2023 NFL Thread v Super Bowl matchup: Chiefs vs. 49ers

[KevShmev]

The Dolphins are still what I thought they were: a team that can pound that bad teams, but wilts against the good ones.  They are a pretender.  There is no way they are on the level of KC, Baltimore or Cincinnati in the AFC.  I am still not sure how great the Jags are, and while the Steelers and Browns have the same record as the Bengals, their mediocre QB situations limit their upside.  My brother and nephew told me I was nuts in the preseason when I said I loved the Bills under win total (10.5), but it felt like they were a team that had missed their window and would stumble to 9-8 and see McDermott get the axe.  I still think that is what happens.

The Eagles are still obviously the class of the NFC, although they sure did try to blow that game at the end.  For as well as Prescott played, taking that sack at the end on 1st down was terrible.  Throw it away right away when there is nothing and then you have 3 more shots from inside the 10.  It doesn't help that Mike McCarthy's offense has zero imagination to it.

The games this week really show the downside of the NFL these days.  There are a lot - too many, IMO - teams squeaking by with wins when they're not playing well, and a couple teams - you know who they are - who are squeaking by with losses when they actually played well enough to win.  It's turning into the NHL in that way, where the "real" games don't start until the playoffs.  The problem is, the NFL is a "one and done" league and that's tough when you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

There are also a ton of teams who are good enough to probably win 7-9 games, ya know those teams you know won't be a threat in the postseason, but good enough to not suck, and it seems like every week, there are a few games pitting one against the other, and guessing who is going to win those games is a total crapshoot. Examples this week were Bucs/Texans, Packers/Rams and Falcons/Vikings.

[El Barto]

The Dolphins are still what I thought they were: a team that can pound that bad teams, but wilts against the good ones.  They are a pretender.  There is no way they are on the level of KC, Baltimore or Cincinnati in the AFC.  I am still not sure how great the Jags are, and while the Steelers and Browns have the same record as the Bengals, their mediocre QB situations limit their upside.  My brother and nephew told me I was nuts in the preseason when I said I loved the Bills under win total (10.5), but it felt like they were a team that had missed their window and would stumble to 9-8 and see McDermott get the axe.  I still think that is what happens.

The Eagles are still obviously the class of the NFC, although they sure did try to blow that game at the end.  For as well as Prescott played, taking that sack at the end on 1st down was terrible.  Throw it away right away when there is nothing and then you have 3 more shots from inside the 10.  It doesn't help that Mike McCarthy's offense has zero imagination to it.

The games this week really show the downside of the NFL these days.  There are a lot - too many, IMO - teams squeaking by with wins when they're not playing well, and a couple teams - you know who they are - who are squeaking by with losses when they actually played well enough to win.  It's turning into the NHL in that way, where the "real" games don't start until the playoffs.  The problem is, the NFL is a "one and done" league and that's tough when you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

There are also a ton of teams who are good enough to probably win 7-9 games, ya know those teams you know won't be a threat in the postseason, but good enough to not suck, and it seems like every week, there are a few games pitting one against the other, and guessing who is going to win those games is a total crapshoot. Examples this week were Bucs/Texans, Packers/Rams and Falcons/Vikings.

What bugs me is that there are often very good reasons to pick one of those teams over the other. Atlanta was a slam dunk yesterday. One of those picks I felt very strong about (Strong ATL D vs an entirely one-dimensional team missing the cornerstone of that facet). I can appreciate that AGS happens, but it honestly seems to apply to the entire game now.

[KevShmev]

What bugs me is that there are often very good reasons to pick one of those teams over the other. Atlanta was a slam dunk yesterday. One of those picks I felt very strong about (Strong ATL D vs an entirely one-dimensional team missing the cornerstone of that facet). I can appreciate that AGS happens, but it honestly seems to apply to the entire game now.

Hasn't it always been like this, though?   The unpredictability of the NFL is what often makes it fun to watch, as opposed to college football where it seems like most of the televised games have fairly predictable results.

[El Barto]

What bugs me is that there are often very good reasons to pick one of those teams over the other. Atlanta was a slam dunk yesterday. One of those picks I felt very strong about (Strong ATL D vs an entirely one-dimensional team missing the cornerstone of that facet). I can appreciate that AGS happens, but it honestly seems to apply to the entire game now.

