The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

JCTO · 15-10-2015 03:59PM

Clementine Scary String wrote: »

they are the product in a billion dollar industry theres not free ride there at all if they had the ability to go pro the best players would be able to pay for there college anyway if they wanted it and the non nfl quality players would continue getting scholarships

Yes they are the product of a Billion dollar industry with risks attached something they all should be aware of when they go to college and take that scholarship. They get 4 years of college that costs into the 100k+ range but their risk is that their scholarship is based on their sporting abilities and not their academics. They know that and they know the risks.

I know atheletes who got scholarships to Big D1 colleges to play football and basketball and other sports and they all knew full well what they were getting themselves into. Some of them worked their asses of academically just in case, some didn't bother at all and depended on their pro dream to carry them and failed. These are the choices we make in life given the hand we are dealt. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

There is no secret that the NCAA really don't care about these kids and they are all about the money at this point. There is also no secret that injuries will kill your dreams before they even start.

I may be coming off harsh but it is the sad reality in this all.

JCTO · 15-10-2015 04:04PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I know, as you're saying, you're playing Devil's advocate, but working in one of those colleges right now, and seeing just how much resources are generated for the place off the sweat and graft, and risk of these players, you realise the extent to which in some of these places it's only a top college to a large extent because of the footballers. So that it isn't really just the players that are privileged to be there, the college is privileged to have the players, and the income streams they generate, which in the case of the college I'm at are absolutely staggering. Something's not right.

I totally get all of this but none of this is a secret to guys who get accepted into these colleges. Should they deserve a slice of the pie probably but then the argument will be put that college sports are now pro sports. As I said in my previous post I know guys who went to D1 college and if ask them would they change anything most of them would say no. Of course there are a few who believe the colleges should pay them for the privilege but they are the minority.

Personally I don't believe they should be paid but maybe more money put towards supporting guys who get injured or helping them academically after the injury or something that helps them find another avenue after their pro dreams are ruined by injury. I don't believe creating a youth pro league or anything like that helps the situation either.

Realt Dearg Sec · 15-10-2015 05:36PM

JCTO wrote: »

Personally I don't believe they should be paid but maybe more money put towards supporting guys who get injured or helping them academically after the injury or something that helps them find another avenue after their pro dreams are ruined by injury. I don't believe creating a youth pro league or anything like that helps the situation either.

I'd basically agree with this, and definitely agree there's no need to set up a pro system for college or a separate pro league (both are actually bad ideas for various reasons IMO), but I would say two things: players shouldn't be prevented from earning anything off their own name. Like when Manziel was done for signing autographs, it seems to me that's absolutely none of the NCAA's business, and is especially hypocritical when they make such obscene amounts of money from the names of these big stars, especially in video games and stuff like that (not to mention the merchandising money gained by the big universities selling the shirts of these big name guys). Without being paid directly, the players should still be allowed make a few quid off their name. Even GAA players can do that.

The other thing is that if the payment they actually receive is a better education, then the colleges need to be making a genuine effort to push that education properly. Here, at Notre Dame, they're better than most colleges in that regard, but if you're in a course where all of the students are athletes, then there is a 100% chance that this course is complete BS, and those kids are being sold a pup. Now they may be happy enough to go along with that, but the college has a duty of care for those kids (and it's easy to forget, when you see them in pads, just how young and impressionable they are) that in most major football programs they are not living up to.

And there's nothing in it for the college in living up to it either, because if the players think they'll be given a free pass at Alabama or made to do a real degree at Stanford, a lot of good players are going to head to Alabama. But without having to turn the college game professional, these problems could be easily rectified. If the collective will was there from the colleges and the NCAA. But it isn't, because the NCAA are greedy exploitative scumbags.

Paully D · 19-10-2015 12:02AM

Funny looking back at this now:

Hard to believe now that 4 QB's went in the top 12 of that draft - #1 Cam, #8 Locker, #10 Gabbert and #12 Ponder. Dalton and Kaepernick went in the 2nd (#35 and #36 respectively), while Tyrod Taylor went in the 6th (#180).

19-10-2015 12:05AM

in fairness if i remember correctly i believe people questioned locker being picked that high as he was seen as a bit of a project and questioned cam going 1st overall but i think gabbert was seen as a steal at 10.

am i correct or remembering it wrong?

