2023 NFL Thread v Super Bowl matchup: Chiefs vs. 49ers

[Stadler]

Haha.  But you actually made me curious enough to try to Google whether anyone keeps that stat, and I think the answer is 'no,' unfortunately.  I did find that anecdotally, someone on Reddit actually tried to keep track of that last season, and Geno Smith was allegedly #1.  I'd be curious to know how starting QBs ranked in that area.  But just from games I've seen this year, I'm positive Purdy isn't at the top of that list.

I've been told it is Tua at 1 and Purdy at 2 but yes, it isn't an official stat.....

That seems like a stat like "my girlfriend from Canada".   Woulda, shoulda, coulda, and dependent on a lot of factors, some of which actually go to the skill of the QB (like, not putting the ball right in the breadbasket of the DB, like Mac Jones did in Frankfurt).

[The Realm]

Haha.  But you actually made me curious enough to try to Google whether anyone keeps that stat, and I think the answer is 'no,' unfortunately.  I did find that anecdotally, someone on Reddit actually tried to keep track of that last season, and Geno Smith was allegedly #1.  I'd be curious to know how starting QBs ranked in that area.  But just from games I've seen this year, I'm positive Purdy isn't at the top of that list.

I've been told it is Tua at 1 and Purdy at 2 but yes, it isn't an official stat.....

That seems like a stat like "my girlfriend from Canada".   Woulda, shoulda, coulda, and dependent on a lot of factors, some of which actually go to the skill of the QB (like, not putting the ball right in the breadbasket of the DB, like Mac Jones did in Frankfurt).

Don't fully understand that post but I do know that Purdy has put a few throws right in the bread basket of a few DBs who were so surprised he threw the ball straight to them they dropped the INT. As a Packers fan, just rewatch the Divisional Playoff game.

Purdy is good, he isn't great. He is a middle of the league QB going up against the best in the game. I wish him luck.

[Stadler]

Haha.  But you actually made me curious enough to try to Google whether anyone keeps that stat, and I think the answer is 'no,' unfortunately.  I did find that anecdotally, someone on Reddit actually tried to keep track of that last season, and Geno Smith was allegedly #1.  I'd be curious to know how starting QBs ranked in that area.  But just from games I've seen this year, I'm positive Purdy isn't at the top of that list.

I've been told it is Tua at 1 and Purdy at 2 but yes, it isn't an official stat.....

That seems like a stat like "my girlfriend from Canada".   Woulda, shoulda, coulda, and dependent on a lot of factors, some of which actually go to the skill of the QB (like, not putting the ball right in the breadbasket of the DB, like Mac Jones did in Frankfurt).

Don't fully understand that post but I do know that Purdy has put a few throws right in the bread basket of a few DBs who were so surprised he threw the ball straight to them they dropped the INT. As a Packers fan, just rewatch the Divisional Playoff game.

Purdy is good, he isn't great. He is a middle of the league QB going up against the best in the game. I wish him luck.

All I meant was, it seems like the sort of stat that doesn't really tell you anything in and of itself, but rather seems fodder for whatever point needs to be made.

Brock wins, so far.  That's the only metric that matters.  I know others disagree, but I'd rather win with a good/very good quarterback than not win with the MVP or the GOAT. 

[Dream Team]

You know how easy it is to diffuse this stupid hot-button topic that the sports media won't drop?

Reasonable Person #1: Hey this Mahomes kid has had kind of an unprecedented start to a career when you consider both his
                                  personal and team accomplishments.

Reasonable Person #2: True that. And the thing about Brady is that it's what he and his teams accomplished after he
                                  turned 36 that will make it nigh impossible for anyone to match his career achievements.

Reasonable Person #1: For sure. Well I guess while we see how it plays out, let's just enjoy the greatness of both as well as
                                  enjoying watching the other great players in the league.

Reasonable Person #2: Amen

So, so easy.

[bosk1]

^Yup, 100%. 

But I would also add Reasonable Person #3:  Yeah, but I still don't like him.

[hunnus2000]

I guess Stadler can answer for himself, but I don't see what anything you are saying (or at least most of it) has to do with what Stadler said.

Well if I took anything incorrectly then I guess he can tell me.

HAHA, are you kidding?  You took ALL of it incorrectly.  Par for the course.

