2018 NFL Regular Season!!!!

[Serutan]

Phillip Rivers was uncharacteristically clutch last night after starting off atrociously. His MO used to be early quarters of top notch play followed by late game meltdowns/choking.

Precisely my point.

@Cake - In the 80s I think there were a couple of years where the odds of a Jets-Giants Super Bowl weren't laughably bad.
Other than that, when the Raiders were in LA the Rams sucked and that's the only other situation where two teams have been
in the same city while the SB existed. If you ignore that SF and Oakland aren't the same city but count it due to proximity, in the early 70s both the Niners and Raiders were contenders

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Other than that, when the Raiders were in LA the Rams sucked

Indication of how bad they sucked...my gut reaction was 'they only overlapped a couple seasons before the Rams left for St Louis'...turns out they were here the whole time the Raiders were. Apparently no one cared.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@TheMeInTeam is right, this is ridiculous lol. Steelers and Ravens both have sub-.500 SoS of opponents played already. They've beaten a combined total of 3 teams with winning recors this season, 2 of those being each other once apiece. The idea that the Steelers have gotten a harder 7 wins by beating the Bucs, Falcons, Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Panthers, and Jags - a combined 36-54-1 (.395%) is a total joke.

Give me a break. Look at the Chiefs' schedule,. All the teams (and worse) that you are dissing and dismissing for being Steelers wins are right there on the Chiefs schedule... Browns, Bengals, Jags, Ravens, Broncos (twice), Raiders, 49ers, Cards. You should have looked at the Chiefs schedule before making this argument.

The Pats are in a powderpuff division.

Correct. And that has been true year-in, year-out which has contributed to their dominance in no small measure. But that's part of my point. When you have some teams that get a cakewalk to 4-6 division wins every year while others are getting pounded by their divisional games... its arguably fair (or at least more entertaining) that they still have a shot at making the playoffs by just winning their division.

The Chiefs and Chargers division aren't particularly easy as they at least have each other.

That's all they have. The other two teams in that division are garbagewater and you know it.

Then the Broncos aren't THAT bad.

ROTFLMAO... The Broncos just lost to the 49ers... the 49ers... THE 49ERS... just let that sink in... think about what you just said and get back to me... Next you'll be telling me that "it was a typo, I meant to say the Broncos are THAT bad"

The Raiders are trash but the Broncos are actually positive in point differential, and as a whole the AFC west is +80

See my above post about the Broncos. They suck. They are only "positive in points differential" because they blew out the lowly Cards. Other than that they have a hard cap of 24 points, which if they had played anyone but the Cards, that razor thin +8 in point differential that they have evaporates. The bottom line is they are 1 game ahead of the Bengals and a half game ahead of the Browns, so if you guys are gonna be falling all over yourselves to give the Chiefs and Chargers credit for beating them, then dammit, give the Ravens and Steelers credit for their division games too. And the 80+ point differential for the division you mention? Just stop it... you know that's just Mahomes putting up 40+ every other game. The Broncos don't get any credit for that.

 

[caketastydelish]

That's all they have. The other two teams in that division are garbagewater and you know it. ROTFLMAO... The Broncos just lost to the 49ers... the 49ers... THE 49ERS... just let that sink in... think about what you just said and get back to me... Next you'll be telling me that "it was a typo, I meant to say the Broncos are THAT bad"

Nah. That one wasn't a typo. The Broncos are 6 and 7. That's almost an even record. The 49ers getting lucky and overperforming for one game doesn't make them the better team. Having roughly an even record means "not that bad" is true. The Raiders really are that bad but the Broncos aren't. The Broncos managed to beat the Chargers this season (because they overperformed for that game), and the 49ers managed to beat the Broncos.

Using your logic: 49ers > Chargers

See why that doesn't work?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Using your logic: 49ers > Chargers

See why that doesn't work?

Nice try. Everyone knows that sure any team can suffer a fluke loss now and then... "Any given Sunday" as the saying goes. But the Broncos loss to the 49ers wasn't a fluke. The Broncos are under .500 AND they lost to the 49ers. What that shows is they aren't just a solid team who is struggling a bit. They legitimately suck. I just pointed out how using your logic, the Browns and Bengals aren't that bad either.