JCTO · 19-10-2015 01:56AM

JCTO wrote: »

If you include NFL.com stores then that graphic suggests that the NFL take 51.25% of the take. And I am almost sure the majority of NFL apparel sales comes from the NFL web store. I could be wrong but it will definitely be a high %.

Also the profit for the manufacturer ends back up in the pockets of the NFL anyways, you know the NFL have a cut of that piece of pie. Manufacturer need to earn money to pay the NFL the multi million dollar deal payments they have in place.

Just to come back to this from a couple of weeks ago. Was reading a very interesting article about NFL Pink month:

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-nfls-pink-october-does-not-raise-money-for-cancer-research?utm_source=vicenewsfbvn

If you're a football fan—and, y'know, a good human being—you've probably once in the last six years been lured into buying the NFL's Pink October paraphernalia and then slept well thinking about your contribution to the league's effort to "help fight breast cancer."

In which case, this might keep you awake: The month-long campaign that paints everything from player's shoes to fields to penalty flags pink, doesn't actually result in a single dollar donated to breast cancer research. Yup, not a penny.

This is how it works: The NFL donates proceeds from its awareness campaign, auctions, and the NFL Shop to the American Cancer Society (ACS), which in turns uses that money to increase awareness, education, and screenings for women over 40.

"The money that we receive from NFL has nothing to do with our research program," ACS spokeswoman Tara Peters told VICE Sports. All NFL donations go to ACS' CHANGE program, through which the organization awards grants to "community based health facilities" located within 100 miles of an NFL city for educating women about breast health. The ACS could not provide the names of any of these health facilities, but it says that these centers have answered questions about early detection of the disease for at least 72,000 women in the last three years and screened 10,000 women at little or no cost.

Seems admirable, right? Actually, no, says Karuna Jaggar, who heads the Think Before You Pink campaign, a watchdog for the country's breast cancer programs. She finds the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign's public health message, "Annual Screening Saves Lives," highly misinformative.

Dutifully branded Pink October towels at an NFL game. Photo by Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports

"Screening doesn't save lives and screening mammography … is different from diagnostic mammography," Jagger says. "The NFL has no business providing medical advice to women that is outdated, unproven, and misguided."

Jagger quotes well-regarded and independently conducted research that shows screening mammography has no overall impact on survival rates of women with the disease. The most substantive mammography research, a study that followed 100,000 women for 25 years, concluded that annual screening does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women over 40 in any way that goes beyond physical examination. These screenings are the mainstay and only measurable aspect of the NFL's A Crucial Catch campaign, which Jaggar says is spreading an outdated message about early detection.

Her organization, Breast Cancer Action, urges people to follow the money before they buy cute pink things waiting for the next big breakthrough for the disease. The important questions to ask are: How much money from pink products is going to any effective programs that are actively trying to fight breast cancer? What are those programs doing with the money? And is there a cap on the amount of money that companies donate? In other words, are sales benefitting women's health after a company's self-imposed donation threshold has been met? In 2010, Reebok set a $750,000 cap on their contribution to the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade regardless of how many of their pink-ribboned products were sold. There was no way for the consumers to know if that limit had already been met.

In the NFL's case, too, there are some clauses written in fine print. Their website claims that, at retail, 100 percent of the NFL's proceeds from Pink October product sales go to the ACS. But that does not mean if you buy a $100 shoe from NFLShop.com, ACS gets $100. If you're buying any pink products from the official shop, the wholesaler, distributor, and retailer give 0 percent of their shares to ACS. The only portion that goes to the society is the NFL's royalty percentage from wholesale sales, which has little to do with whether you buy a $80 hoodie or a $30 cap. Unlike some companies that spell out on the tag exactly what percentage of your purchase goes to charity, you have no way of knowing with NFL branded merchandise

In fact, the NFL's claim of 100 percent proceeds from auction and 100 percent proceeds from retail has translated to an average of just $1.1 million every year since they partnered with ACS six years ago. That's less than .01 percent of the approximately $10 billion the league made in revenue last year. And almost five times less than what ACS' other partners, such as Walgreens, manage to donate to the same program—a program that, again, gives zero dollars to cancer research.

