NFL 2018 Season Starts Tonight

[Town Heretic]

They were more revelant than the Steelers this year. In fact, they defeated the World Champions twice this season. You are living in the past.

But then again, only the Patriots, Chiefs, Rams, and Saints fans aren't at present.

And, in general, only Pats fans have largely not had to for a while now.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Rumor is that Sean Payton will be the Cowboy's head coach next year.

 

[Idolater]

Not on that day

All other things being equal, which is rare in the NFL, their run game was weaker that game, and KC's was stronger, than today's teams. Don't forget Hunt's ~100 yards receiving out of the backfield that game also. How will KC replicate that? My guess is they won't.

And the NE defense is playing very well in their wins, and even in some losses, like at Pittsburgh. We can expect the defense to play a quality football game for their part.

, though you could as easily say, back before the Chiefs defense did a better job against the run and before the Pats had their hands team back and in good health

What? No Josh Gordon anymore. And Gronk is certainly a weaker receiver now than he was then, unless this is a ploy, which isn't beyond Belichick, although, I don't really believe that it is a ploy, and instead I believe that Gronk has lost something off his fastball, I believe as they say, wrt running routes, after being popped by a defender coming off the line, he can't maintain his routes as well now as he used to be able to do, so he's just not as reliable anymore as a target.

It could be a lingering injury of some sort, that'll require an offseason to heal fully, but it also could just be that he's pretty much done.

, taking pressure off the running game and opening the chance for New England to run better.

It's the opposite, the run game has revived the pass game. Or, it's parallel, but it's certainly not what you said.

It will be an interesting match up, to be sure.

Agreed. Even if it's a blowout, that's interesting.

Again, the Chiefs don't have to make Brady less than Brady.

No, but that certainly would be a good way to try to win the game.

They got no pressure on him the first time, but they also gave up the run like crazy.

See I would say here "and," but you say "but," and I wonder if it's why we aren't seeing the same things all the time.

And history tells us that a) Brady isn't as good on the road (almost no one is at the qb position)

I wonder how Brady and Montana's regular season passer ratings stack up against each other, home versus away.

and b) they only have to do a better job against the run, as they did with Indy.

So they have to do a better job against a running game that's grown stronger since the last time these teams met. Has the KC defense grown stronger, against the run or otherwise, since their October game, when the Patriots beat them?

It's really the Indy blueprint that only has to be a little more successful.

That's probably true, and I just remind you that NE teams are, all other things being equal, which is rare in the NFL, better disciplined teams than their opponents are, on the average.

Is KC inferior to NE wrt overall team discipline, which is the salient factor in whether a team does or does not play a quality football game, any given Sunday? I don't know that they're not. Any given Sunday, there are certain teams that you might not be surprised execute better than NE, but is KC one of those teams? Certainly Miami, NYJ, and Buffalo are not expected to play a better football game than the Pats do, that much is clear, but there's zero reason to think that their division's overall weakness somehow spills over into their extreme success against the rest of the NFL in the playoffs and in Super Bowls. Their weak division does not factor into it, and if anything, it's surprising they've been so successful outside their division, since they don't get much practice playing tougher competition within their own division.

Or, it's easier to believe the Chiefs will be a little better than to believe the Pats will be a lot better on the road.

The Chargers were undefeated on the road. The Team that changed that, is playing the Chiefs on Sunday.

It's weird how quickly everybody forgot how good the Chargers were this season, before they played the Patriots on Sunday. They were a solid team, no weaknesses, and they were bulletproof on the road. They ran into a Patriots team playing quality football, which is a testament to the talent that NE does have, even though they aren't the most talented team left in the playoffs right now.

This game will come down to which team plays a better game, and it's true that NE has played poorer on the road this year, and it's also true that they've played good football against each of their opponents who qualified for the playoffs.

The game between KC and NE was when KC was still undefeated. NE handed them their lunch in the first half, and then KC crept back into the game in the second half, took the lead once, and then, when the score was tied, the Pats beat them again. It was like they beat them twice in one game.

