2020 Miscellaneous NFL News

[PeaveyFury]

It'll be interesting to see how Jerry handles it. He stuck with Jason Garrett for longer than a lot of people thought he would. Now, his roster has gone to hell, he's just hired MM, and might want to take a long look in the mirror as to why this team isn't good.

 

Garrett was a Cowboy so got a longer leash with Jerry and the fan base. MM was more of a typical JJ move, hire the big name to appease the fans

 

I think Garrett’s Cowboy connection was 99% of the reason he wasn’t canned two seasons earlier.

[PeaveyFury]

Sometimes I forget that the Jaguars and Chargers exist(mostly because they’re usually bad and their games mean nothing to me as a Packer fan). And they’re playing each other today.

[yourout]

Looking more and more likely that Tampa Bay is the cream of the NFC crop.

 

Lot of season left. I fully expect the Saints to at least challenge if not win the South.

 

But it's vitally important if we have larger aspirations to not only with the division but clinch HFA.

 

I don't like our chances of winning a playoff game in either Tampa or San Francisco. Get them at Lambeau.

 

Unless they get bit by injuries or covid I think they're the class of the conference.

[PinaMadness]

This SNF game is like Madden.

[homer]

Is Kingsbury supposed to be some kind of offensive guru? His play calling is so stupid. Down 10, under 5 min to go and they've had like four runs and one pass.

[homer]

Is Kingsbury supposed to be some kind of offensive guru? His play calling is so stupid. Down 10, under 5 min to go and they've had like four runs and one pass.

 

And they tie it up LOL

[adambr2]

Thanks for nothing, Zane.

[yourout]

Wow.....Seattle has the mother of all horseshoes stashed somewhere.

 

Arizona botched that about as bad as humanly possible.

[owbc]

Arizona still might win this

[adambr2]

Thanks for something, Zane.

[yourout]

Seattle losing always brings a smile to my face.

Probably my least favorite team outside the North.

[HiAndTight]

It'll be interesting to see how Jerry handles it. He stuck with Jason Garrett for longer than a lot of people thought he would. Now, his roster has gone to hell, he's just hired MM, and might want to take a long look in the mirror as to why this team isn't good.

 

Garrett was a Cowboy so got a longer leash with Jerry and the fan base. MM was more of a typical JJ move, hire the big name to appease the fans when even doormats like Cleveland and the Jets passed on him. Jones really just needs turnover control to a real GM but I hope he doesn't.

 

Philly in 1st place in the East at 2-4-1, having 4 team divisions may finally make the NFL look stupid this year.

 

 

He was a Cowboy and he was "like a Son" to Jerry...and I don't think that was a throwaway line in his case. He DID seem particularly close to Garrett. Also Jason Garrett was 85-67 with the Cowboys and had just one losing season. He went 4-12 in 2015 and Tony Romo had them at 3-1 before he suffered a season-ending injury.

 

 

So...Garrett was closer to Jerry, but he also did have some success with the Cowboys. This team is not playing for McCarthy.

 

Maybe Aaron Rodgers deserves even more credit than we previously thought. If he kept the team playing hard and winning with THIS version of McCarthy?

[HiAndTight]

Mike McCarthy might be an OC for a mid-major in 2 years.

 

Mike Sherman went from HC and GM of the Green Bay Packers, to an NFL OC again, to a college coach at A&M, to a 4-18 high school coach and fired CFL coach.

 

It can go downhill in a hurry once they figure out that you don't really know what you're doing.

 

 

Damn...I just read the last paragraph of his bio. It looks ugly. Going from the Packers to A$M isn't that bad...especially if you're an alum. But then the CFL, then 4-18 as a High School coach?

 

I didn't even think Sherman was a bad coach....he was just an awful GM(similar to O'Brien).

[nodakfan17]

For the final 3 years of Sherman’s tenure at Texas A&M, he had Ryan Tannehill on the roster, but chose to play him at wide receiver. Kevin Sumlin replaced Sherman in 2012 and went 11-2 with Tannehill at quarterback.

[adambr2]

For the final 3 years of Sherman’s tenure at Texas A&M, he had Ryan Tannehill on the roster, but chose to play him at wide receiver. Kevin Sumlin replaced Sherman in 2012 and went 11-2 with Tannehill at quarterback.

 

This is the man that Ron Wolf gave the full reigns of the Green Bay Packers to. Wow, just wow. Wolf was an amazing GM, but his worst mistake was entrusting this organization to Sherman, who was far and away the worst GM in franchise history.

 

As far as Sherman the HC, him and MM are having me start to believe that NFL head coaches don't matter that much, and as long as you have an elite QB and a somewhat competent coaching staff that you can delegate to, you can win a lot of games no matter who you are.

[nodakfan17]

Is Kingsbury supposed to be some kind of offensive guru? His play calling is so stupid. Down 10, under 5 min to go and they've had like four runs and one pass.

