Poll

Who is your FAVORITE NFL Team!

Arizona Cardinals
1 (1.2%)
Atlanta Falcons
1 (1.2%)
Baltimore Ravens
3 (3.5%)
Buffalo Bills
1 (1.2%)
Carolina Panthers
6 (7%)
Chicago Bears
2 (2.3%)
Cincinnati Bengals
0 (0%)
Cleveland Browns
0 (0%)
Dallas Cowboys
1 (1.2%)
Denver Broncos
5 (5.8%)
Detroit Lions
1 (1.2%)
Green Bay Packers
9 (10.5%)
Houston Texans
1 (1.2%)
Indianapolis Colts
1 (1.2%)
Jacksonville Jaguars
0 (0%)
Kansas City Chiefs
1 (1.2%)
Los Angeles Rams
1 (1.2%)
Miami Dolphins
2 (2.3%)
Minnesota Vikings
4 (4.7%)
New England Patriots
13 (15.1%)
New Orleans Saints
0 (0%)
New York Giants
4 (4.7%)
New York Jets
4 (4.7%)
Oakland Raiders
1 (1.2%)
Philadelphia Eagles
3 (3.5%)
Pittsburgh Steelers
8 (9.3%)
San Diego Chargers
1 (1.2%)
San Francisco 49ers
4 (4.7%)
Seattle Seahawks
7 (8.1%)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
1 (1.2%)
Tennessee Titans
0 (0%)
Washington Redskins
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 86

Author Topic: 2016 NFL THREAD - Super Bowl 51 - Patriots' Day: V - Screw Goodell  (Read 218651 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Dr. DTVT

  • DTF's resident Mad Scientist
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9527
  • Gender: Male
  • What's your favorite planet? Mine's the Sun!
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1400 on: October 03, 2016, 08:21:31 PM »
Tatum = Brady, Homer = The Browns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug36XUGEILE
     

Offline Rattlehead

  • Posts: 2288
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1401 on: October 03, 2016, 08:38:13 PM »
Pittsburgh looks unstoppable on offense even without Martavis Bryant. I'm glad Denver doesn't have to play them this season unless they square off in the post season again  :o

Defense beats offense.

Steelers can score all the points they want, but as long as the Broncos QB keeps play effective ball, they are better. New England, as always, is the team I fear the most.

I do agree that Denver is the better team, but I just want no part of Pittsburgh right now after seeing them annihilate Kansas City like that. They are a scary team with Brown and Bell healthy.

Offline SystematicThought

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4980
  • Gender: Male
  • Carpe Diem-2020
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1402 on: October 03, 2016, 09:30:33 PM »
Can't wait to see the excuse this week as to why the Vikes won. Oh, the Giants didn't have a full defense.  :lol
God have mercy on a man
Who doubts what he's sure of.
-Bruce Springsteen

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 2137
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1403 on: October 03, 2016, 10:11:00 PM »
Pittsburgh looks unstoppable on offense even without Martavis Bryant. I'm glad Denver doesn't have to play them this season unless they square off in the post season again  :o

Defense beats offense.

Steelers can score all the points they want, but as long as the Broncos QB keeps play effective ball, they are better. New England, as always, is the team I fear the most.

I do agree that Denver is the better team, but I just want no part of Pittsburgh right now after seeing them annihilate Kansas City like that. They are a scary team with Brown and Bell healthy.

The Steelers offense is potentially very potent right now. However, their defense is riddled with injuries. Dupree is on IR, Jarvis Jones had a shin injury in the KC game, Shazier has a bad knee. That's 3 of the 4 starting linebackers that are out, or hobbled. There are also several injuries on the offensive line.

I'm not making excuses. Injuries are part of the game. Denver should be able to handle them at this point.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1404 on: October 03, 2016, 10:14:34 PM »
It's so nice to see Le'Veon Bell on the field again. He's unbelievable. And he's better than any receiver they'd put on the field otherwise, so I liked seeing the Steelers split him out with Deangelo Williams in the backfield.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30742
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1405 on: October 03, 2016, 10:24:35 PM »
Tatum = Brady, Homer = The Browns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug36XUGEILE
Yup. Played that in my head quite a bit the last couple of weeks. "If I could turn back the clock on my mother's stair pushing, I'd definitely consider it."  :rollin

That said, NE wouldn't have won that game with Jesus himself playing QB. The team as a whole played like clowns.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1406 on: October 04, 2016, 06:49:08 AM »
It's so nice to see Le'Veon Bell on the field again. He's unbelievable. And he's better than any receiver they'd put on the field otherwise, so I liked seeing the Steelers split him out with Deangelo Williams in the backfield.

