National Football League

[SHAD0W93]

My post above also got me thinking about the criticism that that Jimmy G is getting. SF wouldn't be in the SB without him IMO.

He had a solid year and played within the scheme of the team. 70% completion, 4,000 yards, 27 TDs on a run team .

For comparison Brees had 74%, 3,000 yards, 27 TDs (DB only had 4 ints to JGs 13 though).

In contrast, Dak 65%, 5,000 yards, 30 TDs (11 int), but frequently played outside of the system.

I think Kellerman's take on Grappolo being a 01-04 Brady was on point. No reason to constantly pass if your team is winning. I think winning is superior to stats unless you have both of those.

 

[movingtarget]

My post above also got me thinking about the criticism that that Jimmy G is getting. SF wouldn't be in the SB without him IMO.

He had a solid year and played within the scheme of the team. 70% completion, 4,000 yards, 27 TDs on a run team .

For comparison Brees had 74%, 3,000 yards, 27 TDs (DB only had 4 ints to JGs 13 though).

In contrast, Dak 65%, 5,000 yards, 30 TDs (11 int), but frequently played outside of the system.

jimmy is getting bashed at the moment in the media. Don't understand it. Some are basically saying that compared to Mahomes he is a laughing stock. I just watched a package of SF offense highlights for the season and I was surprised how many of the highlights revolved around their run game so what we have seen in the playoffs is extreme for today's game but their run game has been big for them all season and Shanahan has obviously learned from the Falcons SB loss. Don't adjust the game plan when it's working ! Colin Cowherd and one of two others have been consistent about the 49ers all season but most of the NFL media haven't been very fair on Jimmy. interestingly even Skip Bayless is getting tired of the Chiefs hype. Anyone would think they are unbeatable. All of the pressure is on Andy Reid and Mahomes and they are only 1.5 point favourites.

Not many mentioning the Saints game where Jimmy went toe to toe with Brees and got the win making some clutch throws in the process and also some of the later season games against the Rams and Hawks, he made big throws when he needed to. The interception ratio isn't great but i have seen better QBs with worse. It's the wins that matter. Some people are saying that Jimmy won't beat Mahomes in a shootout. That is probably the last scenario the Niners are looking at. they are keeping it simple at the moment and it's working but there is nothing simple about the scheming involved in their run game. they are mixing it up with lots of motion and their offensive line is playing well. Not to mention the blocking of the fullback and Kittle.

 

[jmdirt]

jimmy is getting bashed at the moment in the media. Don't understand it. Some are basically saying that compared to Mahomes he is a laughing stock. I just watched a package of SF offense highlights for the season and I was surprised how many of the highlights revolved around their run game so what we have seen in the playoffs is extreme for today's game but their run game has been big for them all season and Shanahan has obviously learned from the Falcons SB loss. Don't adjust the game plan when it's working ! Colin Cowherd and one of two others have been consistent about the 49ers all season but most of the NFL media haven't been very fair on Jimmy. interestingly even Skip Bayless is getting tired of the Chiefs hype. Anyone would think they are unbeatable. All of the pressure is on Andy Reid and Mahomes and they are only 1.5 point favourites.

Not many mentioning the Saints game where Jimmy went toe to toe with Brees and got the win making some clutch throws in the process and also some of the later season games against the Rams and Hawks, he made big throws when he needed to. The interception ratio isn't great but i have seen better QBs with worse. It's the wins that matter. Some people are saying that Jimmy won't beat Mahomes in a shootout. That is probably the last scenario the Niners are looking at. they are keeping it simple at the moment and it's working but there is nothing simple about the scheming involved in their run game. they are mixing it up with lots of motion and their offensive line is playing well. Not to mention the blocking of the fullback and Kittle.

Deebo is one of the best WR blockers too.

 

[Merckx index]

Lots of discussion on the www/radio about Eli: is he a HoFer?

I think the 2 SB (both over the dominant team of the past two decades, including inflicting on it its only loss of the season/postseason) will get Eli in the HOF. The other thing that will help him is longevity. He’s third all-time among QBs—just ahead of his big bro—in consecutive starts. But other than those two factors, he doesn’t seem to belong. Despite playing in a record-breaking offensive era, his career QBR (the older version) is 84.1. The league average over the 16 seasons of Manning’s career, is 85.3, though it’s been steadily rising. It was around 80 when Manning began his career, it’s around 90 now. That's not an ideal stat, but elite QBs generally are above average in it. And other than those two SB, Manning has only made the postseason four times, and the team lost in its first game each time.

An interesting contrast is Rivers, who unquestionably has been a better QB, with a better regular season record, but who has never played in a SB. Rivers has started every game for 14 consecutive seasons. His streak of 224 games (235 including the postseason) is the longest by any active NFL player, fifth all time, and second among QBs only to Favre, who has a record 297 consecutive starts (321 including playoffs). It’s not clear whether Rivers will still be with SD next year, but one more year of perfect starts, and he will be tied for third all-time. He has more TD (sixth all time and could pass Marino next year), and fewer picks than Eli, and a much higher career QBR, 95.1. If Eli gets in the HOF and Rivers doesn’t, I think it will be scandalous, but it could happen.

You could compare Rivers to another great SD QB who never made it to a SB, Dan Fouts. Fouts is a HOFer, but I think voters understood that his lack of postseason success was due to very poor defense. During his prime years, SD was one of the best offensive teams in the NFL, but they were also one of the worst defensively. Most of the time, they didn't even have a good running game. Fouts--helped by some great receivers--had to do it all. He usually had to put 30 points on the board to win, and this was in an era that was not as favorable to offenses as now.

We could see a lot of future HOFers retire soon, within a year or two of each other: Brady, Brees and Ben are locks, as is Rodgers, who will probably play several more years. Of the other active players, Russell Wilson is a virtual certainty. Matt Ryan has the numbers, but not a great postseason resume. Both of them are also iron men, by the way. Wilson has only played eight years, but hasn't missed a single game in that time. That's extraordinary, when you consider how much running he does, and how other running QBs have fared over time. Ryan has played twelve seasons and has missed only three games, one of them this past season.

My post above also got me thinking about the criticism that that Jimmy G is getting. SF wouldn't be in the SB without him IMO.

It's ironic that SF's season was considered ruined last year when JG went down, but this year they could have beaten GB in the NFC championship with any backup QB in the NFL. To be fair, JG made a big contribution in the middle of the season, when the 49ers were limping along with injuries to RB and the defense. He's no Mahomes, but he's at least an average QB, which is all SF needs considering their other strengths.