Hasn't it always been like this, though?   The unpredictability of the NFL is what often makes it fun to watch, as opposed to college football where it seems like most of the televised games have fairly predictable results.

I don't think it has been to this degree. There have always been upsets, but I don't know as they've been this frequent. And beyond just being upsets, I don't think they've consistently ranged this high. What's the most points you'd give up on a game now? In the 90s you'd give up 12 points on the Cowboys or the Niners or the Packers if things lined up right. Any games in the last few years that you'd spot 12? KC over Denver, maybe?

[KevShmev]

What bugs me is that there are often very good reasons to pick one of those teams over the other. Atlanta was a slam dunk yesterday. One of those picks I felt very strong about (Strong ATL D vs an entirely one-dimensional team missing the cornerstone of that facet). I can appreciate that AGS happens, but it honestly seems to apply to the entire game now.

Hasn't it always been like this, though?   The unpredictability of the NFL is what often makes it fun to watch, as opposed to college football where it seems like most of the televised games have fairly predictable results.

I don't think it has been to this degree. There have always been upsets, but I don't know as they've been this frequent. And beyond just being upsets, I don't think they've consistently ranged this high. What's the most points you'd give up on a game now? In the 90s you'd give up 12 points on the Cowboys or the Niners or the Packers if things lined up right. Any games in the last few years that you'd spot 12? KC over Denver, maybe?

I know the Bills the last few years had a few games where you had to lay a lot of points (this was back when they were kicking the crap out of opponents on a regular basis), but it does feel like games with double digit favorites do not happen nearly as much nowadays.  Even that Denver at KC game a few weeks ago (when Denver was still near rock bottom) only had a line of -9.

I am guessing analytics and the XP moving back has a little to do with it, as it is harder to handicap games with XPs not being as automatic and games flipping because of teams going for it on 4th down far more often than before. 

Then you have bad beats like Sunday for anyone who had Houston -2.5. They were down 4 and scored a TD with 6 seconds left to go up by 2.  Normally, they would kick the XP to go up 3, but their kicker was hurt, so they went for 2.  And because teams can now return a turnover on the 2-point try for 2 themselves, rather than risking that, the Texans simply knelt on the 2-point attempt and won by 2 after TB's last ditch, last play attempt resulted in nothing.  A lucky cover if you had the Bucs +2.5, but a kick in the nuts if you had the Texans -2.5.

[Stadler]

I'm not worried about the cover, though.  I think El Barto is on to something.   It just seems there are far more games where the outcome is seemingly random.   Should the Chargers have beaten the Jets by 20?  There seems to be at least two games a week that are lopsided in score, but not by virtue of lopsided teams.   There's unpredictable, and then there's random.  It's not QUITE random yet, and it's amazing that certain teams are immune (no implication there) but certainly for a complete slate each week there's a higher level of randomness.

[KevShmev]

I get that, but I guess I am puzzled as to why that is an issue.  Do we want all or most of the games to be predictable?

Looking at last night's game, that result did not shock me, nor did the margin of victory.  The last TD was a gimme after a late score anyway, but any team starting Zach Wilson at QB is capable of losing by a lot any given week.

[El Barto]

I get that, but I guess I am puzzled as to why that is an issue.  Do we want all or most of the games to be predictable?

Looking at last night's game, that result did not shock me, nor did the margin of victory.  The last TD was a gimme after a late score anyway, but any team starting Zach Wilson at QB is capable of losing by a lot any given week.

For my part it's really a matter of degrees. I want there to be some predictability, since prediction is actually a pastime (or career) for a great many people. For my part it's just frustrating that there's not really any rhyme or reason how a game might turn out. In the old days when a 12-2 team with the league's best D went up against the 2-12 Browns with Mike Pagel starting at QB you could make a reasonable prediction and likely be correct. Nowadays not so much.

[emtee]

I don't know how any bookmaker in Vegas can keep their job. The unpredictability and randomness is what keeps me from ever laying $ on an NFL game.

[El Barto]

I don't know how any bookmaker in Vegas can keep their job. The unpredictability and randomness is what keeps me from ever laying $ on an NFL game.

