NFL - Discussion Thread

Wow...Washington, Miami, Arizona, & Cincinnati all bottom 5??? 3/4 of those teams could easily make playoffs if things go right. Washington get injured players back & some quality drafted players. Arizona get a franchise QB to come in when Bradford gets injured, and they get David Johnson back. Cincinnati are an underachieving squad that not long ago won the #2 AFC seed.

San Francisco at 16-1 is disgusting. They're apparently a better chance to win it than New Orleans & Jacksonville??? Atlanta & LA Chargers are also WAY too low at 25-1. If I were to do a power rankings I'd have to go with:

1. LA Rams (+3)
2. New England (-1)
3. Philadelphia
4. Jacksonville (+6)
5. Pittsburgh (-3)
6. Green Bay (-1)
7. Minnesota (-1)
8. Atlanta (+5)
9. New Orleans (+2)
10. LA Chargers (+5)
11. Carolina (+5)
12. Houston (-3)
13. Detroit (+8)
14. Dallas (-2)
15. Kansas City (-6)
16. San Francisco (-9)
17. Seattle (+7)
18. Baltimore (+1)
19. Tampa Bay (+6)
20. Tennessee (-1)
21. Oakland (-7)
22. NY Giants (+1)
23. Denver (-6)
24. Buffalo (+4)
25. Arizona (+4)
26. Washington (+4)
27. Chicago (-1)
28. Cincinnati (+3)
29. NY Jets (-2)
30. Indianapolis (-9)
31. Cleveland (+1)
32. Miami (-2)

I've been looking at a whole array of bookies odds on the next Super Bowl and a lot of them have Miami coming in dead last, which surprised me to be honest as I had them between halfway and two thirds of the way down.

All of a sudden I'm looking forward to the new season so I can laugh at these predictions. No way Miami is coming in last and Washington are a better team than the last five which most of these bookies seem to think they are. If Washington can be competitive against Dallas and Philadelphia the NFC East is going to be a close run contest. There's six games there which will decide the outcome, whoever dominates them wins the division.

Look on the bright side though, if Miami does get the worst record in the league they get to pick first next year so that will resolve their quarterback problem for years to come with the accquisiton of Drew Lock.

If you read my power ranking I have Miami at 32. It's not because they're THAT bad, but because every other team is better than them. This should be one of the most even seasons yet.

Miami just don't have a lot going for them. There's talent, but it didn't perform well enough last season. Realistically Miami could've actually made playoffs if not for some awful losses. Twice they played Buffalo and twice fell behind a long way before coming back and narrowly losing. Then they played Tampa Bay while they were awful, and fell behind by a lot before tieing scores, but then fell apart. They also almost got shutout by a Jets team that was supposed to be 0-16. Throw in Oakland, where what a surprise, we fell behind, but got back in the game and were leading, before a late fade out. 6-10 could've, and should've been 11-5. I mean c'mon, Miami were only one of 2 teams after week 4 to beat New England.

There's 2 paths for Miami to take. Path 1, which I think is going to happen, is that the team will not gel and Tannehill will fail, leading Miami to a 2-14 to 4-12 record. The other path is that Tannehill returns to his pre-injury form, and the pickups/draft picks are all effective and lead us to snatching the wide-open #6 seed. The problem is, when you compare them to all other teams in a power ranking, they aren't very good at all.

Division games are a huge problem for Washington. They were 1-5 in the division and 6-4 outside the division. This coming season I see them 100% getting swept by Dallas, and they'll be lucky to win one against Philly. They may be able to win their home game against NY Giants, so it looks like 1-5 again. Realistically in a conference stuffed with quality teams, 10-6 is what's needed to get you playoffs. That means Washington need to go 9-1 outside the division. 9-1 in these games:
Atlanta
Carolina
New Orleans
Tampa Bay
Green Bay
Arizona
Jacksonville
Indy
Houston
Tennessee

Not gonna happen.

« Last edited by Matt77 on May 4th 2018 »

I don't know much about sports logistics and all, but I really think Minnesota needs to take the time to worry about forming as a team rather than getting to the playoffs is all. I've just never had that feeling, obviously the year Ponder got them in (and then was hurt) was just a fluke, the year Teddy got them in they should have won if that idiot Walsh had been dropped the light year earlier he should've been, but last year looked pretty solid. Not gonna lie.

I thought Minnesota had a chance going into the playoffs, but the week leading up to facing Philly I knew Minnesota wouldn't survive that week.

So in conclusion, yes a run for the playoffs would be great. But it just can't be priority number 1.

« Last edited by FreezShock on May 5th 2018 »

Yes. Priority number 1 was getting their franchise QB Kirk Cousins. Now that they have him they have to focus on the Superbowl. Every team should go out on the football field looking to win in every game. If they simply have priority number 1 being to win, they will look to win every week and thus make the SB. The more they win together, the more they'll start enjoying and getting used to playing together, as a team.

But sadly Freez they already formed their team with Case Keenum before they 'gave him permission to leave' aka told him his services were not needed anymore and that he should explore his options. They came up with all sorts of weird TD celebrations like the duck duck goose one. That's the kind of stuff that shows a team is formed. Minnesota have gone down a dangerous and slippery slide, and because of this they simply MUST WIN A SB WITHIN 2 YEARS. Must.

