Who is interested in Monday night football tonight?

[Bormio]

4 minutes ago, steeler01 said:

I think turnovers will get them. A couple of turnovers against a team like the Pats, Ravens or Texans and the hole will be to much because their defense stinks. 

Mahomes has to learn to take care of the ball.  When you score as easy as they do, you forget that ball security matters.  It is crucial in the playoffs.  BTW, the Texans are balling.

[steeler01]

1 minute ago, Bormio said:

Mahomes has to learn to take care of the ball.  When you score as easy as they do, you forget that ball security matters.  It is crucial in the playoffs.  BTW, the Texans are balling.

The Texans can beat anyone in the AFC in the playoffs IMO. They match up very well with the Pats who hate QB's that are mobile and I believe Watts and Clowney can make a couple of big plays against the Chiefs that will be the difference in the game if they play.

[Bormio]

1 minute ago, steeler01 said:

The Texans can beat anyone in the AFC in the playoffs IMO. They match up very well with the Pats who hate QB's that are mobile and I believe Watts and Clowney can make a couple of big plays against the Chiefs that will be the difference in the game if they play.

New England has been in the Texans’ head, but I would be very nervous against them.  Their defense is healthy this year and Watson can make a lot of plays.

[RedZone]

Not sure how great Ram/Chief was, but I did watch it all. Most of the time I fall asleep.

I think the level of QB play by some of these guys is off the charts this year.......and ,they ALL have great RBs. I think that's a big part of the equation too.

If you look at Brees throws from Sunday there are Eagles in pretty decent postions. You can't defend a lot of these balls coming from Brees and some of these other guys. It's virtually impossible unless you just stay in the faces of these QBs....get them off their game somehow. 

 

[RedZone]

53 minutes ago, steeler01 said:

 He sits in a base all game long regardless if he's getting beaten or not.

That's what I saw a lot....

[Bormio]

9 minutes ago, RedZone said:

Not sure how great Ram/Chief was, but I did watch it all. Most of the time I fall asleep.

I think the level of QB play by some of these guys is off the charts this year.......and ,they ALL have great RBs. I think that's a big part of the equation too.

If you look at Brees throws from Sunday there are Eagles in pretty decent postions. You can't defend a lot of these balls coming from Brees and some of these other guys. It's virtually impossible unless you just stay in the faces of these QBs....get them off their game somehow. 

 

Brees is playing the best ball of his career - probably cause he has a running game.  He will deservedly win the MVP.

[AztecPadre]

16 hours ago, Bestcoast said:

I don’t watch the kneelers anymore 

Well then you missed out on a great fucking game.  It was awesome!!!

[AztecPadre]

15 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

This game sucks

Were we watching the same game?

[AztecPadre]

11 hours ago, DevilDog said:

The weather might play a part.  I hate em both. But I want Texas vs. WVU @ the Death Star for the Big 12 Championship. We already beat MobileHoma and owe WVU a beatdown.  I think it will be a very good game though and much like this unless snow hits the Coonskin wearers. 

I don't see it like that brother.  OU is going to win by at least 2 TD's.  Kyler Murray is the most exciting player to watch in CFB.  He is the real deal. 

[DevilDog]

25 minutes ago, AztecPadre said:

I don't see it like that brother.  OU is going to win by at least 2 TD's.  Kyler Murray is the most exciting player to watch in CFB.  He is the real deal. 

I want the toothless ones not the Mobile Home group.  We owe dem coon skin hat wearing homies a beat down.  Kyler is a traitor 🤣

[Texasball]

6 hours ago, RedZone said:

Not sure how great Ram/Chief was, but I did watch it all. Most of the time I fall asleep.

I think the level of QB play by some of these guys is off the charts this year.......and ,they ALL have great RBs. I think that's a big part of the equation too.

If you look at Brees throws from Sunday there are Eagles in pretty decent postions. You can't defend a lot of these balls coming from Brees and some of these other guys. It's virtually impossible unless you just stay in the faces of these QBs....get them off their game somehow. 

 

good post 

[Texasball]

15 hours ago, DevilDog said:

Damn My Boys can't score 54 pts in 3 games:  See ya Thursday as we beat down dem Damn DeadSkins. 

We got us a damn good LB in #55 for years to come!

[Texasball]

3 hours ago, AztecPadre said:

I don't see it like that brother.  OU is going to win by at least 2 TD's.  Kyler Murray is the most exciting player to watch in CFB.  He is the real deal. 