The under .500 Broncos "aren't that bad" but the over .500 Dolphins are a "powderpuff"? See why that doesn't work? The over .500 Ravens and Steelers are pushovers but the under .500 Broncos are credible competition? Why? Where's the "logic" in that? If a one game (or half game) difference between the Broncos versus the Bengals and Browns is the difference between "sucking" and "not that bad"... then what about the one game (and 1.5 game) difference between the Broncos and the Ravens and Steelers? Doesn't that have to be the difference between not that bad/OK and "good"? See how you guys arguments make no sense? So right back at cha buddy . The Dolphins have a better record than the Broncos, the Pats beat the Chiefs and the Dolphins beat the Pats. So you either have to admit that the Broncos suck or you have to give up the claim that the Pats have a powderpuff division. So which is it gonna be?

In any case, I'm not really trying to have a protracted argument about which teams suck the worst and why, because that would be pointless. I've made my point, which is the playoff system is more entertaining which is the goal and in some cases more equitable as a side effect. Also as @Timsup2nothin points out, more profitable, which is also the goal. So go ahead and take the last word if you like.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thinking about all this... The Chiefs are starting to look a little smoke-and-mirror'ey to me Here's my case.

1. They beat the Chargers week one in LA. But they just moved to LA so it's not really a "home game" for them. Plus, as @Timsup2nothin has repeatedly pointed out, they are despised in LA for keeping the Raiders out, so that was more like road loss for them, and to boot, nobody was really ready for Mahomes. Rookie sensation QB's always catch everyone of guard for the first few games, if not the first season or two if they're lucky. We saw that play out with Wilson, Kaepernick, Prescott, the list goes on. Also, they just lost to the Chargers, but we'll come back to that.

2. They then beat the wounded Steelers, who were just coming off that shocking tie to the Browns coupled with the beginning of the fiasco with Bell... and they gave up 37 points to the Steelers to boot. In any case, the Steelers have really struggled this season, so in retrospect, they don't get as much credit for that win as we were initially giving them.

3. They then beat the 49ers, but this was the game where Garoppolo got hurt just as the 49ers were mounting a comeback. They may have ended up winning anyway, but the win over the 49ers certainly can't be looked at a crowning acheivment.

4. They then cakewalk through the Broncos and Jags, but get stopped by the Pats, which I'd say is a failure in their first real test of the season.

5. Another cakewalk through the Bengals, Broncos, Browns and Cards, then again get stopped when they play a good team... this time the Rams.

6. More cakewalking through the Ravens and Raiders, only to once again be stopped when they play a good Chargers team, which brings things full circle. In order to crown the Chiefs... you really have to be hanging your hat on that week one win against the Chargers right? But isn't that cancelled out by the fact that they lost at home to the Chargers? And going back to the first line... you can't even really give them credit for beating the Chargers "at the Chargers home" because the Chargers don't really have a home. So in the grand scheme of things it really seems like the advantage has to go to the Chargers for coming to Arrowhead and beating the Chiefs. So now taking that into consideration... Who have the Chiefs really beaten?... Uh oh... do we have a house of cards situation here? A bag of hype just waiting to be exposed in the playoffs? We'll see soon enough I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are a lot of excuses that can be made for the Chiefs, but they have the worst defense in the league, statistically, the dominance indicated by their record is going to be a bit transparent if closely examined.

There is an interesting question in what the league is going to do about weather. They have shifted the rules to make "high flying offensive circus, don't worry about defense we'll just outscore everybody" seem like a viable strategy. This gives rise to the kind of games they believe the fans want (because marketing results seem to indicate that we do) where the Chiefs and the Rams are swapping fifty burgers. But to push that kind of game into the playoffs they have to get past the weather. Cold, not even particularly bitter cold, grounds the high flying circus. A little rain drowns it like a kitten. Wind? Don't even talk about wind. So how do they git their fifty burger swapping all star offensive fireworks show into the superbowl?

