2022 NFL Thread (Chiefs win Super Bowl 57)

[Stadler]

Did he sign one of those one-day contracts with the Pats?  Do they still do that sort of thing anymore?

Not yet....but you know it's coming. But for him....it'll probably have to be a 'one more play' contract where he gets to take an in game snap.....the NFL gets involved and it's scripted to where it's a TD pass to win the game or something like that.

Maybe 2 plays. An opposing player gives him a handshake, gets an unnecessary roughness penalty and then the TD.

When does he do that "slide kick" thing that he picked up in Tampa?   

[pg1067]

Sean Payton to the Broncos is a done deal.

I have never hidden that I think he is overrated, but he is still a massive upgrade over the idiot they had this past season.  They had to make this move, as they are tied to Russell Wilson for years, so might as well bring in a proven QB guru to get the most of their QB.

I have mixed feelings, but the guy had a .631 winning percentage, finished first in the division in 9 of 15 seasons, and only had 4 losing seasons.  Obviously, it's hard to know how much was him and how much was Drew Brees, but it's a pretty clear upgrade from what the Broncos have had lately.

The one thing I really don't like is giving up ANOTHER first round draft pick to get him.

 

It's not an early 1st rounder, though, so I am good with it.  The Broncos needed a proven commodity to come in and fix Wilson, and Payton was the best possible option.

I just saw that it's the 49ers pick.  I suppose, although I'm not sure Wilson's fixable - especially behind the Broncos offensive line.

[bosk1]

He's "fixable" by removing him from the NFL permanently.

[El Barto]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

[King Postwhore]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

I always thought you couldn't move laterally.  Seems he wanted to get away from Bill where there was no opportunity to move up as a coach.   

[Stadler]

I'm not sure that's a surprising move, though.  McKay was not a given to come back this year, so I think Caley is joining a young staff, and a staff that is almost certain to change over the next couple years.  I would grab that spot in a heartbeat if I was in Caley's position (CERTAINLY over the Jets or Texans OC job).

[TAC]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

I always thought you couldn't move laterally.  Seems he wanted to get away from Bill where there was no opportunity to move up as a coach.

His contact expired. He could go anywhere.

[El Barto]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

I always thought you couldn't move laterally.  Seems he wanted to get away from Bill where there was no opportunity to move up as a coach.

That was my take, but I think it speaks to being a mutual thing. If there was no opportunity for him to move up, and I don't know if that's the case or not, maybe that's on Caley. Since the other Belichiks are on the defensive side of the ball you don't get to chalk that up as nepotism.

I'm not sure that's a surprising move, though.  McKay was not a given to come back this year, so I think Caley is joining a young staff, and a staff that is almost certain to change over the next couple years.  I would grab that spot in a heartbeat if I was in Caley's position (CERTAINLY over the Jets or Texans OC job).

Good take. I can certainly see that calculus working for him.

My concern on that end would be that McVey was the brains of the organization, and without him the Rams are likely just another mediocre team. If he goes there's no guarantee that Caley still has a place there. Perhaps there's an assurance that there will be one, but in that scenario maybe he wouldn't want it. What happens if they hire a known loser of a coach? Even if he gets bumped up to the OC gig, if they suck it's going to fall back on him. He might have signed on to be the new whipping boy for Matt Patricia. 

[Stadler]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

I always thought you couldn't move laterally.  Seems he wanted to get away from Bill where there was no opportunity to move up as a coach.

That was my take, but I think it speaks to being a mutual thing. If there was no opportunity for him to move up, and I don't know if that's the case or not, maybe that's on Caley. Since the other Belichiks are on the defensive side of the ball you don't get to chalk that up as nepotism.

I'm not sure that's a surprising move, though.  McKay was not a given to come back this year, so I think Caley is joining a young staff, and a staff that is almost certain to change over the next couple years.  I would grab that spot in a heartbeat if I was in Caley's position (CERTAINLY over the Jets or Texans OC job).

Good take. I can certainly see that calculus working for him.