I actually agree that it's necessary to form as a team. But I really think they have this 'team'. Cousins will eventually get used to the system at Minnesota, and once he does they;ll be ready to contend.

Cousins will never win a Super Bowl. He chokes in big games and makes stupid mistakes. I?m convinced that?s why the Redskins never committed to him because they had no problem paying big bucks to Alex Smith a quarterback who has been dumped by two previous NFL teams, I think they realized they had no chance of reaching the Super Bowl with Cousins. Alex Smith is just a cheaper lateral move until they draft a top college talent which will probably be next year if they do poorly.

One thing about last years Redskins is although they missed the playoffs and had a ton of injuries they did remain competitive in nearly all their games. If Smith plays like he did for Kansas at the beginning of last year, Jordan Ried the pro bowl Tight End returns from injury, better receivers and now Guice in the backfield they might do well. I can only hope... on paper they look a decent team.

I agree, they're not bad, but they have no chance of making playoffs unless they half the division games at least.

Matt: Until Brady and/or Gronk retire, New England always has to be the team that has the best chance of winning the Super Bowl. They've gone to eight in like eighteen years, no other franchise can say they've reach the Super Bowl roughly 50% of the time. On that fact alone, the Patriots have to be the first listed in terms of odds.

Here's my personal odds:
New England
Pittsburgh (only because the AFC is easier to get through in terms of Playoffs)
Atlanta
Green Bay
New Orleans
LA Rams
LA Chargers
Philadelphia
Jacksonville
Minnesota

Really doesn't matter after that. However, the next few slots would probably be filled with who I believe are reaching the playoffs. Philly fans might be mad by my rankings, but they have to realize that the Giants aren't going 2-14 again, the Cowboys will have Zeke Elliott back for the entire season, and the Redskins had an incredible draft. 10-6 will probably be winning that division again, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the Giants or Redskins.

Warrior13, I like your prediction of the Redskins going 10-6. On paper when you look at their squad they now look as if they can hold their own against anyone in the league. What concerns me though is the offense in particular and how the new players and rookies will gel and contribute. Will Alex Smith be able to come in and look as good as Cousins directing the offense? He's got the experience, no doubt about that and he has some decent weapons around him which Cousins didn't have but can the aging quarterback who adds the added dimension of being able to scramble lift the team to the next level and justify the Redskins management of getting rid of Cousins.

Like you say New York have suddenly improved dramatically with the acquisition of Barkley and Philadelphia's confidence will be sky high after winning the Super Bowl and now having Carson Wentz back. Whoever wins the NFC East you have to say has a good chance of reaching the Super Bowl because they are going to get through a murderous schedule to get there.

What do you make on the bookies making Miami one of the worst teams in the league? Justified or unfair.

Warrior - Yeah, I was torn when putting LA Rams top. But they had a seriously good trade period. I don't think they're SB favourites, but they deserve to start week 1 at the top based on their trade, and the vast changes NE made.

Dennis - It's fair to make Miami low. With the uncertainty around Tannehill's injury, and the fact that his go to target has left the team, a lot could go wrong.

« Last edited by Matt77 on May 8th 2018 »

Matt, there's already a lot of noise around the NFL about Miami picking up Drew Lock in next year's draft if they get the fourth worst record in the league. Justin Herbert and Will Grier will also be up for grabs so it looks like Miami will almost definately get a potentially elite quarterback in the draft next year. Forget Tannenhill, he's not your man, he's just the caretaker until the team finds its next great quarterback. They haven't had one since Dan Marino retired in 1999.

Yep, definitely. That was why I didn't want us to grab a QB in last draft. Minkah Fitzpatrick is far better in terms of flexibility, reliability, & being a safer pick. It's far easier for a QB to be a bust and for your 1st round pick to be wasted. It's going to be a strange season, since while I want Miami to win, the more they lose, the better draft pick they'll have.

Regardless of where Miami finish they'll probably look to trade up to the #1 pick unless they see other fits. For Miami's and Tannehill's sake, I hope Tannehill has a good season to improve his likelihood of finding a new home and thus attracting a decent pick like a 4th rounder. Every pick is important since I'd prefer not for Miami to have to give up a 1st round pick in 2020.

Looking at the crop of QBs next draft, it makes me realise just how overrated last draft was. All 5 of the main QBs had serious issues that could spell bust. Mayfield's height & footwork, Darnold's fumbles/INTs, Allen's accuracy, Rosen's injury history & attitude, and Jackson's serious question marks. In 2019 there will possibly be 3 QBs taken in the first 10 picks depending on which teams have those picks. In 2018 there were 4 (just).

« Last edited by Matt77 on May 8th 2018 »

Mark Ingram has been suspended for 4 games for using performance-enhancing drugs. It's a big blow for a New Orleans team that seriously struggled in the running game towards the end of last season. With Tampa Bay, Cleveland (both home), Atlanta, & NY Giants (both away), it's looking like 2-2 is the best they'll start.