"You can't shop your way out of the breast cancer epidemic," Jaggar says. "There's definitely a lot of hypocrisy in the NFL trying to choose a popular charity when there are other significant problems within the league."
If you'd really like to sleep well, donating directly to a cancer charity that is more transparent may be a better idea.

D9Male · 19-10-2015 02:29PM

Quick question from me on how good a player needs to be to justify a #1 pick, or any first round pick I guess.

So obviously Peyton Manning justified being picked #1.
And obviously JaMarcus Russell didn't justify it.

But how good does a player need to be for a front office to have "succeeded" with a pick.

I assume Cam is good enough. Is Alex Smith?

paulie21 · 19-10-2015 02:47PM

D9Male wrote: »

Quick question from me on how good a player needs to be to justify a #1 pick, or any first round pick I guess.

So obviously Peyton Manning justified being picked #1.
And obviously JaMarcus Russell didn't justify it.

But how good does a player need to be for a front office to have "succeeded" with a pick.

I assume Cam is good enough. Is Alex Smith?

In hindsight Rodgers would be the number 1 pick in 2005, Smith wasn't bad by any means a shoulder injury seriously weakened his arm strength and a rotation of coaches in San Fran never allowed him to progress and learn a nfl system till Harbaugh arrived there

Mr. Guappa · 19-10-2015 03:01PM

D9Male wrote: »

Quick question from me on how good a player needs to be to justify a #1 pick, or any first round pick I guess.

So obviously Peyton Manning justified being picked #1.
And obviously JaMarcus Russell didn't justify it.

But how good does a player need to be for a front office to have "succeeded" with a pick.

I assume Cam is good enough. Is Alex Smith?

I was thinking about this recently. I was questioning whether, in the long run, a franchise would be better of taking a complete and utter bust early in the first round, than say a Matthew Stafford type? The likes of the Vikings, Jaguars and Browns were able to move on reasonably quickly from Ponder, Gabbert and Weeden. Whereas the Lions could waste a decade on Stafford, who looks to be quiet good, but maybe never gets to good enough.

19-10-2015 03:03PM

D9Male wrote: »

Quick question from me on how good a player needs to be to justify a #1 pick, or any first round pick I guess.

So obviously Peyton Manning justified being picked #1.
And obviously JaMarcus Russell didn't justify it.

But how good does a player need to be for a front office to have "succeeded" with a pick.

I assume Cam is good enough. Is Alex Smith?

people seem to think that a guy needs to be a superstar to justify it but realistically if a guy is an above average qb or one of the better players in the draft in another position its justified. i would nearly go as far as to say if they pan out as a good player and there was not a hall of fame type taken 2 or 3 then its justified

raze_them_all_ · 19-10-2015 03:04PM

D9Male wrote: »

Quick question from me on how good a player needs to be to justify a #1 pick, or any first round pick I guess.

So obviously Peyton Manning justified being picked #1.
And obviously JaMarcus Russell didn't justify it.

But how good does a player need to be for a front office to have "succeeded" with a pick.

I assume Cam is good enough. Is Alex Smith?

For a number one pick to not be a bust I would consider any who earn a second contract after full rookie contract and a starter to not be a bust.

Though thats only if I picked them, if i sold the farm like washington did he would need to deliver a sb

Magico Gonzalez · 19-10-2015 03:08PM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

I was thinking about this recently. I was questioning whether, in the long run, a franchise would be better of taking a complete and utter bust early in the first round, than say a Matthew Stafford type? The likes of the Vikings, Jaguars and Browns were able to move on reasonably quickly from Ponder, Gabbert and Weeden. Whereas the Lions could waste a decade on Stafford, who looks to be quiet good, but maybe never gets to good enough.

Vikings fan, jury still out on young TB. Lots of potential but he has been playing in fits and starts this season. Talking about it in the Vikes thread, he has frozen up this year a bit. It's easier to come into a struggling team and play when there a few expectactions, but when you are the franchise qb, and people are talking about you as potential playoff contenders that is a whole new lever or pressure. He definitely has the tools, need to sort out the decision making.

19-10-2015 03:10PM

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

For a number one pick to not be a bust I would consider any who earn a second contract after full rookie contract and a starter to not be a bust.