Probably the best thing he does for them now. Probably why he'll retire in the offseason too. His body is getting banged up.

"Getting?" :chuckle: Surely you jest. idk about retirement this year, but he's definitely not as good this year, but it could be a nagging injury that really needs an offseason to heal properly. He's had so many surgeries for such a young man, it's sad in some ways. He's really sacrificed his admittedly superlative body for football. That happens in professional sports of course, but I don't work in a profession where that's the norm, to play through so much pain and medical treatment, that is being caused by your choice of vocation directly. That's not where I work. It must be nice to work with men who are like that, in some ways. There's something almost military about that---almost.

The Chargers played a horrible game, top to bottom. And NE looked like the Pats playing at home, after a good rest and with time aplenty to work on a game plan against a banged up opponent suffering nerves. That's not going to be KC in any sense.

Except it's going to be the same team playing against them as played against LAC, but other than that, yeah. The Chargers competed for the number 1 seed in the AFC this season and almost got it. They and KC were the two teams who impressed most this season in the AFC. They split their season series with KC. NE played KC and won. Then they played LAC and just smoked them. Now they're going to play KC again, and they're stronger now, and KC's weaker now, than the last time, when NE already won. And as I said, NE arguably already beat them twice in that one game.

I don't see evidence that NE is a stronger team now

Then you don't watch football. NE is playing like a team that is very disciplined, like a veteran team, making few mistakes, and executing to the full limit of their talents, which all other things being equal, they aren't as talented, but in the NFL it's rare that all other things are equal, and it's so in this case that all other things are not equal. NE's talent level isn't as high as other teams, but not all teams reliably play quality football games like NE does, and that means all other things are not equal, and so more talented teams can and do falter against NE more frequently than you'd think, before this whole run began. If there's a moneyball aspect to this, it's focus upon execution and discipline, and having a QB with a strong arm.

But also, whenever you have either an O-line or a D-line with superlative numbers, it's because that line is composed of stronger men on the average than the rest of the league, and so what's become clearer over the course of the season is that NE has a very physically strong O-line.

and "triumphed" is a silly way to describe a fg win at home against a team that put over 400 yds on you.

You don't need to be passive aggressive, I'm not being passive aggressive to you.

If Vegas agreed they'd call it a push.

Do you understand what I said or not?

Giving KC a 3 pt edge would be like giving NE a push at home.

On a neutral field. I said that 3 pts is the homefield advantage, so on a neutral field, this game's a push. I disagree and think that the Pats will win by six. I'm feeling 29-23 Pats. I think it's more likely that it's a dominating game for NE than that KC keeps it closer or wins outright, but, of course, "any given Sunday" and all that---'could be wrong!

Nobody wanted Indy late.

I agree. I picked Indy to beat KC. I would have rather had NE at home for the AFC championship game all other things being equal, but I liked NE against KC better than NE against Indy, so this has turned out OK.

Arguably the best offensive line in football

NE's O-line is formidable, KC's going to have their hands full.

, a hot and very talented qb, a running game and a defense that had surprised people. KC took them apart.

Or Indy laid an egg. I think it was a bit of both. Indy didn't play as quality a football game as they needed to to win, and I think the Pats' chances of playing better than Indy did are very good. It doesn't mean I have a crystal ball, but from where I'm setting, the chances are pretty good that all talk of how badly NE played on the road this season, and how Brady's unproven in road playoff games, will cease by late Sunday night.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Most of the teams that played a traveling NE beat the Pats. 5-3.

If you have sufficient talent and can execute reliably in tough conditions, then any given NFL team can be beaten with simple game plans, but the execution isn't ever guaranteed, and sometimes you don't have the talent edge in every match-up on the field. If KC is more talented overall than is NE right now, then I don't think that it's by much, and I think NE has the edge in discipline so much, that it will overwhelm their disadvantage of having to play in Arrowhead's noise; that will last only until NE begins to pull away from the Chiefs, and with each subsequent KC drive ending in punts and interceptions, the crowd will become less and less of a factor in the game.

