NFL Thread III

[Headache in a Suitcase]

seeing ghosts

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Brady looks every bit the 82 year old QB that he is today

[LemonMelon]

Taylor Heinicke is the nemesis that Brady has been missing with both Mannings retired.

[mikal]

https://twitter.com/fieldyates/statu...303358464?s=21

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mikal

https://twitter.com/fieldyates/statu...303358464?s=21

Holy cheap point entirely inflated by what happened tonight, Field. Russell Wilson just went 20-40 on 161 yards with 2INTs. Have they been great? Yes. Did post surgery first game Russell Wilson struggle tonight? Mightily.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Holy cheap point entirely inflated by what happened tonight, Field. Russell Wilson just went 20-40 on 161 yards with 2INTs. Have they been great? Yes. Did post surgery first game Russell Wilson struggle tonight? Mightily.

Stats are cheap points?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Taylor Heinicke is the nemesis that Brady has been missing with both Mannings retired.

This makes sense

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Holy cheap point entirely inflated by what happened tonight, Field. Russell Wilson just went 20-40 on 161 yards with 2INTs. Have they been great? Yes. Did post surgery first game Russell Wilson struggle tonight? Mightily.

And both Murray and Mahomeboy played them with injuries too.

[mikal]

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by mikal

[Hewson]

Plus lets not overlook the raging blizzard in GB today.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Plus lets not overlook the raging blizzard in GB today.

Anyone watching the Packers this season can tell they've improved exponentially over the last few years. This might be the best defense I've ever seen them field, and they're absolutely the only reason the Packers only have two losses.

I have no idea what the stats and asterisks might indicate when comparing between teams, but any suggestions that it's a fluke are laughable to me.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mikal

Stats are cheap points?

Some stats are and some stats aren’t?

Mahommes was 20-37 166 1-0… the same struggling Patrick Mahommes who hadn’t had a positive TD-INT ratio in 5 weeks.
Murray was 22-33 247 0-2… in a game where his ground game put 3 TDs from short, and one of those INTs came in desperation after the injury that’s kept him out for two weeks.

Murray hardly even had a bad game. Statistics don’t tell the whole story for that one, and citing the Packers as the cause of Mahommes playing poorly is also not telling the whole story.

Look, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they haven’t played great defense in those games or overall. It’s just lame to try and claim it’s the Packers who are responsible for poor performance by three QBs who either didn’t actually perform poorly or were already performing poorly prior to the Packers game.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Some stats are and some stats aren’t?

Mahommes was 20-37 166 1-0… the same struggling Patrick Mahommes who hadn’t had a positive TD-INT ratio in 5 weeks.
Murray was 22-33 247 0-2… in a game where his ground game put 3 TDs from short, and one of those INTs came in desperation after the injury that’s kept him out for two weeks.

Murray hardly even had a bad game. Statistics don’t tell the whole story for that one, and citing the Packers as the cause of Mahommes playing poorly is also not telling the whole story.

Look, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they haven’t played great defense in those games or overall. It’s just lame to try and claim it’s the Packers who are responsible for poor performance by three QBs who either didn’t actually perform poorly or were already performing poorly prior to the Packers game.

I think you’re looking way too much into it. He could have just tweeted that the Packers defense is 3rd in the league, but close to share some stats that support it. Most likely, a defense ranked 15th in the league wouldn’t have held those 3 QB’s to those stats.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mikal

I think you’re looking way too much into it. He could have just tweeted that the Packers defense is 3rd in the league, but close to share some stats that support it. Most likely, a defense ranked 15th in the league wouldn’t have held those 3 QB’s to those stats.

I mean come on man, you’re basically laying up the ball for me to spike right now with that last sentence. Mahommes put up the same struggles against the #15 Titans, #18 Giants, and the #28 WFT in the three weeks prior.

Yes, he should’ve just said the Packers defense is 3rd, and they should be applauded for it.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I mean come on man, you’re basically laying up the ball for me to spike right now with that last sentence. Mahommes put up the same struggles against the #15 Titans, #18 Giants, and the #28 WFT in the three weeks prior.

Yes, he should’ve just said the Packers defense is 3rd, and they should be applauded for it.

How did Mahomes do yesterday?

Oh and how was Kyler Murray doing in his previous starts before playing the Packers?

The ball you spiked was flat and never bounced back up.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mikal

How did Mahomes do yesterday?



Oh and how was Kyler Murray doing in his previous starts before playing the Packers?



The ball you spiked was flat and never bounced back up.

So in six weeks Mahommes finally performed like his old self against a team that’s easily more deflated and incapable of having anything to smile about given the state of disarray in their locker room.

You’re still bringing up Murray, who led his team downfield for three scores on Green Bay, and coughed the ball up playing injured in the dying seconds of the game. Why you keep bringing this up, I do not know.

I forgot that choosing to ignore points in an argument was a method one could take.

[LuckyNumber7]

On another note, it’s nice to see Bill B. saying good things about Cam Newton to the press. I respect that he has the ability to put aside the poor performance of his QB and team and speak well of good people.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

So in six weeks Mahommes finally performed like his old self against a team that’s easily more deflated and incapable of having anything to smile about given the state of disarray in their locker room.

You’re still bringing up Murray, who led his team downfield for three scores on Green Bay, and coughed the ball up playing injured in the dying seconds of the game. Why you keep bringing this up, I do not know.

I forgot that choosing to ignore points in an argument was a method one could take.

It's not an argument though. The Packers D is #3 overall. The tweet I shared had statistics that further support that the Packers D is #3 overall. It's really that simple and there's no need to dig into it further or look for that "Gotcha" argument.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mikal

It's not an argument though. The Packers D is #3 overall. The tweet I shared had statistics that further support that the Packers D is #3 overall. It's really that simple and there's no need to dig into it further or look for that "Gotcha" argument.

The Packers D is #3 in the league. Nobody is arguing that. The statistics you shared do not “support” that claim. It’s not an opinion that they’re #3 in the league. It’s a fact.

The statistics you shared are a cheap attempt at suggesting the Packers are giant slayers and have suppressed otherwise highly performing QBs. You’re hell bent on this “it’s simple statistics” thing. I don’t care who bats above .300 with RISP on a midsummer Tuesday where the temperature is below 80 degrees. It’s an unnecessary claim that lacks nuance for “why” the numbers are what they are.