Though thats only if I picked them, if i sold the farm like washington did he would need to deliver a sb

that rg3 trade was madness though in fairness (and i did say it on here at the time so not being a captain hindsight) giving up that many assets (in particular for a franchise that didn't have a lot around him as it was) was a terrible idea when has trading away that many picks ever worked out you would think the redskins would realise that themselves having been involved in the ricky williams trade

D9Male · 19-10-2015 03:12PM

There must be a formula knocking around somewhere to work it out in $ terms.

So after 3 or 4 years, if a #1 pick can earn $x million on the market, he is above par.

So Nick Fairley was (I think) around #10 in the 2011* draft. He got $5mm per year in his new contract. Was that above or below par?

* Lots of good first round picks in this draft!

Christy42 · 19-10-2015 03:17PM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

I was thinking about this recently. I was questioning whether, in the long run, a franchise would be better of taking a complete and utter bust early in the first round, than say a Matthew Stafford type? The likes of the Vikings, Jaguars and Browns were able to move on reasonably quickly from Ponder, Gabbert and Weeden. Whereas the Lions could waste a decade on Stafford, who looks to be quiet good, but maybe never gets to good enough.

At a certain point everyone has to nail their flag to someone who may or may not deliver. Everyone you know can deliver already has a contract elsewhere.
If you use a first round draft pick and it is a bust then you still have to pick someone else who could potentially waste a decade with a different pick or some trade. If you get a Stafford then at least you have all your other picks and resources to try and give him the best chance to succeed you can.

19-10-2015 03:19PM

D9Male wrote: »

There must be a formula knocking around somewhere to work it out in $ terms.

So after 3 or 4 years, if a #1 pick can earn $x million on the market, he is above par.

So Nick Fairley was (I think) around #10 in the 2011* draft. He got $5mm per year in his new contract. Was that above or below par?

* Lots of good first round picks in this draft!

nick fairley has played very well though the lions where just in cap hell thats not his fault. had adrian peterson for example been dropped after his first contract that would not make him a bust

D9Male · 19-10-2015 03:24PM

I agree, and that is why I am not saying it should just be based on whether they get a second contract.

As you say, Fairley was good enough to get 5 bucks a year. That Detroit wouldn't pony it up is not his fault. So he was a (marginal in my opinion) draft positive. But I have to say in my opinion, as I don't know if $5mm is par for a #13 pick.

bruschi · 19-10-2015 03:26PM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

I was thinking about this recently. I was questioning whether, in the long run, a franchise would be better of taking a complete and utter bust early in the first round, than say a Matthew Stafford type? The likes of the Vikings, Jaguars and Browns were able to move on reasonably quickly from Ponder, Gabbert and Weeden. Whereas the Lions could waste a decade on Stafford, who looks to be quiet good, but maybe never gets to good enough.

Stafford maybe a bad example, because I think he is better than just quite good. He is 27, and already has had a 5,000 yard passing season, and is consistently over 4,000 yards. The only QBs to ever have 5000 yards are Marino, Brady, Manning and Brees. That is a fairly high ranking bunch of players to be associated with. He is a good QB, and deserving of top draft pick, but I think the organisation needs an overhaul, and I dont htink he is at fault for them not progressing further.

Granted, he isnt doing as well this season, (and I know, I have him in my fantasy team) but I think the Lions in general are more the cause than him.

Knex* · 19-10-2015 03:27PM

https://twitter.com/zkeefer/status/655951705310261248

19-10-2015 03:31PM

bruschi wrote: »

Stafford maybe a bad example, because I think he is better than just quite good. He is 27, and already has had a 5,000 yard passing season, and is consistently over 4,000 yards. The only QBs to ever have 5000 yards are Marino, Brady, Manning and Brees. That is a fairly high ranking bunch of players to be associated with. He is a good QB, and deserving of top draft pick, but I think the organisation needs an overhaul, and I dont htink he is at fault for them not progressing further.