My concern on that end would be that McVey was the brains of the organization, and without him the Rams are likely just another mediocre team. If he goes there's no guarantee that Caley still has a place there. Perhaps there's an assurance that there will be one, but in that scenario maybe he wouldn't want it. What happens if they hire a known loser of a coach? Even if he gets bumped up to the OC gig, if they suck it's going to fall back on him. He might have signed on to be the new whipping boy for Matt Patricia. 

I totally agree with that last part.  I think McVey is a special coach in that way (read anything that Aaron Donald has said about his last couple years on the Rams and that part is clear) and it WON'T be the same without him.  But that hasn't held anyone back in the past has it?    Who knows, maybe he thinks he's the next (whose that nerd coaching the 'fins?)

[King Postwhore]

The Nick Caley thing is interesting to me. Everybody had him pegged for an OC gig somewhere, not sure why, and he winds up moving to LA to be their TE coach. A strangely lateral move. For one thing, he must have really wanted out of NE, or NE really wanted him gone. Also, considering that the Patriots TEs have been pretty much afterthoughts for the last few years makes me wonder why he's thought so highly of.

In any case, the Patriots coaching turnover is now 100% since 2019.

I always thought you couldn't move laterally.  Seems he wanted to get away from Bill where there was no opportunity to move up as a coach.

That was my take, but I think it speaks to being a mutual thing. If there was no opportunity for him to move up, and I don't know if that's the case or not, maybe that's on Caley. Since the other Belichiks are on the defensive side of the ball you don't get to chalk that up as nepotism.

I'm not sure that's a surprising move, though.  McKay was not a given to come back this year, so I think Caley is joining a young staff, and a staff that is almost certain to change over the next couple years.  I would grab that spot in a heartbeat if I was in Caley's position (CERTAINLY over the Jets or Texans OC job).

Good take. I can certainly see that calculus working for him.

My concern on that end would be that McVey was the brains of the organization, and without him the Rams are likely just another mediocre team. If he goes there's no guarantee that Caley still has a place there. Perhaps there's an assurance that there will be one, but in that scenario maybe he wouldn't want it. What happens if they hire a known loser of a coach? Even if he gets bumped up to the OC gig, if they suck it's going to fall back on him. He might have signed on to be the new whipping boy for Matt Patricia. 

Not in this case.  He wants to be a GM and Bill was forced by Kraft to bring in a vet to run the offense so Nick was stalled there in his side of the ball. I can see why he left.

Edit, I'm responding to El Barto on the Nepotism remark.  Caley was just stuck going nowhere is because of the circumstances.   

[pg1067]

One of the things I enjoy about the week before the Super Bowl is that the NFL Network airs the NFL Films highlight packages for all of the previous Super Bowls.  The first however many of them are narrated by John Facenda.  They're really great and evoke memories of my childhood when, on Saturdays, I'd watch highlights of the prior week's games.  The first 11 games are particularly enjoyable to watch since I didn't see them live.

[Cool Chris]

I enjoy those too, and also revisit old SBs around this time.

However, I will say that what little interest I had going in to this game is waning fast. Minority opinion here, ( I think?) but this 2-week interval can be a real drag.

[hunnus2000]

I enjoy those too, and also revisit old SBs around this time.

However, I will say that what little interest I had going in to this game is waning fast. Minority opinion here, ( I think?) but this 2-week interval can be a real drag.

Two Things:
1) I love revisiting those old SBs too but I love the old NFL Films with the music (I think they used music from the old Westerns).
2) I have come to appreciate the 2 week interval because it gives me time to breath and the players time to heal. I remember when they went to 1 week and I came to dislike it.

What I don't like is the 17 week schedule and a soon to be 18 weeks. This is taking a toll on the players. A 16 week schedule is the sweet spot.

BTW - can we start the season on Labor Day?

[Dream Team]

Oh boy just found out Carl Cheffers is the ref for this game. The guy is a notorious Chiefs hater. Seriously, look up his sordid history on KC games he's reffed. This gives the Eagles another edge they didn't need with that stacked roster.

