0 - 17?

Brian wolf
Posts: 3014
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by Brian wolf »

The Fontes years should have had postseason berths. Just too much talent on that roster with Spielman, Porcher, Brown and Moore with HOF cases as well. It was hard for any team to get by the 49ers, Cowboys and Packers ...

As for Stafford, its not that I didnt care for the guy, I just felt he was a passer and not a leader ...
With a 7-1 record for a Rams team with talent surrounding him finally, can he lead the team to at least the NFC Championship game ?
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by racepug »

JameisLoseston wrote:I don't think the Lions are that bad. They are competitive sometimes when you don't expect them to be. Houston, at least, seems worse to me.
There are others who feel the same way. I think there are a few teams in the league that the Lions would beat more than 5 times out of 10 given the opportunity. But the Lions don't have any of those teams on their schedule.
JameisLoseston wrote:If they do go winless, it'll be purely because of schedule imbalance, because they really do have no breaks, and will make it an issue that should probably be brought to the competition committee for next year.
I actually like the fact that in the N.F.L. teams don't play all the other teams in the league every year and that the schedule rotates each season. For that reason the N.F.L. is the only professional league in the U.S. that should have playoffs, in my opinion (although I would set the playoffs up differently from how the N.F.L. does it).
JameisLoseston
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:39 am

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by JameisLoseston »

I think that instead of the simplistic "play one whole division from your conference and one division from the other conference" deal, every team's non-divisional games should just be more meticulously balanced to ensure that their opponents totaled as close to a .500 record the previous season as possible. Obviously, this won't be perfect because team circumstances and performance change every year, sometimes dramatically and without discernible reason (see 2020-21 Dolphins), but it would be better in the long run.
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by racepug »

I've had much the same thoughts on the matter. But I think the N.F.L. does things this way to ensure that everybody gets to see all teams, eventually (on a regular basis). When Dan Marino and John Elway were in the league, for instance, the Dolphins and Broncos hardly ever played against one another and in the 1970s the Raiders and the Cowboys played only one time in the regular season (and that in a season finale in the one year that the Cowboys were eliminated from playoff contention before Week 14).
JameisLoseston
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:39 am

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by JameisLoseston »

racepug wrote:I've had much the same thoughts on the matter. But I think the N.F.L. does things this way to ensure that everybody gets to see all teams, eventually (on a regular basis). When Dan Marino and John Elway were in the league, for instance, the Dolphins and Broncos hardly ever played against one another and in the 1970s the Raiders and the Cowboys played only one time in the regular season (and that in a season finale in the one year that the Cowboys were eliminated from playoff contention before Week 14).
I wouldn't mind at all if the league paid special attention to making "narrative" and "rivalry" games of that sort. CFB has no issue with it. It could easily be accommodated within a balanced schedule format, since it'd only impact a few matchups per season, maybe 5-10.
Gary Najman
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by Gary Najman »

racepug wrote:I've had much the same thoughts on the matter. But I think the N.F.L. does things this way to ensure that everybody gets to see all teams, eventually (on a regular basis). When Dan Marino and John Elway were in the league, for instance, the Dolphins and Broncos hardly ever played against one another and in the 1970s the Raiders and the Cowboys played only one time in the regular season (and that in a season finale in the one year that the Cowboys were eliminated from playoff contention before Week 14).
In the opposite direction, New Orleans and Tampa Bay played against each other every year from 1981 through 1992, even that they were at the time in different divisions. The schedule, back then, put the last place teams in the 5-teams divisions to play the next year all of the 4 teams of the AFC Central or the NFC West, depending on conference.
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by racepug »

RichardBak wrote: Stafford rocks.
So I tuned in to "Pro Football Talk" this morning (and I honestly don't know the last time I did that) only to hear Mike Golic say (after Matthew Stafford threw a "pick six" last night against the Titans) that Matthew Stafford has thrown 24 "pick sixes" in his career which is the most of any active QB (in the N.F.L.). :|
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by racepug »

The Lions avoided losing today (and it wasn't a "bye" week for them). Yay, DET Lions!
Brian wolf
Posts: 3014
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by Brian wolf »

Haha ... lets hope the Lions dont have 0-16 AND 0-16-1 seasons !
JameisLoseston
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:39 am

Re: 0 - 17?

Post by JameisLoseston »

That overtime was rainy, sloppy perfection. A tie was the only way it could possibly end. It was beautiful. Take football back to this, please.
Post Reply