Granted, he isnt doing as well this season, (and I know, I have him in my fantasy team) but I think the Lions in general are more the cause than him.

in fairness though he played a lot of his career with a megatron that was all time great there where a lot of throw it up for calvin plays i would be very curious to see how he would have developed without calvin

Hazys · 19-10-2015 03:43PM

The Colts social media team decides to have a Ask Chuck twitter event today, its not going well so far:

Tweet your questions for Coach Pagano here and have them answered tonight on @Colts Monday Night starting at 6 on @1070thefan

@PaganoShow @Colts @1070thefan do you consider the fake punt a success because no one died (that we know of)?

@PaganoShow @PFTCommenter @Colts @1070thefan did you intentionally run the worst play in history or was that by accident?

@PaganoShow @Colts @1070thefan would you consider that fake punt a bad football play or good performance art?

@PaganoShow @Colts @1070thefan are you at all concerned that other NFL teams will try to steal that fake punt play?

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 19-10-2015 03:46PM

Interesting game tonight between the Giants and Eagles, my gut says the Eagles dominate this game as they need to but this is more to do with the injuries the Giants have than the skills the Eagles have.

Really interesting weekend. 49ers finally get another win although I wouldn't be doing back flips as it was against a terrible Ravens team.

Seahawks suffer a home loss after Cam finally throws off the shackles and starts firing the ball down field. Panthers are scary if Cam plays like that.

Rivers and San Diego made Rodgers and Green Bay look decidedly average, the Packers need Eddie Lacy to get fit and the rest of their receiving core to get healthy.

Washington are terrible and Kirk cant stop himself throwing picks.

Cards suffer a suprising loss but if the Steelers keep winning and get big Ben back they should be in every body's minds as a great outside chance of a SB.

Patriots won .. again .. Indianapolis implode on a stupid play but luck shows how to get at the Pats.

Bengals look unbengal like as they continue to win against tough opposition.

Great couple of weeks ahead of us

raze_them_all_ · 19-10-2015 03:57PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Interesting game tonight between the Giants and Eagles, my gut says the Eagles dominate this game as they need to but this is more to do with the injuries the Giants have than the skills the Eagles have.

Really interesting weekend. 49ers finally get another win although I wouldn't be doing back flips as it was against a terrible Ravens team.

Seahawks suffer a home loss after Cam finally throws off the shackles and starts firing the ball down field. Panthers are scary if Cam plays like that.

Rivers and San Diego made Rodgers and Green Bay look decidedly average, the Packers need Eddie Lacy to get fit and the rest of their receiving core to get healthy.

Washington are terrible and Kirk cant stop himself throwing picks.

Cards suffer a suprising loss but if the Steelers keep winning and get big Ben back they should be in every body's minds as a great outside chance of a SB.

Patriots won .. again .. Indianapolis implode on a stupid play but luck shows how to get at the Pats.

Bengals look unbengal like as they continue to win against tough opposition.

Great couple of weeks ahead of us

Two of the packers recievers last night comined for a career total 1 catch between them going into the game, looking average with the injuries is a feat in itself, little glossed over fact from last night, AR became the fastest qb to hit 30,000 yards

Paully D · 19-10-2015 03:58PM

Knex. wrote: »

https://twitter.com/zkeefer/status/655951705310261248

He'll be gone at the end of the season. Rejected an extension and has fallen out with Grigson by all accounts.

D9Male · 19-10-2015 03:58PM

I only saw it on a condensed view, but Aaron Rodgers did now look average last night.

Average by his standards, maybe.....i.e. just a very good performance, not brilliant!

Hazys · 19-10-2015 03:59PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Interesting game tonight between the Giants and Eagles, my gut says the Eagles dominate this game as they need to but this is more to do with the injuries the Giants have than the skills the Eagles have.

Really interesting weekend. 49ers finally get another win although I wouldn't be doing back flips as it was against a terrible Ravens team.

Seahawks suffer a home loss after Cam finally throws off the shackles and starts firing the ball down field. Panthers are scary if Cam plays like that.

Rivers and San Diego made Rodgers and Green Bay look decidedly average, the Packers need Eddie Lacy to get fit and the rest of their receiving core to get healthy.

Washington are terrible and Kirk cant stop himself throwing picks.

Cards suffer a suprising loss but if the Steelers keep winning and get big Ben back they should be in every body's minds as a great outside chance of a SB.

Patriots won .. again .. Indianapolis implode on a stupid play but luck shows how to get at the Pats.

Bengals look unbengal like as they continue to win against tough opposition.