Just curious, are there any math majors in this thread? The reason I ask is because of something I keep seeing brought up: PM has started 13 playoff games, and is #1 all time in passer rating, TDs per game, TD-INT ratio, etc but the most vocal critics want to take a subset of 2 games (one of which he actually won with a great 4th quarter comeback) so actually a subset of 7 quarters where his numbers aren't as good as the rest and try to say that is statistically significant. It isn't. It's an absolutely meaningless sample size. Math majors would recognize this. It's random distribution, like AL MVP Aaron Judge going 0-8 in the first 2 games of the Championship Series. It doesn't mean anything. Never mind that those 7 quarters were against some of the toughest defenses in recent memory.

Randomness occurs a lot in all sports. If a QB is in the playoffs every year, some years he'll have his best games in the Division Round, some in the Championship Game, some in the Super Bowl. You can't pre-plan when your best games will be. In 2007 and 2011 Brady happened to have his best games in earlier rounds. A lot of it is matchups too.

So . . . how again did we get to spot in sports where "ringz" are the only things that matter to the exclusion of literally everything else? Bill Russell got 11 rings, Jordan didn't even have his 6th yet before he was being called the goat, and this in a sport where a guy controls the outcome even more than a QB. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

[bosk1]

Minority opinion here, ( I think?) but this 2-week interval can be a real drag.

Minority?  I don't think anyone who isn't directly making money from the Super Bowl agrees.  And of course, it doesn't help having two teams no one wants to see win anyway.  My interest in the game could not be any lower.  It'll be interesting to see how much interest there is down in Mexico this weekend.

[Stadler]

Oh boy just found out Carl Cheffers is the ref for this game. The guy is a notorious Chiefs hater. Seriously, look up his sordid history on KC games he's reffed. This gives the Eagles another edge they didn't need with that stacked roster.

Just curious, are there any math majors in this thread? The reason I ask is because of something I keep seeing brought up: PM has started 13 playoff games, and is #1 all time in passer rating, TDs per game, TD-INT ratio, etc but the most vocal critics want to take a subset of 2 games (one of which he actually won with a great 4th quarter comeback) so actually a subset of 7 quarters where his numbers aren't as good as the rest and try to say that is statistically significant. It isn't. It's an absolutely meaningless sample size. Math majors would recognize this. It's random distribution, like AL MVP Aaron Judge going 0-8 in the first 2 games of the Championship Series. It doesn't mean anything. Never mind that those 7 quarters were against some of the toughest defenses in recent memory.

Randomness occurs a lot in all sports. If a QB is in the playoffs every year, some years he'll have his best games in the Division Round, some in the Championship Game, some in the Super Bowl. You can't pre-plan when your best games will be. In 2007 and 2011 Brady happened to have his best games in earlier rounds. A lot of it is matchups too.

So . . . how again did we get to spot in sports where "ringz" are the only things that matter to the exclusion of literally everything else? Bill Russell got 11 rings, Jordan didn't even have his 6th yet before he was being called the goat, and this in a sport where a guy controls the outcome even more than a QB. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

Of course rings don't matter... when you don't have any.  Someone else help me, but that post almost - ALMOST - reads like an excuse or an disclaimer for Mahomes not winning the ring this year, even before the game happens!   If he's so fucking good, if he's the GOAT, HE NEEDS NO EXCUSES.  Just shut up and do it, or not.   He's either greatest, or he's not. IF the Eagles and Hurts beat him, well, guess what, he wasn't.

Name me a team in the NFL that starts the season thinking "fuck the playoffs, fuck the Super Bowl, we're going to make our mission statement to have the most Passing TDs over 10 yards this year.  We do that, and we'll consider it a win!"  Or, "Hey, men, our only objective this year is to make sure our QB has the highest QB rating in history. I don't give a rat's ass HOW many games we win, we're going to make sure that rating is just as high as it can be! On three!"    Maybe the Jets. I don't know.  Certainly none of the teams that are IN the playoffs.

