Football NFL Week 12 - Keep Your Helmet On, It's Week 12!

[Keyser_Soze]

 

We have made it to week 12 and it looks like there are some good games this week.

Thursday night game is actually a game that matters between two winning teams. The winner likely goes on to win the division and Colts have already beat the Texans.

 

Buccanneers and Falcons both suck but they generally put up a lot of points so it could be worth watching just for that.

Saints and Panthers might be nice as long as the Panthers from last week don't show up.

Seahawks and Eagles is promising as is Cowboys and Patriots.

Packers and 49ers were flexed into SNF and it should be pretty good.

And even the Monday night game might not be bad.

[AbsolutSurgen]

So, Are Jon Gruden and the Raiders Actually Going to Make the Playoffs?

Raiders control destiny in path to (gulp) playoffs

 

There seems to be a lot of surprise/frustration in some parts of the media that the Raiders are in the position to make a run to make the playoffs.  It goes against their narrative that Jon Gruden is an anachronistic blowhard buffoon, the Khalil Mack trade was a disaster and that Mike Mayock doesn't know enough to be a proper GM.

Even though they are not a "good team" (any team with both a group of receivers and linebackers that are as bad as the Raiders, could never be considered good), they aren't "bad" either.  In a conference where 10-6 probably gets you a Wildcard spot -- they have a realistic shot of going into Week 16/17 and playing to get into the playoffs.

 

The plan for this team was always to try and make a run in 2021 (or 2020 if some good things happen), so this is all gravy.  And with tons of cap space, a young team, and 5 picks in the top 90 of next year's draft (including 2 #1s) -- this plan still looks very much achievable.

 

Coming off my high horse, the Raiders have not been blowing anybody out.  So, even if the Jets should be a notch in the win column, I'm expecting a close game on the road in the Meadowlands.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[Pikachu]

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[Keyser_Soze]

You can watch TNF on Twitch now. Fun!

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

I can believe it, and I can also see it being a cynical move by Garrett’s team to at least get him back on the field to start next season.

[Keyser_Soze]

Hopkins is good.

[Guest]

That was a bad game, but I’ll take it.

[AbsolutSurgen]

12 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I can believe it, and I can also see it being a cynical move by Garrett’s team to at least get him back on the field to start next season.

I think it is very likely that Garrett believes he heard the slur, and Rudolph believes he didn't say it.  Human memory is a funny thing.

However, in my eyes this should be easily solved.  With the amount of mics that NFL films has out there, they should be able to sort out the truth.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Inside the Rams-Chargers marriage as the NFL fights for Los Angeles

An interesting article on the ridiculously over Budget SoFi stadium (remember how the project ballooned from $1.8 to $2.4 billion -- it is now between $5 and $6 billion!), the poisoned relationship between the Rams and Chargers, the problem of football attendance in LA along with how Kingmaker-Jerry screwed the Raiders out of going to LA.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Lots of discussion about teams tanking for a QB.  For the record, I made a list of the leaders in QBR this season, and when they were drafted:

1.  Russel Wilson (78.1) -- 2012 3rd Round (75th)

2. Dak Prescott (77.8) -- 2016 4th Round (135th)

3. Lamar Jackson (77.8) -- 2018 1st Round (32nd)

4. Patrick Mahomes (76.9) -- 2017 1st Round (10th)

5. Deshaun Watson (71.4) -- 2017 1st Round (12th)

6.  Matthew Stafford (69.1) -- 2009 1st Round (1st)

7. Carson Wentz (67.0) -- 2016 1st Round (2nd)

8.  Kirk Cousins (62.8) -- 2012 4th Round (102nd)

9.  Matt Ryan (62.6) -- 2008 1st Round (3rd)

10.  Kyler Murray (62.5) -- 2019 1st Round (1st)

11.  Derek Carr (60.6) -- 2014 2nd Round (36)

12.  Ryan Fitzpatrick (58.2) -- 2005 7th Round (250)

13.  Jimmy Garoppolo (57.7) -- 2014 2nd Round (62)

14. Aaron Rodgers (56.5) -- 2005 1st Round (24)

15. Tom Brady (56.4) -- 2000 6th Round (199)

16.  Jacoby Brissett (50.9) -- 2016 3rd Round (91)

Only 4 of the top 16 were taken in the top 10 picks, and only 7 were taken in the first round.