1. Never once ever said that first year coaches can't have success.  I'm saying that there was no need to change from Belichick UNLESS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING BETTER.  First year coaches are NOT a guarantee of success.  I wish Jerrod Mayo the best, but there's no criteria under which you can FOR CERTAIN say he is an UPGRADE to Belichick. That's all I said.
2. Shula; after they lost to the Pats in the AFC Championship game, the next eight years he went .500 or worse four times, another year 8-7, and another year 9-7.  It was only in his seventh season from his last Championship game that he made it back (so I guess "seven seasons to turn it around" is more accurate).
3. Agree to disagree.  His last year with Brady he was 12-4 and lost the wildcard game.  Next season, with a has-been at QB, he was one game under .500 (with at least two games lost DIRECTLY because the has-been was exactly that) and the following season he made the playoffs with a rookie QB.  Then the next season, Mac started to showed his true colors once the league had a chance to go round and watch film, then completely faded last year.  TWO YEARS. I do not buy into the blame game that attributes Mac's performance to Belichick.  There was NOTHING, for example, about that lame duck interception against the Colts (in the game that supposedly sealed Belichick's fate) that was even remotely attributable to Bill.  It was a conservative route, well-run, and it was a relatively easy read,  but Mac simply threw the ball five yards (at least) off target.  He couldn't have made a better throw had he targeted that defensive back.

Two seasons.  Two seasons, and they bailed on the greatest coach in the history of the game in favor of a coach that has ZERO head coaching experience and a quarterback that has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he does not have the strength of character to be an elite quarterback in the NFL.  The Dolphins gave Shula EIGHT years to turn it around.  Look at Tomlin.   I think you sit down with him, O'Brien, and say look, we're done with Mac Jones, let's plan the future right now.  You get to draft, you get to cut the players down to 55, but we're moving in another direction than Mac Jones whether you like it or not.

Above was your original post but your later post did a better job of adding context to your thoughts:
1) I am well aware of you what you didn't say. All I was saying was that there have been plenty of successful first year coaches but I disagree with you about replacing a coach and "knowing" that the replacement will do better. How can any owner "know" they are going to do better? And if anything there is no guarantee that a that BB will have success in the future. Just look at Tom Landry.
2) If you are saying that Shula or Tomlin were given years to turn things around after their initial success then I agree with you. The cardinal sin of an owner is staying with the same coach too long but a coach is only as good as his QB.
3) I'm sure the Pats are done with Mac Brown but I still think BB ruined him. I mean it was his "genius" that put a DC as an OC with no experience.  Also, after that rookie season with Mac, someone on this board said "Patriots in the Super Bowl in 3 years, book it". Josh Mcdaniels was the OC at the time and I think the next season to the Raiders?  After that, Mac's production fell way off. With better coaching, I think Mac can be a serviceable QB in this league.

People seem to rely on a head coach's past success and but their past success is no guarantee of future success. BB wants to run the whole show and owners are shying away from that. I understand that Arthur Blank wanted BB as the coach but not GM.

[King Postwhore]

When you are the coach and GM, you only have yourself to blame.  Lack of talent after Brady left.  Poor choices on coaching of a 2nd year QB.  No plan when you pushed Brady out the door.  He took advise of other collage coaches who were his friends over his own scouts.  This also lead for many scout to leave for other teams.

I will always look fondly as he is the greatest coach ever, but no one is infallible.

[Stadler]

Two seasons.  Two seasons, and they bailed on the greatest coach in the history of the game in favor of a coach that has ZERO head coaching experience and a quarterback that has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he does not have the strength of character to be an elite quarterback in the NFL.  The Dolphins gave Shula EIGHT years to turn it around.  Look at Tomlin.   I think you sit down with him, O'Brien, and say look, we're done with Mac Jones, let's plan the future right now.  You get to draft, you get to cut the players down to 55, but we're moving in another direction than Mac Jones whether you like it or not.

Above was your original post but your later post did a better job of adding context to your thoughts:
1) I am well aware of you what you didn't say. All I was saying was that there have been plenty of successful first year coaches but I disagree with you about replacing a coach and "knowing" that the replacement will do better. How can any owner "know" they are going to do better? And if anything there is no guarantee that a that BB will have success in the future. Just look at Tom Landry.

Well, "know", "think".  My point is, Kraft can't POSSIBLY be in the headspace that "yeah, Bill's better, I'll do better with him, but we're going to give Jerrod a shot".  By WHATEVER metric Kraft is using, Kraft feels he's better with Mayo than Belichick, and other than "Mayo might be coaching in 15 years, and Belichick will almost certainly not", I can't, myself, figure out what that metric is.

2) If you are saying that Shula or Tomlin were given years to turn things around after their initial success then I agree with you. The cardinal sin of an owner is staying with the same coach too long but a coach is only as good as his QB.

I generally don't disagree with that point, but "only as good as his QB" is dynamic, because a QB is only as good as his coach.  Who are the greatest QBs of all time?  Other than MAYBE Payton Manning, every one of them played for not just a very very good coach, but a LEGENDARY coach.

3) I'm sure the Pats are done with Mac Brown but I still think BB ruined him. I mean it was his "genius" that put a DC as an OC with no experience.  Also, after that rookie season with Mac, someone on this board said "Patriots in the Super Bowl in 3 years, book it". Josh Mcdaniels was the OC at the time and I think the next season to the Raiders?  After that, Mac's production fell way off. With better coaching, I think Mac can be a serviceable QB in this league.

I may have been that guy.  I was Team Mac from the get-go; had he had a backbone, had he been better able to handle the pressure, I think he COULD have been at least as good as Jim Plunkett or Bob Greise, or Eli Manning (QBs with two or more Super Bowl wins).

I think the OC thing is overblown. I'm not a fan of Patricia, myself, but he was a head coach.  He's a football guy.  I think it was within his wheelhouse to be the OC. He started out on that side of the ball (and technically speaking, JMD started out on the defensive side of the ball).  Belichick is known as a defensive wizard but even HE was a tight end in college and his first couple jobs were on that side of the ball. I would have preferred JMD stay for the first couple years of Mac's career, but no one cares what I prefer.  The reality is what the reality is. At the end of the day he has to perform.  We're not talking about kids, we're talking about grown men.

People seem to rely on a head coach's past success and but their past success is no guarantee of future success. BB wants to run the whole show and owners are shying away from that. I understand that Arthur Blank wanted BB as the coach but not GM.

And that's fair.  I can see that; many - most? - teams want to run by committee for continuity.  That's Bill's call whether he wants to relinquish that or not, and if he doesn't it's his call.

[bosk1]

This is amazing:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lifelong-green-bay-packers-fan-145333380.html

Short version is that a longtime Packers fan sent in a resume and cover letter to apply for the Packers' defensive coordinator position, and was attempting to be somewhat humorous, and got a response back from the president/CEO that said:

"Bill, Thanks so much for your cover letter and resume regarding our Defensive Coordinator position.  While your fantasy football experience is impressive, I regret to inform you that we have decided to go in a different direction. I hear the Bears have an opening — you look to be a perfect fit for them. Thanks again. Sincerely — Mark."

[TAC]

This is amazing:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lifelong-green-bay-packers-fan-145333380.html

Short version is that a longtime Packers fan sent in a resume and cover letter to apply for the Packers' defensive coordinator position, and was attempting to be somewhat humorous, and got a response back from the president/CEO that said:

"Bill, Thanks so much for your cover letter and resume regarding our Defensive Coordinator position.  While your fantasy football experience is impressive, I regret to inform you that we have decided to go in a different direction. I hear the Bears have an opening — you look to be a perfect fit for them. Thanks again. Sincerely — Mark."

Classic response!

[Stadler]

I love that! 

[hefdaddy42]

 

[pg1067]

Haha.  But you actually made me curious enough to try to Google whether anyone keeps that stat, and I think the answer is 'no,' unfortunately.  I did find that anecdotally, someone on Reddit actually tried to keep track of that last season, and Geno Smith was allegedly #1.  I'd be curious to know how starting QBs ranked in that area.  But just from games I've seen this year, I'm positive Purdy isn't at the top of that list.

I've been told it is Tua at 1 and Purdy at 2 but yes, it isn't an official stat.....

That seems like a stat like "my girlfriend from Canada".   Woulda, shoulda, coulda, and dependent on a lot of factors, some of which actually go to the skill of the QB (like, not putting the ball right in the breadbasket of the DB, like Mac Jones did in Frankfurt).

Don't fully understand that post but I do know that Purdy has put a few throws right in the bread basket of a few DBs who were so surprised he threw the ball straight to them they dropped the INT. As a Packers fan, just rewatch the Divisional Playoff game.

Purdy is good, he isn't great. He is a middle of the league QB going up against the best in the game. I wish him luck.

All I meant was, it seems like the sort of stat that doesn't really tell you anything in and of itself, but rather seems fodder for whatever point needs to be made.

Brock wins, so far.  That's the only metric that matters.  I know others disagree, but I'd rather win with a good/very good quarterback than not win with the MVP or the GOAT.

I would argue that dropped interceptions is a meaningful thing.  While I didn't see the entire game, I did see Purdy twice hit Green Bay defenders in the chest, only for the defenders to drop the ball.  I recall one of those that should have been returned for a pick-6, and had even one of those defenders done his job, SF likely would have lost that game.  Obviously, it's a woulda-coulda-shoulda thing, but eventually, once things average out, those dropped interceptions will turn into actual interceptions.  All that being said, I have no clue where Purdy ranks overall, and one game is an insignificant sample size.

