NFL
-
Thinking more about the Superbowl. How did the Chiefs actually win? On paper SF had a clearly superior team. Loaded offence - best RB in the league, two top 20 WRs, top five TE, best FB, and a good QB who played pretty well. Defence also full of studs. Meanwhile the Chiefs had Mahomes, a cast of also-ran RBs and WRs, great TE but not much more. A good defence, sure.
And if you look at Mahomes performance, he didn't do anything amazing. That's his brilliance, very much like Brady. There was one deep throw but other than that he took what was given to him. But it wasn't like watching peak Lamar or peak Josh Allen where you think 'what can't this guy do?'.
That's why it's so remeniscent of the Brady/BB Pats. You spend all season frothing about this team or that, but they lurk and lurk and then you look up and it's the third quarter of the Superbowl and they are somehow tied with a chance to win. And you just know they will.
-
There has been plenty of talk about what the 49ers should have done in OT. I can understand receiving after winning the toss (their defense was on the field at the end of regulation) but you really need a TD with the new rules, especially given the distance that both kickers were successful with FGs.
-
Supposedly their theory was that they'd get the first crack at sudden death. That kind of makes sense.
Under the old/regular season rules you pretty much always want the ball first since a TD is a win, whereas the alternative theory with the new rules is that you want to go second so you know exactly what you need.
I actually think that the right strategy to defer and go for the onside kick. The rules say that both teams get 'an opportunity to posses the ball', which includes a kick off. So if you manage to regain then a field goal wins (and you're only a few yards short of long field goal range), and if you don't get it back you've only concede about 25 or so yards of field possession, and even if they score the TD you still get another chance (since the onside kick isn't considered an opportunity to possess for the kicking team). Onside kick success rates keep dropping though so unless there are some changes to make it a bit easier teams will see it as too big a risk.
-
That KC offence offered decent protection, a not peak Kelce, and nothing else. Average running back, below average receivers who can't get separation and can't friggen catch. Except for one throw, Mahomes took what he could, battled his way through the game, and then picked the tired Niners apart. Throw in a couple of key runs at key times, and it was as Brady as you can get. This wasn't no-look, side-arm, trick play Mahomes, this was "do what you have to in order to win" Mahomes.
That KC defence is a hell of a unit though. Jones is elite. They have very very good corners, and the whole unit is fucking fast. And they work so well as a team.
-
@mariner4life said in NFL:
That KC defence is a hell of a unit though. Jones is elite. They have very very good corners, and the whole unit is fucking fast. And they work so well as a team.
some massive plays knocking the ball away from WR. Really impressive.
-
The onside kick idea is actually pretty great. I love that.
I'm not sure the decision at the coin toss was that important. It's an interesting debate. On the one hand if you are second you know what you need (and thus Mahomes was always in four down territory) but that can bring added pressure too - the whole game literally hinged on that KC 4th and 1.
-
Broncos cut Wilson. $84m against the cap, split over the next two years. 35 one year and 50 the other - hits can come in either order depending on exactly how they do the cut.
The contract has 'offset language'. That means that whatever money he is paid by his new team will reduce what the Broncos owe him. In practice, this means his next deal will be a vet minimum deal because the money will be going to the Broncos not him. That makes him a super low risk prospect for a team that wants to take a punt. (Although there are also ways to structure a deal to get around the offset language but depends on the length of the contract, so will depend on how much teams want him and trust him to stay good).
-
Fuck your face
-
And it is free agency season
Some big moves
Kirk Cousins to the Falcons. Vikings signed DarnoldKing Henry to the Ravens is interesting. Their running back plays QB
The Commanders just gave Marcus Mariota $6m for a year??
Jimmy G got released
Barkley to the Eagles
Some of the QB names linked to the Broncos are gross
-
@mariner4life said in NFL:
King Henry to the Ravens is interesting. Their running back plays QB
love Henry. Almost got his jersey. His highlights reel is off the charts, an insanely good player, wasted in a shithouse team.
-
@mariner4life said in NFL:
Some of the QB names linked to the Broncos are gross
I'm not triggering you mate, but who is that? Haven't had my eye on it.
Wilson to the Steelers seems solid for both of them. Good luck - will see what they can get out of him
-
We were interested in Darnold, but thankfully his price went too high. Zach Wilson has been mentioned
Thankfully Jameis Winston has already gone to the Browns
The way the team is at the moment is completely fucked. Getting a proven failure in for a couple of years seems a waste of time. The rebuild is not only behind, but hamstrung by the Russell fucking Wilson deals. Burn the joint to the ground and start from the very bottom. With Mahomes and the Chiefs in our division (and the possibility of the Chargers making use of their gun QB) we're playing for 2nd for a while yet anyway. It is purgatory!
-
@mariner4life said in NFL:
The Commanders just gave Marcus Mariota $6m for a year??
Good move. Veteran presence as a former no. 2 overall pick himself will be a great sounding board for the rookie QB the Commanders select at 2.
-
-