Yeah, I don’t get the hype. He was 35-40 at Texas Tech and that includes a 2-year stretch where he went 12-13 with Patrick Mahomes.

[nate82]

I don't believe there is a team in the NFC that can beat any of the top 3 in the AFC.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Who are the top 3?

 

The Steelers look good, but take a look at those wins. It doesn't get much worse. The Broncos, Giants, Texans, Eagles. They get the Bengals twice and the NFC East. They are a top team, but I don't think that 6-0 is representative of the gap between them and everyone else. The Chiefs have looked mortal already with the Raiders, and I assume the Titans are the other?

 

I know their record doesn't say it, but hard for me to say SF isn't a top 3 NFC team and one that could beat any of those AFC teams. I don't think Tampa has the elite QB play to go far in the playoffs, despite drubbing the Packers. The defense is good.

 

I'm still out on the Packers; I just can't tell if they're the same old version of themselves or not. I'm concerned too much offense runs through Adams, and the defense is so inconsistent.

 

Seattle is the only one I think I have a good pulse on; they CAN beat anyone, but they're going to have to score near 40 to do it. They are also the most capable of giving up 40 to a crappy team and getting beat.

[pacopete4]

I don't believe there is a team in the NFC that can beat any of the top 3 in the AFC.

 

Bucs, Packers, 49ers, Saints, Seahawks all could. Heck, I'd give Chicago a punchers chance also.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don't believe there is a team in the NFC that can beat any of the top 3 in the AFC.

 

Bucs, Packers, 49ers, Saints, Seahawks all could. Heck, I'd give Chicago a punchers chance also.

 

Right. The Titans were a missed field goal from taking the Steelers to overtime yesterday. The terrible Vikings nearly (and probably should have) upset the Titans in Week 3. No one in the NFL is even close to unbeatable, let alone 3 teams in the AFC being so good that an NFC team couldn't beat them.

[nate82]

Chiefs, Steelers and Titans are the top 3 right now. While the Chiefs lost to the Raiders I don't really count division losses all that bad. If they lost to the Broncos sure but the Raiders actually have a good team.

 

The 49ers are to inconsistent for me to like their odds of winning. The Packers defense is mediocre at best especially in the secondary and their run defense is non existent.

 

The Seahawks have Wilson but they have taken 10 steps back defensively. The Bears are way to inconsistent on offense to be reliable though I think they could upset someone in the playoffs on the NFC side.

 

Tampa Bay is also inconsistent offensively for me to like their chances.

 

There are just way too many question marks on the NFC teams. If any of them get in a shootout with the Chiefs or Steelers they lose and they lose by a lot.

 

The only way I see the NFC teams winning is if they can keep the Chiefs or Steelers below 24 pts any higher and they don't have a chance.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Chiefs, Steelers and Titans are the top 3 right now.

 

The Titans have just 1 close loss to the Steelers but 4 of their wins have come by a total of 12 points against the likes of the Texans, Jags, Vikes, and Broncos....those four teams have a total of 5 wins between them 7 weeks into the season. Chiefs and Steelers are the top of the AFC, but the Titans aren't - I'd put Baltimore well ahead of the Titans at this point because the Titans' D has taken a big step back from last year.

 

And despite there being some godawful NFC teams, particularly in the East division, I think the NFC is better/deeper overall at the top than the AFC is (although the Chiefs would probably still be my pick to win it all if I had to choose just 1 team at this point). The NFC also has the dynamic of one division with 4 deserving playoff teams (West) and one with no deserving playoff teams (East). So in all likelihood, at least one and probably two good teams from the NFC west won't make the playoffs because of how their schedule will skew tougher.

 

In no particular order, the Saints/Buccaneers/Packers/Seahawks/Rams/49ers/Bears/Cardinals are a pretty solid top 8 teams in the NFC. Going 8 deep in the AFC winds up including teams like the Colts, Raiders, and Browns.

[FVBrewerFan]

The only way I see the NFC teams winning is if they can keep the Chiefs or Steelers below 24 pts any higher and they don't have a chance.

 

I would say just the opposite. The Packers are more likely to beat those teams in a shoot-out than they are keeping them under 24 points. That would be Seattle's best chance also.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I just have not seen any level of dominance from anyone that would suggest one conference is clearly better than the other so I find the comment sort of odd. There is no '96 Packers in the league right now. Tampa, Green Bay, Arizona, Seattle, heck, the Bears and LAR have looked good.

 

I don't think the 49ers are inconsistent. They have been struggling to stay afloat with a skeleton crew.

[nate82]

The only way I see the NFC teams winning is if they can keep the Chiefs or Steelers below 24 pts any higher and they don't have a chance.

 

I would say just the opposite. The Packers are more likely to beat those teams in a shoot-out than they are keeping them under 24 points. That would be Seattle's best chance also.

 

I disagree the Packers completely folded and gave up in the Tampa Bay game. If they get in a shootout and they get behind that defense will just crumble and shutdown.