Who were those powerhouses that took care of the Pats? The Jags, Lions, Titans, Steelers, Dolphins.

The Steelers and Titans almost made the playoffs. But did you see the powerhouses the Pats took care of? KC was among them.

20, 10, 10, 10...that's how many points Brady and company put up on the road against those guys. They did manage 25 on the lowly Bills. 27 on the Jets. They had exactly one road game where they looked like they could bring it, against the Bears.

Then you didn't watch that game. That was an unconventional win. They didn't 'look like they could bring it,' they just won the game, or the Bears helped themselves lose it. It wasn't a great game.

Then they fell back to 10 against the Steelers.

That was a close game.

NE's success is predicated on a couple of things. First, they've played in a trash division for almost all of Brady's tenure, meaning they get a big playoff edge for home field, where they are deadly.

That's not what it means at all. What it might mean, is that they tend to arrive at the playoffs in better shape than teams that have bruising opponents within their own division, such as the NFC East, which regularly has two-to-four legitimately tough teams vying for top billing and a wild card. We saw Philly come out of that division last year, and playing in the NFC East obviously didn't hurt their chances to win a championship last year since they in fact did win it. Maybe it's actually a weakness of NE's, that they can't regularly play better teams within their division, and had there been even just one decent rivalry in the AFC East, NE would have won even more SB's than they did?

Second, they have arguably the best coach in the game and an all-time great qb executing his gameplan.

Consistently great coaching will win a lot of games. Playing most of your playoff games at home coupled with that coaching will create dynasties.


I'd agree that Reid has something to prove, but before this year he had solid tools to work with. This is the first time he's had a qb with this level of talent. It takes a lot of pressure off. And he has a different and more experienced staff around him.


You need to reexamine the box score. They went against a better line

How are you determining that Indy's line is better than NE's?

and a qb with more physical talent at this stage of the game.

Do you think that his arm is stronger than Brady's?

They shut them down, played a team no one wanted and schemed their defense brilliantly. As I noted, their averages were top five. They ran the ball and used the passing game to keep the defense honest. It was a very different approach for KC. And that approach is exactly what they need against the Pats.

So, what if the Pats shut down the run, so that passing plays can't sneak up on the defense?

By a point and when the Chiefs were coasting late.

They both wound up tied for the top season record in the AFC, with KC only technically winning the division because of a tiebreaker. What do you mean that the Chiefs were "coasting?"

The Broncos beat those same Chargers by a point in LA. It happens. KC beat those same Chargers by 10 and on the road earlier. I tend to look at the rule and not the exception when considering how a team is likely to play.

The Chargers were 9-0 on the road coming into Foxboro, that was "the rule" for them. They had a strong team, and had been playing quality football all season long. One thing changed their trajectory, the same thing that will be playing KC this Sunday, the Pats.

Now that's just nuts. They're playing better defense, their qb has more experience, and the running game is back.

If they're playing better defense, then that's stronger, but their running game is weaker, Hunt made them stronger, and without Hunt they are weaker. As for their QB having "more experience," I'm not sure that a single full season plus a playoff game is much different from having played five regular season games, but we can agree to disagree.

This is a better team.

I disagree. I don't see it.

The Pats are playing better at home than they did early in the year, but they won't be at home this weekend.

They play quality football games against playoff teams. That's KC's problem, home or away.

He threw two picks in their loss to the Pats by that fg. In that game Tom threw zero picks.

That's true. I anticipate at least one interception by Mahomes, and I'm pretty sure he'll actually throw another two in this game like he did in Foxboro, just because he's got some Favresque wildness to him.

Nick Foles ended up Noles for some reason.

Right.

I was going to be happy either way, because I liked both teams and both qbs. Great story to be had with either.


We disagree again, since he put that pass right on the hands of his wr, a guy who is usually money.

