PittsburghSucks

2020 NFL Season

Recommended Posts

Philip Rivers is a hall of famer, absolutely. This is a silly question.
 

Share this post


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

Philip Rivers is a hall of famer, absolutely. This is a silly question.
 

 

He's a hall of famer of child production as well. Nine kids and counting!

 

What's the over/under that he's a quiverfull (i.e., like the Duggars)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

He's a hall of famer of child production as well. Nine kids and counting!

 

What's the over/under that he's a quiverfull (i.e., like the Duggars)?

 

They are absolutely a quiverful family: https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2020/09/08/philip-rivers-nine-kids-new-colts-qb-opens-up-his-family-children/5703655002/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Philip Rivers is a hall of famer, absolutely. This is a silly question.
 

He has a worse case than Ken Anderson who the HOF has refused to induct for decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

He has a worse case than Ken Anderson who the HOF has refused to induct for decades

While he doesn’t have an MVP Year, it’s mostly due to playing at the same time as Brady, Peyton, and others who just beat them. His longevity of his career and being a top 5 QB for the majority of his career puts him over Ken Anderson’s handful of good years in a different era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2021 at 6:48 PM, IceCap said:

At the same time, as a Bucs fan...

 

I look at that game and go "yeah the Bucs came within a score of beating the defending champs with the best young QB on the planet." It makes a potential SB against KC seem winnable. I mean hell...New Orleans :censored: slapped the Bucs all season and the Bucs beat them by ten in the playoffs. Only losing 27-24 to KC doesn't seem like an impossible mountain to climb. 

 

Of course they need to get past Green Bay first. 

Which I am paradoxically worried about despite the Bucs handling them easily earlier in the year. 

 

Nothing paradoxical about it. You just mentioned in your post that the Bucs beat a team this past week who routed them twice during the regular season. I know, I know, "hard to beat a team three times", but that's something of a lie (in such situations in the playoffs, the team who beat their opponent twice won the playoff game 14 of the 21 previous times before this weekend) and there's "losing to a team twice" like, for instance, the 2004 Vikings did against the Packers, when they lost 34-31 both times, both games ending on a last-second field goal, and there's losing 34-23 (with a garbage time TD) and 38-3 like the Bucs did. Now, there was every reason to believe the Bucs could win that game last week despite that past history, because the Bucs have clearly been playing better football, especially offensively, since returning from their late bye week, but if Bucs fans were going to give themselves legitimate reason to think they could beat the Saints despite two awful regular season games against them, then we have to apply the same standard looking at the Packers. Here's some facts of the matter:

 

The game in Week 6 was played in clear conditions, with an 88 degree temperature (F), in Tampa. Right now, the latest forecast for Sunday is cloudy and 29 degrees in Green Bay. No snow at the moment, but stranger things have happened. We've all seen our share of snow games at Lambeau over the years. Point being, weather can make a big difference in how a game unfolds and it's going to be considerably colder this week than it was previously.

 

Furthermore, a very lazy look at Aaron Rodgers' game log for this season shows he played 14 games this season where his QB Rating* was in excess of 100. His 2nd-worst game was Week 15 against Carolina, with a 91.6 rating (only threw for 143 yards that night, his season low). His worst game? 35.4 QB Rating. We know which game that was. Now, Rodgers is almost certainly going to win the MVP this season. Which seems like the anomaly, 15 games with a QB Rating in excess of 91 (and 14 in excess of 100), or the one game where he had one of the worst games of his entire career? It's also worth remembering that the Packers had an early 10-0 lead in that game and Rodgers took a knock to the head early on as well. Maybe not enough to be concussed or even have to be checked for one, but maybe just enough that, combined with an excellent Bucs defensive performance that day, he was just completely off his game. It can happen even to the very best in their sport from time-to-time. 

 

There's obviously some takeaways for the Bucs from that game when it comes to formulating their gameplan for this week on defense. Bowles did a great job scheming up blitzes that had the OL and Rodgers off-balance. DB play was excellent as well, and it was encouraging that most of the Bucs DB's had a strong performance against the Saints as well (in terms of being able to man up on receivers and play coverage; obviously Brees had zero vertical passing ability left in him but being able to stick to receivers and keep them from getting separation translates regardless of who the QB is). Hopefully it portrends well moving into this game coming up. Vita Vea might also be able to play a limited role on Sunday, which is better than not having him at all, which they didn't when the played the Packers previously. Despite all of that, the Bucs could play another strong game defensively, but the odds of them shutting out the Packers for the last 45 minutes of the game are exceptionally slim. Thankfully, they shouldn't need to perform to that level of standard to give themselves a chance to win the game, although it would be nice.

 

I don't know which team, objectively, is the better team. The Packers had the better record, of course, but they also had more continuity to work with from last season into this season. The Bucs made a change at quarterback, in case this wasn't widely publicized, and with it came a lot more adjustments to make in terms of getting synced up offensively, and that was harder to do than ever during this past offseason. In that regard, it shouldn't really be that big of a surprise that it took the Bucs so long to mesh, and, even then, there are still times when the playcalling is exceptionally frustrating to deal with. The constant first down runs that, more often than is affordable, go nowhere and leave the team facing 2nd-and-long. The 30+ yard deep shots on 3rd-and-less than 4. At least Fournette has mostly held onto the passes that have come his way these past two games; he and Jones dropping every g-ddamned screen and checkdown that came their way earlier in the season certainly wasn't helping to move the chains or make more manageable down-and-distance situations. 

 

If I had to place percentage odds on this game, I'd probably lean 55/45 in favor of the Packers. That's fine. That's mostly a glorified coin flip. Neither team winning this game should be considered any surprise (though the way they win might be a surprise). Here's what makes me a little comfortable to think about - the Packers have a very good running game, but the Bucs excel at shutting down the running game (and, again, might have Vea available in some capacity to help that even further). The Bucs have the better receiving corps on paper, but the Packers have the best individual WR and do a better job scheming receivers and tight ends open than the Bucs do. It's really worth noting that the Bucs didn't score a touchdown on any drive last week that began after a kick or a punt; all three came off turnovers on short fields (all three in Saints territory, twice starting inside the red zone, once inside the 5). 

 

I'm not an analyst, so I don't have a need to be objective. If I were to place some prediction on this game, I'll go with 31-27 Bucs. Might as well make a prediction that makes me happy. But if any Packers fan flipped that score around or picked the Packers by any score along those lines, it's not like they have any reason to think that's misplaced faith, either. The Packers have gone 26-6 over the last two regular seasons and made two straight conference championships. They have one of the best QB's of all-time who had one of his very best seasons. They deserve a great deal of respect.

 

*I'm well aware QB Rating isn't a great statistic. I also said a) this was a lazy look and b) for the purposes of this exercise, I think it gets the point across.

 

(Yikes. What an obnoxiously long post. Sorry.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dont care said:

While he doesn’t have an MVP Year, it’s mostly due to playing at the same time as Brady, Peyton, and others who just beat them. His longevity of his career and being a top 5 QB for the majority of his career puts him over Ken Anderson’s handful of good years in a different era.

 

Anderson had more MVPs, first and second team All Pros (Rivers has zero of either), OPOYs, and years leading the league in passing yards, rating, and completion percentage. He did this while playing at the same time as Joe Montana, Ken Stabler, Len Dawson, Fran Tarkenton, and Dan Fouts, among other HOF QBs. He also made it to the Super Bowl, which Rivers never did.

Personally I don't think either should be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different eras and all that jazz but not quite sure why we're chatting up Ken Anderson in comparison to Philip Rivers when Rivers' stats are a lot better than Anderson's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rams80 said:

Different eras and all that jazz but not quite sure why we're chatting up Ken Anderson in comparison to Philip Rivers when Rivers' stats are a lot better than Anderson's.

I’d compare him to Dan Marino, who he’s definitely statistically better than. Off the top of my head, the only two things that Marino has that Rivers doesn’t is a Super Bowl appearance and a league MVP.


You could also argue that if the Mannings weren’t crybabies about Eli in San Diego, Rivers would’ve been the QB with two Super Bowl wins over New England.


The Chargers franchise failed Rivers year in and year out. 
 

Marino was first ballot HOF. Why can’t Rivers get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing QBs across eras is a mistake.  Even average guys can throw for 4,000 yards and a million TDs now.  The rules are way more QB-friendly now.  It's still obvious who the true greats are, but using stats alone to say that a guy from today is better than a guy from 40 years ago is not the way to do it.

 

Based on the relatively low bar that the NFL has for HOF, Rivers is absolutely in.  NFL HOF tends to favor stats above almost anything.  My test is pretty simple - did he really "matter"?  Like, would the NFL be any different if he didn't play?  Would his teams have really been any different if he didn't play?  He played forever, but I don't know if he had the same impact on his team like a guy like Brees, and did he ever play in any games that really mattered?  I think one AFCCG, but that's about it, no?

 

Granted, my bar is pretty high, and has nothing to do with whether he deserves to get in based on the established system.  In my world, a guy like Rivers is not in, while Brees and Ben are shoe-ins.  Eli also probably makes it, even though he was only above average at best, but two SBs is two SBs, and he played a big role in taking down an 18-0 team on the biggest stage.  Larry Fitzgerald?  Nope.  Never mattered.

 

NFL HOF should rename itself the "Fantasy Football HOF", since guys that put up great fantasy stats are really the ones that are going to get in, and the eye-test seems to be less important.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we’re talking about players who need to be in the HOF, one comes to mind immediately who will likely be a snub

spacer.png

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, the Packers pre-snap motion was missing in the first meeting between the two teams. I don't know why. I thought I recalled a player missing from the lineup who might have been the reason for that - probably Ervin as that was his thing early in the year.

 

I can't wait for the game. Last week was so odd in terms of NOT being at Lambeau for a game when their were fans in the stands. This will be different again in that I will be in my car driving south for the week. I say that because, regardless of the outcome, I will likely not be visiting these parts for the week after the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Philip Rivers is a hall of famer, absolutely. This is a silly question.
 

I just read this summary, which agrees with you. I thought it worth posting here. It's from PFT:

 

Will he make it?

On the first try, probably not. He didn’t play in a Super Bowl, unlike the other two quarterbacks taken (with Rivers) in the first 11 selections of round one of the 2004 draft. Eli Manning won a pair of Super Bowls, as did Ben Roethlisberger.

Beyond not being the most accomplished of his class, Rivers never was the best quarterback in the game, or second best. In 17 seasons, Rivers never was named a first-team or second-team All Pro. That’s no surprise, considering that Rivers spent the bulk of his career competing with the likes of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees — each of whom will get a bronze bust on the first try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That basically supports what I said - he didn't matter.  Not that he wasn't great, and not that it's his fault he played in the league at a time where there's multiple HOF QBs in front of him, but at the end of the day, if he never existed, nothing in history would be any different, and if you erased him from history, and nobody would notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go on and on for years complaining about the Spanos, doesn't Rivers get a bit of a break? That he led that team to all that success in spite or organizational absurdity for the entirety of his career? And that he was against Tom Brady and Peyton Manning -- perhaps #1 and #2 all-time -- who didn't have knuckleheads running their teams for their careers?

 

I think context matters. And for me, the context is Rivers was almost always relevant, made 8 Pro Bowls, and went to the playoffs 7 times.

 

This is from Wikipedia:

Quote

 

That's really good stuff!

 

I'm not a huge Philip Rivers fan or anything, but he was a QB who mattered for more than a decade and carried a franchise for longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steelers sign Dwayne Haskins, who will probably learn nothing from Big Ben because Ben won't want to teach him anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Steelers sign Dwayne Haskins, who will probably learn nothing from Big Ben because Ben won't want to teach him anything.

Not like there's anything to learn from Pig Pen anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Eagles aren't hiring Josh McDaniels... or the people's choice Duce Staley.

 

Who the hell is Nick Sirianni?  Not that I know who even 25% of coordinators in the league are, but this seems like the kind of guy that is young, itching for a promotion no matter how bad the situation, and will just be controlled and discarded like Doug Pederson was.

 

He's also the first local coach/manager in my lifetime to be younger than me.  Has nothing to do with his ability to be a successful coach, but makes me feel old, and that soon I'll probably be working for someone younger than me, which shouldn't matter but kinda does.

Share this post


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