Great couple of weeks ahead of us

I don't understand the bolded part. How did Luck show how to get at the Patriots? He was pretty average and if anything it was the Colts developing a ground game that gave the Patriots more trouble on defense than Luck.

For his 3 TDs, his first drive was about half an inch from going 4 and out, the 2nd TD although a great play on his part but was dropped by Hilton and shouldn't have counted and his 3rd TD was a garbage time TD on maybe his 5th two minute offense attempt.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 19-10-2015 04:01PM

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Two of the packers recievers last night comined for a career total 1 catch between them going into the game, looking average with the injuries is a feat in itself, little glossed over fact from last night, AR became the fastest qb to hit 30,000 yards

Rodgers was poor last night. They jumped out to an early lead and couldn't ice the game, injuries are definitely curtailing them but they have the bye week to get healthy now and then a trip to another undefeated (and playing poorly) team in Denver. Will be an interesting match up but a healthy Green Bay should handle Denver no problem, Manning has been so poor it's hard to see him beating Denver or any really good team.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 19-10-2015 04:13PM

Hazys wrote: »

I don't understand the bolded part. How did Luck show how to get at the Patriots? He was pretty average and if anything it was the Colts developing a ground game that gave the Patriots more trouble on defense than Luck.

For his 3 TDs, his first drive was about half an inch from going 4 and out, the 2nd TD although a great play on his part was dropped by Hilton and shouldn't have counted and his 3rd TD was a garbage time TD on maybe his 5th two minute offense attempt.

Luck played well last night was sharp, remember he is coming into this game cold after sitting the last two with a shoulder problem. His passes were generally sharp and short. Showed how to open up the Pats and to be fair Frank Gore was decent.

All three TD's were quality passes nothing wrong with the second TD no idea what your on about there.

Brady and co keep rolling though. Don't know why Bellicheck wont just stick with Blount he is a beast and my damn fantasy team would be doing a damn sight better than they are.

Hard to see any of the other unbeaten teams staying that way but this Patriots team is very good, boring at times but so clinical. Has there ever been a more lethal combo that Brady and Bellicheck?

Lionbacker · 19-10-2015 04:45PM

bruschi wrote: »

Stafford maybe a bad example, because I think he is better than just quite good. He is 27, and already has had a 5,000 yard passing season, and is consistently over 4,000 yards. The only QBs to ever have 5000 yards are Marino, Brady, Manning and Brees. That is a fairly high ranking bunch of players to be associated with. He is a good QB, and deserving of top draft pick, but I think the organisation needs an overhaul, and I dont htink he is at fault for them not progressing further.

Granted, he isnt doing as well this season, (and I know, I have him in my fantasy team) but I think the Lions in general are more the cause than him.

Agree with this. If the Stafford of 2011 was paired up with last years defence, they would be superbowl contenders. But at the moment Joe Lombardi is incapable of running an offence that Stafford can perform well in.

Billy86 · 19-10-2015 04:55PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Rodgers was poor last night. They jumped out to an early lead and couldn't ice the game, injuries are definitely curtailing them but they have the bye week to get healthy now and then a trip to another undefeated (and playing poorly) team in Denver. Will be an interesting match up but a healthy Green Bay should handle Denver no problem, Manning has been so poor it's hard to see him beating Denver or any really good team.

How is 16/29 and 2 TDs and 255 yards (8.8 per attempt) when his WRs had some drops they should have made (including Cobb on a 30 odd yarded that would have put GB in FG position shortly before the half) poor? Especially considering his best WR is out, his 2nd best is playing injured (and strictly a slot guy, doesn't play great on thebboundary), hid 3rd best out injured, his 4th best playing injured and limited in snaps, and his 5th best got injured during the game, on top of hid #1 RB being probably playing injured and very out of form (though starks filled in well), and his #2 TE out as well?

Rivers had a class game, but let's not forget that his 503 yards came off 65(!) attempts. Rogers was actually averaging more yards per completion and at the same accuracy. And he had Gates playing well and Keenan Allen playing absolutely out of his skin.

Like I said, Rivers had aa great game. But saying he made Rodgers look average and that Rodgers played poor is, well, entertaining before even taking in the context of the situation regarding targets!

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Comments