In fact, if the 49ers win the SB, I think they should be in the conversation for one of the greatest teams of all time. It' not that unusual to go 13-3 in the RS, but all three of the 49er losses came on essentially the last play of the game. No one has beaten them decisively. That is pretty rare. How many teams have a) won at least 13 RS games; b) lost none of their games by > 3 points (technically, SF lost to Atlanta by 7, but come on); and c) won the SB? It's a very small list:

1972 Dolphins 14-0
1984 49ers 15-1, one loss by 3 pts
1991 Redskins 14-2, lost by 3, 2 points

We might also include the 1966 Packers, winners of the first SB, who went 12-2 on a 14 game schedule, and lost their two games by 1 point and 3 points.

Five other SB winners won 13 or more games and lost no game by > 7 points:

1978 Steelers 14-2
1986 Giants 14-2
1989 49ers 14-2
1999 Rams 13-3
2013 Seahawks 13-3

We might also include the 1969 Chiefs, playing a 14 game schedule, who went 11-3, and whose worst loss was by 5 points. That's still only ten teams that have won the SB following a regular season in which they never lost more than three games, none by more than one score.

And I have to tip my hat to the 2010 Packers. They lost six games, but four losses were by a FG, and the other two by four points. In fact, that Packer team, and the 2013 Seahawks, are the only teams that have won the SB this century following a regular season in which they didn’t lose at least one game by double digits. But there will be another team this year, because none of the Chiefs's four losses this season was by more than 7 points.

 

[Nomad]

Lots of discussion on the www/radio about Eli: is he a HoFer? My gut feeling is no. My gut feeling for Peyton is yes though so let's compare stats:
Eli- 117-117, comp% 60, TD/Int 366/244, yards 57K, 2 SB
Peyton- 186-79, comp% 65, TD/Int 539/251, yards 72K, 2 SB

That being said, its a team game, and stats only tell part of the story, but that and 'popularity' determine HoF votes.

A .500 QB in the HoF?! There are a few (like Joe N) who actually have losing records, but?! And at least Plunkett with 2 SBs who isn't in (his carreer was a little 'nontraditional').

Many would argue that Peyton only got his second SB because of the DEN D, basically true, but they wouldn't have been in the SB without him so...

I'll let one of the stat guys make a better presentation than I just did.

Lots of discussion and lots of hostile debates on other discussion forums (people are literally at each other's throats over this). Frankly, I 've never seen anything so ridiculous that Eli Manning would not get into the HOF.

2-time SB MVP is the main reason. There's several QBs in the HOF with just one SB win.

John Elway is a Hall of Famer with 2 SB wins but only one where he was the MVP -- Manning has got 2 MVPs - impressive.

And comparing Manning with Elway where both had identical 16 year careers, Eli has more total passing yardage (57,023/51,475), more TD passes (366/300), higher PCT (60.3/56.9) and a better QBR (84.1/79.9).

If Elway made into the HOF it should be a no brainer for Manning.

Weiterleitungshinweis

 

[Merckx index]

Lots of discussion and lots of hostile debates on other discussion forums (people are literally at each other's throats over this). Frankly, I 've never seen anything so ridiculous that Eli Manning would not get into the HOF.

2-time SB MVP is the main reason. There's several QBs in the HOF with just one SB win.

Why should SB wins figure in it at all? This isn't the NBA, where one player can make or break a team. Aaron Rodgers is arguably the best QB of his generation, but has won only one SB. How many would he have won playing for NE? Jim Plunkett won two SB, and he's not in the HOF. He has a case, but it's borderline, because he wasn't that good for that long. While he shone in those two postseasons, the Raiders got to those postseasons mostly by riding great defense. Much the same for Eli.

Lots of QBs with indistinguished careers have won a SB: Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson. Does that make them as good as Steve Young, Bret Favre, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees? Does it make them better than Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly or Dan Marino?

And comparing Manning with Elway where both had identical 16 year careers, Eli has more total passing yardage (57,023/51,475), more TD passes (366/300), higher PCT (60.3/56.9) and a better QBR (84.1/79.9).

That's misleading, because Manning has played in a higher offensive era. As I pointed out in my previous post, the league average QBR when Manning began his career was around 80. Now it's around 90. Same thing with yardage, completion %, etc. All of these averages have gone way up since the early 90s at least, when the NFL began making some rule changes that favored the offense. Montana's career QBR would make him just about average in today's NFL. Marino's puts him well below average, and Fouts is still further below average. So is Favre.

To be fair, QBR has its flaws, there is a new metric, dating to 2006, that is considered better. But regardless, you can't compare either that or raw passing stats for QBs of different generations. You also have to consider the team. I regard Montana as one of the greatest QBs of all time, but he wasn't that much better than Marino, who never won a SB. The 49ers had a much better running game and defense than Miami did in those years. Conversely, because Miami depended much more on passing, Marino put up career totals higher than Montana's. His rate stats probably suffered, though, because teams were more prepared for him to pass. Montana could lean on the running game much more.

If Elway made into the HOF it should be a no brainer for Manning.

With all due respect, anyone who would compare Eli Manning to John Elway is a no-brainer.

 

[Nomad]

Why should SB wins figure in it at all? This isn't the NBA, where one player can make or break a team. Aaron Rodgers is arguably the best QB of his generation, but has won only one SB. How many would he have won playing for NE? Jim Plunkett won two SB, and he's not in the HOF. He has a case, but it's borderline, because he wasn't that good for that long. While he shone in those two postseasons, the Raiders got to those postseasons mostly by riding great defense. Much the same for Eli.



That's misleading, because Manning has played in a higher offensive era. As I pointed out in my previous post, the league average QBR when Manning began his career was around 80. Now it's around 90. Same thing with yardage, completion %, etc. All of these averages have gone way up since the early 90s at least, when the NFL began making some rule changes that favored the offense. Montana's career QBR would make him just about average in today's NFL.



With all due respect, anyone who would compare Eli Manning to John Elway is a no-brainer.

Why should SB wins figure into at all? C'mon...what a stupid remark! (and you claim to know so much about football?). The prime object for all (or most) teams is to win the SB! (no surprises there). And the QB becomes center stage in achieving that endeavor. Why do think owners fork out so much dough for these QBs? Why do you think QBs are routinely drafted with the #1 OA picks year after year and paid huge rookie contracts? Why are these 1st round drafted QBs usually starting at some point of their rookie season supplanting the veteran starter? Owners want to win and win now. Owners want their franchise QB to lead them to SBs (nothing new there).