Yup. Bell is such a great receiving threat, it changes the whole dynamic of the offense.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53218
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1407 on: October 04, 2016, 08:13:30 AM »
As for tonight, two things are becoming even more clear than they were before:

1) The Vikings D is top notch.

2) Odell Beckham is a head case.
Boy, no shit.  If Bradford continues to play like this, there's no telling how far they will go.

And yeah, Beckham is his team's biggest enemy.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34419
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1408 on: October 04, 2016, 08:34:16 AM »
Beckham is becoming a problem, his post game interview just proves it since he doesn't seem to think there's a problem with his attitude. 

The vikings defense is so damn good.  Bradford looked fine, but he can be like the Broncos last year, just manage the game and they can go far.

Offline Architeuthis

  • Posts: 3782
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1409 on: October 04, 2016, 08:54:14 AM »
I wonder what Tony Romo would think of the current title of this thread? Maybe he would become a DT fan and start off with A Change of Seasons.  :metal
You can do a lot in a lifetime if you don't burn out too fast, you can make the most of the distance, first you need endurance first you've got to last....... NP

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41974
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1410 on: October 04, 2016, 04:04:41 PM »
Vikings are the lead story after last night.  They could be another Ravens, Broncos or Seahawks; their defense is that good.

Not having a disciplinarian anymore as his head coach is probably not helping Beckham.  Sure, Coughlin was there for his meltdown last December, but I think he'd be able to keep him under more control than the coach with the porn 'stache they have now.


Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1411 on: October 04, 2016, 04:16:16 PM »
Beckham acts like a child on the field, and then he claims everyone's out to get him. You brought it on yourself, dude.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41974
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1412 on: October 04, 2016, 04:20:26 PM »
Post-Week 4 Power Rankings
1. Denver - Elway + Kubiak = winning formula
2. Minnesota - Mike Zimmer might actually overtake Belichick for Coach of the Year
3. New England - 3-1 and Brady is back..those poor Browns
4. Philadelphia - can they keep it up?
5. Pittsburgh - impressive bounce back after that week 3 shellacking
6. Seattle - earned this spot finally, after that butt kicking of the Jets
7. Atlanta - Julio Jones is ridiculous
8. Dallas - have had a weak schedule, but 3-1 is a nice start with a rookie QB and RB
9. Green Bay - let's see if Aaron Rodgers can consistently look like Aaron Rodgers again
10. Oakland - the Raiders of the last 10+ years never would have won that game on Sunday 

Trending Up:

Los Angeles - no one saw 3-1 coming after that 28-0 debacle week 1
Buffalo - who knew that firing the OC would actually help
Washington - I suspect this 2-game winning streak is a mirage, but they are trending up at the moment

Trending Down:

Carolina - their defense stinks now, and Cam Newton still hasn't learned how to protect himself
Arizona - Carson Palmer was looking over the hill before getting hurt; this team is in trouble
NY Jets - time to pump the brakes on that "Todd Bowles is the next great head coach in this league" talk

MVP contenders:

1. Matt Ryan - unbelievable that a guy who appeared to have fallen off a bit last year is now the leading contender for MVP 1/4 of the way through the season
2. Von Miller - game-changing plays week after week after week
3. Ben Roethlisberger - he's never been a legit MVP contender,  and he'll never have as good a chance as he has this year
4. Derek Carr - 9 touchdowns and 1 INT, and he looks like he'll be a great one for a long time
5. Russell Wilson - this guy is money, even when he is supposedly hurt

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41974
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1413 on: October 04, 2016, 04:26:30 PM »
Beckham acts like a child on the field, and then he claims everyone's out to get him. You brought it on yourself, dude.

I agree that his comments after the game were awful, but the penalty he got was BS.  The guy hit him out of bounds, Beckham comes running back to tell the official that, the Viking DB stands there in front of the official and taunts Beckham..and Beckham gets flagged?  That was messed up.

