The best of teams & the worst of teams…
Time for some NFL Round Table talk… this week the talk centers on some of the best teams and some of the worst teams in the NFL and what their futures might be…
1) It’s not over until it’s over, but, which team with 1 win or less (49ers, Bears, and Browns) starts jockeying for draft pick position by “dumping” games and planning for next year?
There are glimpses of talent from Howard, Meredith, and Floyd but win at QB. Chicago needs a QB in the draft period.
Dan: I think the Browns are already beginning to do it, since they’re basically out of the running. They need a quarterback after RGIII went down with an injury, who looked like he could be a nice connection to Pryor. But, the Browns are an awful football team. They need to just can it for the season, although I think they’re already doing that without attempting to do such a thing.
The 49ers and Bears are both out of the race as well. They need to start trying to lock up the second overall pick. They won’t make the playoffs. They won’t do anything special. They might as well cancel out the season and look towards next year.
Earl: All of those teams should consider dumping because they all could use a new starter at the quarterback position, but I expect them all to compete. Especially, since there isn’t a clear cut can’t miss prospect who will be available with the number one pick in the 2017 draft.
Deshaun Watson could be a good NFL QB, and, I like DeShone Kizer from Notre Dame, but, since, neither one looks like a can’t miss type, you might as well try to win some games if you’re the Niners, Bears, or Browns.
Jim: The Browns have had zero success with the #1 draft pick, so, I don’t think they’re looking to spend millions on another failure. The Bears are too proud to dump games. That leaves the 49ers, who need a starting quarterback like no other team in the NFL.
2) On the other side of the coin…which team with one loss (Patriots, Cowboys Vikings and Seahawks) begins to fade first and maybe has to struggle to make the playoffs?
Chad: I’ll say Seattle.
I think the tie and the lack of a line for Russell Wilson will start to make things difficult for them.
Dan: While I think all four are very good football teams, I think the Minnesota Vikings are the worse team of the four. They’ve been extremely hot this season, but the Eagles exposed them Sunday in their 21-10 defeat (besides the garbage time TD, it was 21-3). They were very hot but I don’t think Bradford will be able to lead the offense like he has been. I still think the defense is one of the best in the NFL, but the offense is not very good.
They don’t have Adrian Peterson, McKinnon is injured now. Then Bradford showed how prone he is of TOs and showed us his old self against his old team. Diggs showed that he might have been a one-game wonder as well.
I think Dallas has a great offense with a great offensive line and is clicking and doesn’t show signs of slowing down. New England is the best team in the NFL like usual and Seattle has a very good D but also can falter – although with the division they play in and with their defense, I can’t see them collapsing too much.
Earl: I’m not convinced by the Seahawks and that’s not entirely because of the stinker the put up on Sunday night against the Cardinals. The Seahawks offense is not good. Russell Wilson is a good QB, but he has a serious lack of weapons around him.
I understand they are loyal to the Doug Baldwins’ of the world but if they don’t upgrade that offense around Russell, the ‘hawks won’t really go anywhere.
Jim: Did you watch the game Monday night? No offense, no kicker. The Seahawks are fake.
They’ll make the playoffs, because winning the NFC West is easier than me beating my 8 year old in basketball.
3) Let’s revisit Dak Prescott… Is he, and, by extension, the Dallas Cowboys, for real… he of all of 1 INT? Or, do both he, and the Boys, eventually have to wake up and smell the coffee and get ready for a dogfight in the NFC East (which by the way have all four teams over .500 and within two games of one another)?
Dan: I think that this Dallas Cowboy team and Dak Prescott are both for real. They have an electric offense led by Ezekiel Elliot and Dak Prescott. The OL has been doing a fantastic job creating space for Elliot as well as letting Prescott get time to throw and look for receivers. They beat GB without Dez Bryant. Their offense isn’t missing a step without Dez and only looks to get better when he returns. Add to the fact that the Packers have one of, if not, the best run D in the league yet Elliot threw up 120+ yards on them.
While they do need to realize that they will be competing with the Eagles for the divisional title, I think Dallas is a good enough team where they can win the East and definitely have the potential to reach the Super Bowl. NFC Championship Game is very realistic for them at this point. They’re for real.
As long as they don’t ask Dak, and, Romo when he returns (or so we all assume), to not do too much and they continue to feed Ezekiel Elliott the ball, they will win the East. The Cowboys have built a very good formula with Prescott and assuming they turn to Romo once Tony is healthy, they need to continue that formula.
Run the ball behind that stout offensive line and make smart throws down to the field to their reliable receiving corps.
Jim: Dak Prescott is not only for real, he is permanent. Tony Romo is out of a job and he knows it. The NFC East is always a struggle, but, the Cowboys have finally done the right thing and started a quarterback that knows how to win and, more importantly, knows how not to lose.