For example, what an investment KC made with Mahomes in trading away the house moving up in the draft to get him. In just his first two years as the starter, he takes the team to the SB! In all those previous years none of the KC QBs could do it (Smith, Cassel, Green, DeBerg, Bono, Blackledge and even Montana!). And if KC wins the SB, Mahomes will be the 2nd youngest QB to ever win a SB. Mahomes is the sole reason why KC is back in the SB after a 50 yr hiatus!

I've posted several lengthy comments in the last month or so on the value of the QB and how owners have placed tremendously high expectations on these high drafted QBs to immediately win...and win often! I gave many examples of how top drafted QBs turned chumps into champs as well as how top drafted QBs were dumped primarily because they weren't winning and the owners were pissed! (see how Arizona last season dumped 10th OA pick "Chosen Rosen" after one freaking season because the team went 3-13!!!). You didn't challenge any of those many posts of mine before (go back and look at them - nothing from you or anyone else for that fact). I'm not going to give any more examples when I already gave numerous ones previously and they're on my posting history.

Eli Manning is a winner. He's a 2-time SB winning MVP QB -- what do you not understand about that? Look at all the QBs with long playing careers who either couldn't win a SB or could never get there at all (Rivers, Dalton, Kelly, Marino, Smith, Palmer, Romo, Fouts, Stafford, Newton, Cutler, etc.).

 

[Merckx index]

Why should SB wins figure into at all? C'mon...what a stupid remark! (and you claim to know so much about football?).

I don't think I've ever claimed to know a lot about football. I just post here occasionally. People can make up their own minds about what I know or don't know. The fact that the goal of every team is to win a SB (because Americans have to have their drama, they have to pretend that one game decides the best team, though anyone with a grade school understanding of math knows that isn't the case) doesn't mean that how good any one player is should depend on how many SB he wins. Is Brady 6x as valuable as Rodgers or Brees? Seriously? If he is, how come all these owners you claim are so hot to get to the SB and focus on the QB don't pay QBs according to that?

The prime object for all (or most) teams is to win the SB! (no surprises there). And the QB becomes center stage in achieving that endeavor. Why do think owners fork out so much dough for these QBs? Why do you think QBs are routinely drafted with the #1 OA picks year after year and paid huge rookie contracts? Why are these 1st round drafted QBs usually starting at some point of their rookie season supplanting the veteran starter? Owners want to win and win now. Owners want their franchise QB to lead them to SBs (nothing new there).

Yes, but there's a difference between saying the QB is the most important player on the team, and saying that he makes or breaks the team. There are ten other players on offense, and eleven on defense. The QB is not worth all of them combined. Just because owners want a QB to lead them to a SB doesn't mean they can ignore all the other players.

For example, what an investment KC made with Mahomes in trading away the house moving up in the draft to get him. In just his first two years as the starter, he takes the team to the SB! In all those previous years none of the KC QBs could do it (Smith, Cassel, Green, DeBerg, Bono, Blackledge and even Montana!). And if KC wins the SB, Mahomes will be the 2nd youngest QB to ever win a SB. Mahomes is the sole reason why KC is back in the SB after a 50 yr hiatus!

The KC team that drafted Mahomes was not some 4-12 laughingstock. They already had one of the winningest coaches in history (and some would say the HC is at least as important as, if not more important than the QB), and was already a solid playoff team. Yes, Mahomes took them to the next level, but he was hardly the sole reason. If he hadn't joined a very good team, he would not have been able to take them to the SB. And a big factor this year was strengthening the defense, which Reid felt had failed in the AFC championship loss last year.

I've posted several lengthy comments in the last month or so on the value of the QB and how owners have placed tremendously high expectations on these high drafted QBs to immediately win...and win often! I gave many examples of how top drafted QBs turned chumps into champs as well as how top drafted QBs were dumped primarily because they weren't winning and the owners were pissed! (see how Arizona last season dumped 10th OA pick "Chosen Rosen" after one freaking season because the team went 3-13!!!). You didn't challenge any of those many posts of mine before (go back and look at them - nothing from you or anyone else for that fact). I'm not going to give any more examples when I already gave numerous ones previously and they're on my posting history.

Owners dump managers when the team fails to win, and they dump QBs when the team fails to win. You ought to be sophisticated to know that a lot of these moves are P.R. The owner wants to show that s/he's doing something, and since coaches and QBs are the most important part of the team, getting rid of them is the logical place to start. It doesn't mean that getting a new coach or QB will make a difference. How's that philosophy working in Cleveland, for example? You might argue that's because they don't have the right HC or the right QB, but that's circular reasoning. You define a good QB as someone who will win a SB, so if the team doesn't win a SB, the QB must not have been good. I've already pointed out numerous examples of so-so QBs who demonstrate it's not that simple. There are also great QBs who don't win many SB. If you think Rodgers and Brees aren't great QBs, you're in a very small minority, but they've only won one SB each. Peyton Manning only won one while at Indy, and that took a while. Should the team have dumped him when they didn't win a SB in his first five years?

Eli Manning is a winner. He's a 2-time SB winning MVP QB -- what do you not understand about that? Look at all the QBs with long playing careers who either couldn't win a SB or could never get there at all (Rivers, Dalton, Kelly, Marino, Smith, Palmer, Romo, Fouts, Stafford, Newton, Cutler, etc.).

You don't seem to acknowledge that football is a team sport. The greatest QBs don't win if they aren't surrounded by other great players. How many SBs did Montana take KC to? Again, circular reasoning. If a team wins multiple SB with one QB, that QB must be much better than other QBs, ignoring any other differences between the teams. Joe Gibbs won three SB with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Parcells won two SB and went to another, with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Wouldn't that suggest that the coach, who's responsible not for just the QB, but putting a team together, is a big factor in winning? That it's quite possible to win a SB without a great QB?

You also don't seem to give luck its due. But for an extraordinarily improbable catch by Tyree, there would have been no first SB win for Eli. If Ted Ginn Jr hadn't been injured, the Giants wouldn't have even gotten to their second SB.

If Eli so much better than Rivers, Kelly, Marino, Fouts, and others, why doesn't it show in his regular season stats? Why did he do virtually nothing in the postseason except for those two SBs? Why did the Giants average less than 20 points a game in all his playoff appearances?

You probably think Eli Manning is a better QB than Matt Ryan, because Eli won 2 SBs, and Ryan has won none. But in the one SB in which Ryan appeared, he had a far better performance than Manning has ever had in any of his twelve playoff appearances. Is it his fault that his team gave up 34 points?

