2022 NFL Thread (Chiefs win Super Bowl 57)

[bosk1]

Looking forward to seeing how the '9ers play in their next 2 games after the bye.  I am tempted to overreact after the HUGE win over the Rams, added to the fact that they will have almost all of their injured starters back for the first time.  But even though all signs point in a positive direction, I don't want to prematurely overreact.  Those first two games should be a good indicator of where the season will go.  If they go well, I don't think it is overstating the case to predict them as division winners, probable #2 or #3 seed...

That would be a fair assessment, if you weren't overlooking one thing...



 

I mean, the fact you don’t even MENTION them is a bit hurtful, bosky…

OK, my short take relating to Seattle:  They are better than expected, but not as good as their record would suggest.  Tying that back to my post, it comes down to how legit the 49ers are.  The next 2 games coming out of the bye should be an indicator, primarily because (1) they will have had more time to integrate McCaffrey and (2) they will be a healthy team for the first time this season and will finally have most or all of their starters available.  If they look good those two games, I think they handle the Seahawks a second time and should easily take the division.  If they do NOT look good those two games, that is an indicator of bigger problems, and likely means they either limp into the playoffs with a wildcard or miss the playoffs entirely.  Which means evil prevails in the world and Seattle wins the division.  Simple.

[Stadler]

Reich fired from Indy.  Why isn't Matt Ryan QB'ing this team?  They also have Folds as the backup and yet, the rookie QB started the last 2 games.

I can't recall the specifics, but Ryan is owed a big amount of money if he plays x-number of snaps, and I think they have realized that he is done and they won't want to pay him that money, so they are going with the rookie in a season they figure is dead in the water anyway.  I am just surprised Reich took the hit so soon.

I really am; that benching of Ryan - for that reason - can't be only on Reich's shoulders.   And two games is not enough to really assess a rookie like that, especially when the system has largely been built around old, experienced, immobile, standup passers (Rivers, Ryan). not untested rookies.

[Dream Team]

Right; Irsay is one of those Jerry Jones type owners that can never get their egotistical fingers out of the pie.

[Dublagent66]

Well, to be fair, JJ is the owner/GM.  That isn't the case in Indy.

[KevShmev]

Fun fact: Justin Herbert has now started 40 games in the NFL and has never, at any point, had a winning record as a starter.

[T-ski]

Fun fact: Justin Herbert has now started 40 games in the NFL and has never, at any point, had a winning record as a starter.

?

The Chargers are 5-3.

[pg1067]

Fun fact: Justin Herbert has now started 40 games in the NFL and has never, at any point, had a winning record as a starter.

?

The Chargers are 5-3.

I think Kev meant that Herbert's career record has never been above .500.

He lost his first 4 starts and 8 of his first 10 starts in 2020.  He finished that season with a 6-9 record (he didn't start the Chargers first game that season).  He won 4 of his first 5 starts in 2021 to push the career record to 10-10.  He then lost 4 of his next 6 to move the career mark to 12-14.  He evened things up at 14-14 before losing 3 of 4 to end the 2021 season at 15-17.  He lost 2 of the first 3 this season to move to 16-19, then won 3 straight to even things at 19-19 before losing and then winning in his 2 most recent starts.  If he and the Chargers beat the 49ers on Sunday, he'll move to 21-20 for his career.

[KevShmev]

Correct.

I am not always crazy about considering wins and losses a QB stat, but I just find it interesting how everyone drools over Herbert like he's the second coming, yet he has never had more wins than losses as an NFL starter.

[Dublagent66]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

[TAC]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

[Stadler]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

And Stadler.  How many rings does he have? Hmm?  HMMMM? 

[Dublagent66]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

And Stadler.  How many rings does he have? Hmm?  HMMMM? 

Dan Marino would like a word with you.

[Stadler]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

And Stadler.  How many rings does he have? Hmm?  HMMMM? 

Dan Marino would like a word with you.

