NFL Comments for 2024

[Mr.TaterSalad]

17 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

Thought we were finally done hearing about this clown.  

 

 

Only the very best people speak at rallies for certain people. If you know, you know.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I've seen these threads about what rules should be changed or eliminated. I'm not going to make a thread on this topic and I know I've brought this up before. However, division winners should not get automatic playoff births. Division winners should at minimum not be slotted in one of the top 4 seeds and the actual 4 best records in a conference should be a top 4 seed. I really believe though that the top 7 teams in each conference should be the ones that make the playoffs and should be slotted in their seed based off of their overall record and then any tiebreakers necessary.

Teams with losing records have no business making the playoffs. Teams in weak divisions, like the AFC and NFC South divisions have been over the few years shouldn't automatically be slotted into a top 4 seed. I liked that the Lions proposed a change this offseason to have the best 4 teams, not the 4 division winners, get the top playoff seedings in a conference.

[Motown Bombers]

The division winners should get the 1-4 seeds, but it shouldn't guarantee home field advantage. That means Minnesota would have still been the 5th seed and home field against the Rams. They had the same record as the Eagles so whoever won that tiebreaker would get home field if Minnesota advanced. 

[RedRamage]

I disagree with this. Especially in the NFL with so few games, it's impossible to truly rank teams. Factors like injuries to key players at different points in the year, non-common opponents, potentially uneven home-away status even among common opponents, and schedules made specifically matching uneven opponents depending on last years record... these all add up to making it very hard to really say if Team A, that finished with a better record than Team B, who won their division, would really have had the better record if they'd played the same schedule at Team B.

Because of this winning your division, were your schedule is very, very similar to all division mates, and where you've saved each division mate twice, should be rewarded with a high seed. Winning your division is what matters, the wild card slots are just for teams that also had really good years, but weren't good enough to win their division. It's a consolation prize for coming in second (or third). 

Now of course there will be instances in system where "unfair" playoff seedings happen. Last year was a good sign of this where the 10-7 Bucs got home field and the 14-3 Vikings went on the road. The Vikings played in the toughest division in the NFL while the Bucs were in one of the worst (two 5-12 teams, and a third team that finished under .500). But any system used to rank teams will occasionally have weird instances and this is even more true in the NFL with it's super short schedule.

So again: Win your division and you get a home playoff game. If you're not good enough to win your division but you still had a good year you might be good enough for a consolation prize.

[lordstanley]

On 6/19/2025 at 7:51 AM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

However, division winners should not get automatic playoff births.

Then what's the point of divisions? The NFL plays an unbalanced schedule, and depending on how strong are the other teams in your division and the out-of-division schedule matchups that one's division is linked to, a 9-8 in one division can be as impressive as 10-7 in another division. Seed a division winner low if you want, based on their record, but don't completely keep them out of the playoffs. Otherwise, might as well have every team play every other team in their conference (15 games) plus 2 non-conference games and rank the conference teams #1 through #16 by record.

Edited June 20 by lordstanley

[Mr.TaterSalad]

7 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Then what's the point of divisions? The NFL plays an unbalanced schedule, and depending on how strong are the other teams in your division and the out-of-division schedule matchups that one's division is linked to, a 9-8 in one division can be as impressive as 10-7 in another division. Seed a division winner low if you want, based on their record, but don't completely keep them out of the playoffs. Otherwise, might as well have every team play every other team in their conference (15 games) plus 2 non-conference games and rank the conference teams #1 through #16 by record.

The point of a division in my mind is to have division rivalry games and hold longstanding geographical rivals together. I'd be ok with divisionless conferences though.

Why should teams with losing records, in weak divisions, be rewarded with a playoff birth for playing in a bad division and not even breaking the .500 record mark?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

On 6/19/2025 at 3:08 PM, RedRamage said:

I disagree with this. Especially in the NFL with so few games, it's impossible to truly rank teams. Factors like injuries to key players at different points in the year, non-common opponents, potentially uneven home-away status even among common opponents, and schedules made specifically matching uneven opponents depending on last years record... these all add up to making it very hard to really say if Team A, that finished with a better record than Team B, who won their division, would really have had the better record if they'd played the same schedule at Team B.

Because of this winning your division, were your schedule is very, very similar to all division mates, and where you've saved each division mate twice, should be rewarded with a high seed. Winning your division is what matters, the wild card slots are just for teams that also had really good years, but weren't good enough to win their division. It's a consolation prize for coming in second (or third). 

Now of course there will be instances in system where "unfair" playoff seedings happen. Last year was a good sign of this where the 10-7 Bucs got home field and the 14-3 Vikings went on the road. The Vikings played in the toughest division in the NFL while the Bucs were in one of the worst (two 5-12 teams, and a third team that finished under .500). But any system used to rank teams will occasionally have weird instances and this is even more true in the NFL with it's super short schedule.

So again: Win your division and you get a home playoff game. If you're not good enough to win your division but you still had a good year you might be good enough for a consolation prize.

So 7-9 Seattle in 2010 deserved to make the playoffs over two teams that were 10-6 in the Bucs and Giants simply because they won the worst division in football that year?

