throwuascenario

1 minute ago, infrared41 said:

 

I never claimed Darnold outplayed Mayfield. This is what I actually said. "My guess is Josh Allen and the Bills offense are much more capable of overcoming a four point deficit than a Panthers offense being led by Sam Darnold or the Mayfield Experience is." Which part of that tripped you up?

 

The first year without Mayfield was better than the year the Panthers or Rams had with him.

 

 

The Browns had the same winning percentage as the Rams did with Mayfield with a much better roster. And that's with 6 games of Deshaun Watson playing.

I said that Mayfield wasn't the issue for the Panthers and you disputed it. That's what I was responding to, not your original comment.

6 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Greater than 50% chance based on about 12% of meaningful data. There are no valid conclusions you could draw from that game, unless it's the Bills would be shaken up watching their teammate die on the field. Then, yes, valid.

 

I think it's either neutral site or @ Buffalo, with no allowance for a Bengals home game. Based on 15 games played, the Bills had 12 wins and the Bengals 11. That's pretty cut and dried. 

The amount of wins they had is irrelevant because A) They didn't play an equal number of home/away games, b) They already were discounting overall record when determining the CIN/BAL and KC/BUF playoff games, C) This game was going to determine who got the home playoff game regardless.

It seems like we all agree that the game should've been neutral site though. Hopefully the Dolphins (or the Ravens for that matter) pull off a miracle and make the whole thing moot but it's obviously a long shot.

50 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Actually, the Panthers were a better team after Mayfield was cut. Funny how that worked out. I'm a Browns fan. I'm well-versed in the Mayfield Experience. He looks great for a week and then he looks like the worst QB in the NFL for the next three. Ask those same Rams that you referenced about that.

 

 

Mayfield played 5 games for the Rams, one of which he put up 50 points and one of which he erased a 13-point deficit with 3 minutes to go. If Sam Darnold had been able to do either of those even once (with an infinitely better roster around him), the Panthers would be in the playoffs.

The Panthers as a team got better at the end of the year due to the midseason coaching change. They literally got rid of the worst coach in NFL history.

In the last 5 games, the Panthers only had a 1 game better record than the Rams with a much easier schedule and much better roster. I don't know how you can look at the two and possibly think that Mayfield didn't outplay Darnold individually in the last 5 games. Darnold did literally nothing to help the Panthers and lost them 2 crucial games single-handedly.

Mayfield and Cam Newton were both ousted for the same reason: to be a scapegoat for a coach desperate to keep his job who wanted to blame all his woes on "bad QB play" and who knew he couldn't reasonably make that claim with a former pro bowler who's led his team to playoff victories.

Speaking of the Browns: How was that first year without Baker?

On 1/9/2023 at 5:08 PM, Jamesizzo said:

The Panthers have been one of the worst teams in the NFL since 2019 while the Bills have made the playoffs every year since then, so there's that to consider. Two different teams you're talking about

The Panthers haven't finished in the bottom 5 in any of those 3 seasons. They've been bad but haven't been one of the worst teams in the NFL by any stretch. They went 1-32 in games where they were losing at any point but won 15 other games in that stretch, all of which they led throughout. I don't feel like going through all 32 games that they lost, but my feeling is that they weren't leading in almost any of them. So obviously having an early lead is not irrelevant.

All of that to say, the Bengals clearly had a greater-than-50% chance of winning that game. You can argue how much greater, but it was clearly greater. So, if they were going to arbitrarily decide the game, they should've given it to the Bengals over the Bills. The most fair thing would've been a neutral site though. Neutral site > @CIN > @BUF

On 1/9/2023 at 5:28 PM, infrared41 said:

 

Your Panthers have been terrible since 2019. My guess is Josh Allen and the Bills offense are much more capable of overcoming a four point deficit than a Panthers offense being led by Sam Darnold or the Mayfield Experience is.

Actually, it only took 3 days away from the Panthers for Mayfield to overcome a 13 point deficit with 3 minutes to go. He also put up 50 points on Denver, a scoring mark the Panthers haven't reached since 2002. He was never the problem, but that's another discussion for another day.