I'm fine with that. I've given my opinion on Dan Marino here before.

[Dublagent66]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

And Stadler.  How many rings does he have? Hmm?  HMMMM? 

Dan Marino would like a word with you.

I'm fine with that. I've given my opinion on Dan Marino here before.

SB rings aren't the only measure of greatness.

[King Postwhore]

I'm fairly confident (barring any career ending injuries) that 5 years from now Herbert will be just fine, and no one will even remember his first 40 games. 

Except Kev.

And Stadler.  How many rings does he have? Hmm?  HMMMM? 

Dan Marino would like a word with you.

I'm fine with that. I've given my opinion on Dan Marino here before.

SB rings aren't the only measure of greatness.

Unless you have 7 and stats to back it.

[Dublagent66]

Still isn't.  There are plenty of greats out there that aren't named Tom Brady.

[Stadler]

Still isn't.  There are plenty of greats out there that aren't named Tom Brady.

No one said it was the ONLY stat, but it's a factor.  That's why we play the games.  The objective isn't to throw for 400 yds a game or five TDs, it's to win games, ultimately to the point that you win the Super Bowl.

[King Postwhore]

It's the combo of the 2 that makes him the goat.  Marino is great for sure but he's not better than Joe Montana in most peoples eyes because he doesn't have rings.  Though his stats are light years better than Joe's.

[bosk1]

It's the combo of the 2 that makes him the goat.

Exactly (although it's more than just the rings and the stats, but you are on the right track about it not just being about rings).

Marino is great for sure but he's not better than Joe Montana in most peoples eyes because he doesn't have rings.  Though his stats are light years better than Joe's.

No, he's not better than Montana AND he doesn't have rings, not because he doesn't have rings.  Stats are helpful, but there's also a level of performance that doesn't show up in just comparing some (not ALL) isolated stats.  Marino was a great QB.  Montana was a better QB.  His skill set was more broad than Marino's and he got results, aside from the rings.  And while some (NOT ALL) of Marino's stats might be better, they aren't anywhere near "lightyears better." 

[King Postwhore]

It's the combo of the 2 that makes him the goat.

Exactly (although it's more than just the rings and the stats, but you are on the right track about it not just being about rings).

Marino is great for sure but he's not better than Joe Montana in most peoples eyes because he doesn't have rings.  Though his stats are light years better than Joe's.

No, he's not better than Montana AND he doesn't have rings, not because he doesn't have rings.  Stats are helpful, but there's also a level of performance that doesn't show up in just comparing some (not ALL) isolated stats.  Marino was a great QB.  Montana was a better QB.  His skill set was more broad than Marino's and he got results, aside from the rings.  And while some (NOT ALL) of Marino's stats might be better, they aren't anywhere near "lightyears better."

It's an example of how people look at stats.  They look at the total stats.  They don't look at the clutch stats like Montana.  I agree Montana is better but most people don't look at it like you and I do.

[hefdaddy42]

I mean, I don't know anyone that thinks Marino is better than Montana.

[TheCountOfNYC]

My issue with championships playing into it is that one player can ride a great team to a title. Obviously someone like Brady, who has five Super Bowl MVP awards in addition to his seven Super Bowl rings, played a huge factor in most of his team’s title wins, but then you have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who rode all time great defenses to a ring, while guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly never reached the summit for various reasons, some having nothing to do with them (wide right anyone?). I definitely put Brady and Montana above Marino and Kelly because they have the stats as well as the rings, but to diminish these players’ amazing accomplishments simply because those incredible careers didn’t include a championship is ridiculous especially in football which is the ultimate team game where one player can’t really win a game essentially by themselves like in baseball, hockey, and especially basketball.