 

[Light Cleric]

Give me a break. Look at the Chiefs' schedule, All the teams (and worse) that you are dissing and dismissing for being Steelers wins are right there on the Chiefs schedule... Browns, Bengals, Jags, Ravens, Broncos (twice), Raiders, 49ers, Cards. You should have looked at the Chiefs schedule before making this argument.

I mean, I did look at their schedule, which is how I can tell you left off the Chiefs beating the Steelers themeselves which is a pretty huge thing to omit lol. Maybe you should have actually read the schedule yourself before telling me to look at it. I actually did look at their schedule and the teams they beat had a considerably better average winning percentage.

Also, you argument was the Chiefs wins were "easier". You've still, unsurprisingly, provided literally no evidence to support this. If you want to say they're about the same, sure. But that's not the original statement I was addressing.

I'm also not going to guarantee they won't fall apart in the playoffs but it's funny that the same statement applies to literally every time the Steelers have ever faced the Pats in the playoffs lol

 

[caketastydelish]

Nice try. Everyone knows that sure any team can suffer a fluke loss now and then... "Any given Sunday" as the saying goes. But the Broncos loss to the 49ers wasn't a fluke. The Broncos are under .500 AND they lost to the 49ers. What that shows is they aren't just a solid team who is struggling a bit. They legitimately suck. I just pointed out how using your logic, the Browns and Bengals aren't that bad either.

The under .500 Broncos "aren't that bad" but the over .500 Dolphins are a "powderpuff"? See why that doesn't work? The over .500 Ravens and Steelers are pushovers but the under .500 Broncos are credible competition? Why? Where's the "logic" in that? If a one game (or half game) difference between the Broncos versus the Bengals and Browns is the difference between "sucking" and "not that bad"... then what about the one game (and 1.5 game) difference between the Broncos and the Ravens and Steelers? Doesn't that have to be the difference between not that bad/OK and "good"? See how you guys arguments make no sense? So right back at cha buddy . The Dolphins have a better record than the Broncos, the Pats beat the Chiefs and the Dolphins beat the Pats. So you either have to admit that the Broncos suck or you have to give up the claim that the Pats have a powderpuff division. So which is it gonna be?

Ok, I will explain better.

When I say AFC East is a powder puff I meant the division overall.

The second best division in AFC East is only slightly better than the third best division in AFC West. The Chargers and Chiefs both have a stronger record than any AFC East teams. Then when you compare the third place AFC East team to the third place AFC West team you'll see the big difference I'm talking about.

The Broncos blew out the Cards (in Arizona) like an NFL team against a college team.

The best two teams in AFC North (Steelers and Ravens) aren't nearly as good as the best two teams in AFC West. The third best team in AFC West (Broncos) is doing slightly better than the third-best team in AFC North (Browns)... and those very two teams play against each other later today so if the Broncos win that game the gap between those two teams will be even more solidified. Case in point: Nobody in the AFC West is a joke team other than the Raiders. IF the Browns beat the Broncos today then I stand corrected obviously, but we'll see.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There are a lot of excuses that can be made for the Chiefs, but they have the worst defense in the league, statistically, the dominance indicated by their record is going to be a bit transparent if closely examined.

There is an interesting question in what the league is going to do about weather. They have shifted the rules to make "high flying offensive circus, don't worry about defense we'll just outscore everybody" seem like a viable strategy. This gives rise to the kind of games they believe the fans want (because marketing results seem to indicate that we do) where the Chiefs and the Rams are swapping fifty burgers. But to push that kind of game into the playoffs they have to get past the weather. Cold, not even particularly bitter cold, grounds the high flying circus. A little rain drowns it like a kitten. Wind? Don't even talk about wind. So how do they git their fifty burger swapping all star offensive fireworks show into the superbowl?

Hawaii, Miami, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, New Orleans, Dallas, Hawaii, Miami, LA, Phoenix, Vegas...

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, I did look at their schedule, which is how I can tell you left off the Chiefs beating the Steelers themeselves which is a pretty huge thing to omit lol. Maybe you should have actually read the schedule yourself before telling me to look at it. I actually did look at their schedule and the teams they beat had a considerably better average winning percentage.