You know who wasn't there?  The top QB taken in these drafts:

2018 -- Baker Mayfield (1st)

2017 -- Mitchell Trubisky (2nd) (Betcha they wished they picked Mahomes at 10 instead)

2016 -- Jared Goff (1st)

2015 -- Jameis Winston (1st) (Marcus Mariota was taken 2nd)

2014 -- Blake Bortles (3rd)

2013 -- EJ Manuel (16th)

2010 -- Sam Bradford (1st)

2007 -- Jamarcus Russell

(I excluded 11/12 for Luck and Newton, 'cause reasons)

 

I think my point is, if you think tanking for a QB is a good strategy, I'm not sure the data backs you up.

 

[Joe]

It's a tough argument to make because teams have different QB's #1 on their draft boards. Like if the Chiefs picked 2nd in 2017, they still take Mahomes.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Jose said:

It's a tough argument to make because teams have different QB's #1 on their draft boards. Like if the Chiefs picked 2nd in 2017, they still take Mahomes.

I'm not sure how that changes my point.

1)  He was the second QB picked

2)  He wasn't picked until 10

3)  KC didn't tank to get him

Look at 2018 -- Lamar Jackson was the 5th QB picked, and almost every single team passed on him.

History will probably show that Tua, Herbert or Burrow were all not worth tanking for.  And... The one picked first will probably not be the one who has the best NFL career.

[Joe]

Because teams still want to be in the best position to take the QB highest on their big board. I can guarantee Dak Prescott was not the best QB on the Cowboys big board in 2016 nor was Jackson on the Ravens big board last year. If their scouts fail, so be it. But they're never going to bank on their scouts failing.

[Keyser_Soze]

Lamar Jackson doesn't count. He was a pity pick because so many other teams passed on the scary black man.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Jose said:

Because teams still want to be in the best position to take the QB highest on their big board. I can guarantee Dak Prescott was not the best QB on the Cowboys big board in 2016 nor was Jackson on the Ravens big board last year. If their scouts fail, so be it. But they're never going to bank on their scouts failing.

That is my entire point.  NFL teams have a terrible record of identifying college QBs that will have sustained success in the NFL.  They need to bank on their scouts failing.

[Joe]

15 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

That is my entire point.  NFL teams have a terrible record of identifying college QBs that will have sustained success in the NFL.  They need to bank on their scouts failing.

 

That's silly. They still have a higher chance of picking a superstar with a top 5 pick. Just because some teams get lucky doesn't mean anything.

[BuckFly]

4 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Inside the Rams-Chargers marriage as the NFL fights for Los Angeles

An interesting article on the ridiculously over Budget SoFi stadium (remember how the project ballooned from $1.8 to $2.4 billion -- it is now between $5 and $6 billion!), the poisoned relationship between the Rams and Chargers, the problem of football attendance in LA along with how Kingmaker-Jerry screwed the Raiders out of going to LA.

 

 

Good read.  I read it when linked over at my Bills' board.  

 

I get the desire to go back to LA.  Too many people poo-poo on it, but it really is a necessary market.

 

Boy, though, what a mess this all is.

[Joe]

@AbsolutSurgen

 

Also, Goff, Winston, and Trubisky were all top 10 in QBR last year. You're cherry-picking data..

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, Jose said:

@AbsolutSurgen

 

Also, Goff, Winston, and Trubisky were all top 10 in QBR last year. You're cherry-picking data..

 

Do you think any of those three would have been worth tanking for?  Which ones?

(I picked the current season, cherry picking would imply I went through different years and picked outliers to make my point.

I'm too lazy to manually go through each year and demonstrate it over time.)

 

1 hour ago, Jose said:

 

That's silly. They still have a higher chance of picking a superstar with a top 5 pick. Just because some teams get lucky doesn't mean anything.

That's true.

However, I also feel that high picks in the NFL are less deterministic of postseason success than in other sports (like baseball, hockey and basketball).

A trivia question that might help illustrate my point.

In the last 25 NFL drafts, there are 4 players who were drafted 1st overall who played in a Super Bowl.  2 were the Manning brothers, (without cheating) can you name the other 2?  (I am excluding David Carr, who was Eli Manning's backup, and never actually played in the Super Bowl.)

Spoiler

Keyshawn Johnson drafted in 1996, and Orlando Pace drafted in 1997.

 

[Joe]

10 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Do you think any of those three would have been worth tanking for?  Which ones?

(I picked the current season, cherry picking would imply I went through different years and picked outliers to make my point.

I'm too lazy to manually go through each year and demonstrate it over time.)

 

That's true.

However, I also feel that high picks in the NFL are less deterministic of postseason success than in other sports (like baseball, hockey and basketball).

A trivia question that might help illustrate my point.