Then why don't you credit Brady more for SB 42? Because this happened to Brady numerous times in that game against NYG, not just once like in this game. Brady threw strikes, put the ball in the hands of or between the numbers of receivers who were open, and they just, dropped them. But it's all you can do to point out how Brady's to blame for losing with that team, because of how great an offense they were that year. It was uncharacteristic how 'droppy' his receivers were that game. If you're going to pin that loss on something less than the whole team, then it was the receivers who lost it for them, and not Brady.

He was leading them back to a win.

No he wasn't. He and they were going to lose that game, they did lose that game. Believe me. I would have loved to have watched a 19-0 Patriots 2007 season, but I did not.

It took an uncharacteristic mistake and a solid defensive play to stop it. But both of these teams looked like SB bound contenders. Great game and a showcase for an improved Saints defense.

The Saints won't face an equally talented defense (assuming they survive the Rams) in either KC or NE, and Brees can (in a dome) match and out play either opposing qb he'll face.

I don't agree. If the Pats defense shows up, then they'll be all NO can handle, and will limit the Saints to 21 points. And I don't think Brees outplays Brady in that game, but I do expect them to be matched.

They're capable, but it's a tough and uphill road. And both teams are built to beat the Pats, so you'd better hope for a Saints/KC showdown and a SB with a BIG over/under.

Why would I hope for a SB involving KC? And both the Rams and the Saints can be felled by the Pats, if the Pats execute and play quality football.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The biggest problem for the Chiefs will be Bill Belicheat!

 

[Town Heretic]

All other things being equal, which is rare in the NFL, their run game was weaker that game, and KC's was stronger, than today's teams. Don't forget Hunt's ~100 yards receiving out of the backfield that game also. How will KC replicate that? My guess is they won't.

They won't try to. Different gameplan. Their tight end will be trouble for you, but my thinking is that they run more and watch your run. That's the blueprint for beating the Pats, as I noted statistically.

And the NE defense is playing very well in their wins, and even in some losses, like at Pittsburgh. We can expect the defense to play a quality football game for their part.

The Pat's defense at home has averaged an allowance of 312.5 yds per game.
On the road they've given up an average of 405.4 per game.
At home they've allowed 14 tds by opposing offenses.
On the road they've allowed 22 tds.

Or, you're looking at why more than a few people have doubted NE away from Foxboro this year.

What? No Josh Gordon anymore. And Gronk is certainly a weaker receiver now than he was then, unless this is a ploy, which isn't beyond Belichick, although, I don't really believe that it is a ploy, and instead I believe that Gronk has lost something off his fastball, I believe as they say, wrt running routes, after being popped by a defender coming off the line, he can't maintain his routes as well now as he used to be able to do, so he's just not as reliable anymore as a target.

I was noting Brady's longer standing go to being out for the first four games. Gordon was great, but only really gave them two outstanding games. One against Chicago and another against Green Bay. So game planning without him isn't a back breaker for New England.

It's the opposite, the run game has revived the pass game. Or, it's parallel, but it's certainly not what you said.

Back at you in reverse. :chuckle:

No, but that certainly would be a good way to try to win the game.

I don't see it as necessary unless this version of Brady suddenly looks like the younger version and not like the Brady of this year, who just hasn't wowed on the road. He's only gone over 300 twice on the road, and one of those was against Miami late.

I wonder how Brady and Montana's regular season passer ratings stack up against each other, home versus away.

I'd hope for Tom's sake that they're uneven in favor of him, given the different and qb/wr friendly rules Brady played under and the weak division he had to pummel repeatedly, but I 'd imagine they're close.

So they have to do a better job against a running game that's grown stronger since the last time.

No, because they played the home team then, and nearly beat them. Now, they're playing the road Pats. That hasn't been the same animal, offensively or defensively. And that's before we take your word for the Pats having a diminished passing attack, even without the added reduction of Tom's play on the road.

Has the KC defense grown stronger, against the run or otherwise, since their October game, when the Patriots beat them?

Yes, as it turns out. Their game against Indy pointed that out well enough.

