2019 NFL Thread v. Chiefs are Champs, Missouri rules the sports world

[Stadler]

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/will-tom-brady-be-bears-starting-qb-2020

Playing along, and assuming all that is true (after all, Montana went to KC...):
 
I wonder if you sit Trubinsky - someone I think might actually be good long term - down and say "we're bringing in a guy, you may have heard of him, and your job is to learn everything you can for the next year or two."   

Also, how massive would it be to have a Bears/Patriots Super Bowl?  How can you ask for more than the greatest coach against arguably the greatest player (at least of the era)?  Head-to-head, though, you have to put money on Belichick.   He's got more ways of stopping Brady than Brady would have of stopping Belichick, and age is clearly a factor.   

[bosk1]

Solid trade.  I was hoping for a different one, but I can't argue with it.  He isn't quite the difference maker I think they were hoping for, and given his age and the injury last year, I don't know that he has the mileage left to be a long term solution.  But he does command a defense's attention more than any receiver currently on their roster and he provides veteran leadership, so mission accomplished.

[El Barto]

As expected, Emmanuel Sanders is getting traded.  49ers are getting a good WR.

I had him going to Boston. Best guess is that NE was interested in the second year they get from Sanu. They'd have been leasing Sanders of only the remainder of this season.

[El Barto]

I've always kind of wondered if Tom wasn't interested in an opportunity to be the GOAT away from Bill's shadow. Sure seems like he'd have done it by now if that were the case, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he wanted to see what it was like working for another club. In a sense he basically married the first girl he nailed, after all.

It's also possible that he realizes that the odds of his career ending due to injury are greater than ending by choice. If he gets hurt he can't just assume he'll be back next year for another go at it. I don't think there's anybody that wants to see his final moment in the NFL to be walking off the field with a broken collarbone, and that's an increasingly real scenario.   

[Dublagent66]

Some people talk about certain non competitive match ups on SNF?  MNF is even worse.  That game wasn't even worth watching.  How many people actually had something better to do?  All of em I think.

But some of it isn't the NFL's fault; that should have been a great game, given the way that Darnold played against the Cowboys.   It's a major market game, it's got the best franchise in the game on the field... that game wasn't th4e NFL's fault, in my opinion.

Somewhat disagree, but I know what you're trying to say.  I think Primetime NFL games should feature 2 competitive teams.  The Jets win last week vs Dallas was really no substantial indication that they could possibly compete with the Pats.  Dallas was banged up and just flat out didn't show up.  Even with Darnold back as starter, the outcome was still shocking to say the least.

[KevShmev]

It would be great if all of the prime time games were great, but it's impossible to predict from year to year which teams are going to rise and which are going to fall, and you can't put the same teams on prime time every week.  Aside from the issues I mentioned earlier, we now have a handful of teams that appear to be tanking (Miami, Cincinnati, Washington), some teams that can't get their shit together (Denver, Atlanta, NY Giants, Cleveland, NY Jets, LA Chargers) and some teams that are just boring as heck (Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago), so the odds are more than good that some or all of those teams are going to be featured in two or three of the prime time games every week. 

[King Postwhore]

[KevShmev]

That "seeing ghosts" comment is gonna haunt Darnold forever, and who is the dumb ass in the Jets organization who approved him getting mic'd up in a game against that Patriots defense?

[King Postwhore]

It wasn't the Jets who approved it. It was the NFL offices.  I saw it tweeted today.

[El Barto]

Section 13. On-Field Microphones and Sensors:

    (a) During NFL games and for the express purpose of creating NFL programming, NFL Films will be permitted to put microphones on any players that NFL Films selects. During the regular season each starting quarterback will be required to wear a microphone at least once, and no player will be required to wear a microphone for this purpose more than four times during the course of any regular season.

The Jets are bent out of shape that NFL Films approved the use of that comment. AFAIC that's on Darnold. He knew he was mic'd up.

[KevShmev]

Ah, okay. Just another reason to bash the NFL, then. 

And yeah, knowing he was mic'd up, Darnold should have known better than to say that, although I don't think any of us can say how we would react if we saw ghosts.

[Stadler]

Ah, okay. Just another reason to bash the NFL, then. 

And yeah, knowing he was mic'd up, Darnold should have known better than to say that, although I don't think any of us can say how we would react if we saw ghosts.

He was shell-shocked. I would not be surprised if he totally forgot about that microphone.  Booger at one point said that he thought Gase should just pull him so it didn't get worse for him.  Start fresh on Tuesday. 

[KevShmev]

He was shell-shocked. I would not be surprised if he totally forgot about that microphone.  Booger at one point said that he thought Gase should just pull him so it didn't get worse for him.  Start fresh on Tuesday.