You don't hear so much these days about PED's in the NFL, they've tried to clean the sport up but during the 70's and 80's there were plenty of juiced up players on steroids. Players these days are getting caught with recreational drugs like cocaine and pain killers in their system. Two top NFL players that come straight to mind was Lawrence Taylor and Brett Favre.

Below is LaRon Landry who played for the Washington Redskins and now the Indianapolis Colts, he has been caught for PED violation in the past. Unfortunately because of the cycle of the various drugs plenty of players are able to take advantage. The only time they will get caught is by random testing or they screw up their dates and don't give it enough time before their test. What makes me laugh though is why the NFL sometimes even bothers with a test, I can usually tell just by looking at a photo if it is obvious an athlete is taking something he shouldn't.




« Last edited by Sanzano on May 10th 2018 »

All natural lol.

What I don't get is why they don't test every player, on a random date. That way they can expose cheats, and help people that may be taking illicit drugs and have an addiction problem. In Australia's AFL, back in 2013 it was found players from a team were given performance enhancing drugs, which explained their sudden form rise. While it was harsh that all 18+ players were banned for 12 months, if they were never tested the program would've gone on for longer and could've seriously influenced the competition. And recently an experienced ex-coach was found to be trafficking drugs after there were rumors of him having issues for years. For all we know there could be a club in the NFL practicing illegal activities, and there are most certainly drug addicts. People have to get drug tested in all kinds of jobs no matter the position, and it should be the same in all sports too.

I see the owner of the Carolina Panthers wants to buy Wembley Stadium in London because he wants to start an NFL team there. This should be interesting, the buyer is American billionaire Shahid Khan who has no shortage of money. The only problem is Wembley Stadium to Brits is hallowed ground as major sporting events only get played there so I can see some oppositon to the buyout. It would be great though having an actual NFL team in London, it would mean I may be able to see a few games as my wife's parents live two streets away from the ground. One suggested name is the London Archers, sounds a bit naff if you ask me. London Lions sounds better and would look better considering the Lion is Englands mascot.




« Last edited by Sanzano on May 14th 2018 »

Ugh, it's gonna happen one day isn't it. What an awful decision it will be, as all divisions will need to be restructured, some more teams will have to be added, and the playoff qualification system will have to change.

Yeah, Wembley is a major ground over there, but it's especially an issue since it's currently Tottenham Hotspur's home ground in the EPL.

I think it's only temporarily Tottenham Hotspur's home ground while White Heart Lane is rebuilt. I think the money on offer may be too much for the English FA to turn down. The fans won't be happy though...

Like you say this is just the beginning. Their won't just be one NFL team in Europe, there will probably be three or four more to make up a division. Probably Germany, Spain and another in the UK. It's a bit silly really as all the players are going to be American which when you think about it defeats the object. At least with World Cup Soccer you have to be born in a country to play for it which in my opinion is how it should be.

There will have to be a minimum of 8 new teams if they want to keep the balance of divisions and conferences. Restructuring the divisions also can't be anything better than adding 8 new teams, as adding 2 in each conference would lead to 2/4 divisions having 4 teams & the others having 5 teams, and that would be unfair. Unless they either remove teams from the NFL permanently, or try to invent a complex relegation and promotion system.

Then there's the potential for divisions to be scrapped and for there to be 2 conferences of 17 teams (meaning 2 new teams added). The top 6 teams in each conference would make playoffs, but I'm unsure how scheduling would work. Here in Australia your schedule depends on where you finished on the ladder ie the top 6 teams got the hardest ones, middle get ok ones, and the bottom 6 got the easiest. I suppose the 6 playoff teams in each conference could avoid playing some of the bottom 5 sides. Ie: (top 6 bracket play each other & some middle bracket teams, middle bracket teams play each other & some top & some bottom, & bottom bracket play each other & some middle teams)
Fake ladder:
[Team 2
1
3
4
5
6]
[7
8
9
10
11
14]
[12
16
17
15
13]

The point is, to fit a London team there has to be big changes. Actually now that I think of it a London team wouldn't be a big issue when forgetting about the consequences. In Aus's NRL (National Rugby League) there is an NZ team, and it works ok. But one of the following will HAVE to happen:
a) An east coast team moves to London and renames themselves
b) A non-east coast team moves to London, causing some teams to have to swap divisions
c) The London Archers (not a bad name imo) will be created and one of the remaining 32 teams will be dissolved
d) Divisions will be abolished and converted into whole conferences + a new scheduling system will be created + a second team will be introduced
e) 3 conferences will be created, with 3 divisions in each. 4 new teams would form a new division along with one division each from the old conferences joining them. The winner of each division goes into playoffs, with one wildcard spot in each conference
f) 8 new teams will be created; 4 in the UK to be a division in the AFC, and 4 in the rest of Europe to be a division in the NFC. The division winners would advance to playoffs, with only one wildcard spot existing in each conference
g) Some other idea I haven't thought of

I guess if I had to pick one, E seems to be not that bad. A seems logical, but I doubt just one team will be based outside the US.

« Last edited by Matt77 on May 14th 2018 »

Never gonna happen. NFLPA will never allow such a thing. Players are already complaining about too long of seasons and Thursday night games.