In the last 25 NFL drafts, there are 4 players who were drafted 1st overall who played in a Super Bowl.  2 were the Manning brothers, (without cheating) can you name the other 2?  (I am excluding David Carr, who was Eli Manning's backup, and never actually played in the Super Bowl.)

  Hide contents

Keyshawn Johnson drafted in 1996, and Orlando Pace drafted in 1997.

 

 

Of baseball, football, and basketball, I would actually argue that football is the sport where having a high pick matters the most. The baseball draft has always been a massive crapshoot. It's become less so over the years, but it still is. In basketball, you can tank and still get screwed by the lottery system. Admittedly, I don't know a ton about hockey, so I don't have an opinion there.

 

I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make, though. Are we exclusively talking about the first pick in the draft? Because you can tank and get a top 5 pick, which is still very desirable. But you only mention the first pick, so maybe you are only talking about that. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Of baseball, football, and basketball, I would actually argue that football is the sport where having a high pick matters the most. The baseball draft has always been a massive crapshoot. It's become less so over the years, but it still is. In basketball, you can tank and still get screwed by the lottery system. Admittedly, I don't know a ton about hockey, so I don't have an opinion there.

 

I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make, though. Are we exclusively talking about the first pick in the draft? Because you can tank and get a top 5 pick, which is still very desirable. But you only mention the first pick, so maybe you are only talking about that. 

I am confused.  Can you tell me about teams that have used tanking to generate post season success in the NFL?

[rc0101]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I am confused.  Can you tell me about teams that have used tanking to generate post season success in the NFL?

The Browns!!! Oh wait...

[Guest]

This is obviously not controversial, but the QB is the single most important position in any of the major sports. Guaranteeing yourself the chance to pick the guy you rate best at the position AND within the system you run is a big deal regardless of whether or not you hit on the right guy.

 

If you pick the best player in basketball, in literally one off season you can remake your entire roster around the guy you drafted. 
 

In baseball, it takes so long to get a pick up to the league that it really only matters about getting the best player possible, not the best fit to your current squad.

 

Football is all about finding that piece or two that solve your glaring problems.

[AbsolutSurgen]

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is obviously not controversial, but the QB is the single most important position in any of the major sports. Guaranteeing yourself the chance to pick the guy you rate best at the position AND within the system you run is a big deal regardless of whether or not you hit on the right guy.

 

If you pick the best player in basketball, in literally one off season you can remake your entire roster around the guy you drafted. 

You make two very good points here.  Basketball is less about position, but drafting the right player (regardless of position) can have much more of an impact on the success of a team in Basketball, than getting a Superstar QB can have in football.

 

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

In baseball, it takes so long to get a pick up to the league that it really only matters about getting the best player possible, not the best fit to your current squad.

 

Football is all about fingering that piece or two that solve your glaring problems.

You're absolutely right that building a great football team is about minimizing your weaknesses.  However, I think teams (such as the Patriots, among others) have demonstrated that there are probably more effective ways of doing that using high draft picks.

There are also a lot of "draft-day experts" that always argue that football teams should draft "the best player available", rather than based on need.

[Guest]

I wonder if the modern salary cap/CBA makes the QB position even more important on draft day than other positions? The modern teams don’t have the ability, generally, to let a young QB develop over time under the tutelage of a veteran because you need to know they are great when still on a cheap rookie contract. Unless you have a top tier QB, you just aren’t going to draft project QBs.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[Joe]

6 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I am confused.  Can you tell me about teams that have used tanking to generate post season success in the NFL?

 

You're totally shifting goal posts now, man. Recently though, Goff and Mayfield have made their teams relevant again. Murray seems like he will next season, too.

[johnny]

NFL has the worst front offices out of all the major sports. They’re so fucking bad and stuck in their ways. So, if you know what you’re doing I’m sure tanking would be fine. But if you know what you’re doing you’re likely to get a quality player regardless. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[thewhyteboar]

I wasn't able to wake up and watch the game, but it seems like Seattle's defense is really coming along nicely now. Even without Clowney they got some pressure. And Shaquem finally got some snaps on defense! Ditching Tedric for Diggs has also been huge for the secondary. 

[Keyser_Soze]

14 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

I wasn't able to wake up and watch the game, but it seems like Seattle's defense is really coming along nicely now. Even without Clowney they got some pressure. And Shaquem finally got some snaps on defense! Ditching Tedric for Diggs has also been huge for the secondary. 

 

I wanna know why Penny got so much playing time!

[thewhyteboar]

Blame Carson's love of fumbling.

[Keyser_Soze]

20 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Blame Carson's love of fumbling.

 

Yeah but Penny fumbled last week (or whenever they last played).