NFL Thread 2019-2020

[wadesworld]

Saints 2-3 in their last 5 games started by Drew Brees. Saints 5-0 in their last 5 games started by Teddy Bridgewater. Pretty damning. Saints better without Brees...

[Cheeks]

Saints better without Brees....

https://www.mtairynews.com/opinion/78982/newton-is-no-more-than-average

[Cheeks]

Saints 2-3 in their last 5 games started by Drew Brees. Saints 5-0 in their last 5 games started by Teddy Bridgewater. Pretty damning. Saints better without Brees...

Cam had McCaffrey run for 130 yards in the opening game and still lost at home.  Kamala today, 24 yards rushing. 

Panthers haven’t won a game with Cam QB in over a year.  Saints won just last week.

[MU82]

https://www.mtairynews.com/opinion/78982/newton-is-no-more-than-average

Why are you changing the subject? Oh wait. Stupid question. It's what you do.

The ellipsis at the end of my sentence fragment obvious meant there was more to come. And anybody with even half a brain knew exactly what I meant by "Saints better without Brees...."

"The New Orleans Saints are better without Drew Brees performing at a substandard level. If Brees is going to be substandard, it would be better if an undefeated New Orleans quarterback such as Teddy Bridgewater, when healthy, could guide the Saints."

I mean, duh!

[JWags85]

https://www.mtairynews.com/opinion/78982/newton-is-no-more-than-average

Guys, the news editor from the heavy hitting Mt Airy News has spoken.  Argument over. 

[MU82]

Guys, the news editor from the heavy hitting Mt Airy News has spoken.  Argument over.

Not only that, but everyone knows that "Saints better without Brees" clearly meant, "Saints better without Brees getting sacked 6 times."

Because when you make a dopey statement, it's ok as long as you tack on an ellipsis. That way, when you're called on it, you can justify it by claiming everybody should have known you obviously meant something else. Because ... you know ... ellipsis.

[MU82]

Analytics.

In theory it makes sense with that much time left. You’re going to get at least 2 more possessions, so I’d you cut it to 6 you can get 2 field goals and send it to overtime. If you don’t get it you still have the chance to go for 2 and tie the game.

Rivera indeed said it was analytics, but not for the reason above.

“That was purely analytics, 100 percent. The thing is, if you get it there and you score at the end, then you’re kicking to win the game. If you don’t get it there, you get an opportunity to go for two again, which we felt pretty good about the play we had called the first time and we felt good about having the second one. It most certainly was just following the analytics of it.”

I disagree with that thinking. And I continue to wonder if most NFL or college coaches would have gone for 2 there.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Guys, the news editor from the heavy hitting Mt Airy News has spoken.  Argument over. 

That article was hard to read with all the dog whistling going on in the background.

[wadesworld]

Rivera indeed said it was analytics, but not for the reason above.

“That was purely analytics, 100 percent. The thing is, if you get it there and you score at the end, then you’re kicking to win the game. If you don’t get it there, you get an opportunity to go for two again, which we felt pretty good about the play we had called the first time and we felt good about having the second one. It most certainly was just following the analytics of it.”

I disagree with that thinking. And I continue to wonder if most NFL or college coaches would have gone for 2 there.

Most NFL coaches would not.  I personally like it.  With 6 minutes I'd probably kick the field goal as all you have left after that is 1 more possession.  With 11 minutes left you're almost certainly getting 2 more possessions so if you get it you can kick a field goal on your next possession and be within a field goal to tie the game.  And as he says, if you don't get it you still can go for 2 again after the next touchdown you need to get.

[BM1090]

As a Packers fan, I hate that he went for two and gave them a chance to win in regulation. That probably means it was the right decision. I thought it was smart. You're the underdog on the road, give yourself a chance to win without OT.

[Jockey]

As a Packers fan, I hate that he went for two and gave them a chance to win in regulation. That probably means it was the right decision. I thought it was smart. You're the underdog on the road, give yourself a chance to win without OT.

That was my thinking, as well.

[MU82]

As a Packers fan, I hate that he went for two and gave them a chance to win in regulation. That probably means it was the right decision. I thought it was smart. You're the underdog on the road, give yourself a chance to win without OT.

