Jump to content
LittleHurt05

Official 2018-19 NFL Thread

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Ok, that's your experience. I get it.

I will just say that it isn't the experience and views shared by others, especially comes to sports and enjoyment of it. Don't be offended when someone don't agree with your generally negative view of it. But I guess you have been around long enough to know it by now.

Of course man, I get it. We live in two different worlds. I know I'm the one who's weird. 

In case you didn't know, I've been pretty vocal about being autistic on this board. I used to think if I worked harder than everyone else and was more persistent than anyone people would overlook my other problems in the professional world. When I found out that wasn't the case, it kind of messed me up a bit. It explains my negative worldview. I have a lot of PTSD from the process. I'm trying to work through it right now. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Of course man, I get it. We live in two different worlds. I know I'm the one who's weird. 

We are living our sports lives on a message board without true human contact. We are all weird here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

We are living our sports lives on a message board without true human contact. We are all weird here. 

It only gets weird when we're interacting on a message board where robots are posting on the other end. Until then, it isn't THAT weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

It only gets weird when we're interacting on a message board where robots are posting on the other end. Until then, it isn't THAT weird.

ArE yOu pOsiTive neiTher he nOr I arEn,t RoBots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Someone.. quick!... we need to run a captcha test on ptatc

Please select all of the cars that you see in the image below

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one of Mitch's throws last night he thought he could hit a zone seam and his guy (I think it was Gabriel) was nowhere even close to open. When he sees that one on film he's going to facepalm, cuz it was dumb. The other two were good reads, he even had his feet set, he just sailed his throws. He hasn't been doing that since like September which makes me wonder how his shoulder is feeling. He says it's fine but NFL players lie about the pain they're feeling all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think history has taught us that it is really hard to win a Super Bowl without a HOF level QB. Think about that for a minute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I think history has taught us that it is really hard to win a Super Bowl without a HOF level QB. Think about that for a minute. 

Nick Foles, Doug William's, Joe Flacco, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler,, Mark rypien, trent dilfer.

 

I'm sure there is more but those are ones off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question...I read somewhere that Trubisky had seperated/disclosed his shoulder (vs. what had originally been reported as a bruise). Is that actually the case?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

Nick Foles, Doug William's, Joe Flacco, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler,, Mark rypien, trent dilfer.

 

I'm sure there is more but those are ones off the top of my head.

Brad Johnson, Phil Simms and Jim Plunkett round out the list. I think that might be the end of it. 

Out of 52 Super Bowls, I think only 13 have been won by non-HOF QBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

Question...I read somewhere that Trubisky had seperated/disclosed his shoulder (vs. what had originally been reported as a bruise). Is that actually the case?  

Separated and dislocated refer to different joints. It really depends on which it was. On one report it was partially dislocated. Unfortunately the media uses them interchangeably and it's hard to tell the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Brad Johnson, Phil Simms and Jim Plunkett round out the list. I think that might be the end of it. 

Out of 52 Super Bowls, I think only 13 have been won by non-HOF QBs. 

That's only 75%. I wouldn't classify that as really hard. That's 1 every 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people who insist Khalil Mack shouldn't be used in coverage know what they're talking about 90% of the time. DEs and OLBs go into coverage sometimes, that's part of playing the position. WRs block on running plays, CBs blitz. That's like saying if you have Randy Moss he should do nothing but run verticals all game. If the offense has been doubling Mack then it means they can overload the other side where there are fewer players. Yes, sometimes this doesn't work, just like every other defensive play.

Whenever I say this I always get a crowd of people getting defensive and doubling down about this, then trying to get examples. "Mack got burned because he ended up having to cover (fast receiver)." Well yeah, I mean, if Fangio knew which specific players would be running specific routes the defensive playcalling would be pretty easy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Brad Johnson, Phil Simms and Jim Plunkett round out the list. I think that might be the end of it. 

Out of 52 Super Bowls, I think only 13 have been won by non-HOF QBs. 

Eli Manning is a borderline case, but if he makes it, it'll be BECAUSE he won those 2 Super Bowls. Then it becomes a chicken/egg argument - is he even in the discussion without those wins? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lostfan said:

Eli Manning is a borderline case, but if he makes it, it'll be BECAUSE he won those 2 Super Bowls. Then it becomes a chicken/egg argument - is he even in the discussion without those wins? Probably not.

I forgot about Flacco but him too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Kirk Cousins is extremely unimpressive as a QB.

Really surprised at how bad he has played. 

That guy has maybe the best receiver tandem in the league. He has a pretty good TE. He has a pretty good RB set though cook always hurt.

That offense has way underachieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think if the Bears had Cousins (near term...ignoring salary cap...but just his play), I would be more confident stating Bears might be a super bowl team.  That is more just a component that the Bears don't need tremendous play out of their QB, but above average to good play is probably enough.  I do think Trubisky could be more than that (he certainly could be less than that as well).  His accuracy (or lapses there of) will have to improve over the off-season and as he continues to refine his game. I expect that will happen as accuracy was one of his strenghts and its something he's flashed at many points in time of the season.

That said, while Lombardi's comments were absurd, I certainly understood where he is coming from. Mitch has had his fair share of extremely inaccurate passes (all QB's have him, but I'd say he's had more "bad misses" than many QB's).  I happen to think those should not be expected from a young QB who is rushing everything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the Bears clinch playoffs with a Vikings loss? Or is there magic number 1 for the division and a playoff birth?  Just curious?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Do the Bears clinch playoffs with a Vikings loss? Or is there magic number 1 for the division and a playoff birth?  Just curious?  

It's the latter, they cant clinch either today, but their magic number for a playoff berth is 1 no matter who wins tonight. Its 2 for the division title pending tonight's outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Do the Bears clinch playoffs with a Vikings loss? Or is there magic number 1 for the division and a playoff birth?  Just curious?  

If the Vikings lose the Bears would have to win one more game to clinch the division. The best the Vikings could do is 9-6-1, the Bears currently have 9 wins.

Edited by lostfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×