Is KC inferior to NE wrt overall team discipline, which is the salient factor in whether a team does or does not play a quality football game, any given Sunday? I don't know that they're not. Any given Sunday, there are certain teams that you might not be surprised execute better than NE, but is KC one of those teams? Certainly Miami, NYJ, and Buffalo are not expected to play a better football game than the Pats do, that much is clear, but there's zero reason to think that their division's overall weakness somehow spills over into their extreme success against the rest of the NFL in the playoffs and in Super Bowls.

Well, you're wrong, because that success against weaker teams gives them home field advantage throughout the playoffs often enough. And the Super Bowl performances have been less than dominating on average. The first three were decided by fgs. Two were lost to inferior teams. One required one of the most bone headed offensive calls in SB history and another win a historical offensive collapse on the part of the Falcons.

It's a great win/loss record overall, but when you look into it, not exactly a fearsome contemplation. Impressive, but one as easily molded in another direction. Or, their greatness rests on an oft repeated, but largely thin margin.

The Chargers were undefeated on the road. The Team that changed that, is playing the Chiefs on Sunday.

The Chargers went a distance they were unfamiliar with and it showed. I've yet to see anyone seriously examining the game who isn't critical of both the execution and the defensive game plan. It was a bad day in just about every way for them. Some of that was NE, but a good bit wasn't. We can break that down if you like.

It's weird how quickly everybody forgot how good the Chargers were this season, before they played the Patriots on Sunday.

I spent a lot of the season noting how strong and balanced they were. But when you take a team without a history of post season success into the lair of a team that has one of the best home field advantages (no home field loss in six years of playoffs prior), give that team's coach (an all time great) a couple of weeks to prepare a welcome, well, most people saw those Chargers for what they were, a strong underdog. I think it's a credit to the Bolt's talent that they were only a 4 pt dog.

This game will come down to which team plays a better game, and it's true that NE has played poorer on the road this year, and it's also true that they've played good football against each of their opponents who qualified for the playoffs.

Teams tend to be who they are. On average that should mean the end of this year's run for New England, but given the cold and the newness of this position for KC I wouldn't and don't count NE out.

Have to go for a bit. I'll tackle the rest later. :cheers:

You don't need to be passive aggressive, I'm not being passive aggressive to you.

I actually meant that literally. lain:

Do you understand what I said or not?

Maybe not, but I have a hard time with homerisms.

On a neutral field. I said that 3 pts is the homefield advantage, so on a neutral field, this game's a push. I disagree and think that the Pats will win by six. I'm feeling 29-23 Pats. I think it's more likely that it's a dominating game for NE than that KC keeps it closer or wins outright, but, of course, "any given Sunday" and all that---'could be wrong!

I hope it's a whale of a game, but I won't be surprised if it's one sided. NE has only really managed that one of eight on the road this year. Maybe lightning will strike again.

I agree. I picked Indy to beat KC. I would have rather had NE at home for the AFC championship game all other things being equal, but I liked NE against KC better than NE against Indy, so this has turned out OK.

I did until that game, cooked the late numbers to justify it, but if you looked at the season it worked out about like it should.

NE's O-line is formidable, KC's going to have their hands full.

All they have to do is catch the running game. It's not really that much about pressuring Brady. They were almost even without managing either in New England. So a little at home will be plenty, if the numbers/averages play out.

Or Indy laid an egg.

Luck held to 203 yds? He's not a streaky qb. The running game suffered because KC took a solid first half lead and Indy had to try to pass their way back in, which made it easier for KC to sit on routes and leave their front to mind the line.

I think it was a bit of both. Indy didn't play as quality a football game as they needed to to win, and I think the Pats' chances of playing better than Indy did are very good.

Not on the road, on average, but anything's possible. They have one of the greatest schemers in NFL history. If anyone can, it will be them.

If you have sufficient talent and can execute reliably in tough conditions, then any given NFL team can be beaten with simple game plans, but the execution isn't ever guaranteed, and sometimes you don't have the talent edge in every match-up on the field. If KC is more talented overall than is NE right now, then I don't think that it's by much, and I think NE has the edge in discipline so much, that it will overwhelm their disadvantage of having to play in Arrowhead's noise; that will last only until NE begins to pull away from the Chiefs, and with each subsequent KC drive ending in punts and interceptions, the crowd will become less and less of a factor in the game.

