NFL thread 2021-2022

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,697
1,583
126
Preseason HOF game is on.

Not like I care about the Cowboys. Fuck the Cowboys.
 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,697
1,583
126
Ah, the man with lead feet, DeWayne Haskins getting some action.

First pass, checkdown.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,394
126
NFL pre season is here already? RetroRob, where are you?

Speaking of football, LSU season is very much gone because the starting QB will be out for the season because...<wait for it>..his arm was broken during a fishing trip.
 
Last edited:

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
6,234
1,798
136
Things I am already sick of hearing:
-All the media outlets have already crowned the Bills Superbowl champions.
-After one preseason game we can conclude that Jordan Love will be the Packers' third HOF QB in a row.
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
6,234
1,798
136
I would love to see Green Bay and LA Rams meet in the playoffs and Stafford gets his revenge against Aaron. Rodgers by knocking them out of the playoffs.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
I would love to see Green Bay and LA Rams meet in the playoffs and Stafford gets his revenge against Aaron. Rodgers by knocking them out of the playoffs.

Two flawed teams IMO.

I think the Rams are actually closer to winning a SB then the Packers despite GB making it to the NFC Championship game last season.

The Packers are a one-dimensional team on offense ... if Rodgers is clicking they are tough to stop but limit his ability to pass and suddenly they have nothing. Not winning any championships like that in the NFL.

Geoff is not great.... I really do think the Rams got the better end of the deal with Detroit provided Stafford doesn't break.
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,566
916
126
Two flawed teams IMO.

I think the Rams are actually closer to winning a SB then the Packers despite GB making it to the NFC Championship game last season.

The Packers are a one-dimensional team on offense ... if Rodgers is clicking they are tough to stop but limit his ability to pass and suddenly they have nothing. Not winning any championships like that in the NFL.

Geoff is not great.... I really do think the Rams got the better end of the deal with Detroit provided Stafford doesn't break.
Baloney, the Packers have an All Pro running back, and a second year RB that will get some usage this season. Offensive balance is not the weakness.

I never expect the Packers to make it all the way to a Super Bowl because they're never a complete team (offense, defense, special teams). The last time they had a really special defense was the 2010 team that was underrated and snuck up during the playoffs. They also blew the 2014 NFC title game in horrific fashion.

I'm not at all sold on Matt Stafford and if I had to bet, I like my Packers chances a little bit more than the Rams. The Rams have an elite defense, but have worked themselves into salary cap hell recently and I doubt they were able to fix that in one offseason. They basically went all-in on this season.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
Baloney, the Packers have an All Pro running back, and a second year RB that will get some usage this season. Offensive balance is not the weakness.

I never expect the Packers to make it all the way to a Super Bowl because they're never a complete team (offense, defense, special teams). The last time they had a really special defense was the 2010 team that was underrated and snuck up during the playoffs. They also blew the 2014 NFC title game in horrific fashion.

I'm not at all sold on Matt Stafford and if I had to bet, I like my Packers chances a little bit more than the Rams. The Rams have an elite defense, but have worked themselves into salary cap hell recently and I doubt they were able to fix that in one offseason. They basically went all-in on this season.

Sorry to break the news but I don't like either teams chances of winning a championship very much. HOWEVER safe to say they BOTH have substantially better chances then the Giants do!

I'll need to actually see GB move the ball in ANY way against a strong defense before I buy into their ground game being effective.

I keep hearing about how "great" they are but every time they play a team with a strong defensive line they fold like a cheap suit.

Ring Rodgers bell nice and loud a few times and GB is beaten. (sorry)
 
Last edited:

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,566
916
126
Sorry to break the news but I don't like either teams chances of winning a championship very much. HOWEVER safe to say they BOTH have substantially better chances then the Giants do!

I'll need to actually see GB move the ball in ANY way against a strong defense before I buy into their ground game being effective.

I keep hearing about how "great" they are but every time they play a team with a strong defensive line they fold like a cheap suit.

Ring Rodgers bell nice and loud a few times and GB is beaten. (sorry)
Well there are the Chiefs and the Bucs, and then everyone else in the pecking order. Even the Chiefs are relatively unlikely to win the Super Bowl. Their +500 odds implies a probability of under 17%. The Bucs have 13.3% implied probability. Few have noticed that the Chiefs entire offensive line is new!

The implied probability for both the Packers and Rams is much lower.

Now you've made a different argument than last time. I've already addressed offensive imbalance, which is untrue. They already have two good RBs, which is enough in today's pass-happy game. What you're really referring to is they're a finesse offense, and if pass blocking breaks down, they have no plan B. They didn't have their all-world left tackle for the NFC champ game, and the results were predictably poor against the pass rush. It was still a closer game than the Super Bowl ended up being.

If you want smashmouth football, you'll just have to look at the Ravens or Titans instead.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
Well there are the Chiefs and the Bucs, and then everyone else in the pecking order. Even the Chiefs are relatively unlikely to win the Super Bowl. Their +500 odds implies a probability of under 17%. The Bucs have 13.3% implied probability. Few have noticed that the Chiefs entire offensive line is new!

The implied probability for both the Packers and Rams is much lower.

Now you've made a different argument than last time. I've already addressed offensive imbalance, which is baloney. They already have two good RBs, which is enough in today's pass-happy game. What you're really referring to is they're a finesse offense, and if pass blocking breaks down, they have no plan B. They didn't have their all-world left tackle for the NFC champ game, and the results were predictably poor against the pass rush. It was still a closer game than the Super Bowl ended up being.

If you want smashmouth football, you'll just have to look at the Ravens or Titans instead.

I made the identical point I made in the first place about GB's running game ... it's just not that good. Neither is either one of their lines.

The kind of results I mean are success against a STRONG run-defense not compiling big numbers against the weaker ones.

And since those pesky results are the O-N-L-Y thing I care about (not hot air) lets re-visit in like week 7... If I was mistaken I'll be the first to admit it.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,631
11,625
136
I'm still waiting for a David Gettleman managed Giants to just make the post season in any way, shape or form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
If you want smashmouth A BIG, FAST, PHYSICAL, CHAMPIONSHIP-CALIBUR DEFENSIVE FOOTBALL TEAM , you'll just have to look at the Ravens or Titans instead OF GB.
fixed. :p

Don't feel bad ... you COULD be a Giants fan! ;)

(at least the Packers have a SMALL BUT realistic crack at another SB in the foreseeable future)
 
Last edited:

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,566
916
126
I made the identical point I made in the first place about GB's running game ... it's just not that good. Neither is either one of their lines.

The kind of results I mean are success against a STRONG run-defense not compiling big numbers against the weaker ones.

And since those pesky results are the O-N-L-Y thing I care about (not hot air) lets re-visit in like week 7... If I was mistaken I'll be the first to admit it.
No, you originally said the Packers offense is 1D, which is simply untrue. Like all teams, the Packers play against an NFL defense every week. Just because they can't run over a top 10% defense doesn't make them a one-dimensional offense. That's just a really weird way of defining things. In what universe does having an All Pro tailback and now a good secondary RB not count at all? It's a preposterous argument.

The odds are against the Packers or Rams winning the SB. But the odds are against every single team, including the Chiefs! Despite not having their all-world LT and getting pushed around all game long in the NFC championship, the Packers were closer to beating the Bucs than the eventual SB runners-up.

I haven't looked at the NFL schedule and probably won't, so I doubt we'll be able to resolve this by week 7. What are you even suggesting, the Rams should have a slightly better resume than the Packers in 7 games? We certainly can't determine a SB champ by then. :p But sure, one of us will be relatively "wrong" by the end of the season. :tearsofjoy:

I'm still waiting for a David Gettleman managed Giants to just make the post season in any way, shape or form.
In the NFC Least, there's always a chance. ;)
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
No, you originally said the Packers offense is 1D, which is simply untrue. Like all teams, the Packers play an NFL defense every week. Just because they can't run over a top 10% defense doesn't make them a one-dimensional offense. That's just a really weird way of defining things. In what universe does having an All Pro tailback and now a good secondary RB not count at all? It's a preposterous argument.

The odds are against the Packers or Rams winning the SB. But the odds are against every single team, including the Chiefs! Despite not having their all-world LT and getting pushed around all game long in the NFC championship, the Packers were closer to beating the Bucs than the eventual SB runners-up.

I haven't looked at the NFL schedule and probably won't, so I doubt we'll be able to resolve this by week 7. What are you even suggesting, the Rams should have a slightly better resume than the Packers in 7 games? We certainly can't determine a SB champ by then. :p But sure, one of us will be relatively "wrong" by the end of the season. :tearsofjoy:


In the NFC Least, there's always a chance. ;)

I wish .... but nice thought. We won't be winning a dang thing till we get a QB even in the NFC East. (we also need a new GM badly)

:(


And far as beating good teams goes the Packers only even semi-effective offense is Aaron Rodgers which last time I checked is 1D.