 

[Nomad]

Bottomline
I don't think I've ever claimed to know a lot about football. I just post here occasionally. People can make up their own minds about what I know or don't know. The fact that the goal of every team is to win a SB (because Americans have to have their drama, they have to pretend that one game decides the best team, though anyone with a grade school understanding of math knows that isn't the case) doesn't mean that how good any one player is should depend on how many SB he wins. Is Brady 6x as valuable as Rodgers or Brees? Seriously? If he is, how come all these owners you claim are so hot to get to the SB and focus on the QB don't pay QBs according to that?



Yes, but there's a difference between saying the QB is the most important player on the team, and saying that he makes or breaks the team. There are ten other players on offense, and eleven on defense. The QB is not worth all of them combined. Just because owners want a QB to lead them to a SB doesn't mean they can ignore all the other players.



The KC team that drafted Mahomes was not some 4-12 laughingstock. They already had one of the winningest coaches in history (and some would say the HC is at least as important as, if not more important than the QB), and was already a solid playoff team. Yes, Mahomes took them to the next level, but he was hardly the sole reason. If he hadn't joined a very good team, he would not have been able to take them to the SB. And a big factor this year was strengthening the defense, which Reid felt had failed in the AFC championship loss last year.



Owners dump managers when the team fails to win, and they dump QBs when the team fails to win. You ought to be sophisticated to know that a lot of these moves are P.R. The owner wants to show that s/he's doing something, and since coaches and QBs are the most important part of the team, getting rid of them is the logical place to start. It doesn't mean that getting a new coach or QB will make a difference. How's that philosophy working in Cleveland, for example? You might argue that's because they don't have the right HC or the right QB, but that's circular reasoning. You define a good QB as someone who will win a SB, so if the team doesn't win a SB, the QB must not have been good. I've already pointed out numerous examples of so-so QBs who demonstrate it's not that simple. There are also great QBs who don't win many SB. If you think Rodgers and Brees aren't great QBs, you're in a very small minority, but they've only won one SB each. Peyton Manning only won one while at Indy, and that took a while. Should the team have dumped him when they didn't win a SB in his first five years?



You don't seem to acknowledge that football is a team sport. The greatest QBs don't win if they aren't surrounded by other great players. How many SBs did Montana take KC to? Again, circular reasoning. If a team wins multiple SB with one QB, that QB must be much better than other QBs, ignoring any other differences between the teams. Joe Gibbs won three SB with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Parcells won two SB and went to another, with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Wouldn't that suggest that the coach, who's responsible not for just the QB, but putting a team together, is a big factor in winning? That it's quite possible to win a SB without a great QB?

You also don't seem to give luck its due. But for an extraordinarily improbable catch by Tyree, there would have been no first SB win for Eli. If Ted Ginn Jr hadn't been injured, the Giants wouldn't have even gotten to their second SB.

If Eli so much better than Rivers, Kelly, Marino, Fouts, and others, why doesn't it show in his regular season stats? Why did he do virtually nothing in the postseason except for those two SBs? Why did the Giants average less than 20 points a game in all his playoff appearances?

You probably think Eli Manning is a better QB than Matt Ryan, because Eli won 2 SBs, and Ryan has won none. But in the one SB in which Ryan appeared, he had a far better performance than Manning has ever had in any of his twelve playoff appearances. Is it his fault that his team gave up 34 points?

I don't think I've ever claimed to know a lot about football. I just post here occasionally. People can make up their own minds about what I know or don't know. The fact that the goal of every team is to win a SB (because Americans have to have their drama, they have to pretend that one game decides the best team, though anyone with a grade school understanding of math knows that isn't the case) doesn't mean that how good any one player is should depend on how many SB he wins. Is Brady 6x as valuable as Rodgers or Brees? Seriously? If he is, how come all these owners you claim are so hot to get to the SB and focus on the QB don't pay QBs according to that?



Yes, but there's a difference between saying the QB is the most important player on the team, and saying that he makes or breaks the team. There are ten other players on offense, and eleven on defense. The QB is not worth all of them combined. Just because owners want a QB to lead them to a SB doesn't mean they can ignore all the other players.



The KC team that drafted Mahomes was not some 4-12 laughingstock. They already had one of the winningest coaches in history (and some would say the HC is at least as important as, if not more important than the QB), and was already a solid playoff team. Yes, Mahomes took them to the next level, but he was hardly the sole reason. If he hadn't joined a very good team, he would not have been able to take them to the SB. And a big factor this year was strengthening the defense, which Reid felt had failed in the AFC championship loss last year.



Owners dump managers when the team fails to win, and they dump QBs when the team fails to win. You ought to be sophisticated to know that a lot of these moves are P.R. The owner wants to show that s/he's doing something, and since coaches and QBs are the most important part of the team, getting rid of them is the logical place to start. It doesn't mean that getting a new coach or QB will make a difference. How's that philosophy working in Cleveland, for example? You might argue that's because they don't have the right HC or the right QB, but that's circular reasoning. You define a good QB as someone who will win a SB, so if the team doesn't win a SB, the QB must not have been good. I've already pointed out numerous examples of so-so QBs who demonstrate it's not that simple. There are also great QBs who don't win many SB. If you think Rodgers and Brees aren't great QBs, you're in a very small minority, but they've only won one SB each. Peyton Manning only won one while at Indy, and that took a while. Should the team have dumped him when they didn't win a SB in his first five years?



You don't seem to acknowledge that football is a team sport. The greatest QBs don't win if they aren't surrounded by other great players. How many SBs did Montana take KC to? Again, circular reasoning. If a team wins multiple SB with one QB, that QB must be much better than other QBs, ignoring any other differences between the teams. Joe Gibbs won three SB with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Parcells won two SB and went to another, with three different QBs, none of them HOFers. Wouldn't that suggest that the coach, who's responsible not for just the QB, but putting a team together, is a big factor in winning? That it's quite possible to win a SB without a great QB?

You also don't seem to give luck its due. But for an extraordinarily improbable catch by Tyree, there would have been no first SB win for Eli. If Ted Ginn Jr hadn't been injured, the Giants wouldn't have even gotten to their second SB.

If Eli so much better than Rivers, Kelly, Marino, Fouts, and others, why doesn't it show in his regular season stats? Why did he do virtually nothing in the postseason except for those two SBs? Why did the Giants average less than 20 points a game in all his playoff appearances?