To me that reads like fan fiction written in New England. Anything is possible, but less is probable.

The Steelers and Titans almost made the playoffs.

I almost won the lottery once...but I didn't.

But did you see the powerhouses the Pats took care of? KC was among them.

Did you notice that they had more trouble with Indy than KC did, took care of KC by 3 pts, and did none of that as a road team?

Then you didn't watch that game.

I'm talking about scoring a large number of points and beating a playoff caliber team on the road. If you want to scrape some luster off of it, I'm okay with that.

That's not what it means at all.

It absolutely is. Literally everything I wrote is observably, rationally true. They played most of his career in a division without any of the teams fielding a great qb, or even particularly good ones for the most part. The Bills haven't scared anyone since Kelly. The Jets have been hoping for a long time. Sanchez was as close as they got and petered out in short order. Miami hasn't had an answer since Marino. It's a dream position for a team that knows how to win, has a great qb and a master class coach.

It made their path to home field advantage much more likely, easier. And that advantage, especially against warmer weather teams, outside of their division, has been a real advantage over time.

Maybe it's actually a weakness of NE's, that they can't regularly play better teams within their division, and had there been even just one decent rivalry in the AFC East, NE would have won even more SB's than they did?

That's just not reasonable. Everyone plays tough opponents at some point in their schedule. The advantage remains, which is every college team in a tough conference schedules easy opponents otherwise.

How are you determining that Indy's line is better than NE's?

Watching the games, mostly. But it's close. I think that during their run their line was outplaying NE's. That said, looking at the numbers, Football Outsiders stats analysis has it Indy at 4 as a run blocking line and 2nd at pass protection. New England? Third and 1st, respectively. So it's that close. And KC handled them.

Do you think that his arm is stronger than Brady's?

I do, though not by much. Luck is getting back into form and Brady is in decline. They're passing one another. Tom was second to last in off target throws this year (Trubisky was worse) and that's usually about a qb at his age pushing harder to get the same general velocity. It changes his motion and leads to more miscues.

Or, as Ruiz put it for USAtoday, "Only Mitch Trubisky has been less accurate than Brady this season! The most precise quarterback we’ve ever seen has been one of the least precise quarterbacks in 2018. Based on that alone, it’s fair to speculate that, at 41, Brady might’ve lost a few MPH off his fastball."

And he's not alone. Ron Jaworski also noted that Tom is throwing more rainbows and has lost some of his fastball. TMZ 12/23/2018

So, what if the Pats shut down the run, so that passing plays can't sneak up on the defense?

A lot of the run can come from Mahomes, or should. If they move him a lot he'll help the running game and/or constitute a large part of it.

They both wound up tied for the top season record in the AFC, with KC only technically winning the division because of a tiebreaker. What do you mean that the Chiefs were "coasting?"

They looked like a team with their foot off the gas. Or maybe it was a bad patch. Every team gets one of those, unless they're a juggernaut, like the old Bears team with Singletary.

The Chargers were 9-0 on the road coming into Foxboro, that was "the rule" for them.

Then the warm coast team came to a rested cold weather team with weeks to prepare and the best coach going to prepare them. A team with a six year unbeaten streak at home in the playoffs.

If they're playing better defense, then that's stronger, but their running game is weaker, Hunt made them stronger, and without Hunt they are weaker.

They're averaging more rushing yds per game since Hunt left, though there's no denying losing a player of his caliber (and ability as a set of hands out of the backfield) isn't a plus).

As for their QB having "more experience," I'm not sure that a single full season plus a playoff game is much different from having played five regular season games, but we can agree to disagree

I don't know of any athlete playing a skill position who would agree that's reasonable, but if that's what you think it's what you think.

I disagree. I don't see it.

Maybe you don't want to? I'll admit I'm ready for a changing of the guard, but it's not as though I'm a Chiefs' fan (that's Jack's deal). At this point I'm more interested in stories. Now if the Rams could beat the Saints the NE/Rams match up could be really interesting, but I think this one will be Brees taking a shot at joining the larger GOAT conversation against the boy who might be king.