OU will probably win -  For me I don't want to give Oklahoma another chance to beat us until next year.  

[steeler01]

3 hours ago, AztecPadre said:

I don't see it like that brother.  OU is going to win by at least 2 TD's.  Kyler Murray is the most exciting player to watch in CFB.  He is the real deal. 

That youth league defense they put on the field will have to make 3 stops some how. 

[Texasball]

7 hours ago, Bormio said:

Mahomes has to learn to take care of the ball.  When you score as easy as they do, you forget that ball security matters.  It is crucial in the playoffs.  BTW, the Texans are balling.

He got raped from behind on the two fumbles.

The Int for TD - was on him 

The 2nd Int IMO was really bad play call.   No need to go play action in that situation dropping clear over to the right side of the offensive line.   Had he just been in the pocket - I believe all would have been good.

the 3rd int he got too desperate -  

The best player on the team catching that last punt was really damn stupid.

[Texasball]

Kansas will likely give Texas all they can handle.  

[ThunderRam]

14 hours ago, steeler01 said:

Agree, to many people are saying great great game, but it really wasn't. Just a score fest. I'd prefer the 28-24 game where the offenses are actually being challenged to score. Yesterday's game, was a couple of big play defensive plays and that's it for defense.

 

Totally agree. I believe some get too wrapped up in setting records and don’t seem to realize or just don’t want to admit that there are circumstances in play that make these seemingly amazing feats highly possible. 

In my viewing lifetime, I feel there are two different eras for the NFL, NBA and MLB. All three have succumbed to the pressure of TV ratings and drastically altered their rules to allow for higher scoring. 

The NFL era changed around 2003ish. MLB was late 90’s during the steroid/HGH rage. NBA was also early 2000’s when handchecking went bye bye.

I still follow and watch, but I can’t rightly compare players and teams from the 2 different eras because they played by drastically different rules and circumstances. Even the postseason structure is different allowing more teams in than ever before and more postseason games are played to amass more stats.

Times do change. But failing to recognize the differences is utterly naive IMO.

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Totally agree. I believe some get too wrapped up in setting records and don’t seem to realize or just don’t want to admit that there are circumstances in play that make these seemingly amazing feats highly possible. 

In my viewing lifetime, I feel there are two different eras for the NFL, NBA and MLB. All three have succumbed to the pressure of TV ratings and drastically altered their rules to allow for higher scoring. 

The NFL era changed around 2003ish. MLB was late 90’s during the steroid/HGH rage. NBA was also early 2000’s when handchecking went bye bye.

I still follow and watch, but I can’t rightly compare players and teams from the 2 different eras because they played by drastically different rules and circumstances. Even the postseason structure is different allowing more teams in than ever before and more postseason games are played to amass more stats.

Times do change. But failing to recognize the differences is utterly naive IMO.

I have a problem with this...how can they set records when it's the softest nfl to date. You can't compare today nfl to even 20 years ago. First time ever a team put up 50 an lost well thats gonna be the norm now. 

You shouldn't be allowed to compare your stats to the nfl of the past 

[Texasball]

Saints have scored 48, 51, 45 in the last 3 games. In 3 other games they have scored 43, 43, 40

in their only loss they scored 40

they won low scoring games vs Cleveland 21-18 and Ravens 24-23

They beat the Rams 45-35

personally - I think everyone is over reacting.  There are only hand full of teams capable of playing game like last night or at least willing to even try to play like this. Personally it is refreshing to see two teams go full throttle at one another.  

 

 

[ThunderRam]

3 hours ago, Texasball said:

personally - I think everyone is over reacting.  There are only hand full of teams capable of playing game like last night or at least willing to even try to play like this. Personally it is refreshing to see two teams go full throttle at one another. 

 

Just because only a handful of teams might have the capability doesn't then invalidate the point that it's still largely made possible by the constant rule changes. I think you're missing the point.

A large factor why there had never been such a high scoring game in the history of MNF (775 games or so) is because the old rules made the feat far less likely to occur. When numerous changes largely benefiting offenses make the feat 'more' likely to occur -- and then it occurs -- it should be taken with a grain of salt and not as some incredible accomplishment that somehow proves these players are greater than their predecessors. That's the point.

There's too much promoting of current day players/teams as all-time greats because their numbers look more impressive when they in fact aren't playing the same game. All these media outlets ram it down our throats to the point people just begin to accept it. Every week, game in and game out, we're seeing graphics and stats showing how these current players/teams rank higher than the old guard.