41 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I keep on seeing this, and it's really silly.  If the teams knew they were playing one possession each, the Bills wouldn't have kicked a FG. The game was called halfway through the first quarter; you can't make any reasonable extrapolations of what would or wouldn't have happened through a full game.

 

In fact, given major comebacks by teams like the Vikings (against the Bills and Colts), the Bills (against the Ravens), and others I know I'm missing, I don't think you can really ever call an NFL game until at least the fourth quarter.

 

EDIT: And also, the Bills lost a home game to snow, so they may actually have had as many home games as the Bengals (though, yes, one fewer game in front of a road crowd).

23 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Right, because teams rarely overcome being down 7-3 in the first quarter.

If the Bills won, the game would've been in Buffalo. If the Bengals won, the game would've been in Cincinnati. The Bengals clearly had at least a 50% chance to win, so a neutral site is more than fair.

It would've made some sense to give the Bills the home game if they had just gone straight off win % across the board. But they already threw in neutral sites and coin flips (which could've only worked against the Bengals), so why not this one too?

Also, 7-3 is a bigger lead than you think. My Panthers haven't come back to win from a 4 point deficit since 2019.

12 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

I want to see Buffalo in the Super Bowl, but after that BS "compromise" that only benefitted KC, they'll probably end up in the Super Bowl again.   

 

I'll just say it here as far as that situation. 

KC lost to Buffalo & Cincinnati

Buffalo should have been the #1  seed with Home Field (Better division record than Bengals)

Bengals should have #2

And KC #3

 

It still pisses me of that Buffalo & to a lesser extinct Cincy, got screwed out of home field because of such a horrible thing. 

 

What they did would've actually been pretty close to fair if they also added in that a Bengals-Bills playoff game would be neutral site or coin flip as well. The Bills had an extra home game over Cincinnati and were losing to them.

2 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

 

There will still be one of two major issues with either of those scenarios, depending on who wins CIN/BAL Sunday.

If Bengals win and Bills both win, the Bengals lost the opportunity to pass them for the 2 seed and would have to travel to Buffalo should they both win in the first round. If they're kicking around neutral site games, that one should be as well. This is doubly important in the scenario they presented where the 2 seed would get homefield in the AFC championship game.

If the Bengals lose, then the Ravens lost the opportunity to win the AFC North. I don't know how they could rectify that, but it wasn't even mentioned in the video.

These solutions only even attempt to "solve" the issues between the 1 seed and 2 seed, as if that was all that was left to determine. 4 of the top 5 seeds were affected by this, and none of the others are addressed at all.

Am I the only one that always thought the Super Bowl bye week was dumb regardless? I feel like it halts the momentum of the playoffs more than it builds hype. I don't see why the teams couldn't just fly to the game city Tuesday and still have the media week if it's so important.

1 hour ago, Dilbert said:

At this point play out week 18, then if necessary move everything up a week to replay the game for "week 19" and eliminate the bye before the Super Bowl.

The only way the postponed game will not have an effect on the standings is if KC loses, BUF wins, and CIN ties. I guess they could wait and see if that happens, but ties are obviously very rare.

Probably unpopular here, but I think the 49ers adding the third stripe to the sleeves was a huge downgrade.

it's not because they don't fit on the modern sleeves, they obviously do. The 2 stripes just matched the helmet and pants so perfectly. Especially on the white uniform, each element had the exact same stripe, it was perfectly balanced. Adding the third stripe back completely ruined that.

The Jets green over white and white over green is a top 10 look. The trash they've worn this season is bottom 5.

19 hours ago, Cujo said:

Better than Saints (matching) mustard would be these.

 

Wishful thinking, but I'd like to see New Orleans someday throwback to the Dome Patrol era  -- complete with Champion numbers.

 

IMO, these are far worse than their current uniforms (when they wear gold pants) and even farther beneath the classics. This has the far worse beige gold that they currently use and then adds a gross ghosted outline. I don't think a ghosted outline has ever looked good in any sport. The only time I don't mind them is when the outer outline matches the number color so it's just like an inline in the numbers.

But yeah, their classics with matching helmet is their perfect look and should absolutely be their primary and never be touched.