[TAC]

My issue with championships playing into it is that one player can ride a great team to a title. Obviously someone like Brady, who has five Super Bowl MVP awards in addition to his seven Super Bowl rings, played a huge factor in most of his team’s title wins, but then you have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who rode all time great defenses to a ring, while guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly never reached the summit for various reasons, some having nothing to do with them (wide right anyone?). I definitely put Brady and Montana above Marino and Kelly because they have the stats as well as the rings, but to diminish these players’ amazing accomplishments simply because those incredible careers didn’t include a championship is ridiculous especially in football which is the ultimate team game where one player can’t really win a game essentially by themselves like in baseball, hockey, and especially basketball.

I agree. Ring snobs.

[Dublagent66]

Still isn't.  There are plenty of greats out there that aren't named Tom Brady.

No one said it was the ONLY stat, but it's a factor.  That's why we play the games.  The objective isn't to throw for 400 yds a game or five TDs, it's to win games, ultimately to the point that you win the Super Bowl.

Oh look, the goal posts just moved (pun intended).  You certainly made it seem like it was the ONLY stat that matters and you were referring to a QB that has only started 40 games compared to someone who's played over 360 games.  Not really a fair comparison.

My issue with championships playing into it is that one player can ride a great team to a title. Obviously someone like Brady, who has five Super Bowl MVP awards in addition to his seven Super Bowl rings, played a huge factor in most of his team’s title wins, but then you have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who rode all time great defenses to a ring, while guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly never reached the summit for various reasons, some having nothing to do with them (wide right anyone?). I definitely put Brady and Montana above Marino and Kelly because they have the stats as well as the rings, but to diminish these players’ amazing accomplishments simply because those incredible careers didn’t include a championship is ridiculous especially in football which is the ultimate team game where one player can’t really win a game essentially by themselves like in baseball, hockey, and especially basketball.

Thank you.

[King Postwhore]

My issue with championships playing into it is that one player can ride a great team to a title. Obviously someone like Brady, who has five Super Bowl MVP awards in addition to his seven Super Bowl rings, played a huge factor in most of his team’s title wins, but then you have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who rode all time great defenses to a ring, while guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly never reached the summit for various reasons, some having nothing to do with them (wide right anyone?). I definitely put Brady and Montana above Marino and Kelly because they have the stats as well as the rings, but to diminish these players’ amazing accomplishments simply because those incredible careers didn’t include a championship is ridiculous especially in football which is the ultimate team game where one player can’t really win a game essentially by themselves like in baseball, hockey, and especially basketball.

I agree. Ring snobs.

When your favorite player gas 7 by himself,  yeah.  I'm a snob.

I mean, I don't know anyone that thinks Marino is better than Montana.

I've heard many say that in the 90's. Not as much today. Mostly they thought the regular season stats meant more

[KevShmev]

No one gets a ring by themselves in a team sport.  You know this.

The ring stuff seems to play out in real time, but over time, not as much.  I remember in the 90s when Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith were the unquestioned top 2 RBs, and the debate always seemed pretty even about who was better.  But now, unless you are a Cowboys honk, the answer is Sanders, and it seems to be not even close anymore. 

Circling back to Herbert, let's look at him and another QB from his draft class:

Justin Herbert: 20-20 as a starter, 82 TDs, 30 INTs, 7.2 career YPA, 8 rushing TDs
Tua Tagovailoa: 19-9 as a starter, 42 TDs, 18 INTs, 7.2 career YPA, 6 rushing TDs

Herbert has a slight edge in stats due to a better TD-INT ratio, but Tua has a far better W/L record.  Wins and losses supposedly matter more when it comes to QBs, but apparently not, as every time I see a football talking head do a list of the best QBs in the league right now, Herbert is either in the top 5 (usually at 4 or 5) or close to it, while Tua is not even in many top 10s.

I think Herbert IS really good, and will have a very good NFL career, but he is being put in a conversation with proven commodities already, which seems more than a bit premature.  Can he get a winning record as a starter first? Can he win a playoff game? Heck, can he MAKE the playoffs first??