Bookmakers have it easy. They don't have to get it right. They merely have to get it highly plausible. And to a certain extent they can correct after the fact by changing their odds if it's not working out the way they want.

[KevShmev]

I get that, but I guess I am puzzled as to why that is an issue.  Do we want all or most of the games to be predictable?

Looking at last night's game, that result did not shock me, nor did the margin of victory.  The last TD was a gimme after a late score anyway, but any team starting Zach Wilson at QB is capable of losing by a lot any given week.

For my part it's really a matter of degrees. I want there to be some predictability, since prediction is actually a pastime (or career) for a great many people. For my part it's just frustrating that there's not really any rhyme or reason how a game might turn out. In the old days when a 12-2 team with the league's best D went up against the 2-12 Browns with Mike Pagel starting at QB you could make a reasonable prediction and likely be correct. Nowadays not so much.

Thanks for explaning a bit more what you meant. 

[Stadler]

I get that, but I guess I am puzzled as to why that is an issue.  Do we want all or most of the games to be predictable?

Looking at last night's game, that result did not shock me, nor did the margin of victory.  The last TD was a gimme after a late score anyway, but any team starting Zach Wilson at QB is capable of losing by a lot any given week.

For my part it's really a matter of degrees. I want there to be some predictability, since prediction is actually a pastime (or career) for a great many people. For my part it's just frustrating that there's not really any rhyme or reason how a game might turn out. In the old days when a 12-2 team with the league's best D went up against the 2-12 Browns with Mike Pagel starting at QB you could make a reasonable prediction and likely be correct. Nowadays not so much.

Yeah, that's where I'm at.   You still have to play the games.  I think the "AGS" is intended to mean that you have to still go out and do what on paper you're capable of.   I think we're seeing something somewhat different this year; I can't really put my finger on it, but it feels like there are teams that aren't just not playing up to capability, but just not showing up at all.   I think that's coaching, personally, and I'm sort of not impressed by the current slate of supposedly "good" coaches.   I'll look at the list later, but off the top of my head, there's only a handful of good coaches in the league now, IMO.   Yes, Belichick is one of them.  Still.

[TAC]

there's only a handful of good coaches in the league now, IMO.   Yes, Belichick is one of them.  Still.

How's that working out? His team is a mess and has been trending that way for 4 years.
While I think he's forgotten more football than most coaches know, and a film session with Bill would be an absolutely priceless experience, but as a current NFL HC, he's dropping pretty fast on the list.

[KevShmev]

I think the team is a mess because Bill the GM has let down Bill the coach.  The two are not the same, and I am in the camp that Belichick is still in the handful of best coaches in the league.  I swear, it's like people forget that Belichick's defense did a lot of the heavy lifting in those first three Super Bowl runs.  And don't forget their last Super Bowl win, where his defense held the high-scoring Rams to 3 points (!!!). 

[TAC]

I think the team is a mess because Bill the GM has let down Bill the coach.  The two are not the same, and I am in the camp that Belichick is still in the handful of best coaches in the league.  I swear, it's like people forget that Belichick's defense did a lot of the heavy lifting in those first three Super Bowl runs.  And don't forget their last Super Bowl win, where his defense held the high-scoring Rams to 3 points (!!!).

The buck stops with Bill though. You are not getting Bill the coach without Bill the GM.

But it's more than that. It's philosophy. Bill's philosophy seems a bit dated.

[KevShmev]

I think the team is a mess because Bill the GM has let down Bill the coach.  The two are not the same, and I am in the camp that Belichick is still in the handful of best coaches in the league.  I swear, it's like people forget that Belichick's defense did a lot of the heavy lifting in those first three Super Bowl runs.  And don't forget their last Super Bowl win, where his defense held the high-scoring Rams to 3 points (!!!).

The buck stops with Bill though. You are not getting Bill the coach without Bill the GM.

But it's more than that. It's philosophy. Bill's philosophy seems a bit dated.