(And not for nothing, but the only "stat" that I could reproduce on my own was playoff QB rating, where Mahomes is first.  Everything else, I've got other people ranked higher. But whatever.  You do you.) 

[pg1067]

Two Things:
1) I love revisiting those old SBs too but I love the old NFL Films with the music (I think they used music from the old Westerns).
2) I have come to appreciate the 2 week interval because it gives me time to breath and the players time to heal. I remember when they went to 1 week and I came to dislike it.

What I don't like is the 17 week schedule and a t'ssoon to be 18 weeks. This is taking a toll on the players. A 16 week schedule is the sweet spot.

BTW - can we start the season on Labor Day?

AFAIK, most of the music used by NFL Films was original (e.g., The Autumn Wind) and most definitely not from westerns (e.g., Sailor's Odyssey).  I've had a CD of NFL Films in my Amazon wish list for years.  One of these days, I may pull the trigger.  It's all good stuff.

Couldn't agree more about the rest of what you wrote.  17 games is silly, and I think we'll find pretty quickly that 18 is too many.  And Labor Day weekend would be a perfect way to start the season.

As for the two weeks, I also agree, but I see the value in giving the competing teams time for injuries to heal.  The problem with it is that, when the season starts late and is longer, we're extending too long into the new year.

And of course, it doesn't help having two teams no one wants to see win anyway.

Not bitter at all, are you?  This is a marquee matchup whether you're interested or not.

[bosk1]

And of course, it doesn't help having two teams no one wants to see win anyway.

Not bitter at all, are you?  This is a marquee matchup whether you're interested or not.

Why, yes.  Yes I am.  But that's beside the point.  I wouldn't have wanted this matchup regardless of anything that happened in recent weeks.  Two teams that I would never root for under any circumstances, so I have no interest.  As long as Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes, and current ownership are in place in KC, I will root for them to lose every single game they play and will hold out hope that the NFL will simply revoke their franchise.  And Philly is...eh.  The only thing they have going for them is that I kinda admire Hurts.  And the fact that they aren't the Chiefs.

[cramx3]

This is a marquee matchup whether you're interested or not.

Both the top seeds, both won 14 games. Agreed, it's a top match up.

[bosk1]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup. 

[Stadler]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup.

I was going in a different direction; the Chiefs are one of the better teams, generally, in the AFC, but the Eagles are not exactly perennial contenders, and this is both Siriani's and Hurts' first run at the ring.  I can think of probably five matchups (at least) that better qualify as "marquee matchups".

[hunnus2000]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup.

I was going in a different direction; the Chiefs are one of the better teams, generally, in the AFC, but the Eagles are not exactly perennial contenders, and this is both Siriani's and Hurts' first run at the ring. I can think of probably five matchups (at least) that better qualify as "marquee matchups".

Like who?

[hefdaddy42]

I can definitely offer matchups I would rather have seen, but it's hard to argue with # 1 vs. # 1.

[Stadler]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup.

I was going in a different direction; the Chiefs are one of the better teams, generally, in the AFC, but the Eagles are not exactly perennial contenders, and this is both Siriani's and Hurts' first run at the ring. I can think of probably five matchups (at least) that better qualify as "marquee matchups".

Like who?

I'd much rather see any of these:
Chiefs v 49ers
Chiefs v Dallas
Bills v 49ers
Bills v Dallas
Cin v 49ers
Cin v Dallas

[faizoff]

Not sure how many listen to his podcast, Jim Gray on Sirius XM with Tom Brady and Larry Fitz has been a thing for a while and yesterday's episode had Tom Brady with Bill Belichick and Peyton Manning who were great listens. Had a lot to say and overall a fun listen, more admiration than animosity, some interesting tidbits from Peyton and Bill throughout. Plus some flybys from Gronk and Patrick Mahomes though I think it was more of a recorded message by Patrick.