[Stadler]

My issue with championships playing into it is that one player can ride a great team to a title. Obviously someone like Brady, who has five Super Bowl MVP awards in addition to his seven Super Bowl rings, played a huge factor in most of his team’s title wins, but then you have guys like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who rode all time great defenses to a ring, while guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly never reached the summit for various reasons, some having nothing to do with them (wide right anyone?). I definitely put Brady and Montana above Marino and Kelly because they have the stats as well as the rings, but to diminish these players’ amazing accomplishments simply because those incredible careers didn’t include a championship is ridiculous especially in football which is the ultimate team game where one player can’t really win a game essentially by themselves like in baseball, hockey, and especially basketball.

It's case by case.  But here's the thing:  there's an argument - and a good one - that Marino wouldn't have those numbers if he DID have a ring.  How many games did the 'fins lose 48-45?  How many games did Brady finish with 175 yards, because the last 20 minutes were the Pats running the ball to keep the clock moving?  I'm a system guy, a team guy; if I'm playing the best pass defense in the league, I'm not throwing it down their throat; I'm doing what I can to WIN, and sometimes that means NOT throwing for 350 yards and 4 TD.  Look at Peyton Manning; for my money, his greatest season - well, not GREATEST, but most impressive - was the SB win in Denver because he did everything that the sort of stereotypical "Peyton Manning" WOULDN'T do.  That showed me everything I needed to know about Peyton Manning and elevated him in my mind to one of the three or four best QBs to ever play the game.

NO, Trent Dilfer is not better than Dan Marino because he has a ring; that's just stupid.   But when you start to have QBs that are similar in numbers, that's the differentiator for me for sure, because that's the ONE THING that most of the players are all united on.

Oh look, the goal posts just moved (pun intended).  You certainly made it seem like it was the ONLY stat that matters and you were referring to a QB that has only started 40 games compared to someone who's played over 360 games.  Not really a fair comparison.

No, the goal posts DIDN'T move; you were trying to pin on me some absolute black and white standard that doesn't exist.   You pointed to Dilfer and Johnson, but the best example is Jeff Hostetler in NY for Parcell's second Super Bowl.  C'mon; he's in NO ONE'S conversation for "greatest QB", even on his own team.   BUT when you start getting to the level of "Elite" QBs, I think SB's count a lot, and not just because of the team; as I said before, I'm a "team" guy; ask any Patriot from the past 20 years and they will tell you: "We could have been down 15 points with 15 seconds on the clock and with Brady, I really did honestly believe we still had a shot to win".   Even the defense knew; "I just need to step up for one more play, stuff these fuckers, and Tom Terrific is going to carry us home".  That's greatness, and the greatest players - even in team sports - had that:  Gretzky, Messier, Bird, Montana, Brady... I'd love to hear what King and Bart and TAC say, but I know for me, it's a real feeling of disappointment now in New England knowing that reality has set in; we're down 14 with even 10 minutes to go and it's not a given anymore.

[Skeever]

DC taking Commanders to court. Wow.

[Dream Team]

A QB's defense should never be a factor in considering whether he's better than another. Ever. Marino had shit defenses his entire career. If QB A "wins" 17-16 but QB B "loses" 36-34 who really played better?

Or this scenario: Peyton Manning gets his team into Field Goal range at the end of the game, trailing Tom Brady 21-20. If Vanderjagt (eff him forever) makes the field goal, the next day's headline is "Manning outduels Brady". If he misses it's "Brady outduels Manning". I think we can all see how intellectually dishonest this is. No QB wins a game by himself, and never will. All a QB can do to help his team win is to PLAY THE BEST HE CAN. And how do you measure who played best? With numbers, not "gut feeling" or hyperbole.

