NFL 2021 Season

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
1,568
Location
South East England
Some great games this weekend and an interesting match-up for the SB. The Bengals have been a delight to watch the last two weeks and were awesome in their changes during the 2nd half to come back. The Rams too have shown some resilience the last two weeks.

Jimmy's last game for 49ers??

Yes. Jimmy G was gone the moment the Niners traded those 2 x 1st round picks (plus others) for Tray Lance. They also will want that last year of his contract off their books to benefit from the rookie QB contract. I'm not sure how much demand there will be for a trade but as we saw in contracts and trades this last offseason, teams do frequently overpay for QBs.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Apr 2011
Posts
12,958
Location
Barnet, London
Jimmy G is an interesting one I think. How many teams have a top flight, elite QB that can carry them to the Superbowl? It's probably less than 6 or 7. Jimmy G could well be in that next level, like Tannehil maybe, or Kirk Cousins. They're actually very good, solid QB's that can win a SB with a decent supporting cast. But I do wonder about teams that trade away so much for that top flight QB, when using those picks to build a team around their 'good' QB might do just as well...?
 
Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
1,568
Location
South East England
Jimmy G is an interesting one I think. How many teams have a top flight, elite QB that can carry them to the Superbowl? It's probably less than 6 or 7. Jimmy G could well be in that next level, like Tannehil maybe, or Kirk Cousins. They're actually very good, solid QB's that can win a SB with a decent supporting cast. But I do wonder about teams that trade away so much for that top flight QB, when using those picks to build a team around their 'good' QB might do just as well...?

I think part of it, is availability too, in that unfortunately Jimmy Garoppolo has had his fair share of injuries. I suspect it's a similar to the situation in LA with Goff. Where there's a really talented team and young coaches but feel they are being held back by Jimmy Garoppolo's inconsistencies and limits. And hence why SF invested so much for Tray Lance.

To me Jimmy Garoppolo & Kirk Cousins are middle of the road, average Alex Smith/Andy Dalton-type QBs. Not franchise QBs. Of course you can get to the SB or even win it (cough....Trent Dilfer) but so often over the past 20 years it's the elite, franchise QBs that bring success. I heard someone say the other day the Vikings are a decent QB away from competing and I can't help but agree. Kirk Cousins is currently the 8th highest paid QB in the league but for me certainly plays nowhere near those numbers and is incredibly streaky. I suspect the new Vikings GM will want to move on from him, although his contract is awful this year.

Ryan Tannehill I'm unsure on, in that he has looked good at times with the Titans and has got them to the playoffs but was pretty bad in their recent playoff exit & I can see questions about his post season performances with them.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Apr 2011
Posts
12,958
Location
Barnet, London
I personally think Cousins gets a raw deal. As a WFT fan, when we had him and RG3, I always said Cousins was our better chance for wins and he pulled some games out that no other Washington QB from the last 15 or 20 years probably would have... To be clear, I'm not saying he's elite, but I'd take him in Washington over a lot of other QB's in the league.

Of course you can get to the SB or even win it (cough....Trent Dilfer)

Ha ha, I nearly mentioned him myself in my post :cry:
 
Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
1,568
Location
South East England
I personally think Cousins gets a raw deal. As a WFT fan, when we had him and RG3, I always said Cousins was our better chance for wins and he pulled some games out that no other Washington QB from the last 15 or 20 years probably would have... To be clear, I'm not saying he's elite, but I'd take him in Washington over a lot of other QB's in the league.

That's fair, and maybe I am being harsh although I do think he was arguably better in Washington. I've seen him blow up too often and don't think he has enough consistency, leadership and is error prone particularly when the game is on the line. Their 2nd 2018 regular season meeting with us (Bears) is the perfect example of this and includes his famous shouting at team mates moment. I think Minnesota has regressed at QB since their brilliant 2017 season and I do think that is in part due to him. He should have always been the big upgrade over Case Keenum, brought in to win that SB. And it isn't like they don't have weapons around him.