Offensively, I agree.  That was the value in having Brady.  Bill's OC could work the offense with Brady and that was all good, and the Hoodie kept everything else cranking at a high level.  I just saw too many Patriots wins where the defense shined, the team was buttoned up (almost no penalties, playing smart) and they were awesome situationally to retroactively think that it was simply a case of Brady making Bill look great (which I know some now think).  Both were needed for that dynasty to do what it did.  I know what my eyes saw.  (Patriots fans are naturally, by and large, going to see it through their non-objective eyes)

[TAC]

National eyes are always behind the curve.

I don't mean that to sound dickish, but everything you mentioned is past tense and getting more past tense by the season.

[KevShmev]

National eyes are always behind the curve.

I don't mean that to sound dickish, but everything you mentioned is past tense and getting more past tense by the season.

But what happened in the past matters.  I am not a fan of revisionist history, especially when I know what I saw.

[TAC]

National eyes are always behind the curve.

I don't mean that to sound dickish, but everything you mentioned is past tense and getting more past tense by the season.

But what happened in the past matters.  I am not a fan of revisionist history, especially when I know what I saw.

How does it matter? The team has been in a freefall since Brady left. Who cares what happened in the first 3 SB's? How many wins is that worth this season?

[KevShmev]

National eyes are always behind the curve.

I don't mean that to sound dickish, but everything you mentioned is past tense and getting more past tense by the season.

But what happened in the past matters.  I am not a fan of revisionist history, especially when I know what I saw.

How does it matter? The team has been in a freefall since Brady left. Who cares what happened in the first 3 SB's? How many wins is that worth this season?

I feel like we going off the rails here, so to bring it back a bit, my point was that Belichick is still the same coach he was before.  He didn't suddenly go from the GOAT to a mediocre coach.  Sure, it could be argued that the game has passed him by, since I am sure he is still of the "running the ball and playing defense is how you win championships" mindset, which isn't the way the NFL works in 2023 (at least not to the degree it did in the 80s and 90s for example), but if Bill the GM had done a better job and they had a very good QB and a few good WRs, I am pretty sure they'd still be in the AFC mix near the top, even with their defense being only middle of the pack this year.

[El Barto]

I think the team is a mess because Bill the GM has let down Bill the coach.  The two are not the same, and I am in the camp that Belichick is still in the handful of best coaches in the league.  I swear, it's like people forget that Belichick's defense did a lot of the heavy lifting in those first three Super Bowl runs.  And don't forget their last Super Bowl win, where his defense held the high-scoring Rams to 3 points (!!!).

Don't forget Troy Brown!

I feel like we going off the rails here, so to bring it back a bit, my point was that Belichick is still the same coach he was before.  He didn't suddenly go from the GOAT to a mediocre coach.  Sure, it could be argued that the game has passed him by, since I am sure he is still of the "running the ball and playing defense is how you win championships" mindset, which isn't the way the NFL works in 2023 (at least not to the degree it did in the 80s and 90s for example), but if Bill the GM had done a better job and they had a very good QB and a few good WRs, I am pretty sure they'd still be in the AFC mix near the top, even with their defense being only middle of the pack this year.

I don't think it's all D and run game in his mind. I think it's having a well balanced team in all facets of the game to him, and that's still a winning formula. Modern coaches are too quick to disregard the run game. I think he knows you have to be able to pass the ball, but a strong run game is a sort of force multiplier in that regard, and vice versa. I think his approach has been to not try and win shootouts with KC and Buf, but rather to win 23-20 games against KC and Buf--one of which happened when everything clicked with them. While there's no denying that he's shockingly short of talent on the passing side of the game, I think that's exasperated by the O-line problems, and the fact that Mac is only good when everything is going his way.

[King Postwhore]

And the D is on the field too much with the offense not being able to sustain drives, El Barto.  That's hard on the D who is carrying the team. Too many games this year the Pats have lost the time of possession. The Pats this year have only been over 30 minutes of time of possession once. This weekend they only had 22.50 in TOP.  That kills your defense.

[Dream Team]

Bart you are dead-on correct, current stats are showing passing efficiency at a 20-year low and running efficiency is up a few ticks. Balance is always best. Lest anyone forget, the Chiefs had more rushing yards than the Eagles in the Super Bowl.

