Also...

10+yd Runs Allowed - 0 (1st)
Completions - 52.2% (1st)
Interceptions - 6 (1st)
20+yd Plays - 6 (3rd)
20+yd TDs - 0 (1st)

<I think who you play matters to some degree and so far they've not been overly tested:  Steelers, Dolphins + Jets. Next up: Bills>

[Leader]

NY Post:

There was a significant drop in holding penalties called in NFL games this Sunday after a conference call between senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron and referees.

The backlash from players — most notably Tom Brady — and fans likely caused this meeting to happen sooner rather than later.

According to ESPN Stats and Information, officials called for offensive holding 41 times across 14 games Sunday, averaging 2.9 per game. Throughout the first 33 games of the season, there were 188 such flags for a rate of 5.7 per game.

Brady was one of several players who found the surplus of flags to be infuriating.

[OneTwoSixFive]

For many years (since 1989 I believe) I have had the Lindy's Pro Football preview sent to me, in England (paying around $40 to have it sent).

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that this magazine just doesn't like the Packers. They rate each position on every team and wrap it up in the back of the mag under the title 'Rating The Teams'. I have had issues with that rating many times, so here is this years example of that rating. The Packers overall score was a pathetic 63.

The 6 highest rated teams (ones that totalled 70 or more).
Saints  73.5,     Eagles 71.5,     Chargers 71.5,   Rams 71.5,    Bears 71,   Texans 70,   (Patriots were rated 68). Three of the top teams have won one game (the Bears have only played two), two have won two, and only the Rams have won three.

Only five team were rated worse than the Packers. Worst rating in the league (58.5) belonged to Buffalo (who are 3-0). Baltimore were rated a half point worse than Green Bay (62.5) and they are 2-1.

If I were to rate the Packers, they would score around 68 points, similar to Carolina and Denver (Lindy's had them at 68 and 68.5). A 5.0 points difference between my rating and Lindy's is a huge difference. Decades ago I took what they said almost as gospel. Now I just think they are poor at what they do, and biased as well. You may find it surprising, but I do not want to stop getting that magazine, which I used to really look forward to. what I really want is for them TO GET BETTER.

To break down how the total score was achieved, a score of 7 is their 'average' unit. They scored the Packers as follows. My adjustments take them from 63 to 68.

Coaching 6.5  (fair enough for a rookie HC)
QB             8      (wouldn't change this either, one year they scored him a 10)
RBs           6.5   (I'd raise that a half point to an average group, ie 7)
Receivers 7       (Packers have good depth but are mostly young, so ok here)
O line         7      (No way is the Packers O line average, add +1 to 8)
D line         7       (Kenny on his own puts this above average, add 0.5 to give 7.5)
LBs             7.5   (Again a bit too low. Add 0.5 to make them 8)
DBs            7       (A full point too low. I give them 8)
STs             5.5   (They are average now, ie +1.5 to 7)
Intangibles +1   (a new HC gives the team a small boost, this is ok as intangibles are rated a max of +/- 2).

The differences, though small, all add up, and I don't see a single rating that was too high. While I can see that it might be hard to guess that the Packers would take a good jump on ST, most of the other ratings could be worked out by anyone who looks at the details of a team. If this was a one year thing I'd put it down to the team being better than most people hoped, but it is something that happens all too often.
 

Edited September 23, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[squire12]

8 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

To break down how the total score was achieved, a score of 7 is their 'average' unit. They scored the Packers as follows. My adjustments take them from 63 to 68.

Coaching 6.5  (fair enough for a rookie HC)
QB             8      (wouldn't change this either, one year they scored him a 10)
RBs           6.5   (I'd raise that a half point to an average group, ie 7)
Receivers 7       (Packers have good depth but are mostly young, so ok here)
O line         7      (no way is the Packers O line average, add +1 to 8)
D line         7       (Kenny on his own puts this above average, add 0.5 to give 7.5)
LBs             7.5   (Again a bit too low. Add 0.5 to make them 8)
DBs            7       (A full point too low. I give them 8)
STs             5.5   (They are average now, ie +1.5 to 7)
Intangibles +1   (a new HC gives the team a small boost, this is ok as intangibles are rated a max of +/- 2).

I can understand your issue.  From an outside perspective that should be more biased, I am not sure there is anything to disagree with other than the OL rating.  

RB:  Jones has not played a full season and Williams has not shown much to get excited about.  Neither were used much as pass catching threats.