You probably think Eli Manning is a better QB than Matt Ryan, because Eli won 2 SBs, and Ryan has won none. But in the one SB in which Ryan appeared, he had a far better performance than Manning has ever had in any of his twelve playoff appearances. Is it his fault that his team gave up 34 points?

Bottom line on Eli Manning is that he deserves the HOF by virtue he's a 2-time SB Most Valuable Player. There's only five (5) players with multiple SB MVPs - all happen to be QBs:

Brady (4)
Montana (3)
Starr (2)
Bradshaw (2)
E. Manning (2)

Starr, Bradshaw, Montana are all in the HOF and we know Brady is a shoo-in if he ever decides to retire. Lol. That leaves Manning -- do you really think they would leave out a 2-time MVP when all the others were selected?

The rest of your points I simply disagree with. Of course it's a "team sport" but it's more about the QB than you think. It's a high-profile position and usually the face of the franchise. That's why so many are taken with the #1 OA pick. That's why so many of these high-draft picks are given big rookie contracts with ridiculous signing bonuses and haven't even played a down of football yet. You're looking at another QB taken #1 in this year's draft in Joe Burrow presumably to Cincinnati. That would make QBs in the last 3 drafts taken as thee #1 OA -- crazy! And in eight (8) out of the last eleven (11) drafts, QBs were taken with the #1 OA picks including in 3 of those 8, QBs were taken in the top 2 picks: 2016 (Goff/Wentz), 2015 (Winston/Mariota), 2012 (Luck/RG3) -- again crazy!

I'm not saying that QBs are the only position of importance and that the other 21 players mean nothing. I'm saying the right QB (talent, intelligence, leadership qualities, etc.) is most important for offensive success. Teams revolve around the franchise QB more so now in this era than ever before.

When you say owners dump top drafted QBs for "PR" moves -- that's ridiculous. As I mentioned, Arizona dumps "Chosen Rosen" after just one season when they had signed him to a 4-yr/17 million dollar contract and a 11 million dollar signing bonus. What a PR move - throwing away big $$$ on what was supposed to be their franchise QB. Lol.

Rosen started virtually his entire rookie season. Bradford (another #1 OA pick) was the starter and got injured in the 3rd game. So, Rosen started the following week for a total of 13 games. He was 3-10 and the team ended up at 3-13 which pissed off ownership because this was the worst team record in franchise history. So, Wilks is booted and Rosen is basically given away to Miami (traded for a late 2nd rd pick & 2020 5th rd pick. Lol).

When people say it's not about wins with QBs, it is clearly in this situation throwing out a 1st rd, high-draft pick QB that you trade up to get after just one season for reasons other than non-football related matters. I've never heard of anything like this before. Even Paxton Lynch, as terrible as he was, got 2 yrs at Denver! (and is now sitting on Pittsburgh's practice squad). The Cardinals spent almost $33 mil on 3 QBs in 2018 - Bradford, Rosen, Glennon - who are no longer on the roster! So...was this all done for "PR" moves? (Man, they better hope they hit it big in the next few years with the Kingsbury & Murray show or the fans should start questioning the sanity of that organization).

And team records are exactly what many owners use to assess QBs (what's that old saying: NFL = Not For Long). And sometimes it's even more than regular season records and a single playoff appearance - but going to the Super Bowl is the benchmark. A few examples:

Recall Keenum at Minn in 2017. The starter Bradford gets hurt after just two games. Keenum starts week #3 and finishes the season. He goes 11-3 and the team finishes an amazing 13-3 with a division title. Keenum's stats are pretty good that season and he's named 51st best out of the top 100 NFL players for that year. They beat NO in the first round and play in the championship game one step from the SB, which is to be played at their brand new palace. Keenum plays poorly and the team gets hammered by the Eagles 38-7. Keenum, a free agent, is not re-signed and is let go. The owner wants the guy at the Skins and pays a fortune to get him. Most owners would have been thrilled doing cartwheels that their team made it to the conference championship and would have kept Keenum, at least for another year.

You bring up KC & Mahomes. Remember Alex Smith? In his six (6) seasons at KC, they were all winning seasons with 2 divisional titles and all but one playoff appearance. And Smith had some pretty solid stats in some of those 6 winning seasons. But Smith was 1-4 in those playoffs games and couldn't get the team to at least the conference championship game. Obviously, ownership was a tad bit ticked because they didn't fire Reid, but instead traded the house away to get the Gunslinger, who incidentally took the team to the conference championship in his first full season as a starter, and now the SB in only his second year! (And probably more than likely playing with a less than 100% knee - dislocated patellas can have potential to be serious). So, if Smith was the guy why didn't the Chiefs just built the defense better for him and provide more weapons? After all, he's virtually taking them to the playoffs every year - why not stick with him and improve the other areas of the team that you think are so important? Or could it be that a talent like Mahomes only comes around every 15-20 years and KC knew he could be a game changer. His cannon of an arm, his mobility, his intelligence and his leadership qualities (at such a young age) make him an exceptional QB. With that cannon, he can spread out defenses like crazy and cause panic with DBs. With his mobility, he can roll out the pocket and run away from sacks, he make throws that no other QB can make in this league and his leadership qualities is getting the respect of his teammates. He reminds of a young John Elway, and barring injuries, I think this kid will be something else for years to come.

How about Flacco? A SB winning MVP QB who goes 8-8 in 2016 and 9-7 in 2017 with no playoffs. In fact, his stats in 2016 were phenomenal with some career highs. But Raven's ownership was obviously not happy with the team's 17-15 record over back to back seasons and no playoffs, so instead of firing JH or blaming something else, they blame Flacco and go draft LJ in the 1st rd. Flacco gets hurt halfway during the following season going 4-5 before the injury - insert LJ who goes 6-1 and to the playoffs. So long Flacco and LJ is the new franchise QB exceeding expectations beyond belief this year with a 13-2 personal record and 14-2 team record. Though they were upset in the 1st round, Baltimore looks like geniuses drafting him in the last pick of the 1st round when no else seemed interested. And this is a pure dual-threat QB that they're essentially letting him run his RPO offense that he ran at Louisville! If it wasn't about wins, then why not build up the defense for Flacco? (bring back Ray Lewis out of retirement. Lol). How about more offensive weapons for Flacco? Hire a new OC. Why run out of town a SB winning MVP QB and face of the franchise when you could just build up the team around him?