I'll never understand why everyone on these boards thinks that if any two teams look even remotely close to each other on a glace from the corner of your eye, the world will end.

Two teams can have similar colors, uniforms, whatever. Especially if they're not even rivals.

Each team should do what fits their brand the best. They shouldn't even put an ounce of thought into how similar it looks to another team.

11 minutes ago, HopewellJones said:

What don’t you like?

Side panels only work on basketball jerseys. They look horrible in all cases in every other sport. You say "ATL" works, but I think it looks ridiculous. I also much prefer the Falcons in red to black.

Other than that, they're not that bad. They're a slight upgrade to their previous uniforms, which also weren't that bad honestly.

They're far from the lowest tier on the NFL uniform scale - which the Tennessee Titans have all to themselves - in my opinion.

On 9/9/2022 at 7:22 PM, ramsjetsthunder said:

 

Come on y'all, these are the best (with white pants)

This is the exact opposite of what I want to see the Broncos do. This is their inferior uniform design with their inferior colors. 
 

They should use the reverse full time (current uniform and logo, minus side panel, but in their old colors).

The D logo is way overrated and outdated in my opinion. Their current logo is a perfect modern NFL logo. Same with the number font. The only things they screwed up with their current uniforms were the side panels and switching from that beautiful blue to drab, boring navy.

2 minutes ago, nuordr said:

The logo is already on the helmets and doesn't need to be right below them. Besides that, TV numbers have been part of the NFL jersey for several years, but they've went away with some teams recently. That is trend that I hope ends soon. 

The numbers are already on the front and back of the jerseys, don't need to be right next to them. No need to turn your NFL jersey into a generic blue/red any team jersey. Especially when the numbers look blocky in that spot, while the shape of the Patriots logo happens to look sleek and motion-like there.

I've never understood the "the logo is already on the helmet" argument. The front/back numbers are literally closer, making the whole argument senseless. If anything, the numbers seem much more repetitive to me. Besides, when fans get a jersey, they don't wear a helmet with it.

On 10/25/2022 at 10:00 AM, nuordr said:

I'd love to see Flying Elvis removed from the arms and replaced with TV numbers like in the home version on the left. 

I personally much prefer the jerseys they went with. The numbers instead of logo makes the jersey feel more generic. Plus, the shape of the Patriots logo really looks good on the sleeves, a lot less blocky.

On 1/27/2022 at 11:59 PM, Crabcake said:

Off-topic but I completely forgot Teddy ever put on a Jets jersey. A quick Wikipedia search showed he only played for them in the preseason and was traded to the Saints but I had to do a double take when I saw that. 

I had the exact opposite reaction. For some reason, I remembered him being on the Jets for years, just to find out it was only one preseason.

The Hurricanes entire uniform program is so disjointed and disappointing. Since changing from their original uniforms:

- Unveiled a mismatched home/road look in 2013, complete with the alternate from their old set

- Changed the home look in 2017, still not matching either the roads or the alternates, which were left unchanged

- Replaced the old alternate with a new black alternate in 2018, which still didn't match either the homes or aways.

- Replaced the roads in 2019 with yet another design that doesn't match either the homes or alternates (with all 3 literally having different logos)

- Inexplicably wore the black design in the playoffs while wearing red predominantly during the regular season from 2019-2022

- Wore Whalers jerseys in 2019-2022, which don't match designs, colors, logos, or cities to anything else they wear

- Changed the black jersey to primary in 2022, which still doesn't match the road set.

- Unveiled a throwback alternate in 2022, still matching no other uniform in the set.

- Released the first matching uniform they've had in 10 years with the RR - except it matches their least popular uniform and will only be worn for 2 games

- Will release a Stadium Series uniform in 2022 that will almost certainly match nothing else they've ever worn.

If you're counting at home, that's 4 different red designs, 2 different white designs, 2 different black, 1 green, 1 grey, and one unannounced Stadium set. Eleven uniforms. With ONE pair of jerseys matching designs between all of that. The one they're wearing for 2 games.

Has any other team in any sport treated each uniform as its own thing - instead of a set - more than the Hurricanes? They've changed each uniform at totally different times to totally different designs with totally different logos in most cases.

They should just promote their throwback alternate to primary, bring back the matching white and the matching black alternate (and never wear those in the playoffs). Three jerseys with the same design that form a cohesive brand. How hard is that?

Side note: I don't really understand the point of making teams wear the same uniform at home for the entire playoffs if you're gonna let them pick alternates for it. If they're gonna have the rule, they should make teams wear their designated primary. Otherwise, just let them swap in and out. I'd rather have the primaries for a couple home games than none at all.

10 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

https://www.nfl.com/news/debate-between-patriots-mac-jones-bailey-zappe-not-as-close-as-it-appears

Patriots have been making Zappe look good. Of course the fact he played the 2 of the worst defenses in the NFL certainly helps too. 

 

Here's some actual facts about Mac Jones;

Mac Jones rookie ranks in NFL history:

Comp%: 67.6 (2nd)
Passing yards: 3801 (5th)
Passing TDs: 22 (T-8th)
Passer rating: 92.5 (11th)
- Set the NFL completion percentage record for a debuting rookie at 74.4

- Became the first rookie quarterback to convert over 70 percent of 60 passes in his first two starts by obtaining a 73.3 completion rate.

-Jones had 19 consecutive completions, the most for an NFL rookie since 1991 and tying the franchise record set by Brady in 2015

-Jones also became the first NFL rookie quarterback to have a completion percentage over 80 in consecutive games,

-Jones finished the season with 3,801 passing yards, 22 touchdowns, and a 67.6 completion percentage, which were the highest among rookie quarterbacks in 2021.

 

It's absolutely asinine to go ditch your Pro Bowl QB for a third string rookie QB just because he looked great playing some historically bad defenses. 

Zappe could be a starting caliber QB, but going with him just because of such a small & skewed sample size is ridiculous. 

Personally I would like to see Zappe play this week just to see how he does facing a team with something resembling a defense. But I understand Mac is their #1 guy and they'd rather play him. 

Literally almost every stat you mentioned had to do with completion percentage. It's very easy to have a high completion percentage when your team asks you to do nothing but throw short passes to open receivers.

The Patriots last season showed an inability to come back when losing at any point. That says a lot about the QB.

The Pro Bowl is a popularity contest, not a real assesment of players. I'm not saying Zappe is great. I'm saying Mac Jones is a bottom 5 QB who their own coaching staff has barely shown any trust in to go win them games. And the few times they have, he's failed. So why not give someone else a shot?

By the way, it's not personal to Mac Jones. I feel the same way about all athletically limited QBs who are drafted early for their "readiness". Kenny Pickett is in the same boat. It's just a bad formula and has pretty much never worked out. Swing for the fences in the 1st round or just wait until later in the draft. Wasting 1st rounders on guys with game manager ceilings is the worst move you can make.

7 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Mac put up some of the best number for a rookie QB, was named to the Pro Bowl, and got the team to the playoffs in his rookie year. 

 But sure, replace him with a guy that looked good against 2 of the worst defenses in the league. 

 

It's the same argument for the people saying to stick with Cooper Rush over Dak. 

What numbers on Earth are you looking at? The team barely made the playoffs despite him. They dragged him kicking and screaming. And then in the playoffs, when they asked him to do ANYTHING, they got crushed. Which happened all season. If they needed 4 yard screen passes and could play ahead because their NFL record-breaking free agency class weapons could turn them into something and their defense could protect it - they had a chance. If any of that didn't happen and they asked him to god forbid throw down the field - game over. They lost.

News flash. Every QB in the NFL - including practice squads - can make the throws he was asked to make last year. He is nothing special and certainly not more talented than any other QB in the NFL, Bailey Zappe included. So like I said, just go with the hot hand. They're basically the same.

Comparing it to Dak is ludicrous. Dak has played at an MVP level for his entire career and solely elevated the entire franchise - literally the exact opposite of what Mac Jones has done for the Patriots.

On 10/16/2022 at 11:27 PM, DoctorWhom said:

He looked good against 2 pretty bad teams. 

He has starter potential sure, but unless Mac comes back and plays like complete (like Carson Wentz :censored:) Zappe isn't starting over him. They have way too much invested in him.   

 

 

As far as the Eagles, IDK how to feel about them. They're good but their schedule is also piss easy. 

If this was on another team (like Dallas for instance), you'd be right to point out their opponents, limited sample size, etc. But Mac Jones has done absolutely nothing for the Patriots in his year plus and their offense has looked much better without him than with him. Going back to last year, if the Patriots asked him to do literally anything to win them the game, they lost. When that kind of player is your starter, why not roll with the hot hand?

Case in point, in games where Mac Jones attempted 35 or more passes last year (7 times), the Patriots scored a mean of 23 points or a median of 17 points (mitigating the outlier).

In games where he threw 30 passes or less (9 times), they scored a mean of 31 points with a median of 25 points.

The more he touched the ball, the worse their offense was. They should be jumping to replace him with ANYONE.

On 10/17/2022 at 9:02 PM, DCarp1231 said:

Y’all really grasping at straws.
 

The wife of *insert last name* Jr. retains the Jr portion as well because legally, like I said previously, that Jr is part of the husband’s legal name. She can choose to drop the “Jr” in less formal situations, but her name is *insert name* Jr through-and-through.

This is not correct and the absurdities of thinking it is have already been pointed out. Suffixes are not part of your last name. The last name is passed down from generation to generation and don't get changed because two people in a row have the same name. There isn't just a permanent Jr. attached for all time. If he names is kid Jim, would the kid be Jim Slay Jr.? If that kid were to name his kid Jim as well, would that kid be Jim Slay Jr. Jr.? Obviously not to both, because Jr. is not part of the last name.

The simplest argument for why any suffix shouldn't be on a jersey: The suffix IS part of your name but IS NOT part of your LAST name. The last name is what goes on the jersey. Boom, it doesn't belong.

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

When the Bills, Seahawks, Buccaneers, Eagles, and (hopefully) Broncos wear throwbacks next year just for fun and nostalgia reasons, I'm not going to complain. 

 

And to add - throwbacks are far less likely to be BFBS or GFGS. Leotard looks happen with current throwbacks (49ers white, Giants white) because of Color Rush, which is a shame but hopefully that fad phases out. If you don't like those modern trends, it seems like throwbacks (and the traditional looks that come with them) would be preferable.

I don't mind traditional uniforms at all - I actually prefer them. If they're the full time uniform. If they're so great, wear them all the time. Otherwise, don't dilute your current brand.

Quote

Throwbacks don't dilute a team's brand like any of these examples. They reinforce it, if anything. Celebrating a team's historical sets is a celebration of the brand's history, and is deservedly revered. Is it capitalizing of nostalgia? Of course, but it's perfectly reasonable to liven things up and make some extra money if you can look great in the process. Throwing in new, unrelated alternates every year or overhauling a brand just to jump on modern trends is a completely different can of worms. If you can't see the difference, you're just being cynical. To call this argument a straw man is a disrespect to scarecrows.

A team's past brand is not their current brand. It's a totally separate brand. That's why it's called a rebranding.

It's like saying people should go back to driving horses and buggies once a week because it shows how we got to cars. The old brand was left behind for a reason. If you don't think that reason was good enough, then they should be brought back full time. Until then, they are distracting from the current brand they are trying to establish.

To me, throwbacks are just as unrelated to a team's current brand as city alternates. As in, 0 relation.

My overall point was that someone "loving" something means nothing. Everything that comes out is bound to be loved by someone.

16 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

That’s why I said “throwback-inspired” rather than direct throwback; I don’t want the old logo back as-is, it needs a fair bit of cleaning up to work today. But I do like your suggestion of splitting the difference, I think the right Dolphins logo can be found in that area. And definitely agree that it ought to follow the general shape of the 90’s logo, which was much better structurally. My biggest gripes with the Dolphins current logo is the belly flop position that I can’t unsee, and it also looks really awkward and sometimes over-tilted on a helmet. It’s just bad in concept and function. 

I don't really have a problem with their current logo in design, it does look to me like a dolphin swimming. I just think it looks more soulless than their previous logo, which had its own flaws. As far as the jerseys go, I prefer the throwbacks but don't have a problem with the modern ones either. I just want them to pick one.