For sure.  Of course, some are taking last night as a sign that he is a bust, but plenty of quarterbacks, many far greater than Sam Darnold, had awful games like that early in their career.  And Darnold is just the latest in a very long line of quarterbacks that Belichick made look like a clown.

[El Barto]

Christ, Troy had turned in passer ratings of 4, 2.8, and 11.4 at about the same point in his career. 

[TAC]

DID SOMONE SAY TROY??

[Dublagent66]

It would be great if all of the prime time games were great, but it's impossible to predict from year to year which teams are going to rise and which are going to fall, and you can't put the same teams on prime time every week.  Aside from the issues I mentioned earlier, we now have a handful of teams that appear to be tanking (Miami, Cincinnati, Washington), some teams that can't get their shit together (Denver, Atlanta, NY Giants, Cleveland, NY Jets, LA Chargers) and some teams that are just boring as heck (Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago), so the odds are more than good that some or all of those teams are going to be featured in two or three of the prime time games every week.

Put a couple of shitty teams on primetime.  If they're evenly matched, it outta be a pretty good game.   That's all I'm saying.  I mean look at it.  We all know the Pats are a great team, but for the most part, NFL fans are tired of the Pats.  Put a team in there that has a chance of beating them and that would be worth watching.  But the Jets?    If that game had one of the lowest ratings ever, I wouldn't be surprised.

[El Barto]

How many people tuned it to watch Mike Tyson knock out Buster Douglass in 90 seconds or less? Sometimes a good ass-whipping can be fun to watch.

[King Postwhore]

How many people tuned it to watch Mike Tyson knock out Buster Douglass in 90 seconds or less? Sometimes a good ass-whipping can be fun to watch.

My girlfriend at the time who knew nothing of boxing and told me Tyson would be knocked out that night.  I laughed in her face.  Then we sat through it in disbelief.  She was giving my brother and I shit about it.

[Dublagent66]

How many people tuned it to watch Mike Tyson knock out Buster Douglass in 90 seconds or less? Sometimes a good ass-whipping can be fun to watch.

Maybe for 90 secs.  That's a lot different than 3 hours.  Besides, you're a biased Pats fan anyway. 

[KevShmev]

Agreed, leaving gambling/FF out of it for a minute, a butt-kicking is really only fun to watch if you are a fan of the team on the giving end, unless the winning team has a really exciting offense to watch, which the Patriots do not, unless a neutral fan really thinks a game jam-packed with 1-yard passes being turned into 9-yard gains is exciting.

[Stadler]

Agreed, leaving gambling/FF out of it for a minute, a butt-kicking is really only fun to watch if you are a fan of the team on the giving end, unless the winning team has a really exciting offense to watch, which the Patriots do not, unless a neutral fan really thinks a game jam-packed with 1-yard passes being turned into 9-yard gains is exciting.

Yeah, that's not really true.  I'm sort of the opposite; unless it's a team/player I don't like - Chiefs, Cam Newton - or a team playing a team I DO like, I enjoy watching guys turn nothing into something. I'm a Saints fan, so it doesn't really count, but Latavius Murray falls into that category.  I watch a lot of football (I watch Thursday, at least one game on Sunday, and Monday every week regardless of who is playing) and I enjoy watching teams/players/coaches who do well week in week out.  (On the other side, not terribly impressed with back foot heaves in the end zone that pull out a dramatic win 5 out of 10 times). 

(By the way, there was more to that delay of game/false start/smirk; I don't think he was smirking at the Jets declining it, I think he was smirking because he ran off 90 seconds when he probably should have gotten an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.)

[KevShmev]

Agreed, leaving gambling/FF out of it for a minute, a butt-kicking is really only fun to watch if you are a fan of the team on the giving end, unless the winning team has a really exciting offense to watch, which the Patriots do not, unless a neutral fan really thinks a game jam-packed with 1-yard passes being turned into 9-yard gains is exciting.

Yeah, that's not really true.  I'm sort of the opposite; unless it's a team/player I don't like - Chiefs, Cam Newton - or a team playing a team I DO like, I enjoy watching guys turn nothing into something. I'm a Saints fan, so it doesn't really count, but Latavius Murray falls into that category.  I watch a lot of football (I watch Thursday, at least one game on Sunday, and Monday every week regardless of who is playing) and I enjoy watching teams/players/coaches who do well week in week out.  (On the other side, not terribly impressed with back foot heaves in the end zone that pull out a dramatic win 5 out of 10 times). 

