2019 NFL miscellaneous news

[nodakfan17]

Remember when the Steelers were stupid for giving up a top 10 pick for Fitzpatrick. They are 8-5 now. Man the AFC is bad.

I think the Dolphins (and virtually everyone else) assumed it would be a pick in the 5-10 range. Good for Pittsburgh. There’s a reason why a handful of teams are perpetually successful.

[homer]

Two good things about today...if Dallas hangs on they might just keep Garrett, I think Mitch is playing just well enough that the Bears extend him.

[PinaMadness]

Dalvin Cook reinjured his shoulder and is ruled out. Could be a big break for us heading into next Monday.

[PinaMadness]

Two good things about today...if Dallas hangs on they might just keep Garrett, I think Mitch is playing just well enough that the Bears extend him.

No good can come out of a Dallas win.

[homer]

Two good things about today...if Dallas hangs on they might just keep Garrett, I think Mitch is playing just well enough that the Bears extend him.

No good can come out of a Dallas win.

 

Clinches a Packer playoff spot.

[PinaMadness]

Two good things about today...if Dallas hangs on they might just keep Garrett, I think Mitch is playing just well enough that the Bears extend him.

No good can come out of a Dallas win.

 

Clinches a Packer playoff spot.

I stand by my comment.

[homer]

Matty. Ice.

[PeaveyFury]

Matty. Ice.

 

It really is a nice reminder that these teams that we all think are so much better can lose a bad game here and there too.

[PinaMadness]

Matty. Ice.

 

It really is a nice reminder that these teams that we all think are so much better can lose a bad game here and there too.

Falcons were 1-7 at one time. They are 4-2 since. I wouldn't say this was a bad loss for them.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Matty. Ice.

 

It really is a nice reminder that these teams that we all think are so much better can lose a bad game here and there too.

Falcons were 1-7 at one time. They are 4-2 since. I wouldn't say this was a bad loss for them.

 

It's a 5-9 team. If we're going to call the Chargers and Eagles games bad losses, this is a "bad loss" for the 9ers.

[Fear The Chorizo]

 

It really is a nice reminder that these teams that we all think are so much better can lose a bad game here and there too.

Falcons were 1-7 at one time. They are 4-2 since. I wouldn't say this was a bad loss for them.

 

It's a 5-9 team. If we're going to call the Chargers and Eagles games bad losses, this is a "bad loss" for the 9ers.

 

But only the packers lose to bad teams...and all packers losses are bad losses even though they themselves are apparently bad....but then again since the packers started 0-0 they've gone 11-3, so maybe they are actually kind of good?? NAHHH, that's crazy talk.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Big thing for next weekend is the vikes wont have Cook, or if he suits up he wont be near 100 percent - has a bad shoulder that knocked him out again today.

 

The crazy Rivers fumble and return td at the end of the 1st half totally turned that game.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

But only the packers lose to bad teams...and all packers losses are bad losses even though they themselves are apparently bad....but then again since the packers started 0-0 they've gone 11-3, so maybe they are actually kind of good?? NAHHH, that's crazy talk.

 

I don't think anyone thinks the Packers aren't good, just that they aren't a real title contender, which I would agree with. They do nothing exceptionally well. Definitely their strangest season I've lived through.

[homer]

 

But only the packers lose to bad teams...and all packers losses are bad losses even though they themselves are apparently bad....but then again since the packers started 0-0 they've gone 11-3, so maybe they are actually kind of good?? NAHHH, that's crazy talk.

 

I don't think anyone thinks the Packers aren't good, just that they aren't a real title contender, which I would agree with. They do nothing exceptionally well. Definitely their strangest season I've lived through.

 

I wouldn't go that far. They do some things exceptionally well....just not consistently.

[adambr2]

Atlanta is a really odd team. They've mostly been junk this year but on the road, against the best competition they've been at their best and crazy enough have wins in New Orleans and San Francisco this year.

 

Any team can end up with a junk game and I think most everyone agreed that San Diego was our burn the tape game. The difference between us and the 49ers is that they have been challenged with elite, Super Bowl level competition this year and every time have proven to be on that level, even in close losses against Seattle and Baltimore. They have very impressive road wins in New Orleans and LA Rams. Aside from that they have shown to be completely dominant at times as shown against us and Carolina.

 

The one opportunity we had against an elite level competition this year we appeared to show that we are just not on that level. Aside from that we just don't have anything on our resume that really even comes close to what they have the last 5-6 weeks, even in losses. Probably our best win of the season was a close win against Minnesota at home and aside from that it's been a lot of football that is good in short stretches but almost never for a full game as we struggle on nearly a weekly basis to put teams away.