Offline contest_sanity

  • Posts: 2346
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1414 on: October 04, 2016, 07:10:10 PM »
MVP contenders:

1. Matt Ryan - unbelievable that a guy who appeared to have fallen off a bit last year is now the leading contender for MVP 1/4 of the way through the season

Ryan never looked right in KS's scheme last year, to the point where even Falcons fans were completely forgetting the great years he had put up previously. It looks like he is fully comfortable now. Of course, adding Mack at center has been an enormous help as well. I'm excited about the Denver game: best offense vs best defense -- should be a good one!

Offline splent

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 9348
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident music educator/conductor
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1415 on: October 04, 2016, 09:14:55 PM »
I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE seeing the Vikings ranked that high. I can't wait to see them crash down.
I don’t know what to put here anymore

Offline CrimsonSunrise

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1416 on: October 05, 2016, 12:51:52 AM »


MVP contenders:

1. Matt Ryan - unbelievable that a guy who appeared to have fallen off a bit last year is now the leading contender for MVP 1/4 of the way through the season
2. Von Miller - game-changing plays week after week after week
3. Ben Roethlisberger - he's never been a legit MVP contender,  and he'll never have as good a chance as he has this year
4. Derek Carr - 9 touchdowns and 1 INT, and he looks like he'll be a great one for a long time
5. Russell Wilson - this guy is money, even when he is supposedly hurt

I think Aaron Donald should be in the conversation.

Offline TheCountOfNYC

  • Posts: 5417
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1417 on: October 05, 2016, 06:15:42 AM »
The Jets definitely are in trouble and I'm not saying that Todd Bowles is the next Vince Lombardi, but it's hard to win when your QB throws nine (nine!) interceptions in two games. The rest of the team is doing fine, but Fitzpatrick's abysmal play is sinking this team fast.
People figured out that the white thing that comes out of cows' titties could be drunk, and the relation between sweet desires and women's bellies growing up for 9 months. It can't be THAT hard to figure out how a trumpet works.”

-MirrorMask

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74685
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1418 on: October 05, 2016, 06:17:01 AM »
I like Bowles. Fitz played so well last year.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline Destiny Of Chaos

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1419 on: October 05, 2016, 06:34:16 AM »
I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE seeing the Vikings ranked that high. I can't wait to see them crash down.

You might be waiting a while. They look legit.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1420 on: October 05, 2016, 06:59:31 AM »
I guess this thread is the right place for this; any thoughts on all these stories coming out about the NFL ratings so far this year?

Example (the first one that came up on google):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkatz/2016/10/04/nfls-monday-night-football-keeps-dropping-in-ratings/#3f3b0b10765b

I've seen a bunch of these stories over the last week. Obviously there are a lot of opinions as to why this trend is appearing, just curious what you all thought.

Offline Dream Team

  • Posts: 5691
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1421 on: October 05, 2016, 07:01:54 AM »
The Jets definitely are in trouble and I'm not saying that Todd Bowles is the next Vince Lombardi, but it's hard to win when your QB throws nine (nine!) interceptions in two games. The rest of the team is doing fine, but Fitzpatrick's abysmal play is sinking this team fast.

I was flabbergasted when they re-signed him. He proved who he had always been in game 16 last year. With so many rookie QBs making an impact this year, there was no need for the Jets to commit to him. Nice guy, but 0-24 lifetime against winning teams on the road.  :o

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34419
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1422 on: October 05, 2016, 07:42:30 AM »
I guess this thread is the right place for this; any thoughts on all these stories coming out about the NFL ratings so far this year?

Example (the first one that came up on google):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkatz/2016/10/04/nfls-monday-night-football-keeps-dropping-in-ratings/#3f3b0b10765b

I've seen a bunch of these stories over the last week. Obviously there are a lot of opinions as to why this trend is appearing, just curious what you all thought.

Market saturation.  Mark Cuban predicted this.  With the NFL expanding to show more games, it dilutes the product.  It doesn't help that MNF since ESPN took over has been filled with bad games.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1423 on: October 05, 2016, 07:43:32 AM »
Market saturation.  Mark Cuban predicted this.  With the NFL expanding to show more games, it dilutes the product.  It doesn't help that MNF since ESPN took over has been filled with bad games.

I agree, in my opinion, market saturation is the main reason.