WR:  Adams then a bunch of question marks.  Not sure if they group TE in with the WR, so that could be considered average to slightly below

OL:  I agree would be higher

DL:  Depth is a concern.  Depending on when they did the ratings.  Daniels was coming off an injury and Lowry had not signed his extension.  It was Clark and a bunch of no-names (Lowry, Adams, Lancaster).  When most people look at having 3 on the starting base unit, that is not much to rate above average.

LB:  Both Z and P Smith were moving to new situations and that often does not reap the returns that GB has thus far.  Outside of Martinez, the ILB group is missing a lot.  

DB:  Alexander is a sure above average CB.  King had played less than 50% of his games.  Jackson has not shown anything yet.  Tramon is aged.  Amos moving over from the top D could easily be seen as having a drop off in performance due to surrounding talent differences.  Savage being a rookie.  

 

[PACKRULE]

14 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Yeah?  And having Perry opposite him this year and nobody in the secondary and playing a power rusher role last year for us didn’t hurt him?

Lol.  That’s my point.  I posted like 6 gifs of Matthews having great plays where he beat the man across from him in like 2 seconds that led to first downs because there was no coverage.  

If you throw a squirrel into the middle of the ocean, it’s gonna die, and if you throw a fish in the desert, it ain’t gonna love.

Love your analogies well done OP.

Clay needed to be in another place no matter what his line mates and such are. Cobb as well for other reasons. Both great packers and glad both are doing well and hope they are both sick or not available when we play them.

[pacman5252]

20 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

For many years (since 1989 I believe) I have had the Lindy's Pro Football preview sent to me, in England (paying around $40 to have it sent).

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that this magazine just doesn't like the Packers. They rate each position on every team and wrap it up in the back of the mag under the title 'Rating The Teams'. I have had issues with that rating many times, so here is this years example of that rating. The Packers overall score was a pathetic 63.

The 6 highest rated teams (ones that totalled 70 or more).
Saints  73.5,     Eagles 71.5,     Chargers 71.5,   Rams 71.5,    Bears 71,   Texans 70,   (Patriots were rated 68). Three of the top teams have won one game (the Bears have only played two), two have won two, and only the Rams have won three.

Only five team were rated worse than the Packers. Worst rating in the league (58.5) belonged to Buffalo (who are 3-0). Baltimore were rated a half point worse than Green Bay (62.5) and they are 2-1.

If I were to rate the Packers, they would score around 68 points, similar to Carolina and Denver (Lindy's had them at 68 and 68.5). A 5.0 points difference between my rating and Lindy's is a huge difference. Decades ago I took what they said almost as gospel. Now I just think they are poor at what they do, and biased as well. You may find it surprising, but I do not want to stop getting that magazine, which I used to really look forward to. what I really want is for them TO GET BETTER.

To break down how the total score was achieved, a score of 7 is their 'average' unit. They scored the Packers as follows. My adjustments take them from 63 to 68.

Coaching 6.5  (fair enough for a rookie HC)
QB             8      (wouldn't change this either, one year they scored him a 10)
RBs           6.5   (I'd raise that a half point to an average group, ie 7)
Receivers 7       (Packers have good depth but are mostly young, so ok here)
O line         7      (No way is the Packers O line average, add +1 to 8)
D line         7       (Kenny on his own puts this above average, add 0.5 to give 7.5)
LBs             7.5   (Again a bit too low. Add 0.5 to make them 8)
DBs            7       (A full point too low. I give them 8)
STs             5.5   (They are average now, ie +1.5 to 7)
Intangibles +1   (a new HC gives the team a small boost, this is ok as intangibles are rated a max of +/- 2).

The differences, though small, all add up, and I don't see a single rating that was too high. While I can see that it might be hard to guess that the Packers would take a good jump on ST, most of the other ratings could be worked out by anyone who looks at the details of a team. If this was a one year thing I'd put it down to the team being better than most people hoped, but it is something that happens all too often.
 

I get the rankings. The Packers entering this year were a projection and football media in the preseason usually just rehashes the last year (with a few adjustments for obvious things)

 

[OneTwoSixFive]

10 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I get the rankings. The Packers entering this year were a projection and football media in the preseason usually just rehashes the last year (with a few adjustments for obvious things)

 

I do get that the magazine gets printed early and it does have some effect on ratings, but if the mag was consistent then after a good year the Packers should be a little over-rated and that never really happened. Perhaps what I dislike the most is the overall feel of the combined ratings. Are the Packers equal to the Panthers and Broncos (who scored about what i thought the Packers should get, ie about 68). Teams that scored around the same as the Packers (63) by Lindy's, were Redskins, Ravens, Jaguars, Giants, Cards. Heck, even the Lions and Titans were both 1.5 points better than the Pack, and the Jets 2.5 points better.

Edited September 23, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive