|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 7, 2020 13:24:27 GMT
Any opinion on when will Steelers first loss come? Again Ravens? Against Bills? Against Colts? Against a minnow like Dallas, Bengals? I think against Ravens at home. I keep staying of the opinion that this is not a 16-0 team. 13-3? Cincy is a possibility, but if they do get to 10-0 (at Dallas, vs Cincy, at Jacksonville), then Baltimore makes sense. A lot went wrong for the Ravens to be in it at the end. Yeah, I think 13-3 is just about right. The thing with them is that they play to the level of opposition and don't blow out teams. And so by law of averages alone you would expect them to lose some of the close games. And for that reason it would not be unbelievable if they lose 1 or 2 against bad teams too. But it's difficult to predict defeat against a bad team and so I think Ravens game has more chances to be their first loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 7, 2020 21:27:26 GMT
Seahawks are a 3 point favourite on road against 6-2 Bills. I think odds should be dead even (especially because Chris Carson will not be playing for Seattle). Big game for the Seahawks because Bills are a bit different than other teams they have met. A win here could also be important because we are going to face dangerous Rams on road next. I certainly don't want 2 defeats in a row.
|
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 7, 2020 21:49:52 GMT
I keep staying of the opinion that this is not a 16-0 team. 13-3? Cincy is a possibility, but if they do get to 10-0 (at Dallas, vs Cincy, at Jacksonville), then Baltimore makes sense. A lot went wrong for the Ravens to be in it at the end. Yeah, I think 13-3 is just about right. The thing with them is that they play to the level of opposition and don't blow out teams. And so by law of averages alone you would expect them to lose some of the close games. And for that reason it would not be unbelievable if they lose 1 or 2 against bad teams too. But it's difficult to predict defeat against a bad team and so I think Ravens game has more chances to be their first loss. They are 6-1 against the spread, but other than Cleveland, they typically are just a bit above the spread. Next three weeks will show if they can route bad teams or not (although Cincy is a fighter).
|
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 9, 2020 6:26:14 GMT
After today's win, Mike Tomlin ties the record for most non-losing seasons to start a coaching career. Tomlin has never had a losing record in 14 years of being a coach, tying . . . Marty Schottenheimer (Don Shula went 13; John Madden never had a losing season in the ten he coached).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 9, 2020 13:35:19 GMT
After today's win, Mike Tomlin ties the record for most non-losing seasons to start a coaching career. Tomlin has never had a losing record in 14 years of being a coach, tying . . . Marty Schottenheimer (Don Shula went 13; John Madden never had a losing season in the ten he coached). It's weird that billychuck, the Greatest Coach of All Time, had a losing record in five of his first six years of coaching and was 0-2 in 2001 until a certain QB was made the starter due to injury. It's also weird that now that the QB has moved to another team, billychuck is on his way to another losing season.
|
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 9, 2020 16:10:49 GMT
After today's win, Mike Tomlin ties the record for most non-losing seasons to start a coaching career. Tomlin has never had a losing record in 14 years of being a coach, tying . . . Marty Schottenheimer (Don Shula went 13; John Madden never had a losing season in the ten he coached). It's weird that billychuck, the Greatest Coach of All Time, had a losing record in five of his first six years of coaching and was 0-2 in 2001 until a certain QB was made the starter due to injury. It's also weird that now that the QB has moved to another team, billychuck is on his way to another losing season. Ultimately that's what made me go with Brady in the Brady-Belichick debate. And it's not like his other quarterbacks were bad: he had Kosar, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Newton.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 9, 2020 16:33:48 GMT
It's weird that billychuck, the Greatest Coach of All Time, had a losing record in five of his first six years of coaching and was 0-2 in 2001 until a certain QB was made the starter due to injury. It's also weird that now that the QB has moved to another team, billychuck is on his way to another losing season. Ultimately that's what made me go with Brady in the Brady-Belichick debate. And it's not like his other quarterbacks were bad: he had Kosar, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Newton. Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe were varying degrees of decent, especially Bledsoe, but I’m not sure what they realistically expected from Cam. It’s not the Cam from Auburn. They’d have been better off seeing what they had in Stidham. |
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 9, 2020 16:39:14 GMT
Ultimately that's what made me go with Brady in the Brady-Belichick debate. And it's not like his other quarterbacks were bad: he had Kosar, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Newton. Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe were varying degrees of decent, especially Bledsoe, but I’m not sure what they realistically expected from Cam. It’s not the Cam from Auburn. They’d have been better off seeing what they had in Stidham. He isn't, but Tomlin won eight games with Mason Rudolph and Duck Hodges last year. We would have gone to the playoffs easily with the modern day equivalent of Kosar, Testeverde, or Bledsoe.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 9, 2020 16:48:23 GMT
Ultimately that's what made me go with Brady in the Brady-Belichick debate. And it's not like his other quarterbacks were bad: he had Kosar, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Newton. Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe were varying degrees of decent, especially Bledsoe, but I’m not sure what they realistically expected from Cam. It’s not the Cam from Auburn. They’d have been better off seeing what they had in Stidham. Reading 'The Dynasty' right now, BB wanted to start Brady in 2001 yet knew with Drew's record contract that was never a possibility. I still think it's 60-40 BB of their success. Their Eagles SB loss showed that even with 500 yards, unless both sides of the ball are primed, a great QB can't fully dictate the outcome. Marino never did & he was holding a slew of records yes? I think Belichick is 10+ wins capable with a very good QB or better... & a great one like TB can push it to 12-14 wins. Cam this year can't even be trusted to throw 11 yards. As for the Browns, I'm not sure how many HOF'ers were on that team... never mind who was QB'ing. BB stole the 1990 SB from the Bills.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 9, 2020 17:25:53 GMT
Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe were varying degrees of decent, especially Bledsoe, but I’m not sure what they realistically expected from Cam. It’s not the Cam from Auburn. They’d have been better off seeing what they had in Stidham. Reading 'The Dynasty' right now, BB wanted to start Brady in 2001 yet knew with Drew's record contract that was never a possibility. I still think it's 60-40 BB of their success. Their Eagles SB loss showed that even with 500 yards, unless both sides of the ball are primed, a great QB can't fully dictate the outcome. Marino never did & he was holding a slew of records yes? I think Belichick is 10+ wins capable with a very good QB or better... & a great one like TB can push it to 12-14 wins. Cam this year can't even be trusted to throw 11 yards. As for the Browns, I'm not sure how many HOF'ers were on that team... never mind who was QB'ing. BB stole the 1990 SB from the Bills. Chicken vs egg. Find me a coach who is generally regarded as great who won without a quarterback that is considered great. Walsh and Seifert had Montana and Young. Johnson had Aikman. Shanahan had Elway. Belichick and Brady. The only ones I can even remotely think of are Parcells won with Hostetler but he also had a great defense, and Gibbs won with 3 fairly average QBs but also had o-linemen that could block tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 9, 2020 17:54:20 GMT
Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe were varying degrees of decent, especially Bledsoe, but I’m not sure what they realistically expected from Cam. It’s not the Cam from Auburn. They’d have been better off seeing what they had in Stidham. Reading 'The Dynasty' right now, BB wanted to start Brady in 2001 yet knew with Drew's record contract that was never a possibility. I still think it's 60-40 BB of their success. Their Eagles SB loss showed that even with 500 yards, unless both sides of the ball are primed, a great QB can't fully dictate the outcome. Marino never did & he was holding a slew of records yes? I think Belichick is 10+ wins capable with a very good QB or better... & a great one like TB can push it to 12-14 wins. Cam this year can't even be trusted to throw 11 yards. As for the Browns, I'm not sure how many HOF'ers were on that team... never mind who was QB'ing. BB stole the 1990 SB from the Bills. The defense played poorly in plenty of playoff games the Patriots ended up winning anyway. How can the fact that they got zero stops in Super Bowl 52 be proof of Belichick's importance? If anything it shows he was the weak link. The Patriots went to Super Bowl 46 with the worst pass defense in the Super Bowl era, what did Belichick contribute that year? How many stops did they get, particularly in the 4th quarter in Super Bowl 38, and they won anyway. What does that suggest about his importance any given year? Brady has played poorly in a few playoff games (that's right, I said it). How many of those have they won? Has the defense carried them to a playoff win outside of SB 53 (Which they only reached because of the offense-- they got lit up by the Chargers and the Chiefs in the playoffs, they just outscored them)? Brady has 6 wins in the post season where his team allowed 28 or more points, no other QB in history has more than 2. The numbers don't lie. I consider Bledsoe to be a 'very good' level QB. He helped make the Patriots relevant as a franchise, he went to a Super Bowl with Parcells. At the very least he was better than Cam Newton is now, and billychuck went 5-11 and 0-2 with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 9, 2020 18:16:15 GMT
Reading 'The Dynasty' right now, BB wanted to start Brady in 2001 yet knew with Drew's record contract that was never a possibility. I still think it's 60-40 BB of their success. Their Eagles SB loss showed that even with 500 yards, unless both sides of the ball are primed, a great QB can't fully dictate the outcome. Marino never did & he was holding a slew of records yes? I think Belichick is 10+ wins capable with a very good QB or better... & a great one like TB can push it to 12-14 wins. Cam this year can't even be trusted to throw 11 yards. As for the Browns, I'm not sure how many HOF'ers were on that team... never mind who was QB'ing. BB stole the 1990 SB from the Bills. Chicken vs egg. Find me a coach who is generally regarded as great who won without a quarterback that is considered great. Walsh and Seifert had Montana and Young. Johnson had Aikman. Shanahan had Elway. Belichick and Brady. The only ones I can even remotely think of are Parcells won with Hostetler but he also had a great defense, and Gibbs won with 3 fairly average QBs but also had o-linemen that could block tanks. The thing is, Montana won Super Bowls with two different coaches, Walsh didn't win with two QBs. Elway went to multiple Super Bowls before Shanahan came to town, Shanahan never made it to a Super Bowl without Elway. Parcells won two Super Bowls with the Giants with two different QBs, took New England to the Super Bowl, the Jets to the AFC championship game and even took the Cowboys back to the playoffs in his first season there, after they had gone 5-11 for three straight years. These are the things that prove a coach is great. Does his success hinge upon having a great player or group of players, or does his track record show he wins everywhere he goes? Great players are known as great players whether they win or not, across all of sports. Marino, Barkley, Ted Williams. Coaches only become 'great' when they start winning titles. And most of them don't seem to do that unless they have great players. Even the legendary Red Auerbach won exactly zero titles as a coach without Bill Russell, while Russell won college titles, a gold medal and two NBA titles as player coach without Auerbach as his coach. Who was more important, Russell the player or Auerbach the coach? (Auerbach built the Celtics as a GM for decades, he's responsible in part for every title from 57 to 86. But that's more as a GM, not a coach.) Let me be clear, since nobody ever takes what I say at face value and instead exaggerates it into, "Rey says all coaches are useless." There are great coaches. Parcells, Joe Gibbs, Larry Brown come to mind. Guys like the aforementioned Walsh and Auerbach have compelling cases because they were innovators. That's worth a lot in my book. But to me, when the term 'great' seems to be attached to titles (as it always seems to in coaching), you have to be able to win with more than just one guy or group to be truly a great coach. To me it can't be a chicken and egg thing when players are great regardless of coaching and most 'great' coaches are wholly dependent on having great players.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Nov 9, 2020 21:50:14 GMT
falcons waive former 1st Round pick - DE - Takk McKinley
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Nov 9, 2020 22:03:37 GMT
falcons waive former 1st Round pick - DE - Takk McKinley Another defensive bust that the Falcons took with a high pick - he should’ve been a good pass rusher, something which the Falcons have struggled with a lot. Similar to Vic Beasley who’s now with the Titans, at least Beasley had one great season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl before his level of play fell way down.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 9, 2020 22:07:21 GMT
falcons waive former 1st Round pick - DE - Takk McKinley Another defensive bust that the Falcons took with a high pick - he should’ve been a good pass rusher, something which the Falcons have struggled with a lot. Similar to Vic Beasley who’s now with the Titans, at least Beasley had one great season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl before his level of play fell way down. Titans cut Beasley last week. |
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Nov 9, 2020 22:10:12 GMT
falcons waive former 1st Round pick - DE - Takk McKinley Another defensive bust that the Falcons took with a high pick - he should’ve been a good pass rusher, something which the Falcons have struggled with a lot. Similar to Vic Beasley who’s now with the Titans, at least Beasley had one great season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl before his level of play fell way down. sounds like he was pretty disgruntled - putting the team on blast in the media requesting trades
was he a complete bust? 26th pick in 2017 - 17.5 sacks for his career
couldn't they use him on situational downs? - i.e. - like - I don't know if the Falcons rotate DE's to keep them fresh - Eagles used to do this a few years back and had great success with it - just keep rotating in and out
or was he pretty low on the depth chart?
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Nov 9, 2020 23:32:51 GMT
Another defensive bust that the Falcons took with a high pick - he should’ve been a good pass rusher, something which the Falcons have struggled with a lot. Similar to Vic Beasley who’s now with the Titans, at least Beasley had one great season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl before his level of play fell way down. Titans cut Beasley last week. Amazing how far off the map Beasley has fallen after his fantastic 2016 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Nov 9, 2020 23:36:08 GMT
Another defensive bust that the Falcons took with a high pick - he should’ve been a good pass rusher, something which the Falcons have struggled with a lot. Similar to Vic Beasley who’s now with the Titans, at least Beasley had one great season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl before his level of play fell way down. sounds like he was pretty disgruntled - putting the team on blast in the media requesting trades
was he a complete bust? 26th pick in 2017 - 17.5 sacks for his career
couldn't they use him on situational downs? - i.e. - like - I don't know if the Falcons rotate DE's to keep them fresh - Eagles used to do this a few years back and had great success with it - just keep rotating in and out
or was he pretty low on the depth chart?
Complete bust, he came into the season as a starter, but he’s just been totally useless. Not surprising the Falcons got rid of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Nov 10, 2020 11:55:12 GMT
Active* QB winning % (regular season, 25+ starts)
Lamar Jackson .833
Patrick Mahomes .800
Tom Brady .771
Jimmy Garoppolo .750
Ben Roethlisberger .681
Russell Wilson .680
Aaron Rodgers .667
Jared Goff .613
Josh Allen .611
Dak Prescott .609
Drew Brees .599
Mitchell Trubisky .591
Alex Smith .587
Teddy Bridgewater .581
Matt Ryan .566
Joe Flacco .563
Carson Wentz .555
Philip Rivers .552
Cam Newton .546
Tyrod Taylor .533
Andy Dalton .528
Trevor Siemian .520
Ryan Tannehill .519
Nick Foles .519
Matt Schaub .505
Kirk Cousins .500
Matt Moore .500
Worst (10+ games)
DeShone Kizer .000
C.J. Beathard .100
Cody Kessler .167
Josh Rosen .188
Daniel Jones .238
Colt McCoy .250
Blaine Gabbert .271
Dwayne Haskins .273
Mike Glennon .273
Josh McCown .303
Blake Bortles .329
Chad Henne .340
Sam Darnold .344
Nick Mullens .364
Gardner Minshew .368
Jacoby Brissett .375
Geno Smith .387
Robert Griffin III .390
* - Or have not officially retired
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 10, 2020 11:57:37 GMT
Active* QB winning % (regular season, 25+ starts)
Tom Brady .771 Brady's record is mind-blowing considering it averages out after so many seasons with teams seeing their good and bad days. Because of his greatness his teams have never seen bad days.
|
|