However the biggest issue with Cousins is that contract. He is being paid as an elite QB and unfortunately that means his salary does damage the rest of their roster (DE and defensive backs, particularly). He has to play like a difference maker and he doesn't. But as mentioned with a new GM whether the Vikings go for Watson, or draft, his time I suspect in the twin cities is coming to an end.

Ha ha, I nearly mentioned him myself in my post :cry:

Lol. Yea there's a few stinkers to reach the big game. The Bear's own Rex Grossman is definitely right near the top of that list.
 
Commissario
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
42,646
Location
Australia QLD
Cannot believe Washington's new name is 'Commanders' It's awful, I think I'd rather of stayed with 'Washington Football Team'

yDfhEOi.png
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Apr 2011
Posts
12,958
Location
Barnet, London
Honestly, I think they did need a name and I'm not sure anything would sound good. A hot favourite was Hogs of some form, which whilst it would have fit them historically, being a fan of the Hogs didn't sound too good either.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
1,568
Location
South East England
I think the name is probably OK. Also keeping that iconic burgundy colour is fantastic.

That said the logo is the most generic and uninspiring effort imo, particularly where you have such an opportunity and blank canvas to do something cool. I know a lot of teams have bad logos or old logos of their time but that feels like a missed opportunity.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Nov 2007
Posts
7,622
Location
Deepest Darkest Essex!!
Cannot believe Washington's new name is 'Commanders' It's awful, I think I'd rather of stayed with 'Washington Football Team'

Agreed. They've may as well have called them the 'Washington Commodores' with that line of thinking. But then I think the team & Daniel Snyder would have been sued for 'copyright infringement' by a certain soul band & its former lead singer. :p;) There's a college football team with that nickname (Vanderbilt) anyway, so I think the name was pulled out of a hat, just like Cleveland did with the Guardians.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2007
Posts
17,952
Location
Various
Perhaps one of you guys who watches more gridiron than me can explain this.

In rugby, you'll expect to see a penalty / conversion scored from 30-40 yards out, and penalties are often kicked rather than run to take advantage of the relatively easy points. In football, field goals seem pretty rare, despite being worth half a touchdown and, I'd expect, more than twice as easy to achieve.

So why do you see so few field goals in football?

Bear in mind that I don't watch loads of football, so you might tell me I'm wrong and there are tons of field goals
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2010
Posts
10,539
Location
Bucks
So why do you see so few field goals in football?
FGs are generally the last resort 4th down play or to win a tied game. The preference is to move the ball into the red zone for 3 touchdown attempts.
Its also not half, a FG gives 3 and a TD+FG is 7, or TD+TD is 8 so there is just so much more to play for.

Remember NFL is all about moving down the field in 10 yard attempts.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Aug 2018
Posts
2,711
Pretty much what @iamtheoneneo said. I've seen games that have only been decided by field goals! ;)

You'll only really see FG attempts once you've got to the 4th down and you're in range, usually around 50 yards. Also when you get to overtime and it's the first team to score.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Apr 2011
Posts
12,958
Location
Barnet, London
Also when you get to overtime and it's the first team to score.

Well, this isn't quite correct, but it does get a little complicated. If the first score is a TD, that team wins and it's all over. A FG on the first drive means the other team gets a possession too. Then it's sudden death :)

It is interesting though, this season seems to have seen a drastic increase in teams going for it on 4th down, so there are perhaps times you expect to see the kicker, but we haven't this year.

Also, it sounds odd, but different games have a different value to a FG. In a Bills v Chiefs offensive shoot out, kicking a FG might be seen as a failure. In a close defensive battle, every point counts!

Good game I thought. Shame all the penalties came out at the end. Perhaps fitting that the thing a lot of people worried about (Rams D Line on Bengals O Line) was what finally finished the game off. I was expecting a FG and OT tbh.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Aug 2018
Posts
2,711
Well, this isn't quite correct, but it does get a little complicated. If the first score is a TD, that team wins and it's all over. A FG on the first drive means the other team gets a possession too. Then it's sudden death :)
I thought I might be currently wrong but I'm an old timer and those used to be the rules in the good ol' days until they changed them. ;)
 
Top Bottom