Bye, Tony! The 49ers need you though. Give ’em a call.
4) In light of the Seattle/Arizona 6-6 tie on Sunday night, is it time for the NFL to say that all games must be played until there is a winner and a loser… just like in the NBA and MLB? And, how would you design overtime to be played? For example, leave it as it is but a team must score or the OT is continued until someone does; something similar to the NCAA or some other method?
Dan: While I do think that they should play until there is a winner, I have no problems with how their system is set up based on their safety concerns, etc… They keep striving to be safer and safer and extending games to play until you win kind of takes them a step back from the safety concerns. However, I believe they should play until you win, but remove kick offs and punts in the second OT and proceeding OTs. You start at the 25-yard-line. You have 4 plays per down. If, you can’t get a first down after those four plays, then the other team starts from the other 25-yard-line and begins their attempt. Both teams get an attempt.
Like, for example, the Cardinals-Seahawks game last night. Let’s say the Seahawks start it off. They don’t score, Arizona gets a chance. They don’t score, back to the Seahawks. If they score, Arizona gets a chance. If they don’t, and Arizona scores their possession, Arizona wins. Or, you can switch it up. Seattle starts. Then Arizona. Then Arizona gets a re-try and Seattle gets a second opportunity. I prefer the first where they alternate back and forth until they score. I think, if, they do this 10 times each and nobody still scores, just end the game and call it tie. Last night was a punt fest. A boring game. I was happy when it ended in a tie.
But overall, I’d keep it how it is. If they do decide to play until they win, my method is the way they should go.
Earl: While I’m not crazy about how the NCAA conducts their overtime, I will admit that they have the right idea. There should be no ties in football. Play until you win. Even if that means all night. Just keep playing until someone takes the lead and end the game. A tie sucks. A 6-6 tie was even worse.
If, I’m Bruce Arians? I’d be pissed. The Cardinals dominated that game and for it to end in a tie is a real piece of crap.
Jim: No, the NFL has a tie. That’s just how it is. That’s why the win/loss column on the NFL standings also has a column for ties. Get over it. Does anyone really want to go back and watch those two teams suck a## for another 30-45 minutes?
You both suck, you get 1/2 point each. Move on.
5) On Sunday, the Jets stared Geno Smith over a flailing Ryan Fitzpatrick (6 TDs; 11 INTs). Smith, after being sacked midway through the 2nd quarter, injured his knee and Fitzpatrick came in; finished the game and the Jets eventually managed to beat Baltimore 24-16. After the game, Fitzpatrick was pretty damn defiant as he spoke to the media and said the Jets organization, from the owners on down to the coaches, gave up on him and that he plays better when he is an underdog, etc… etc…
The question… does Fitzpatrick have a leg to stand upon or should he STFU and be glad the Jets didn’t replace Smith with 3rd string QB Bryce Petty?
Chad: Fitzpatrick can talk this week and probably next week since they play Cleveland. But,when he starts to be a turnover machine and they fall out of the playoff hunt I would see what Petty and Hackenberg have.
Dan: I don’t think he does. He plays well in a contract year, historically, but, then, when it comes to the next season, he falters. He might be considered an underdog, but, if there already was discussion going on that he could lose the starting QB job, he should’ve played better. I don’t think he played well enough this year to deserve a starting job. What he needs to do is just be satisfied with him getting the opportunity to get back into the game. Not that you want to wish injury on a player, but, however long Geno Smith is out, Ryan Fitzpatrick just needs to focus on trying to re-gain his starting position back instead of talking about what he is going to do. Because, this season shows otherwise. 6 TDs, 11 INT? That’s horrible. You need to prove your worth before speaking. And, what makes matters worse was he held out for a certain dollar amount, yet, isn’t playing like he’s worth the contract he ended up signing!
He really doesn’t have even a knee to kneel on right now in this situation.
Earl: First off, Fitzpatrick should shut the hell up. Yes, the Jets won but he didn’t exactly play spectacularly in the process. He was average at best.
With that said, I feel bad for Geno. Geno got the start and then he got hurt.
But, the Jets need to play Bryce Petty and soon. Why? You know what you have in Fitzpatrick and Geno. You know enough by now to know that neither one of them is the future of your team. Personally, I don’t think the QB of the Jets future is even on the roster, but, I think they have to at least find out if Petty can at least be a bridge to that future QB.
Jim: Of course he has a leg to stand on. He was 100% right. He came in, won the game, and gave his team management a big old F.U. As he should have. He has proven he can win. If, the Jets ownership, who stuck with Rex Ryan (For how long? Proving the know exact crap about talent), can’t see how good he is. Ship him to Cleveland or San Francisco!
Tiny URL for this post: