|
blue squares posted:Before Sunday I figured we had no shot. Now I think we have a small one. After watching the Packers on Sunday night, I think we have more than a small shot. I'd put our odds closer to 50-50.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Blarfk posted:Two more wins and he moves ahead of Montana and Unitas to the number 7 spot behind Tarkenton. He'll need 8 more to overtake Fran, which isn't impossible this year, but more likely will happen next. Moving ahead of a guy who played 14 game seasons doesn't seem like that big a deal counting stats are dumb
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Spring Break My Heart posted:Those have always been the case. Games have definitely gotten longer and are regularly starting later than they used to
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Not really. This chart shows NFL games getting longer by about 8 minutes over the last 8 years, which is less than what I felt had happened, but still a definite occurrence (and substantial). I'm surprised they got shorter after 2005, though. lol @ college games though E: The NFL also introduced the 4:25pm game in 2012 to avoid cutting off the large number of long-running 1pm games TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Actually that chart makes me wonder if the SNF/MNF switch between ESPN and NBC is the primary driver behind shorter games following the 2005 season (ESPN took over MNF in 2006, while NBC took SNF).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Et tu Brett? One of the interesting things about both the Eagles and the Cowboys is that, while each team had one of league's easiest schedules (27th for Philly, 23rd for Dallas), both teams are now looking at some of the league's hardest schedules (1st and 3rd for Philly and Dallas, respectively). There will almost certainly be a corresponding drop-off in production/increase in struggles for both teams, and it may naturally create a good situation for bringing Romo back.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Kalli posted:But beyond that, teams with good situations with excellent supporting casts and schemes that elevate talent. Dak Preskott should be a very limited rookie quarterback, but he's thriving because teams have to dedicate so much to still get run over by their offensive line. Dak might be some amazing diamond in the rough (he isn't), but you could probably replace him with 25 guys and be getting fairly similar results. The Cowboys have also neglected their defense in building the murderline that they probably won't win anything before they're no longer that, so that's a thing too. You're definitely full of poo poo, given that 4 different QBs were all total loving garbage behind the same line last year
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Kalli posted:A broken Matt Cassel, Brandon Weeden and Kellen Moore. Those guys are all better than Geno Smith or Ryan Lindley and there was a point at which replacing Brady with Cassel got a team 10 wins. e: I'm not saying that Prescott is the next Brees or anything, but he's definitely above replacement level. Simply having a great offensive line doesn't guarantee good decision-making, pocket presence, or performance. A large number of sacks are the fault of the Quarterback and/or the scheme e2: Tannehill is bad, and his line sucks. It can be both TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I think Dak is above replacement level, but I also think there's 25 guys you could put in that situation and have similar results with that offense even if they make a few dumb throws because they'll also be able to make more complicated reads then what's being asked of 1 month in rookie Dak. You have to go a deeper then 25 QB's before you're hitting Geno Smith but I'd rather sign an injured Charlie Whitehurst then start Geno. Basically, I'm saying that if Stephen was asleep at the switch and Jerry had managed to get away and trade something dumb for Cutler or Mariota or Cousins or Flacco (to pick 4 random guys between the like 10th and 25th best QB's) that they'd probably have similar success to what Dak is doing right now, at least in my humble opinion. Stat wise, Dak is killing it right now, but I bet if he was on the Titans right now, he'd be considered hot garbage. Cutler maybe; Mariota I doubt. If Dak were on the Titans he'd have a similarly-strong run game and pass protection to work with (currently Murray is destroying it on the ground and the Titans OL are #2 in sack rate) but worse receivers. He'd probably net out OK, and I'd wager he'd do better than Mariota, despite the lack of experience. It's not like Mariota is some seasoned veteran at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Dak is not better than Mariota Sorry bro but Dak is better than Mariota sean10mm posted:Mariota has had some periods where he has just looked goddamn awesome that Dak really hasn't had yet, but Dak hasn't had the total spaz moments that Mariota continues to have either. I haven't been super-serious so far but Mariota's highs were his 4-td first game against the Bucs' abysmal pass defense last year and another 4-td game against the Saints' historically bad defense last year. You'll excuse me if I hold my enthusiasm for a guy who put up a 91.5 rating against some of the league's worst defenses last year TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Febreeze posted:Well I guess it makes sense you don't know what fun football looks like when you root for a cursed team No see real football is another 20-17 Steelers-Ravens snorefest in a game that has 20 injury timeouts and a bunch of bad turnovers in the 2nd half.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 18:31
|
|