[bosk1]

I don't overly disagree with a lot of that, but I do disagree that it's not that black and white.  There are things "numbers" alone don't necessarily capture.  I think something like this was already mentioned, but what about the situation where the coach dials up a big pass play for a touchdown, the offense comes up to the line, and the QB recognizes that the defense that lines up is a BAD matchup for that play and will likely squash it, so the QB audibles out of it, calls a run, and that run play goes for a touchdown?  The QB loses out on the completion, the yards, and the TD.  The runner gets all of that.  That doesn't show up in the QB's stats at all, but he gets a TON of the credit for recognizing and calling the correct play on the fly.  And that says nothing about all the other plays the team later completes successfully because the other players have more confidence in their QB than if he was just a gunslinger that can complete the impossible pass every now and then.  That doesn't necessarily directly show up in the stat line either.  Nor to the scenarios Stadler just laid out.  Stats are great.  But they don't paint the whole picture.  There are any number of scenarios we can come up with that illustrate why.

[Stadler]

A QB's defense should never be a factor in considering whether he's better than another. Ever. Marino had shit defenses his entire career. If QB A "wins" 17-16 but QB B "loses" 36-34 who really played better?

Or this scenario: Peyton Manning gets his team into Field Goal range at the end of the game, trailing Tom Brady 21-20. If Vanderjagt (eff him forever) makes the field goal, the next day's headline is "Manning outduels Brady". If he misses it's "Brady outduels Manning". I think we can all see how intellectually dishonest this is. No QB wins a game by himself, and never will. All a QB can do to help his team win is to PLAY THE BEST HE CAN. And how do you measure who played best? With numbers, not "gut feeling" or hyperbole.

Exactly.   Perfect.  Beautiful.   SEVEN Super Bowl rings.  More than any other QB in history.   GOAT.

[KevShmev]

A QB's defense should never be a factor in considering whether he's better than another. Ever. Marino had shit defenses his entire career. If QB A "wins" 17-16 but QB B "loses" 36-34 who really played better?

Or this scenario: Peyton Manning gets his team into Field Goal range at the end of the game, trailing Tom Brady 21-20. If Vanderjagt (eff him forever) makes the field goal, the next day's headline is "Manning outduels Brady". If he misses it's "Brady outduels Manning". I think we can all see how intellectually dishonest this is. No QB wins a game by himself, and never will. All a QB can do to help his team win is to PLAY THE BEST HE CAN. And how do you measure who played best? With numbers, not "gut feeling" or hyperbole.

Not necessarily.  Numbers can be skewed based on game situation.  Check out the Dallas/Denver game last year.  Prescott and the Cowboys were horrible for most of the game, but Prescott stayed in the game despite being down 30-0 in the 4th quarter, threw 2 late garbage scores, and ended up with around 230 passing yards and 2 TDs.  Sounds like a good game, right? The numbers say it was, but it wasn't.  And there are many examples like that.

Also, QB A outdueled QB B is just media nonsense since the two QBs are never on the field at the same time.  The people who think Eli should be in the HOF because he beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl twice are just dumb.  Leaving aside the fact that the Giants offense scored 17 and 19 points in those games (woah, stand back!!), the Giants defense shutting down the Patriots offense in both games is why they won, but all some remember are the drives at the end of each to win.

[Dream Team]

I am extremely worried about the officiating in Germany this Sunday. For some bizarre reason, instead of trying to promote star young players who are the future of the sport, the NFL wants to use a fading legend to pump up interest in the game. So you KNOW they would really like Brady to come out on top. If there are blatant questionable calls you saw the prediction here first; if not I’ll be back here to eat crow. But I’m pretty confident that the NFL will not care one iota about hosing Geno Smith who’s been the best story in the league this year.

[King Postwhore]

This fading legend had 800,000 fans in Germany trying to get tickets. You sound like a conspiracy theorist..


https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34996579/why-800k-fans-vied-see-brady-bucs-face-seahawks-germany

[Podaar]

Is that really a thing? Officiating agendas by the league to intentionally skew the results toward one team over another? Uh, wow...