That's true. I anticipate at least one interception by Mahomes

They'll need more than that. They got more the last time and it got them a win by the skin of their kicker's teeth.

Then why don't you credit Brady more for SB 42?

They ran into a terrific defense in the first meeting. That can give wrs alligator arms from time to time. Dropped passes were more of a problem in the rematch. But you don't come into a game with a historically dominant offense and do what Tom and company did. Or you shouldn't.

I don't agree. If the Pats defense shows up, then they'll be all NO can handle, and will limit the Saints to 21 points. And I don't think Brees outplays Brady in that game, but I do expect them to be matched.

If NE gets NO Brees will get to play the junior Manning.

Why would I hope for a SB involving KC? And both the Rams and the Saints can be felled by the Pats, if the Pats execute and play quality football.

Anyone left standing can beat the other guy. There's no team head and shoulders above the rest, though the Saints are the closest to that on paper.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here are my picks for Sunday and I might get lucky and finally get one right. After all, a broken clock shows the right time twice during a 24 hour period.

At New Orleans -3 LA Rams

I gotta go with NO because they are hard to beat at home and besides that, Brees has more experience playing in big games, having already been at the helm for one Super Bowl Victory. So I give the three points and expect to see the Saints marching into Atlanta.


At Kansas City -3 New England

Here I got to go with my boy from Texas Tech, Patrick Mahomes. He just has too much talent for the Patriots to handle. Besides that, the resurgent pass rush for the Chiefs will play havoc on old man Brady, especially on his brittle bones in the cold weather. And all of Belicheat's horses and all of his kings won't be able to put Brady back together again.

 

[WizardofOz]

Saints and Pats. -3 is simply for playing at home so both lines are really a wash. I agree that playing in New Orleans should be all it takes for the Saints to win and I believe comfortably given their advantages in nearly all fazes.

I really do not want the Patriots in another SB but I'd be a fool to bet against them against a first year starter (MVP mind you), even if it's on the road. And, Andy Reid.

I think they'll both be really good games with KC v NE coming down to the wire in a cold game. I want KC vs. New Orleans but I think it'll be NO vs NE

Saints 37
Rams 27

KC 17
Pats 23

 

[Town Heretic]

Sorry, but I had to move your scores around a bit. Force of habit. The home team is always second with me, or on the bottom if you're doing it that way.

Rams 27, Saints 37

Rams 35, Saints 38

A three or four pt game is the most statistically likely outcome, meaning it could be a late decision. If NO can get out early it's over. If not...hold onto the couch cushions.

Pats 23, KC 17,

Is it possible? Hard to make that work with this years numbers, but if it was cold enough and that impacted the passing game enough for the Chiefs...

Statistically, I like the Chiefs by more than the 3 pt line. New England has been bad on the road six out of eight times this year, and the two where they weren't were a game against a headless Bills and the Chicago game. If it wasn't for that latter game I'm betting the line would be closer to six in favor of the Chiefs. Chicago gave people hope or the jitters, depending on your camp.

NE 22, KC 31

It's more likely that Mahomes and company will play like they tend to play at home, where their average win is by 14 and a half-ish.
The Pats? They've tended to lose on the road and have an overall -2 against opponents there. So as nervous as casting them in a strong underdog spot has to make anyone (we're all creatures of habit and defenders of pattern) the fact is that last year isn't this year and the likely outcome is that KC handles New England by near double digits or better.