Monday's game was just another example. It's being to compared to all games of the past when there isn't a real comparison to be made.

There's no overreacting going on. Just acknowledging proper perspective of what we're really seeing.

When Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds hit 70 and 73 home runs respectively, I think many fans put those feats in proper perspective because they were made easier by the circumstances. But for some reason many fans aren't able to do the same under these circumstances. While not performance enhancing drugs, the rule changes have spiked production in a similar way.

[Bormio]

Actually I think it was only the 3rd highest scoring game of all-time - the Redskins beat the Giants many years ago 72-41 (115 points).  The emphasis on #s now is all tied up with fantasy football - which is a huge moneymaker for the NFL - if only indirectly.

[HSFBfan]

34 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Actually I think it was only the 3rd highest scoring game of all-time - the Redskins beat the Giants many years ago 72-41 (115 points).  The emphasis on #s now is all tied up with fantasy football - which is a huge moneymaker for the NFL - if only indirectly.

Young kids dont root for teams anymore. It's all about who they have on their fantasy teams. 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

10 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Totally agree. I believe some get too wrapped up in setting records and don’t seem to realize or just don’t want to admit that there are circumstances in play that make these seemingly amazing feats highly possible. 

In my viewing lifetime, I feel there are two different eras for the NFL, NBA and MLB. All three have succumbed to the pressure of TV ratings and drastically altered their rules to allow for higher scoring. 

The NFL era changed around 2003ish. MLB was late 90’s during the steroid/HGH rage. NBA was also early 2000’s when handchecking went bye bye.

I still follow and watch, but I can’t rightly compare players and teams from the 2 different eras because they played by drastically different rules and circumstances. Even the postseason structure is different allowing more teams in than ever before and more postseason games are played to amass more stats.

Times do change. But failing to recognize the differences is utterly naive IMO.

GOT DAMMIT, thank you for this freakin' post!!!

Nothing to add here....

BGW

[Texasball]

7 hours ago, ThunderRam said:

 

Just because only a handful of teams might have the capability doesn't then invalidate the point that it's still largely made possible by the constant rule changes. I think you're missing the point.

A large factor why there had never been such a high scoring game in the history of MNF (775 games or so) is because the old rules made the feat far less likely to occur. When numerous changes largely benefiting offenses make the feat 'more' likely to occur -- and then it occurs -- it should be taken with a grain of salt and not as some incredible accomplishment that somehow proves these players are greater than their predecessors. That's the point.

There's too much promoting of current day players/teams as all-time greats because their numbers look more impressive when they in fact aren't playing the same game. All these media outlets ram it down our throats to the point people just begin to accept it. Every week, game in and game out, we're seeing graphics and stats showing how these current players/teams rank higher than the old guard.

Monday's game was just another example. It's being to compared to all games of the past when there isn't a real comparison to be made.

There's no overreacting going on. Just acknowledging proper perspective of what we're really seeing.

When Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds hit 70 and 73 home runs respectively, I think many fans put those feats in proper perspective because they were made easier by the circumstances. But for some reason many fans aren't able to do the same under these circumstances. While not performance enhancing drugs, the rule changes have spiked production in a similar way.

Quick history for you guys.  They started changing the rules in the late 70’s for the better.  Go back and read stories about San Diego in the late 1970’s.

during that time they moved the hash marks in even with the goal post to give more room to throw and stopped allowing DB to maul receivers past 5 yards.  What major change have they made besides “hitting rules for safety of the players” since that time? 

Many of the offenses today are way harder to defend for example RPO’s / 4 and 5 wide on nearly every play and so much more- then what teams did in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and really some of the 2000’s.  That is the real difference.   The game is faster and played with better over all athletes only because of training and strength and conditioning practices of today vs way back then (not so much born with talent)

pull up videos of old games and refresh your memory of the way the game was played.  Like most things the games has progressed.

 

 

[maxchoboian]

4 minutes ago, Texasball said:

Quick history for you guys.  They started changing the rules in the late 70’s for the better.  Go back and read stories about San Diego in the late 1970’s.

No need to read any history. I watched the Chargers at least twice/year back then against Denver, and more when they were on national TV. Dan Fouts and Air Coryell were fun to watch, for me anyway. As was the Rams/Chiefs Monday night game, for me anyway. I also enjoy a good hard-hitting, defensive battle. Not too picky, other than just sloppy, inept play -- those games aren't as enjoyable.