[cramx3]

This is amazing:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lifelong-green-bay-packers-fan-145333380.html

Short version is that a longtime Packers fan sent in a resume and cover letter to apply for the Packers' defensive coordinator position, and was attempting to be somewhat humorous, and got a response back from the president/CEO that said:

"Bill, Thanks so much for your cover letter and resume regarding our Defensive Coordinator position.  While your fantasy football experience is impressive, I regret to inform you that we have decided to go in a different direction. I hear the Bears have an opening — you look to be a perfect fit for them. Thanks again. Sincerely — Mark."

That's a funny story 

[bosk1]

I would argue that dropped interceptions is a meaningful thing.  While I didn't see the entire game, I did see Purdy twice hit Green Bay defenders in the chest, only for the defenders to drop the ball.  I recall one of those that should have been returned for a pick-6, and had even one of those defenders done his job, SF likely would have lost that game.  Obviously, it's a woulda-coulda-shoulda thing, but eventually, once things average out, those dropped interceptions will turn into actual interceptions.  All that being said, I have no clue where Purdy ranks overall, and one game is an insignificant sample size.

It's certainly an interesting stat.  I'm not sure if it is a meaningful one.  As Stadler said, there are a lot of factors.  And, as with completion rate, a QB does not get credit for good throws that a receiver drops.  It's an incompletion, period.  It's not a catch.  Same with the interceptions.  So while it's not a perfect way of keeping stats, it's at least somewhat consistent.

That being said, I'd still be curious to see what the numbers looked like.

[Dream Team]

Stadler, I need to push back a little on this mindset that Purdy is a "winner, for now". Just genuinely trying to understand what you mean. Does that mean if he loses the Super Bowl he's a loser? He was a winner against Philadelphia but a loser against Baltimore? Has everyone already forgotten that people were saying the EXACT same thing about Garoppolo in Shanahan's system? Did Jimmy forget how to win when he went to the Raiders? How much winning would Brock do in Carolina? He's surrounded by an all-star team right now, there's no need to give him more of the credit than McCaffrey or Samuel. Winning and losing is a team measurement and I know you love teams because you were just emphasizing them in a different thread. It's why QB wins are not a stat.

Now, the kid has played extremely well. Better than Jimmy. He's a great story. But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

[Stadler]

Stadler, I need to push back a little on this mindset that Purdy is a "winner, for now". Just genuinely trying to understand what you mean. Does that mean if he loses the Super Bowl he's a loser? He was a winner against Philadelphia but a loser against Baltimore? Has everyone already forgotten that people were saying the EXACT same thing about Garoppolo in Shanahan's system? Did Jimmy forget how to win when he went to the Raiders? How much winning would Brock do in Carolina? He's surrounded by an all-star team right now, there's no need to give him more of the credit than McCaffrey or Samuel. Winning and losing is a team measurement and I know you love teams because you were just emphasizing them in a different thread. It's why QB wins are not a stat.

Now, the kid has played extremely well. Better than Jimmy. He's a great story. But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

By that same argument, Patrick Mahomes.  I could hit Kelce on some of the routes he runs he's so open. Seriously.  I'm not joking even a little bit.  I - a 56 years old man who's barely 5'8" in his Timberlands - could hit Travis Kelce with a pass he could reasonably catch on some of the routes he runs.  So which is it?  Is it the system or the man? 

Look, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.  In the games he's played SO FAR, he's won.  That's all I said.  He's not won a championship, so there's that, but so far, I say let him fail before you DO call him a "loser" like so many on ESPN seem to want to do in between fellating Patrick Mahomes.

(And no, I don't think "30 QBs could win on that team" unless the 30 QBs were Brady, Montana, Peyton, Mahomes, Unitas, Graham, Bradshaw, Staubach, Elway, Starr, etc.  (Incidentially, that's my top 10 list, more or less.))   

[hefdaddy42]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing." 

[TAC]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing."

Speaking of Troy Aikman, I still believe he doesn't get his deserved due because of how good his team was.

[hefdaddy42]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing."

Speaking of Troy Aikman, I still believe he doesn't get his deserved due because of how good his team was.

I think you're right.

[Stadler]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing."

Speaking of Troy Aikman, I still believe he doesn't get his deserved due because of how good his team was.

I think you're right.

I've sort of come around to that line of thinking as well.  It helps that I like him as an analyst A LOT.  He and Joe Buck are everything that Nantz and Romo are not. 

He also has big hands. 

[bosk1]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing." 