 

[tetelestai]

Chiefs 35
Patriots 17

Rams 42
Saints 40

 

[Town Heretic]

Just to keep it organized (and feel free to get particular with your prediction, Jerry):

NE @ KC

NE 17, KC 35 (tet)
NE 23, KC 17 (WoZ)
NE 22, KC 31 (TH)
NE 27, KC 26 oddsshark
NE 31, KC 27 bleacher

Rams @ NO

Rams 42, NO 40 (tet)
Rams 27, NO 37 (WoZ)
Rams 35, NO 38 (TH)
Rams 21, NO 27 oddsshark
Rams 26, NO 31 bleacher

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just to keep it organized (and feel free to get particular with your prediction, Jerry)

I just have a hard time believing that NE can win this game, especially considering the good info you provided about their play on the road. Plus, the skills and ability of Patrick Mahomes will overwhelm them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Saints were robbed of a trip to the Super Bowl by the worse non-call in the history of the play-off!

Pitiful!!!

 

[Town Heretic]

The Saints were robbed of a trip to the Super Bowl by the worse non-call in the history of the play-off!

Pitiful!!!

The second red zone miscue that cost them by that crew. But at least the talking heads recognized it. I think it was Boomer. Sick for Brees and company, though on the other side of it, you don't get to the red zone three times early and walk away with 9 pts either.

Now we're in OT with NE. The Pats playing their best road ball of the year; the Chiefs playing their worst home half of the year, and then coming to life late. Hopefully they'll get a chance. Brady has a chance to end it with Mahomes standing on the sideline. The way the Chiefs are playing now, he'd better.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The chance of the Rams beating the Pats in the Super Bowl is practically nil!

But I haven't been right about any of these games since the stone age!

 

[tetelestai]

Brady led the Patriots to 3 TD's, on his final 3 possessions.

Anyone who claims Brady isn't the GOAT is fooling themselves.

Brady will now be the starting QB in his 9th Super Bowl. That is more Super Bowl appearances than any other franchise in the NFL.

That's more Super Bowl appearances than Terry Bradshaw & Joe Montana combined.

That's more Super Bowl appearances than John Elway & Peyton Manning combined.

Again, anyone who claims Brady is not the GOAT is fooling themselves.

 

[drbrumley]

was told NE ranked to high in my polls.....phewy…. LOL

 

[Town Heretic]

The chance of the Rams beating the Pats in the Super Bowl is practically nil!

But I haven't been right about any of these games since the stone age!

It's a great storyline, like Halley's comet coming back. The Pats started their run against the Rams, now an aged Brady returns to that game with a young Rams looking to start their own.

Could be a whale of a game.


The biggest thing I take away from watching this game was a different feeling about the Pats. I've long admired the coach and held their qb in high esteem, but I have to say I feel differently about them after this one. I've resented them for a while for the reasons proffered, but good grief, what they just did has to win your respect. I saw a creaky, aging set of stars scratch and scrape, scheme and survive.

I'm impressed in a way I wasn't before. I have to tell you, I admire that team. I won't be rooting against them in the SB. I'm mostly fascinated at this point, wondering if they have enough left for a last hurrah against a very, very talented challenger.

Brady led the Patriots to 3 TD's, on his final 3 possessions.

Anyone who claims Brady isn't the GOAT is fooling themselves.

Well, he isn't, but it was a heck of a contest. Montana is the GOAT for the numerous reasons cited more than once. The Chiefs defense largely looked like they had earlier in the year and the Pats played their best road game of the year tonight. Bill had a first rate game plan.

I wish them well. Remarkable thing.

That's more Super Bowl appearances than Terry Bradshaw & Joe Montana combined.

Getting to SBs is a team accomplishment, not an individual one. What you do when you get there, how you play your position is the thing. And Montana is the best to ever do that. It's not even close.

Now, beyond that, I rest on my last. Impressed. Good for them.

 

[drbrumley]

The chance of the Rams beating the Pats in the Super Bowl is practically nil!

But I haven't been right about any of these games since the stone age!

I wouldn't go that far, but that's why they play the game..

 

[tetelestai]

The chance of the Rams beating the Pats in the Super Bowl is practically nil!

That's what they said in 2001 about the Patriots chances against the Rams. The Rams were 14 point favorites.

But I haven't been right about any of these games since the stone age!

You mean the Tom Landry era?

 

[tetelestai]

Montana is the GOAT for the numerous reasons cited more than once.

If Brady continues to win, your premise is going to die.