As I mentioned I'm ONLY impressed by results and while I think the entire Packers organization is seriously overrated since the departure of Brett Favre I already said I give them an OUTSIDE chance at a SB appearance this season.

You honestly think they have a better shot then that? (or just looking to say I was wrong rotfl??)

Beyond that you can talk all the smack you want but talk is all it is.... get back in week 7 (APPROX) to show me the stats.... THEN I might buy it.

And IDK .... I would THINK mid-season numbers MIGHT be an indicator of overall performance for a season? PRE-season certainly can't be relied upon.

(fyi your Packers are soft on D too!) ;)
 
Last edited:

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,566
916
126
I wish .... but nice thought. We won't be winning a dang thing till we get a QB even in the NFC East. (we also need a new GM badly)

:(


And far as beating good teams goes the Packers only even semi-effective offense is Aaron Rodgers which last time I checked is 1D.

As I mentioned I'm ONLY impressed by results and while I think the entire Packers organization is seriously overrated since the departure of Brett Favre I already said I give them an OUTSIDE chance at a SB appearance this season.

You honestly think they have a better shot then that? (or just looking to say I was wrong rotfl??)

Beyond that you can talk all the smack you want but talk is all it is.... get back in week 7 to show me the stats.... THEN I might buy it.

(fyi your Packers are soft on D too!) ;)
I said precisely what I disagree about and why. Your definition of 1D offense is just ludicrous. If I can't run against a top 10% defense, that means I just can't run??? We'll agree to disagree, at least until week 7 LOL. ;)

I said twice that EVERY team is a long shot to win the Super Bowl, so that includes the Packers. I'm very accustomed to ARod losing the NFC champ game by now, so I have no delusions of grandeur here. As hard as it is to win a Super Bowl, I'm reasonably happy to support an all-time QB and a team that gets to contend annually. Sure there is a school of thought in sports that you're only remembered for championships. While that is largely true, I can still take joy in watching Rodgers do his thing, and own the Bears and Lions until he leaves Green Bay. The idea that the Packers will win the whole enchilada in Rodgers' final season is quite frankly too silly for a Hollywood script.

As an aside, although I personally think the Rams are slightly overrated, I'm puzzled by the Niners championship odds. What am I missing here? Is it 2019 again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
I said precisely what I disagree about and why. Your definition of 1D offense is just ludicrous. If I can't run against a top 10% defense, that means I just can't run??? We'll agree to disagree, at least until week 7 LOL. ;)

I said twice that EVERY team is a long shot to win the Super Bowl, so that includes the Packers. I'm very accustomed to ARod losing the NFC champ game by now, so I have no delusions of grandeur here. As hard as it is to win a Super Bowl, I'm reasonably happy to support an all-time QB and a team that gets to contend annually. Sure there is a school of thought in sports that you're only remembered for championships. While that is largely true, I can still take joy in watching Rodgers do his thing, and own the Bears and Lions until he leaves Green Bay. The idea that the Packers will win the whole enchilada in Rodgers' final season is quite frankly too silly for a Hollywood script.

As an aside, although I personally think the Rams are slightly overrated, I'm puzzled by the Niners championship odds. What am I missing here? Is it 2019 again?

NOW I completely agree! ;)

I know I could EASILY be wrong btw .... this is why they play the games! :p
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,631
11,625
136
I think Jones can be a good QB in NY if the pieces around him are good enough. That means an O-Line that doesn't suck, I mean at least in the middle of the pack reliable, and a few good weapons that stay relatively healthy and don't drop balls (I'm looking at you Engram)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
23,478
5,472
136
I think Jones can be a good QB in NY if the pieces around him are good enough. That means an O-Line that doesn't suck, I mean at least in the middle of the pack reliable, and a few good weapons that stay relatively healthy and don't drop balls (I'm looking at you Engram)

While I like your positive thinking AND I sincerely HOPE you are correct, I don't believe he has what it takes to make it as a winning starting NFL QB.

IMO what you're looking at in Daniel Jones is another Dave Brown with somewhat less in the way of physical skills plus even worse judgement.

I think Gettleman selecting Jones as QB set the Giants organization back a good 7-10 years, nevermind the sheer incompetence of the Barkley pickup on a team thats not even close to winning consistently.


:(
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY