NFL Thread 2019-2020

[Kyyle23]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/09/11/nfl-will-consider-placing-antonio-brown-paid-leave-making-him-ineligible-play/

[soxfan49]

7 hours ago, soulfly said:

Not sure why them finishing around the 8-8 mark is that unthinkable for you.  Look at their schedule.  Show me where 10 or 11 wins come from in that list.

You could say that every year with every team. Take last year for the Bears. They would easily beat the Giants and Dolphins & probably lose 1/2 vs Minnesota and definitely vs the Rams... right?

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

I've never really believed that strength of schedule matters. The more talented team will win more often than not, and there are only a few games (Eagles, Chiefs, Saints, maybe Rams) where you could argue that the Bears aren't the more talented team. A healthy, 8-8 season would be a massive disappointment.

Most teams in the NFL are pretty close to each other, so the difference between a few more good teams vs. some bottom feeders can be huge. Very few automatic wins in the NFL (imo). You have a few elites and a bunch of teams who depending on health and week to week execution could go either ways.  

[Chisoxfn]

Tom Brady had 3 games with zero TD's in his 3rd season and 4 games with 1 TD. He also had 6 games where he threw as many picks as he had TD's.  His single worst game that season, he went 14-29 with 0 TD and 1 INT with 134 YDS. That game was following up a game where he threw for 133 YDS.  Said another way, in Tom Brady's 3rd season, he threw for less than 140 yards in 2 of 3 games that season (with 1 TD and 2 INTs). In Tom Brady's fourth season, he had a 0 TD and 4 INT opening week performance where he threw for 123 yards.  

What if people overreacted to Tom Brady and managed him on a day to day and week to week basis? Would he ever have even gotten a chance to become a GOAT.  I am not saying that Trubisky is going to be the next Tom Brady and he very well could be the next Blake Bortles, but you got to give him time to prove it out. My gut says he's not much different than Mariotta, but I could be wrong and there are plenty of times where I see Mitch make special throws. Whether he actually has that it factor and the game slows down super crazy, I don't know, but he is who we have and we need to put everything into getting everything we can out of him.  

[Chisoxfn]

Drew Brees - 3rd season in the league (11 starts), he threw for 11 TDs and 15 INT in 16 games.  Yes, Drew Brees, one of the greatest QBs to ever live.  

[soxfan49]

38 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Tom Brady had 3 games with zero TD's in his 3rd season and 4 games with 1 TD. He also had 6 games where he threw as many picks as he had TD's.  His single worst game that season, he went I14-29 with 0 TD and 1 INT with 134 YDS. That game was following up a game where he threw for 133 YDS.  Said another way, in Tom Brady's 3rd season, he threw for less than 140 yards in 2 of 3 games that season (with 1 TD and 2 INTs). In Tom Brady's fourth season, he had a 0 TD and 4 INT opening week performance where he threw for 123 yards.  

What if people overreacted to Tom Brady and managed him on a day to day and week to week basis? Would he ever have even gotten a chance to become a GOAT.  I am not saying that Trubisky is going to be the next Tom Brady and he very well could be the next Blake Bortles, but you got to give him time to prove it out. My gut says he's not much different than Mariotta, but I could be wrong and there are plenty of times where I see Mitch make special throws. Whether he actually has that it factor and the game slows down super crazy, I don't know, but he is who we have and we need to put everything into getting everything we can out of him.  

I rewatched the game twice. The OL was absolutely pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Trubisky wasn't good, but Massie was ok and the rest were downright pathetic.

[Balta1701]

35 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Drew Brees - 3rd season in the league (11 starts), he threw for 11 TDs and 15 INT in 16 games.  Yes, Drew Brees, one of the greatest QBs to ever live.  

Brees was pretty remarkable in that his development was so slow with the Chargers that they drafted his replacement before he broke out. I can't remember any other QBs like it, who struggled for 3 years and then suddenly turned into a real good QB. 

[bmags]

It’s not just production with Trubisky, it’s the possibility the game is still too fast and the offense keeps getting simplified for him, allowing defenses to hone in on fewer tendencies (like RPOs out of trips).

[soulfly]

3 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

I've never really believed that strength of schedule matters. The more talented team will win more often than not, and there are only a few games (Eagles, Chiefs, Saints, maybe Rams) where you could argue that the Bears aren't the more talented team. A healthy, 8-8 season would be a massive disappointment.

Guess we will see at the end of the year.  There are a few things to always remember.  The Bears can't seem to beat the Packers and they will always fold when it matters most.  Just a few facts of life.

[soxfan49]

13 minutes ago, soulfly said:

Guess we will see at the end of the year.  There are a few things to always remember.  The Bears can't seem to beat the Packers and they will always fold when it matters most.  Just a few facts of life.

Like when they beat them to clinch the division last year?

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Brees was pretty remarkable in that his development was so slow with the Chargers that they drafted his replacement before he broke out. I can't remember any other QBs like it, who struggled for 3 years and then suddenly turned into a real good QB. 