Edited June 21 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

I'm not going to get worked up about an anomaly that happened 15 years ago. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm not going to get worked up about an anomaly that happened 15 years ago. 

So the 8-9 Bucs deserved to make it in 2022 over the Lions who had a better record that year?

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Mr.TaterSalad said:

So the 8-9 Bucs deserved to make it in 2022 over the Lions who had a better record that year?

The Bucs rested their starters the final game. It's possible they would have been 9-8 too. I don't think Seattle deserved to be in it over Detroit because the Lions were the better team by the end of the year but head to head matters. The Lions likely lose that first played game to the 49ers. 

[Jason_R]

Yes, division winners should get an automatic playoff berth. 

But if a division winner does not have a winning record, I like the idea of re-seeding for the purpose of assigning home playoff games.  

[sagnam]

Steelers traded Fitzpatrick to the Dolphins for Ramsey and Jonnu Smith. That’s a weird trade. Fitzpatrick is younger and plays a position that has a longer shelf life.

 

interestingly my gut reaction was that the Dolphins got the better end but looking up performance I guess I was overvaluing Fitzpatrick and undervaluing Ramsey.

Edited June 30 by sagnam

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, sagnam said:

Steelers traded Fitzpatrick to the Dolphins for Ramsey and Jonnu Smith. That’s a weird trade. Fitzpatrick is younger and plays a position that has a longer shelf life.

 

interestingly my gut reaction was that the Dolphins got the better end but looking up performance I guess I was overvaluing Fitzpatrick and undervaluing Ramsey.

My gut feeling was the Steeler front office got ahold of some bad weed from Coulter. (The Rooney's original stomping grounds)

[RandyMarsh]

Always weird in this day and age to see proven players in any sport just traded straight up 1 for 1 with no salary or draft picks factored in and miss them. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Hongbit]

8 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Even Jags, Bengals, and Browns fans are laughing. 

Kevin Warren is a such a fraud.  Good on him for constantly securing all these high level leadership positions without an ounce of acumen. 

Edited Friday at 07:05 PM by Hongbit

[MichiganCardinal]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Poles’ agent saw a 7-10 season and a hot seat on his horizon.

[Motown Bombers]

Honestly, I thought Poles was on the hot seat now. He had two years left. This should have been his prove it years. 

[MichiganCardinal]

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Honestly, I thought Poles was on the hot seat now. He had two years left. This should have been his prove it years. 

He should have probably been fired with Eberflus, or at least after the season. If you’re going to keep him though it’s hard to have him immediately on a hot seat with a new first-time head coach.

But some teams will never learn, and I’m okay with it.

[Jason_R]

Nothing against Ben Johnson but I think people underestimate contributions to the offense by Campbell and Goff. I'm not expecting the Bears to do much more than tread water. 

[MichiganCardinal]

2 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Nothing against Ben Johnson but I think people underestimate contributions to the offense by Campbell and Goff. I'm not expecting the Bears to do much more than tread water. 

I agree. I feel like people, particularly those who haven't been watching closely, see the Lions offensive success and correlate it entirely to Johnson, as if the Lions haven't gone 39-21-1 since Dan Campbell relieved Anthony Lynn of play calling duties in 2021. Ben Johnson predated Dan Campbell's time in Detroit, and it's not like his impact as OQCC or Tight Ends Coach was revolutionary in 2019-2021. I can distinctly remember that it wasn't even a sure thing that Ben Johnson would call plays in 2022, until the week before the opener against the Eagles.

Ben Johnson is a product of the Dan Campbell coaching tree, not the other way around. And the thing with that analogy is that the tree will continue to grow. The question is whether the product will develop into a tree as well. I have serious doubts that the mess he is surrounded by in Chicago will grow into anything sustainable, but I have been wrong before.

[RandyMarsh]

People also understate the importance of Dan's aggressiveness. Once they got to the 50 or sometimes even before that he basically gave Ben 4 downs to play with. That is a major advantage, it allowed him to try plays early in downs or run it on 2nd or 3rd and long. The entire playbook was always open thanks to that and it made defenses play honest.

 

[Motown Bombers]

I'm curious to see what Johnson's offense looks like when he has a QB that's the exact opposite of Goff. Goff was more involved in the offense than people give him credit for. Can Williams make the changes at the line like Goff? The Lions offense is big on rhythm and timing, something Williams struggled with. 

[sagnam]

7 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm curious to see what Johnson's offense looks like when he has a QB that's the exact opposite of Goff. Goff was more involved in the offense than people give him credit for. Can Williams make the changes at the line like Goff? The Lions offense is big on rhythm and timing, something Williams struggled with. 

Caleb has a mega ego and little to no humility. Not sure if what Johnson does will work with a guy like that. When things go wrong Caleb is the type of player to blame everyone else and question the plan.

[Jason_R]

On 7/12/2025 at 10:33 AM, RandyMarsh said:

People also understate the importance of Dan's aggressiveness. Once they got to the 50 or sometimes even before that he basically gave Ben 4 downs to play with. That is a major advantage, it allowed him to try plays early in downs or run it on 2nd or 3rd and long. The entire playbook was always open thanks to that and it made defenses play honest.

 

Yes, and I expect their level of aggressiveness to increase with their replenished defense.