Link for anyone interested

[pg1067]

Just because one person would, subjectively, prefer a different matchup doesn't make the actual matchup not a "marquee matchup."

Two #1 seeds, one of whom has played in 5 consecutive conference championship games and 3 of the last 5 Super Bowls and is led by a QB widely regarded as the best in the league, and the other who won a Super Bowl only 5 years ago, is a marquee matchup, regardless of any one person's personal interest.

[bosk1]

I don't know that I would define "marquee matchup" that way.

[cramx3]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup.

Both teams won 14 games, I know that's a product of the extra game, but still, it has to mean something that we are seeing the two best teams play.  (I read this has never happened before, but can't find the qoute and too lazy to look it up myself)

There's brothers going against each other.

Both head coaches have ties to the opponent.

They didn't play each other this year

Point spread is small

First time two black QBs are starting

[Skeever]

Top seeds facing each other in the big game is not a rare occurrence, so that fact isn't really compelling to me.  And even if it were less common, if the top seeds are both completely unlikeable, I don't see how it can be considered a marquee matchup.

I was going in a different direction; the Chiefs are one of the better teams, generally, in the AFC, but the Eagles are not exactly perennial contenders, and this is both Siriani's and Hurts' first run at the ring. I can think of probably five matchups (at least) that better qualify as "marquee matchups".

Like who?

I'd much rather see any of these:
Chiefs v 49ers
Chiefs v Dallas
Bills v 49ers
Bills v Dallas
Cin v 49ers
Cin v Dallas

Wanting Niners or Cincy is understandable since both teams got shafted by officiating in some significant ways.

But, Bills did it to themselves, and Dallas I just can't understand.

[hefdaddy42]

Bills v 49ers

That's the matchup I was hoping for the most, at the start of the playoffs.

BTW, Steve Wilks, former Panthers defensive coordinator, interim head coach, and jilted head coach candidate, to the 49ers as defensive coordinator.

The Panthers continue to give gifts to the 49ers.  Treat him well, San Fran, he's a good one.

[Stadler]

Well, I thought my list was pretty profound.   Cincinnati and SF was a rematch of TWO previous Super Bowls; would Joe Burrow over come those two previous losses?  The Chiefs never actually played Dallas in the SB, but they were two of the four or five powerhouse teams of the late '60s, early '70s and it's only a quirk that Hank Stram didn't coach against Tom Landry in the big game.   Dallas beat Buffalo twice in a row back during the Bill's oh-fer-four run (the third and fourth losses).  THOSE are marquee games. 

[romdrums]

Well, I thought my list was pretty profound.   Cincinnati and SF was a rematch of TWO previous Super Bowls; would Joe Burrow over come those two previous losses?  The Chiefs never actually played Dallas in the SB, but they were two of the four or five powerhouse teams of the late '60s, early '70s and it's only a quirk that Hank Stram didn't coach against Tom Landry in the big game.   Dallas beat Buffalo twice in a row back during the Bill's oh-fer-four run (the third and fourth losses).  THOSE are marquee games.

The Chiefs started out in Dallas as the Texans, and then moved to KC and became the Chiefs, so that would be sort of cool.  This year's Superb Owl could've been WAY worse, though, it could've been a Giants-Ravens rematch!

[KevShmev]

I think the league is mostly star-driven enough now to where players are the marquee, not teams.

Imagine if the Super Bowl this year had been Bucs/Bengals.  While TB vs Cincy is not a classic marquee matchup by any stretch of the imagination, TB12 the Goat vs the young stud Burrow most certainly would have been.

I think there are still a few brands that can make just about any game a marquee one - Dallas, Pitt, GB - but, by and large, it is the players, and the QBs in most cases, who are the draw.

[bosk1]

Imagine if the Super Bowl this year had been Bucs/Bengals. 

I'd watch that. 

[Cool Chris]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/aaron-rodgers-says-retirement-decision-will-come-after-four-day-darkness-retreat-qb-makes-super-bowl-pick/

Thanks Aaron, for letting us know when you will let us know.