(By the way, there was more to that delay of game/false start/smirk; I don't think he was smirking at the Jets declining it, I think he was smirking because he ran off 90 seconds when he probably should have gotten an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.)

We can agree to disagree, then, because I feel that most neutral fans tune in to see a good game, not one team dismantle another.   Blowouts do not get people talking the next day or asking, "Holy shit, did you see that game last night??" 

[bosk1]

I think one team dismantling another can and often is a "good game."  As Barto said

Sometimes a good ass-whipping can be fun to watch.

[Stadler]

Here's a question (I have my suspicions, but it's an honest quesion):  all things being equal, what gets higher ratings:   a 6-3 defensive battle, or a 33-0 "blowout"?

[bosk1]

I would suspect that it would be the latter.  And if they are two teams that I care nothing about and where I don't really know the players, I know I would generally find the latter to be WAY more entertaining.  But the former might very well keep me watching all the way to the end vs. losing interest in the 4th quarter and finding something else to do.

[hefdaddy42]

Here's a question (I have my suspicions, but it's an honest quesion):  all things being equal, what gets higher ratings:   a 6-3 defensive battle, or a 33-0 "blowout"?

Not sure.  Unless my team were involved, I wouldn't want to watch either one of these games.

[Dublagent66]

I think Hef gets it.  NFL fans want high scoring, offensive shootouts with several lead changes.  Not blowouts.  Not low scoring defensive battles.

[El Barto]

How many people tuned it to watch Mike Tyson knock out Buster Douglass in 90 seconds or less? Sometimes a good ass-whipping can be fun to watch.

Maybe for 90 secs.  That's a lot different than 3 hours.  Besides, you're a biased Pats fan anyway. 

For the record, I barely watched the second half myself. I'm not defending the quality of Monday night's game. I'm merely pointing out that a blowout doesn't mean bad product. Nor does a 42-1 favorite automatically win.

Agreed, leaving gambling/FF out of it for a minute, a butt-kicking is really only fun to watch if you are a fan of the team on the giving end, unless the winning team has a really exciting offense to watch, which the Patriots do not, unless a neutral fan really thinks a game jam-packed with 1-yard passes being turned into 9-yard gains is exciting.

You're half wrong on this. A really exciting D can be just as fun to watch (more-so than the O, in my opinion). The NE D is playing historically good football right now, and more interesting to me than the outcome of that game (it was over as soon as Darnold through his first pick on their second play of the game) was seeing what NE's D could do. They're kind of in uncharted statistical territory right now, and it's interesting to see where they go. And for my part, I've watched games for this reason even among teams I don't care about. Who didn't want to watch Jay Cutler get sacked 9 times in a half? 

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, a 6-3 game played between two teams with great defenses can be great fun to watch.

A 6-3 game between two shitty teams is just, well, shitty.

[KevShmev]

Agreed, a great, close defensive battle can be thrilling to watch.  I like a close game with lots of good offense and lots of good defense, which is why, for me, the best Super Bowls I have seen are 32 (Broncos/Packers), 49 (Patriots/Seahawks) and 43 (Steelers/Cardinals), since those games all had a lot of good offense and a lot of good defense.  The balance wasn't tilted too much to one side, like the last two Super Bowls (last year with a lot of bad offense or the year before with a lot of bad defense).

[pg1067]

Here's a question (I have my suspicions, but it's an honest quesion):  all things being equal, what gets higher ratings:   a 6-3 defensive battle, or a 33-0 "blowout"?

That depends.  Are you breaking down the ratings by quarter?  And when does it become obvious that the 33-0 game will be a blowout (i.e., is it 9-0 until the start of the 4th quarter, when the winning team scores three quick TDs and a FG, or is it over after the first quarter?).  The latter game might get good first half ratings, but folks will tune out once it's obvious the losing team isn't coming back.  By contrast, it's hard to know that the 6-3 game will remain close or that it will end up a 6-3 game.  It also depends why it's a 6-3 game.  Is it because the defenses are playing exceptionally well or because the offenses are inept?  Without more info, I'd much prefer the 6-3 game (whether I'm a neutral fan or one with a rooting interest).

[El Barto]

Damn shame about Josh Gordon. Hope he gets a job someplace stable.

[PowerSlave]

You guys complaining about MNF being a shit-fest haven't seen anything, yet. Steelers/Dolphins is the next one, and this will be a time that I don't mind working 2nd shift.

[black_biff_stadler]

Still won't top the diarrhea fest that their 2007 meeting was.

[Rattlehead]

Still won't top the diarrhea fest that their 2007 meeting was.

I'll never forget the way that one punt landed in the mud  Probably the most entertaining play of that game.