And even Manning couldn't escape the not enough wins dilemma. The two-time SB winning MVP QB goes 3-13 in 2017 & 5-11 in 2018 with phenomenal stats in 2017 (after a 11-5 season in 2016 and a 1st rd playoff loss). Nonetheless ownership selects Jones with the 6th OA pick in 2019 sending a clear message it's time to move on. And the Giants waste no time inserting Jones at the helm by the 3rd game this season. Even Mahomes had to sit the bench his rookie season (started only the last game after the division was locked up). Why not give Manning more offensive weapons to work with? This is a two-time SB winning MVP here and future HOF. This is a Manning. He's only 38 with no signficant injury history (Brady's only 42. Lol). The obvious reason was that he wasn't winning anymore - not enough "WINS" and ownership had enough. The Manning era is over and barring injury, Jones is expected to lead the Giants back to the SB glory years (however, their lousy season this year cost Shurmur his job).

And look at the mess at Jacksonville this year: The owner opens his checkbook and signs Foles to a four-year, $88 million contract and $50.1 million in guaranteed money (this after dumping Bortels who in 2018 signed a 3 year, $54 million contract extension to stay with the Jags through the 2020 season!). Another SB winning MVP QB who is supposed to be the answer to all of Jacksonville's problems. Foles gets hurt in week#1 - insert Minshew who goes an impressive 4-5 for a 6th rd pick rookie drafted solely for a backup role. Foles is cleared to play getting his starting job back, but goes 0-3 and is benched for the rest of the season in favor of Minshew. And Minshew now has the inside track to be the permanent starter next year. So, going into the 2020 season you have a 6th rd pick rookie making $2.7 million/4-yrs starting and the 17th highest paid QB sitting the bench making him probably the highest paid backup in the history of the NFL. Lol.

How the Jaguars can navigate Nick Foles future

Your best source for quality Jacksonville Jaguars news, rumors, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

www.bigcatcountry.com

As Lombardi once said "winning isn't everything - it's the only thing." And the QB is a huge part of that equation. Just watch all the fun and games this season when by mid-season a lot of QB changes will start occurring all because those teams aren't winning.

 

[movingtarget]

Bottom line on Eli Manning is that he deserves the HOF by virtue he's a 2-time SB Most Valuable Player. There's only five (5) players with multiple SB MVPs - all happen to be QBs:

Brady (4)
Montana (3)
Starr (2)
Bradshaw (2)
E. Manning (2)

Starr, Bradshaw, Montana are all in the HOF and we know Brady is a shoo-in if he ever decides to retire. Lol. That leaves Manning -- do you really think they would leave out a 2-time MVP when all the others were selected?

The rest of your points I simply disagree with. Of course it's a "team sport" but it's more about the QB than you think. It's a high-profile position and usually the face of the franchise. That's why so many are taken with the #1 OA pick. That's why so many of these high-draft picks are given big rookie contracts with ridiculous signing bonuses and haven't even played a down of football yet. You're looking at another QB taken #1 in this year's draft in Joe Burrow presumably to Cincinnati. That would make QBs in the last 3 drafts taken as thee #1 OA -- crazy! And in eight (8) out of the last eleven (11) drafts, QBs were taken with the #1 OA picks including in 3 of those 8, QBs were taken in the top 2 picks: 2016 (Goff/Wentz), 2015 (Winston/Mariota), 2012 (Luck/RG3) -- again crazy!

I'm not saying that QBs are the only position of importance and that the other 21 players mean nothing. I'm saying the right QB (talent, intelligence, leadership qualities, etc.) is most important for offensive success. Teams revolve around the franchise QB more so now in this era than ever before.

When you say owners dump top drafted QBs for "PR" moves -- that's ridiculous. As I mentioned, Arizona dumps "Chosen Rosen" after just one season when they had signed him to a 4-yr/17 million dollar contract and a 11 million dollar signing bonus. What a PR move - throwing away big $$$ on what was supposed to be their franchise QB. Lol.

Rosen started virtually his entire rookie season. Bradford (another #1 OA pick) was the starter and got injured in the 3rd game. So, Rosen started the following week for a total of 13 games. He was 3-10 and the team ended up at 3-13 which pissed off ownership because this was the worst team record in franchise history. So, Wilks is booted and Rosen is basically given away to Miami (traded for a late 2nd rd pick & 2020 5th rd pick. Lol).

When people say it's not about wins with QBs, it is clearly in this situation throwing out a 1st rd, high-draft pick QB that you trade up to get after just one season for reasons other than non-football related matters. I've never heard of anything like this before. Even Paxton Lynch, as terrible as he was, got 2 yrs at Denver! (and is now sitting on Pittsburgh's practice squad). The Cardinals spent almost $33 mil on 3 QBs in 2018 - Bradford, Rosen, Glennon - who are no longer on the roster! So...was this all done for "PR" moves? (Man, they better hope they hit it big in the next few years with the Kingsbury & Murray show or the fans should start questioning the sanity of that organization).

And team records are exactly what many owners use to assess QBs (what's that old saying: NFL = Not For Long). And sometimes it's even more than regular season records and a single playoff appearance - but going to the Super Bowl is the benchmark. A few examples:

Recall Keenum at Minn in 2017. The starter Bradford gets hurt after just two games. Keenum starts week #3 and finishes the season. He goes 11-3 and the team finishes an amazing 13-3 with a division title. Keenum's stats are pretty good that season and he's named 51st best out of the top 100 NFL players for that year. They beat NO in the first round and play in the championship game one step from the SB, which is to be played at their brand new palace. Keenum plays poorly and the team gets hammered by the Eagles 38-7. Keenum, a free agent, is not re-signed and is let go. The owner wants the guy at the Skins and pays a fortune to get him. Most owners would have been thrilled doing cartwheels that their team made it to the conference championship and would have kept Keenum, at least for another year.

You bring up KC & Mahomes. Remember Alex Smith? In his six (6) seasons at KC, they were all winning seasons with 2 divisional titles and all but one playoff appearance. And Smith had some pretty solid stats in some of those 6 winning seasons. But Smith was 1-4 in those playoffs games and couldn't get the team to at least the conference championship game. Obviously, ownership was a tad bit ticked because they didn't fire Reid, but instead traded the house away to get the Gunslinger, who incidentally took the team to the conference championship in his first full season as a starter, and now the SB in only his second year! (And probably more than likely playing with a less than 100% knee - dislocated patellas can have potential to be serious). So, if Smith was the guy why didn't the Chiefs just built the defense better for him and provide more weapons? After all, he's virtually taking them to the playoffs every year - why not stick with him and improve the other areas of the team that you think are so important? Or could it be that a talent like Mahomes only comes around every 15-20 years and KC knew he could be a game changer. His cannon of an arm, his mobility, his intelligence and his leadership qualities (at such a young age) make him an exceptional QB. With that cannon, he can spread out defenses like crazy and cause panic with DBs. With his mobility, he can roll out the pocket and run away from sacks, he make throws that no other QB can make in this league and his leadership qualities is getting the respect of his teammates. He reminds of a young John Elway, and barring injuries, I think this kid will be something else for years to come.