Exactly.  I can think of 4 starters in the Shanahan era in SF who did NOT have success. 

And the reverse argument, that if you put him on the Raiders or Panthers, he would fail, is also silly.  If you put prime Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning, or Brady, or Mahomes on the current Panthers, I don't think the Panthers are getting to the Super Bowl (or even the playoffs).  You can cherry pick teams to make your argument, but it doesn't work when you look at it critically.  Would Purdy elevate any team he is on that has a decent (or even competent) offensive scheme and weapons, and would he win more games with those teams than most other starting QBs in the league right now would?  From what I've seen, I think the answer is: probably, yes. 

[TAC]

But you could put 30 QBs on that team and they would all be "winners".

This is kind of bullshit.  I've seen some other people say similar things, but in an interview the other day when this very topic came up, Troy Aikman said, "No QBs are saying this kind of thing."

Speaking of Troy Aikman, I still believe he doesn't get his deserved due because of how good his team was.

I think you're right.

I've sort of come around to that line of thinking as well.  It helps that I like him as an analyst A LOT.  He and Joe Buck are everything that Nantz and Romo are not. 

He also has big hands.

He threw the nicest balls.

[bosk1]

You had to make it weird.

[TAC]

You had to make it weird.

Well, that's what I've always said. I've never seen anyone throw a ball like him.

Wait. What are YOU talking about?

[Samsara]

My official prediction:

49ers - 28
Chiefs - 24

>>>>Andy Reid retires following the game, no matter the result.

[bosk1]

For another reason I give the advantage to the 49ers, physicality is an underrated factor.  On both sides of the ball, the players love talking about how physical and violent they play the game.  It was a common thread in most 49ers games, whether win or lose, these past two seasons.  This season alone, you saw a lot of players on opposing teams making "business decisions" in the second half, whether it was avoiding being in on a tackle on defense or dropped passes where it looked like the receiver was "hearing footsteps" or avoiding a block on offense.  Look at the NFC championship game against Detroit too.  Yeah, the 49ers had a bad first half.  But they still brought the physicality, and appeared to ramp that up right out of the gate at halftime.  And what did we see?  Defenders avoiding making tackles on McCaffrey and Deebo, and avoiding blocks.  Receives dropping passes.  And so on.  Could be just loss of focus.  Could be just unlucky breaks for the Lions.  But the film is telling, and looks consistent with the types of things that are becoming common in their games.  I can definitely see this having an impact on KC as the game wears on as well. 

[cramx3]

Yeah, the 49ers are tough physically and I think that makes me think they'll win as well. 

[Stadler]

My official prediction:

49ers - 28
Chiefs - 24

>>>>Andy Reid retires following the game, no matter the result.

You know, I've been thinking that, and others have too, and it came up in the Q&A this week.  He denied it, and people close to him have stepped on their dicks to say that "He's all about cheeseburgers and football" to convey that he's not done yet.   But I tend to think he might be.   I think it's a lot on him, and he's not had the best of times in terms of his personal life.  At some point the gas is going to run out.

As for a prediction... the line is -2 right now (down slightly, showing that the money is moving to KC) and games this year with spreads of -2 or less have been really topsy turvy (underdogs win outright about a third of the time over the last 2 or 3 years).  The games in the playoffs with spreads of -2 or less have favored the underdog, and when you get to the Super Bowl, one game, anything can happen.  I also don't like the Chiefs as "underdog" from a incentive perspective. 

[bosk1]

As for a prediction... the line is -2 right now (down slightly, showing that the money is moving to KC) and games this year with spreads of -2 or less have been really topsy turvy (underdogs win outright about a third of the time over the last 2 or 3 years).  The games in the playoffs with spreads of -2 or less have favored the underdog, and when you get to the Super Bowl, one game, anything can happen.  I also don't like the Chiefs as "underdog" from a incentive perspective. 

But in all seriousness (and I would say the same thing even if I had no rooting interest for or against either team), so what?  Vegas odds are a product solely of how the betting public is likely to put down their money.  They have no predictive value whatsoever. 

I'm still predicting a blowout win for SF.

[pg1067]

Supposedly, betting the under is the smart bet because of Bill Vinovich being the referee.

[Lonk]

Found my sweets for game day:

[Jamesman42]

I am high and stared at that picture for too long wondering why TSwift was posing

[ReaperKK]

I am high and stared at that picture for too long wondering why TSwift was posing

, I just took an edible and lets see if it gives me the same effect

[Lonk]

I am high and stared at that picture for too long wondering why TSwift was posing

, I just took an edible and lets see if it gives me the same effect

Well.... what happened.

Sorry, I just needed to share