Also, you argument was the Chiefs wins were "easier". You've still, unsurprisingly, provided literally no evidence to support this. If you want to say they're about the same, sure. But that's not the original statement I was addressing.

I'm also not going to guarantee they won't fall apart in the playoffs but it's funny that the same statement applies to literally every time the Steelers have ever faced the Pats in the playoffs lol

Its funny because I did mention the Steelers in my original post, then I edited it out to see if you'd take the bait which you did, lol. Hilarious you say I "omitted" the Steelers when I address the Steelers win specifically in the very next post. So rather than rehash my points in that post I'll just add that you can't have it both ways. You can't crap on the Steelers as not being good/not beating anyone in one post then use them as evidence of the Chiefs greatness in the next. As you say, at best, the Steelers and Chiefs have beaten the same caliber of opponents... but the Steelers have the worse record, why? Is it because the Chiefs have the easier schedule? Arguably. That was part of my argument and you just made my point for me, just as I intended. Thanks.

Ok, I will explain better.

When I say AFC East is a powder puff I meant the division overall.

That's just empty rhetoric. "Powderpuff division" means there's no competition whatsoever and you know it. Don't try to move the goalposts. You hate the Pats with a passion and you think the Pats are getting a free ride because the rest of the division sucks. Fine. But you can't claim that while simultaneously calling the Broncos legit competition because of their 6-7 record. It just doesn't make sense. I'm fine with calling the Pats division a powderpuff. But you've got to admit the Broncos suck to do that. I don't care who they suck worse than, like I said that's a pointless discussion. But they suck period.

 

[Light Cleric]

Its funny because I did mention the Steelers in my original post, then I edited it out to see if you'd take the bait which you did, lol. Hilarious you say I "omitted" the Steelers when I address the Steelers win specifically in the very next post. So rather than rehash my points in that post I'll just add that you can't have it both ways. You can't crap on the Steelers as not being good/not beating anyone in one post then use them as evidence of the Chiefs greatness in the next. As you say, at best, the Steelers and Chiefs have beaten the same caliber of opponents... but the Steelers have the worse record, why? Is it because the Chiefs have the easier schedule? Arguably. That was part of my argument and you just made my point for me, just as I intended. Thanks. That's just empty rhetoric. "Powderpuff division" means there's no competition whatsoever and you know it. Don't try to move the goalposts, I'm not having it.

This is a lot of words to say "I'm too small a person to admit I was wrong".

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is a lot of words to say "I'm too small a person to admit I was wrong".

he said ironically.

 

[Light Cleric]

Man I didn't even get to quote your cringeworthy excuse about "setting a trap" before you edited it out lol, I wanted to immortalize that

 

[Sommerswerd]

Man I didn't even get to quote your cringeworthy excuse about "setting a trap" before you edited it out lol, I wanted to immortalize that

Which ironically proves that I actually did edit something out and it wasn't "an excuse". I do edit things out when I think I've come on a little too strong or petty or snarky about something. Also, I've got a long track record for admitting when I'm wrong so name call me all you want. Bottom line... I said:

2. They then beat the wounded Steelers, who were just coming off that shocking tie to the Browns coupled with the beginning of the fiasco with Bell... and they gave up 37 points to the Steelers to boot. In any case, the Steelers have really struggled this season, so in retrospect, they don't get as much credit for that win as we were initially giving them.

Two posts later you said:

you left off the Chiefs beating the Steelers themeselves which is a pretty huge thing to omit lol.

But you were wrong. I didn't omit it, I mentioned it two posts before you accused me of omitting it.. Now be a "big person" and admit you were wrong. I'm waiting.