 

It's great that we are 11-3 and if the 49ers losing to the Falcons makes you feel better about our chances then that's great but if you really cannot see the difference between the two teams than nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The only thing they do as well as anyone is not shoot themselves in the foot. Haven't looked it up but it feels like they have almost no turnovers this year. And Crosby is good. But each component of rushing and passing O and D have looked awful at different parts of the year. Just been a strange season. Not sure there's one game that was smooth sailing for 4 quarters. I am interested to see how they look on the road, in prime time, against a good team with a good QB 2 weeks before the playoffs.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't know what else to say. I've said the 9'ers are NFC favorites. I've said (repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly) the Packers have some serious flaws. Should I just not watch the games and say "WELP. Gonna lose anyway!!"

 

I don't know what else to say to this rampant negativity. The Packers are 11-3, gonna make the playoffs, and the other contenders have flaws. Do I think the Packers WILL win the NFC? Nah. Do I think they can? Do I think that in any given year, a team with flaws can get hot and run the table? Yes. 2007 Giants got kinda hot at the right time, eh?

 

When I see at least a handful of posts in every game thread that say the same thing, week after week "One n DOne/won't win a playoff game/The 9ers, saints, seahawks are better than us", I honestly, all sarcasm aside don't know why people are watching this team. Like, is there honestly no hope for those fans that they can win a playoff game against these teams? ZERO percent chance?

 

I agree, the 9'ers are better than the Packers. 100% agree. I still think come January, I'll waste my time and watch the game if we match up against them in the playoffs and see if we don't get a different outcome.

 

Good times....

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If they are going to lose by 30 again to somebody I'd rather it be SF. To get a 1 seed SF almost definitely has to win the last one in SEA. I'd really prefer not to see the Packers lose another NFCCG in Seattle. Anything but that.

[adambr2]

 

I agree, the 9'ers are better than the Packers. 100% agree. I still think come January, I'll waste my time and watch the game if we match up against them in the playoffs and see if we don't get a different outcome.

 

Good times....

 

I mean, we're all going to do the same thing and hope for the best. We're all in the same boat. I don't think it's a zero percent chance, just a low chance. I don't think it's negativity as much as an honest unbiased evaluation of what is seen. It's not negative to be negative. No one is trashing the Bucks right now just to be negative.

 

If we're having a different discussion in 6 weeks, I'll be very happy about it. It is a message board, we really all are just talking heads who don't get on TV.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

I agree, the 9'ers are better than the Packers. 100% agree. I still think come January, I'll waste my time and watch the game if we match up against them in the playoffs and see if we don't get a different outcome.

 

Good times....

 

I mean, we're all going to do the same thing and hope for the best. We're all in the same boat. I don't think it's a zero percent chance, just a low chance. I don't think it's negativity as much as an honest unbiased evaluation of what is seen. It's not negative to be negative. No one is trashing the Bucks right now just to be negative.

 

If we're having a different discussion in 6 weeks, I'll be very happy about it. It is a message board, we really all are just talking heads who don't get on TV.

 

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Atlanta is a really odd team. They've mostly been junk this year but on the road, against the best competition they've been at their best and crazy enough have wins in New Orleans and San Francisco this year.

 

Any team can end up with a junk game and I think most everyone agreed that San Diego was our burn the tape game. The difference between us and the 49ers is that they have been challenged with elite, Super Bowl level competition this year and every time have proven to be on that level, even in close losses against Seattle and Baltimore. They have very impressive road wins in New Orleans and LA Rams. Aside from that they have shown to be completely dominant at times as shown against us and Carolina.

 

The one opportunity we had against an elite level competition this year we appeared to show that we are just not on that level. Aside from that we just don't have anything on our resume that really even comes close to what they have the last 5-6 weeks, even in losses. Probably our best win of the season was a close win against Minnesota at home and aside from that it's been a lot of football that is good in short stretches but almost never for a full game as we struggle on nearly a weekly basis to put teams away.

 

It's great that we are 11-3 and if the 49ers losing to the Falcons makes you feel better about our chances then that's great but if you really cannot see the difference between the two teams than nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

 

The NFL often isnt about style points. It's not like they have to impress the committee to make the top 4 for a CFP spot. There is something to be said about a team that finds ways to win on both sides of the ball and doesnt have to rely on one specific ability or side of the ball to advance come playoff time. The packers can pressure QBs without having to constantly blitz, and they dont turn the ball over. Those two factors plus having a healthy rodgers at qb makes them a tough postseason out even if they arent equipped to blow anyone away, either.

 

As for the other nfc "elite", it wouldn't surprise me to see NO lose to the colts tomorrow night, seattle should probably have 2-3 more losses based on their season, and San Fran could easily go into the playoffs losers of their last 3 games. My point is there are no elite teams in the NFC, but there are a bunch of good ones. Green Bay is in that group based on their body of work and if you can't see that there's nothing I say that will convince you otherwise, too.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'd buy into that if the Packers hadn't looked a certain way literally the entire year. They are just not an impressive team in the kindest terms. They have very little battle testing on the resume. You can legitimately argue that today was their best win, a division opponent that had started to play much better football.