[faizoff]

So how credible is this Boston Globe guy who's saying NE's game in Germany might be it for Bill? Midseason firing for sure is not happening in my mind, regardless of current season status.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-bill-belichick-s-patriots-future-may-hinge-on-week-10-result/ar-AA1jyer6

[El Barto]

Bart you are dead-on correct, current stats are showing passing efficiency at a 20-year low and running efficiency is up a few ticks. Balance is always best. Lest anyone forget, the Chiefs had more rushing yards than the Eagles in the Super Bowl.

Yeah, you gotta look at it as a force multiplier. When you can run and pass you can run play action and then your running and passing are both much better. Not to mention that some days your passing or running game will suck and you've got the other to fall back on. And lastly, of course, there's still no better way to end a game than running a fresh RB against a tired D.

Bill's approach has always been maximum flexibility and synergy. There's no better synergy than running+passing. Right now the thing is blowing half of your cap on a QB/WR combo and just letting them throw for 200 yards a game. You can win a lot like that. I don't think it's sustainable, though. RBs aren't worth what they used to be, but to neglect the running game altogether is foolish.

[King Postwhore]

So how credible is this Boston Globe guy who's saying NE's game in Germany might be it for Bill? Midseason firing for sure is not happening in my mind, regardless of current season status.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-bill-belichick-s-patriots-future-may-hinge-on-week-10-result/ar-AA1jyer6

Ben Volin is the biggest blowhard in sports media.

He had a person DM him information and wrote about if as fact without vetting the information.

https://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/ben-volin-apologizes-duped-mac-jones-stoolie.html

So many more examples I could give of him.

[El Barto]

So how credible is this Boston Globe guy who's saying NE's game in Germany might be it for Bill? Midseason firing for sure is not happening in my mind, regardless of current season status.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-bill-belichick-s-patriots-future-may-hinge-on-week-10-result/ar-AA1jyer6

If there's anybody that would fire the GOAT midseason it probably is Bob Kraft. I wouldn't bet on it, though. Here's the way I look at it: Coaches don't get sacked midseason simply because the team sucks. They get sacked midseason once they lose the locker room. When the players stop believing and will no longer buy in, that's when coaches get the axe. Davis paid JMD 8m just to GTFO, and it was because the players wanted him gone. Same with Matt Patricia in DET.

My hunch is that NE is dangerously close to that point. They're certainly frustrated, but I'm hoping there's still enough belief in Bill the coach that they're not opting out. I think that they're placing the blame on themselves rather than the coach and the system right now, and Bill's going to do a good job of fostering that without alienating them. When the players decide that Bill's no longer worth playing for that's when Kraft shitcans him.

Also, I suspect the Krafts are working on a bigger plan than simply dumping Bill and seeing what's up next. Not to mention that there are two other Belichick's on the team. What happens to Steve if you dump Bill? What I saw yesterday is that they want Vrabel and Casserio back as HC and GM. They're not going to get Vrabel, no chance, but they might get Casserio out of Houston. That would certainly be a good thing. As for Mayo, he might do better to reinforce TPW, but he's still a defensive guy, and he's not going to salvage the situation.

Most likely scenario, barring Bill losing the locker room, is that Kraft orders him to start evaluating talent. That's probably the smart move. At this point in the season does Kraft even want to win 4 for more games? He'll bring in a new GM regardless, and getting a top five pick, as well as evaluating some of the youngsters is more probably more important than some meaningless wins.

[TAC]

I think what Volin's getting at is that this trip has all the markings to be a disaster. They've already announced they're leaving JC Jackson home. If the team really goes off the reservation this weekend, the bye week could be a factor in making a change.

I'd be shocked if Kraft fired Bill mid season too, but this is becoming a dumpster fire more and more each week.

[El Barto]

Germany almost certainly will be a disaster. Well, except for the AGS thing. There's a very small chance NE rallies blows Indi out, but barring that they lose another 27-17 game. I think Kraft is probably prepared for that, and in truth it's likely the better outcome.

Also, it's entirely possible that the team gives up on Mac rather than Bill. If that happens then Kraft might feel part of the blame. Sunday likely cemented the fact that McCorkle is not the answer, and he's been Kraft's guy far more than Bill's.