How about Flacco? A SB winning MVP QB who goes 8-8 in 2016 and 9-7 in 2017 with no playoffs. In fact, his stats in 2016 were phenomenal with some career highs. But Raven's ownership was obviously not happy with the team's 17-15 record over back to back seasons and no playoffs, so instead of firing JH or blaming something else, they blame Flacco and go draft LJ in the 1st rd. Flacco gets hurt halfway during the following season going 4-5 before the injury - insert LJ who goes 6-1 and to the playoffs. So long Flacco and LJ is the new franchise QB exceeding expectations beyond belief this year with a 13-2 personal record and 14-2 team record. Though they were upset in the 1st round, Baltimore looks like geniuses drafting him in the last pick of the 1st round when no else seemed interested. And this is a pure dual-threat QB that they're essentially letting him run his RPO offense that he ran at Louisville! If it wasn't about wins, then why not build up the defense for Flacco? (bring back Ray Lewis out of retirement. Lol). How about more offensive weapons for Flacco? Hire a new OC. Why run out of town a SB winning MVP QB and face of the franchise when you could just build up the team around him?

And even Manning couldn't escape the not enough wins dilemma. The two-time SB winning MVP QB goes 3-13 in 2017 & 5-11 in 2018 with phenomenal stats in 2017 (after a 11-5 season in 2016 and a 1st rd playoff loss). Nonetheless ownership selects Jones with the 6th OA pick in 2019 sending a clear message it's time to move on. And the Giants waste no time inserting Jones at the helm by the 3rd game this season. Even Mahomes had to sit the bench his rookie season (started only the last game after the division was locked up). Why not give Manning more offensive weapons to work with? This is a two-time SB winning MVP here and future HOF. This is a Manning. He's only 38 with no signficant injury history (Brady's only 42. Lol). The obvious reason was that he wasn't winning anymore - not enough "WINS" and ownership had enough. The Manning era is over and barring injury, Jones is expected to lead the Giants back to the SB glory years (however, their lousy season this year cost Shurmur his job).

And look at the mess at Jacksonville this year: The owner opens his checkbook and signs Foles to a four-year, $88 million contract and $50.1 million in guaranteed money (this after dumping Bortels who in 2018 signed a 3 year, $54 million contract extension to stay with the Jags through the 2020 season!). Another SB winning MVP QB who is supposed to be the answer to all of Jacksonville's problems. Foles gets hurt in week#1 - insert Minshew who goes an impressive 4-5 for a 6th rd pick rookie drafted solely for a backup role. Foles is cleared to play getting his starting job back, but goes 0-3 and is benched for the rest of the season in favor of Minshew. And Minshew now has the inside track to be the permanent starter next year. So, going into the 2020 season you have a 6th rd pick rookie making $2.7 million/4-yrs starting and the 17th highest paid QB sitting the bench making him probably the highest paid backup in the history of the NFL. Lol.

How the Jaguars can navigate Nick Foles future

Your best source for quality Jacksonville Jaguars news, rumors, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

www.bigcatcountry.com

As Lombardi once said "winning isn't everything - it's the only thing." And the QB is a huge part of that equation. Just watch all the fun and games this season when by mid-season a lot of QB changes will start occurring all because those teams aren't winning.

Definitely a weird season for the Jaguars and Foles, and Tom Coughlin gets canned for it seems being too much of a disciplinarian on a losing team ....................all the same Minshew couldn't maintain his earlier form so I think that situation is a long way from being stable. He will probably be given time but who can tell in the NFL ? I don't think Trubisky and Mayfield are going to be given too much longer although at least Trubisky showed some improvement late in the season. The Panthers QB situation is also looking fragile although Allen had some good games, and Cam's career is at the crossroads. They fired their coach and got worse !

 

[jmdirt]

With safety in mind (in a violent game), I like the proposed NFL alternative to an onside kick. I'll let you use your favorite source to read about it. I'm not sure I like the 25 yard line though...maybe the 30...35 (like DEN proposed?)?

So I watched the end of the game on Sunday hoping to see one team try the 'chance to win' rule. I hadn't really thought about a team going long in that situation, but that might be a better idea than just trying to get 15 yards for a 1st down. The chance for PI, or a catch are OK I guess (PI probably more likely on a bomb). One thing for the DBs, don't pick it off because you want it back at the opposing 25. I'm still not sure about the 25 though...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But if guilty, I hope the NFL forces Benson to sell (the Saints) to someone or some group with no ties to the Benson family.

They forced Eddie DeBartolo to sell the 49ers for sketchy business dealings. So, one would think...

That being said, its a team game, and stats only tell part of the story, but that and 'popularity' determine HoF votes.

This is often true indeed. Take a look at Bill Cowher just getting in. Now look back at his career as a coach and put in some comparative numbers to other coaches.

Eli's durability is something else people tend to forget. He also had quite a few late game heroics, and game winning drives, espcially early in his career. Another factor that isn't as appreciated as it could be is that Eli plays in NYC, he has a calm demeanor and temperance that works really well with the rough media there. Even being a southern boy, he's managed to deal with everything the NY media has thrown at him. And the town loves championships. He didn't have an amazing career, but he did help deliver in this regard.

I think the 2 SB (both over the dominant team of the past two decades, including inflicting on it its only loss of the season/postseason) will get Eli in the HOF.

I always found fascinating that people bring up just two games - Eli's two Super Bowl MVP's - as a measure of his greatness, and that alone should get him into the Hall. But he didn't really play that great in either game if you look back at them, or even look at the stats. I'd argue he won the second of those awards due to his name and popularity. One stat people ignore every single time this measure of greatness is brought up is that the Giant defense held the Patriots juggernaut offense to 14 points in the first SB win, and 17 in the second SB win. That's it. Astounding numbers for those years. In the first game had one astounding catch by David Tyree fallen, the Pats would have won. In the second, had Wes Welcker not dropped a key pass from Brady with 4 minutes in the game (and a lot of green behind him), the Pats could have won that game.

Yes, Eli played good games in both SB wins, a couple exciting throws and plays, but it was really the Giant D, and missed plays by the Pats, that were the difference. If Eli gets in it will be on his longevity, durability, stability, as much as anything, though the two SB wins will always be what people, especially fans of his, bring up.