EDIT: Putting that aside... just consider this. Do the Steelers count as a legit, worthy opponent? In other words, are they good? You seem to think so, based on your accusation that I "omitted them". It seems like you feel I'm not giving the Chiefs the credit they deserve for beating the mighty Steelers. OK fine, but then what about the Ravens? They beat the Steelers too, so do they get that same awesomeness credit that the Chiefs get? So how come you grouped them as pushovers with the Jags in order to mock the Steelers schedule? And if the Steelers are good, such that I should be patting the Chiefs on the back for beating them... why are they 7-6? Tougher schedule maybe? I just think you mocking my argument as "ridiculous" was a little hasty... especially given all the respect you want me to give the Chiefs for beating the Steelers.

 

[Light Cleric]

You left the Steelers off your list I quoted. That's what I was referring to, which I thought you could gather because it's what I quoted but apparently not lol

All this was about your assertion that the Steelers wins were somehow harder. The Chiefs' opponents and the teams they've beaten have a higher winning percentage than the Steelers (between .020 and .030, I'd have to run the numbers again for the exact total), that's just factual. You can make excuses about "injuries" or w/e, but it's the NFL, everyone has that. Case in point: you know who the Chiefs were missing against the "wounded" Steelers? Eric Berry, their best defensive player by a mile. Think maybe that's why they gave up 37 points?

Also, the Chiefs' 3 losses are to the Pats/Chargers/Rams. You can poop on beating the Broncos and Raiders(who both do indeed suck copious amounts of ass ass), but the Steelers lost to them both . I called the Steelers having harder wins nonsense because it's not backed up by reality and your arguments to justify it are barely coherent, let alone good.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hawaii, Miami, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, New Orleans, Dallas, Hawaii, Miami, LA, Phoenix, Vegas...

The location of the super bowl doesn't solve the problem of getting the fifty burger tossers through the playoffs. Kansas City is bar none the most fun team to watch in the league, but their great season is most likely going to earn them a sad demise on a freezing January day in Kansas City and we'll end up stuck with watching the Cheatriots in the superbowl.

 

[caketastydelish]

[QUOTE="Sommerswerd, post: 15305348, member: 128875] That's just empty rhetoric. "Powderpuff division" means there's no competition whatsoever and you know it. Don't try to move the goalposts. You hate the Pats with a passion and you think the Pats are getting a free ride because the rest of the division sucks. Fine. But you can't claim that while simultaneously calling the Broncos legit competition because of their 6-7 record. It just doesn't make sense. I'm fine with calling the Pats division a powderpuff. But you've got to admit the Broncos suck to do that. I don't care who they suck worse than, like I said that's a pointless discussion. But they suck period. [/QUOTE]

I didn’t. Supposing the Broncos win tonight their season will be even. That hardly constitutes “sucks period”. It’s even happened before that teams with an even record made the playoffs. Hell, the 7-9 Seahawks did and went on to beat the Saints.

The 2018 Broncos are the second to worst team in their division and they aren’t pushover opposition. And the top two teams in AFC west are much better than they are so it’s clearly a crowded division. None of those teams would be “easy opponents” on any given Sunday besides the Raiders. AFC East has two easy teams to beat instead of one, and their second best team is at least compatible to the second worst team in AFC west. But we can hold off on that until after Denver is done playing tonight. Let me just make it easier for you. Count every single win (combined) as well as losses for both AFC West and one for AFC East. AFC West clearly is the superior division.

 

[Light Cleric]

The location of the super bowl doesn't solve the problem of getting the fifty burger tossers through the playoffs. Kansas City is bar none the most fun team to watch in the league, but their great season is most likely going to earn them a sad demise on a freezing January day in Kansas City and we'll end up stuck with watching the Cheatriots in the superbowl.

Yeah sadly I want to disagree but after watching all their godawful playoff performances over the last few years I can't lol. They're an awesome team but that doesn't mean anything if you pee the bed (or leave Mike Williams so open that I was closer to him than the nearest Chiefs DB)

I've complained about my love-hate relationship with Andy Reid before. I love Andy Reid because he's an amazing talent evaluator/developer and gameplanner. I also hate Andy Rein because is a godawful game manager and loses games by getting ultra-conservative and/or forgetting football games have a clock.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, the fact that they are playing on Saturday and there is no other game available has me watching the Jets. Another fact is that that may be the only circumstances under which I have any interest, at all, in watching the Jets.