Brady was only above average until the 16-0 season. His first two SB wins were his defense and Belichick. He didn't become the GOAT we know him as now until 2007ish. When he took that next step, the Patriots went 18-1 but lost the one that mattered. I think that season, and losing the SB the way they did, launched Brady to new heights. 

EDIT: I looked him up, and he didn't take that step until 2007. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

Looked up all of the old guard( Brady, Brees, Roethisberger, Rodgers) and noticed something. They were all above average QBs until they reached 28-30. Then they took a massive leap into the guys we know them as today. Keep that in mind. Brady's 2002 was similar to Trubisky's 2018. By no means am I saying that Trubisky is great, but the truth is you don't know who the great ones are until year 5-8. If you get to year 8 and they haven't separated themselves, then you move on. A top investment in a QB is truly a career investment. The only reason to give up on a guy too early is if they're absolutely terrible. I've only seen one game like that from Trubisky under Nagy and that was Thursday. Nagy did him no favors either. You're looking at being only average through year 5 as the threshold for a somewhat successful draft pick. If they are competent enough to deserve a 2nd contract, that's a win. 

One of these guys is Tom Brady in 2002, the other is Mitch Trubisky last year

Player A: 5.5 TD% 2.8 INT% 11.1 YPC 7.4 YPA 

Player B: 4.9 TD% 2.3 INT% 10.1 YPC 6.3 YPA

Bottom line: It's too early. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[soulfly]

2 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

Like when they beat them to clinch the division last year?

LOL!  The Bears haven't beaten the Packers much recently.  Good job on cherry picking a win there.  Let's go back to the epic meltdown and loss in the 2010 NFC Championship game.  The Bears are 3-14 against the Packers not including the previously mentioned game.  So yea, I'll stand by my previous statement that they can't beat that fucking team.  If you want to go back to the year 2000, they are 12-28. 

But hey, drink that kool-aid all you want.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Looked up all of the old guard( Brady, Brees, Roethisberger, Rodgers) and noticed something. They were all above average QBs until they reached 28-30. Then they took a massive leap into the guys we know them as today. Keep that in mind. Brady's 2002 was nearly identical to Trubisky's 2018. By no means am I saying that Trubisky is great, but the truth is you don't know who the great ones are until year 5-8. If you get to year 8 and they haven't separated themselves, then you move on. A top investment in a QB is truly a career investment. The only reason to give up on a guy too early is if they're absolutely terrible. I've only seen one game like that from Trubisky under Nagy and that was Thursday. Nagy did him no favors either. You're looking at being only average through year 5 as the threshold for a somewhat successful draft pick. If they are competent enough to deserve a 2nd contract, that's a win. 

You're missing one important detail though - as rules have changed and the game has evolved, passing stats have substantially improved. In 2002, Tom Brady had 28 touchdowns and 14 interceptions...and he led the league with those 28 touchdowns. The average QB rating in 2002 was 80, in 2018 it was 92. The #3-#4 quarterbacks in passer rating in 2002 would have been about 21st and 22nd in 2018. That old guard took their leap in stats at about the same time the whole league did, in part because that's when the pass interference and defensive holding rules changed. 

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

You're missing one important detail though - as rules have changed and the game has evolved, passing stats have substantially improved. In 2002, Tom Brady had 28 touchdowns and 14 interceptions...and he led the league with those 28 touchdowns. The average QB rating in 2002 was 80, in 2018 it was 92. The #3-#4 quarterbacks in passer rating in 2002 would have been about 21st and 22nd in 2018. That old guard took their leap in stats at about the same time the whole league did, in part because that's when the pass interference and defensive holding rules changed. 

PI rules changed in 2005 IIRC. It was in response to Bill Belichick having his CBs grab receivers and force them out of bounds immediately after the snap in the 2004 AFCCG. Due to the rules at the time, those receivers would then have been ineligible to to touch the ball. WTF was Manning supposed to do, when he couldn't complete a pass to his outside receivers without getting a penalty? 

[soxfan49]

6 minutes ago, soulfly said:

LOL!  The Bears haven't beaten the Packers much recently.  Good job on cherry picking a win there.  Let's go back to the epic meltdown and loss in the 2010 NFC Championship game.  The Bears are 3-14 against the Packers not including the previously mentioned game.  So yea, I'll stand by my previous statement that they can't beat that fucking team.  If you want to go back to the year 2000, they are 12-28. 

But hey, drink that kool-aid all you want.

You're the one who said "always," not "usually." Always doesn't make sense here, not in the least bit.

Also, how was the NFCCG an "epic meltdown?" The Bears lost by 7 despite the 2nd and 3rd string QB's playing half the game.

Your wording is just off.