[hefdaddy42]

He's not getting fired mid-season.

[KevShmev]

A lot of interesting points being made here. 

Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever seen a QB lose a game after leading his team to a whopping 23 points and get as much praise as Dak Prescott has this week.  Are standards so low for him now that he gets genuflected to for almost winning a big road game?

[Stadler]

Bart you are dead-on correct, current stats are showing passing efficiency at a 20-year low and running efficiency is up a few ticks. Balance is always best. Lest anyone forget, the Chiefs had more rushing yards than the Eagles in the Super Bowl.

Yeah, you gotta look at it as a force multiplier. When you can run and pass you can run play action and then your running and passing are both much better. Not to mention that some days your passing or running game will suck and you've got the other to fall back on. And lastly, of course, there's still no better way to end a game than running a fresh RB against a tired D.

Bill's approach has always been maximum flexibility and synergy. There's no better synergy than running+passing. Right now the thing is blowing half of your cap on a QB/WR combo and just letting them throw for 200 yards a game. You can win a lot like that. I don't think it's sustainable, though. RBs aren't worth what they used to be, but to neglect the running game altogether is foolish.

For all the knock on Belichick, the league right now looks a LOT like the quintessential Belichick teams of the Brady years.  The only thing missing is that Bill never had a Lamar Jackson-type QB, but he's had teams that look a LOT like Dallas, SF and Philly in the past.

I think he's short on talent right now, and he's short on guys like Tedy Bruschi or Kevin Faulk that would literally lift the team on their shoulders.  You've got Judon when healthy, and a couple others on that side of the ball, but who's your rock, your Edelman on the O-side.  Answer: NO ONE.

[TAC]

I think he's short on talent right now, and he's short on guys like Tedy Bruschi or Kevin Faulk that would literally lift the team on their shoulders.  You've got Judon when healthy, and a couple others on that side of the ball, but who's your rock, your Edelman on the O-side.  Answer: NO ONE.

Who's fault is that?

Or is acquiring talent so much of a crapshoot that no GM should get praise or blame?

[El Barto]

Bart you are dead-on correct, current stats are showing passing efficiency at a 20-year low and running efficiency is up a few ticks. Balance is always best. Lest anyone forget, the Chiefs had more rushing yards than the Eagles in the Super Bowl.

Yeah, you gotta look at it as a force multiplier. When you can run and pass you can run play action and then your running and passing are both much better. Not to mention that some days your passing or running game will suck and you've got the other to fall back on. And lastly, of course, there's still no better way to end a game than running a fresh RB against a tired D.

Bill's approach has always been maximum flexibility and synergy. There's no better synergy than running+passing. Right now the thing is blowing half of your cap on a QB/WR combo and just letting them throw for 200 yards a game. You can win a lot like that. I don't think it's sustainable, though. RBs aren't worth what they used to be, but to neglect the running game altogether is foolish.

For all the knock on Belichick, the league right now looks a LOT like the quintessential Belichick teams of the Brady years.  The only thing missing is that Bill never had a Lamar Jackson-type QB, but he's had teams that look a LOT like Dallas, SF and Philly in the past.

I think he's short on talent right now, and he's short on guys like Tedy Bruschi or Kevin Faulk that would literally lift the team on their shoulders.  You've got Judon when healthy, and a couple others on that side of the ball, but who's your rock, your Edelman on the O-side.  Answer: NO ONE.

I think Bourne might have been trying to step up to be that guy before he got hurt. That said, for offensive guys to be that guy they really need strong QB play. They called Michael Irvin the Playmaker for very good reason. Without Aikman he doesn't get those opportunities, though. Hard for a RB to take over a game when the D isn't worried about the pass game. Kind of seems like the only one really willing to stand up and try to lead the O is Mac, and he's preaching to people who don't believe in him. 

[King Postwhore]

Brady was the playmaker so it allowed Belichick to place priorities elsewhere for 2 decades. Unfortunately,  he's still treating the offensive like that.

Also, Mac is definitely messed up in his reads because of the coaching decisions.  Add 3 different coordinators in his 1st 3 year and the kid is shell shocked. He's a guy that needed to be protected better to grow and then didn't.   

Now he makes too many bad decisions.