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59475
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1424 on: October 05, 2016, 07:46:47 AM »
MNF is not the problem.  TNF is.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74685
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1425 on: October 05, 2016, 07:49:24 AM »
and SNF.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34419
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1426 on: October 05, 2016, 07:55:36 AM »
SNF to me, seems to normally have the better game of the three nights.  Also the better broadcast.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 74685
  • Gender: Male
  • Arthritic Metal Horns
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1427 on: October 05, 2016, 08:01:44 AM »
But now we have three nights of Prime Time Games.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums........or WTF.  ;D
TAC got a higher score than me in the electronic round? Honestly, can I just drop out now? :lol

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 5479
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1428 on: October 05, 2016, 08:13:44 AM »
Right, over saturation. I remember when a NFL game used to feel like an event, now I feel like there's one on all the time.

Offline Dream Team

  • Posts: 5691
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1429 on: October 05, 2016, 09:30:08 AM »
Idle thought here from looking at the QB career leader lists . . . how much more will the 2004 QB draft class need to do to be considered better than or equal to the legendary 1983 class? Just looking at the Big 3 from each class since the 4th best options (O'Brien, Schaub) are a big drop-off. Anyway . . .

Marino-Elway-Kelly vs Eli-Ben-Rivers:
The 1983 class went to 10 Super Bowls, winning 2 of them.
The 2004 class has been to 5 Super Bowls, winning 4 of them.

1983: 148,303 passing yards and 957 touchdowns
2004: 132,041 passing yards and 869 touchdowns and counting, adding about 800 yds and 7 TDs per week

Now of course we recognize that the current era favors the pass much more than ever; however the 2004 class is still playing very well at around 33 years of age and have many more seasons to build their legacies. However, there is no need for an era adjustment when it comes to winning, and in that respect the 1983 class still has a considerable edge both in total wins and winning pct:

148-82 Elway         .671 Ben            Playoffs: 14-7 Elway
147-93 Marino       .643 Elway                        11-6 Ben
116-57 Ben           .631 Kelly                            9-8 Kelly
101-59 Kelly          .613 Marino                         8-3 Eli
  99-88 Eli              .567 Rivers                          8-10 Marino
  93-71 Rivers        .529 Eli                                4-5 Rivers

I think QB winning record is important because over the course of a long career things like injuries, O-Line talent, Wide Receiver talent, etc etc tend to even out over the long haul and ends up being a wash. In this regard Eli and Rivers aren't looking so hot, while the 1983 class tended to win no matter the talent around them.

The 1983 class is still clearly superior and the 2004 class will need to win a couple more Super Bowls and/or be up in the 60,000 yardage range each (and also WIN more often) to start having the conversation. Of course, hot on the heels of the 2004 class are recent classes that produced Ryan, Flacco, Newton, Wilson, Stafford, Dalton etc and in a few years it will be fun to re-do this exercise with their classes.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43504
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1430 on: October 05, 2016, 09:41:19 AM »
It flabbergasts me that Rivers is in that conversation.  I get flack for saying it here so often, but he's horrible.   How many games does it take like the last couple, where he throws a bad interception and is on the sideline screaming at his teammates, how many Super Bowls does it take for him to be home already for four weeks, to show that he is not of the class of guys like Roethlisberger, Elway, Kelly, etc.? 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41974
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1431 on: October 05, 2016, 09:52:28 AM »
No offense, but I don't think you understand what the word horrible means.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43504
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1432 on: October 05, 2016, 10:09:35 AM »
No offense, but I don't think you understand what the word horrible means.

I do.  Phillip Rivers. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 41974
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1433 on: October 05, 2016, 10:17:57 AM »
Still not making sense.

Is this where we act like it's Rivers' fault that his defense has blown three 4th quarter leads this season so far, two of which were double digit leads in the 4th?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43504
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: 2016 NFL THREAD - No Romo? No Problem!
« Reply #1434 on: October 05, 2016, 10:34:26 AM »
Still not making sense.

Is this where we act like it's Rivers' fault that his defense has blown three 4th quarter leads this season so far, two of which were double digit leads in the 4th?

No, I get it, I just have this belief that not every team is capable of winning a Super Bowl, and not every QB is capable.  I think there are great "athletes" and great "football players" and they are not the same thing, especially when it comes to QB.  Michael Vick is clearly the former, not the latter.  Peyton Manning is clearly the latter, not the former.  And I think Rivers - like Warren Moon and Dan Fouts before him - are the former, not the latter.   

I've said here and elsewhere that Tony Romo - phe-NOMenal athlete - will NEVER win a Super Bowl.  EVER.   I put Rivers in that category.  He may throw for a ton of yards and a ton of TDs, but he doesn't WIN and that's not all about his defense.