 

[soxfan49]

20 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Looked up all of the old guard( Brady, Brees, Roethisberger, Rodgers) and noticed something. They were all above average QBs until they reached 28-30. Then they took a massive leap into the guys we know them as today. Keep that in mind. Brady's 2002 was similar to Trubisky's 2018. By no means am I saying that Trubisky is great, but the truth is you don't know who the great ones are until year 5-8. If you get to year 8 and they haven't separated themselves, then you move on. A top investment in a QB is truly a career investment. The only reason to give up on a guy too early is if they're absolutely terrible. I've only seen one game like that from Trubisky under Nagy and that was Thursday. Nagy did him no favors either. You're looking at being only average through year 5 as the threshold for a somewhat successful draft pick. If they are competent enough to deserve a 2nd contract, that's a win. 

One of these guys is Tom Brady in 2002, the other is Mitch Trubisky last year

Player A: 5.5 TD% 2.8 INT% 11.1 YPC 7.4 YPA 

Player B: 4.9 TD% 2.3 INT% 10.1 YPC 6.3 YPA

Bottom line: It's too early. 

Weren't you literally going off the rails after they lost, even a few days after?

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, soxfan49 said:

Weren't you literally going off the rails after they lost, even a few days after?

A bit, their schedule is hard, they looked like horseshit, and there was no context yet. Feel better now. 

[whitesoxfan99]

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

You're missing one important detail though - as rules have changed and the game has evolved, passing stats have substantially improved. In 2002, Tom Brady had 28 touchdowns and 14 interceptions...and he led the league with those 28 touchdowns. The average QB rating in 2002 was 80, in 2018 it was 92. The #3-#4 quarterbacks in passer rating in 2002 would have been about 21st and 22nd in 2018. That old guard took their leap in stats at about the same time the whole league did, in part because that's when the pass interference and defensive holding rules changed. 

This.  Brady was really good from day 1 and in year 3 as you pointed out he led the NFL in TD passes despite honestly having really weak talent around him at that time.  When he finally got weapons around him, the Patriots started changing up their offense and the rules changed his numbers exploded. 

Roethlisberger was pretty fantastic from Day 1.  He was top 5 in quarterback rating in his first 2 years in the NFL (granted he wasn't asked to win games but he was very efficient right off of the bat).

And Brees was terrific in his 3rd year as a starter (4th year in the league).

[soulfly]

57 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

You're the one who said "always," not "usually." Always doesn't make sense here, not in the least bit.

Also, how was the NFCCG an "epic meltdown?" The Bears lost by 7 despite the 2nd and 3rd string QB's playing half the game.

Your wording is just off.

 

I said they always fold when it matters most.

It was an epic meltdown of a game they should have won, but didn't.  I was there.  My wording isn't off at all.  We can agree to disagree.  If you want to say the Bears are a great team, fine, go for it.

[soxfan49]

1 hour ago, soulfly said:

I said they always fold when it matters most.

It was an epic meltdown of a game they should have won, but didn't.  I was there.  My wording isn't off at all.  We can agree to disagree.  If you want to say the Bears are a great team, fine, go for it.

But it doesn't "always" happen since before Thursday, the prior meeting was a Bears win to clinch the division, so not "always."

I don't think any NFL game played by Todd Collins and Caleb Hanie for 50% of the game "should" result in a win for the team they're playing for.

[soulfly]

Again, I'm not sure why them winning that one game is so important to you?  They were going to win the division regardless.  If you can't accept this team in recent memory has been absolute dog shit against the Packers, then, hey, you do you.  Keep on wearing 8 pieces of Bears gear every Sunday.

[Chisoxfn]

9 hours ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

This.  Brady was really good from day 1 and in year 3 as you pointed out he led the NFL in TD passes despite honestly having really weak talent around him at that time.  When he finally got weapons around him, the Patriots started changing up their offense and the rules changed his numbers exploded. 

Roethlisberger was pretty fantastic from Day 1.  He was top 5 in quarterback rating in his first 2 years in the NFL (granted he wasn't asked to win games but he was very efficient right off of the batAnd Brees was terrific in his 3rd year as a starter (4th year in the league).

Brady was not good from day one. I recognize the league standards were different, but his first full season was pedestrian and he had some up and down years (and this is coming from Tom Brady's #1 fan).  ANd even in that 2002 year, he had quite a few atrocious games.  3 games where he threw for < 135 yards.  My point in all of this is, TOm Brady, when he was young, had his fair share of turd games (which is what happened to Mitch this past week). None of those games in isolation meant that he stunk.  

Big Ben was pretty good from day 1, but he also had a season (his 3rd year), where he finished with a 75.4 QB Rating and had 18 TD to 23 INT (by no standard would that have been considered good).  And that was 3 years into the league.  Of the great QB's, about Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, and Patrick Mahomes are about the only guys I can think of who basically just crushed it (or had a small adjustment before kicking ass for good).  

[soxfan49]

12 hours ago, soulfly said:

Again, I'm not sure why them winning that one game is so important to you?  They were going to win the division regardless.  If you can't accept this team in recent memory has been absolute dog shit against the Packers, then, hey, you do you.  Keep on wearing 8 pieces of Bears gear every Sunday.

It's important because of the context. You said "always." Do you know what "always" means?

[bmags]

Not good