 

They dodged Mahomes, they caught teams like Minnesota at opportune times in the year, I don't know if Carolina has won a game since playing them. In their ONE clear-cut blue Chip matchup, they got embarrassed. They didn't just lose, they were humiliated. There just hasn't been a "wow" game. It's not to say they're a bad team, they're a good one. But it is the reason for trepidation when it comes to thinking they could win the NFC.

 

I'm OK with them not winning it. Totally at peace with any playoff outcome. I just really don't think they're a Super Bowl team.

[adambr2]

Atlanta is a really odd team. They've mostly been junk this year but on the road, against the best competition they've been at their best and crazy enough have wins in New Orleans and San Francisco this year.

 

Any team can end up with a junk game and I think most everyone agreed that San Diego was our burn the tape game. The difference between us and the 49ers is that they have been challenged with elite, Super Bowl level competition this year and every time have proven to be on that level, even in close losses against Seattle and Baltimore. They have very impressive road wins in New Orleans and LA Rams. Aside from that they have shown to be completely dominant at times as shown against us and Carolina.

 

The one opportunity we had against an elite level competition this year we appeared to show that we are just not on that level. Aside from that we just don't have anything on our resume that really even comes close to what they have the last 5-6 weeks, even in losses. Probably our best win of the season was a close win against Minnesota at home and aside from that it's been a lot of football that is good in short stretches but almost never for a full game as we struggle on nearly a weekly basis to put teams away.

 

It's great that we are 11-3 and if the 49ers losing to the Falcons makes you feel better about our chances then that's great but if you really cannot see the difference between the two teams than nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

 

The NFL often isnt about style points. It's not like they have to impress the committee to make the top 4 for a CFP spot. There is something to be said about a team that finds ways to win on both sides of the ball and doesnt have to rely on one specific ability or side of the ball to advance come playoff time. The packers can pressure QBs without having to constantly blitz, and they dont turn the ball over. Those two factors plus having a healthy rodgers at qb makes them a tough postseason out even if they arent equipped to blow anyone away, either.

 

As for the other nfc "elite", it wouldn't surprise me to see NO lose to the colts tomorrow night, seattle should probably have 2-3 more losses based on their season, and San Fran could easily go into the playoffs losers of their last 3 games. My point is there are no elite teams in the NFC, but there are a bunch of good ones. Green Bay is in that group based on their body of work and if you can't see that there's nothing I say that will convince you otherwise, too.

 

I don't disagree that things could happen in the playoffs because it's the NFL and there's parity. But the Packers in that group with the best teams in the NFC, other than record alone, nah, I just don't see it. I would love to be wrong. I think they're an 8-6 quality team who has seen enough bounces go their way to be 11-3.

 

I don't think they'll win on Sunday, but Minnesota is not infallible. Maybe they can get luck to go their way for 2 more games and get a bye then get N.O. to knock of SF and host two Lambeau playoff games and take them both. I don't know. I think it's really unlikely but I won't say it's impossible.

 

I am not sure what you mean by they "find ways to win on both sides of the ball and doesn't have to rely on one specific ability or side of the ball to advance come playoff time."

 

That sounds like a really nice way to say they have no real strengths, which I would say is accurate. They don't have any specific strengths to rely on. They do certain things really well in short spurts like rush the QB or run the ball. They do a really good job protecting the ball which is good but that's always been a staple of Rodgers' led Packer teams because of his conservative nature. It does have its drawbacks and the numerous times the offense has either stalled out or gone backwards right on the edge of FG range is as bad as a turnover.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'd buy into that if the Packers hadn't looked a certain way literally the entire year. They are just not an impressive team in the kindest terms. They have very little battle testing on the resume. You can legitimately argue that today was their best win, a division opponent that had started to play much better football.

 

They dodged Mahomes, they caught teams like Minnesota at opportune times in the year, I don't know if Carolina has won a game since playing them. In their ONE clear-cut blue Chip matchup, they got embarrassed. They didn't just lose, they were humiliated. There just hasn't been a "wow" game. It's not to say they're a bad team, they're a good one. But it is the reason for trepidation when it comes to thinking they could win the NFC.

 

I'm OK with them not winning it. Totally at peace with any playoff outcome. I just really don't think they're a Super Bowl team.

 

Fair enough, but then tell me what Seattle's signature win was so far this season. The 27-24 OT win at Frisco probably is, but that could have easily wound up a loss for them. The rest of their season, they've had a horseshoe up their rear moreso than GB with alot of close wins against meh teams, and they got pummeled in a couple of their losses, too. The Rams just pasted them and they wound up beating a rudderless Carolina team by 6 today.

 

Let's see how next sunday goes against the vikes...it sure would be sweet to win that game no matter the score as the playoff picture shakes out.

[homer]

Atlanta's fortunes changed when the head coached turned play calling for the defense over to one of his assistants. Think it was late October