Sure. But if you just kick the PAT, you're down 7. And then if you score on the last play of regulation, you can assess things and decide then if you want to try to win in regulation or go into OT.

Not necessarily saying one is "right" or "wrong," just that kicking with 11 minutes to go wouldn't stop you from going for the regulation win later.

[cheebs09]

Sure. But if you just kick the PAT, you're down 7. And then if you score on the last play of regulation, you can assess things and decide then if you want to try to win in regulation or go into OT.

Not necessarily saying one is "right" or "wrong," just that kicking with 11 minutes to go wouldn't stop you from going for the regulation win later.

With the weather the way it was, I don’t know that a PAT was an automatic. That would make the percentages lean even more towards going for 2 there.

[MU82]

With the weather the way it was, I don’t know that a PAT was an automatic. That would make the percentages lean even more towards going for 2 there.

At the time, after I spent a minute scratching my head in disbelief, I actually thought what you just said might be what Rivera was thinking. But that's not what he said afterward.

And of course, if he misses that PAT, you still have a chance to tie with a TD and 2 point conversion.

It's an interesting discussion.

[Cheeks]

Guys, the news editor from the heavy hitting Mt Airy News has spoken.  Argument over.

Happy to provide others...one was CBS.  ESPN another...many others.

https://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-rumors-panthers-team-game-proving-better-without-cam-newton-2845668

[Cheeks]

That article was hard to read with all the dog whistling going on in the background.

LOL...yeah...that must be it...cannot say anything bad about a QB that hasn’t won in a year if that QB is of a certain race, creed, religion, etc...check.

[MU82]

Not sure why you keep arguing with yourself, hoopy.

You yourself said at least a half dozen times that a healthy Cam Newton is great, and that the Panthers are only better without him when he's hurt. Are you changing your tune now? Are you saying that even if Cam were 100% healthy, the Panthers would be better without him?

Are you denying that Saints better without Brees.... is not every bit as true as
Panthers better without Cam....? Didn't you claim that the truth of such statements obviously depend upon what the writer is implying with the ellipsis?

Bama better without Tua....

[Pakuni]

Happy to provide others...one was CBS.  ESPN another...many others.

https://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-rumors-panthers-team-game-proving-better-without-cam-newton-2845668

This article doesn't say what you claimed it does.
Shocking, I know.

[forgetful]

San Fran coach challenges on spot on 4th down. Ices his own kicker who shanks it as bad as you possibly can. Not sure if it was a great idea to challenge the spot and let the rookie ponder the biggest kick in his entire life for a couple minutes.

[Cheeks]

This article doesn't say what you claimed it does.
Shocking, I know.

Sure. It. Does.

But hey, if you don’t like that one...plenty more that state what I have...healthy Allen better than unhealthy Newton.  Panthers better off in that situation.

[Cheeks]

San Fran coach challenges on spot on 4th down. Ices his own kicker who shanks it as bad as you possibly can. Not sure if it was a great idea to challenge the spot and let the rookie ponder the biggest kick in his entire life for a couple minutes.

Maybe, but if they get that reversal it is a first down and you get keep running plays to get closer.  Seattle iced him as well.

[wadesworld]

Sure. It. Does.

But hey, if you don’t like that one...plenty more that state what I have...healthy Allen better than unhealthy Newton.  Panthers better off in that situation.

If that’s what you had said not one person would disagree with you. What’s funny is that you believe you have some superior football knowledge to everyone because you “stated” that when you didn’t state that at all.

Pretzel Cheeks is at it again!

[GB Warrior]

San Fran coach challenges on spot on 4th down. Ices his own kicker who shanks it as bad as you possibly can. Not sure if it was a great idea to challenge the spot and let the rookie ponder the biggest kick in his entire life for a couple minutes.

Challenges in OT are ref-initiated

[forgetful]

Challenges in OT are ref-initiated

Did not know that. Makes more sense. Thank you for the information.

[MU82]

Saturday's Kaepernick "tryout" looks like a pretty brazen, pathetic PR stunt by the NFL.

I hope I'm wrong and he gets a legit shot, but I doubt it.