In fact, if the 49ers win the SB, I think they should be in the conversation for one of the greatest teams of all time. It' not that unusual to go 13-3 in the RS, but all three of the 49er losses came on essentially the last play of the game. No one has beaten them decisively. That is pretty rare.

I mentioned this a few weeks ago (or you did and I agreed with you?!), but it's true. Similar could be said about the Chiefs, as you pointed out.

I have a feeling whichever team wins this game is going to be looked back upon as being one of the better teams ever. The reasons for SF being what you pointed out. Plus, if they can hold KC's offense in check at least somewhat (I can't see them stopping them entirely), that would cement your argument. If KC manages to win this game, their argument could be look at the team, the defense, they beat, and the games they won, the way they won.

I also agree with everyone who says Garoppolo doesn't deserve the flak sent his direction. He's had a heck of a season, one year after major knee surgery and people wondering how well, or even if he'd come back to be as before. He's been better.

 

[jmdirt]

A long time colleague, who is a very religious person, and I like to give each other crap about her religion and my absolute lack of it. This morning I asked her what she was going to do on Sunday since gods would be at the SB! She fired back that god is everywhere.

 

[The Hitch]

Why should SB wins figure into at all? C'mon...what a stupid remark! (and you claim to know so much about football?). The prime object for all (or most) teams is to win the SB!

What you just said. Prime object for all TEAMS is to win the SB. A qb isn't a team, its a person

Prime objective for most players is actually to make money. Otherwise they would all take massive pay cuts. By your absolutist logic whichever qb has the highest contract is the best qb.

 

[jmdirt]

I have to admit that I'm getting excited about Sunday! Man, I hope that it is four quarters of good football!

Did anybody catch the PMc interview with Mark Ingram from super row? Good interview IMO!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plDRHEmoEOI

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I have to admit that I'm getting excited about Sunday! Man, I hope that it is four quarters of good football!

Did anybody catch the PMc interview with Mark Ingram from super row? Good interview IMO!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plDRHEmoEOI

Thanks for that link. Good interview & better than most, though there were a few canned questions with canned answers - like the locker room chemistry question. I typically don't care about questions like that, but in Ingram's reply the unspoken words to me were "there was no discord" within the team anytime, anyplace or anywhere. Ingram expressed that attitude again when answering the question about what bringing on Marcus Peters meant to the team. Contrast that with the discord in 2014 & beyond in Seattle with Sherman and Thomas.

As for the SB, I am also looking forward to the game. I kind of want KC to win because of Andy Reid & it's been so long since they won a SB. But I think SF will win, and perhaps big, like by a double-digit point spread. Regardless whether it's a low or high scoring affair, I won't predict a score, but I think it's going to be SF by 12 or more because SFs defensive front will be too much for KC to handle, and KC won't be able to handle SFs offense. IF, KC actually wins, I think they start out slow and come back in the 2nd half. Just not this time.

 

[movingtarget]

Thanks for that link. Good interview & better than most, though there were a few canned questions with canned answers - like the locker room chemistry question. I typically don't care about questions like that, but in Ingram's reply the unspoken words to me were "there was no discord" within the team anytime, anyplace or anywhere. Ingram expressed that attitude again when answering the question about what bringing on Marcus Peters meant to the team. Contrast that with the discord in 2014 & beyond in Seattle with Sherman and Thomas.

As for the SB, I am also looking forward to the game. I kind of want KC to win because of Andy Reid & it's been so long since they won a SB. But I think SF will win, and perhaps big, like by a double-digit point spread. Regardless whether it's a low or high scoring affair, I won't predict a score, but I think it's going to be SF by 12 or more because SFs defensive front will be too much for KC to handle, and KC won't be able to handle SFs offense. IF, KC actually wins, I think they start out slow and come back in the 2nd half. Just not this time.

Kansas have the gun QB and speed to burn but I'm not sure it's enough. I think the Kansas defense is the key. If the Niners run game continues as it's been doing and can run the clock I think Kansas will struggle. It has the ingredients for a great game, on paper. I think the 1.5 points will shrink before the kick off. Reid certainly needs a result.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Well, regarding the QB discussion, few people would say the play of QBs with 2 or more SB wins was not instrumental in those wins, or that they don't deserve to get into the HOF. And yes, the importance of the QB position is why so much emphasis is placed on that position in the draft. But a team can have a franchise QB but not win many, or any, SBs. Does that mean that QB should not be a HOFer? Or a team has an average QB yet still wins a SB. So, should that average QB get into the HOF? Several examples of QBs that fall into those 2 categories & have one or no SB wins: Marino (1 SB appearance); Foles, McMahon, Rypien, Sims, Steve Young, Brees, Rodgers, Favre, Theismann, Warner, Unitas, Dilfer (all 1 win). I won't belabor further, but echo/support what Mercki & Hitch wrote above.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Like I said I hope it's closer to Super Bowl 49 or 52 then 48 with the high powered offense vs high powered defense and really good offense vs good defense (these last weeks). If I were the Chiefs I'd still worry about Reid's decision making BUT Mahomes talent and Chiefs speed could overcome it. Sadly I will be at work and we don't have Fox on TV so maybe I"ll have the Gigs affect on this game.

 

[jmdirt]

Like I said I hope it's closer to Super Bowl 49 or 52 then 48 with the high powered offense vs high powered defense and really good offense vs good defense (these last weeks). If I were the Chiefs I'd still worry about Reid's decision making BUT Mahomes talent and Chiefs speed could overcome it. Sadly I will be at work and we don't have Fox on TV so maybe I"ll have the Gigs affect on this game.

No chance to find it on the www?

 

[SHAD0W93]

No chance to find it on the www?

It should be on the NFL app I have on my phone that I've been using for the other games, just depends on how busy work is... Last Sunday was nonstop all shift,

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Where do you work? I mean, the SB is broadcast in Antarctica even!

 

[SHAD0W93]

Where do you work? I mean, the SB is broadcast in Antarctica even!

They don't have the Fox channel from their TV provider.

 

[jmdirt]

I was a little disappointed with Brees' interview this morning...not much in it really! The funniest thing though was when Pat McA said: "I might have called your baby dumb."! In reference to DB's SB celebration holding his baby (Pat was on the other team).

Palmer's comments about Jameis and that O system were interesting! JW to DAL?

 

[jmdirt]

I've read two headlines now that say Dak will not play in 2020 if DAL tags him. DAL should be calling Teddy!