Through one quarter of the season, is the NFL a much worse product than expected?

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I did retire from fantasy this season, so maybe you're on to something....

 

Good talk

 

Yeah all good my man...I am definitely a football and fantasy junkie, so that certainly helps haha.  

[ColoradoBills]

41 minutes ago, Virgil said:

Last nights game was a refreshing surprise, but expected to be a blowout.  The cardinals have also been a nice surprise.  I'd still say there are way more let downs that surprise teams 

 

17 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I would challenge you to look at the schedule for yesterday and primetime games so far and count to see what percentage of them you would consider to be watchable/competitive games.  It's not about who wins them, it just feels like bad football to me.

 

Yes, I may be spoiled by the Bills.  

 

Lots of good reasons others have brought up already.

1.  Too many "primetime" games during the week.  

2.  Way, way too much hype by the sporting media and fans.

3.  Way too much speculation as to what team will become the new "NE Patriots".

4.  Lack of quality QBs add to the hype that any young QB who has had a good game is the next Brady.

 

I don't think the players, coaches, etc are worse or diluted at all.  It's that expectations are way too high.

There are only a handful of teams that can realistically be said to have a good chance of making the SB every year.

It's mathematically impossible to see these few teams play each other during the season compared to the number of "primetime" games.

 

As to the lack of quality QBs, maybe it's time for certain teams who do not have a QB to let no-name guys get a chance to play.

If your current QB is destined to give you a 5-12 record, what do you really have to lose.

Can't find the next Brady, Romo or Purdy is they never leave the bench.

[mannc]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

This was always going to happen once the league kept expanding teams. And it will get worse if they expand more.

 

With all the roster spots to fill around the league it spreads talent levels way too thin IMO. Quality of starting QB play is declined overall league wide leading to poor offensive performance. And this says nothing to the level of Head Coaches that are sub par. 

 

Lack of depth shows when there are mass injuries. Most teams have issues filling 22 starting spots with starting caliber players as is. So when injury hits there are some real sub NFL level guys seeing snaps. 

 

As far as general competition, you're right. Year in and year out we say how the AFC is stacked or that the Bills have a hard schedule. Then games happen, injury sets in and games seem further apart.

C'mon, the league hasn't expanded since 2002.  The quality of the product has done nothing but improve since then.

 

As to the supposed decline in QB play, it's true that we're in a bit of a trough right now because of the injuries to Murray, Burrow and Rodgers and the recent retirement of Brady, Ryan, Roethlisberger, Manning, etc, and the inexplicable suckitude of Watson and Russ Wilson, but that's only temporary.  There are still a lot of good QBs in the league and there are likely to be quite a few more next year, with Williams, Sanders, Maye etc. entering the league.  Stroud and Richardson look like they are going to be good, Lawrence will get there eventually, and Purdy looks like the real deal.  Hell, even Justin Fields looked really good this weekend...  

 

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, Virgil said:

 And of course, the Bills are the only team in the AFC that has another team in their division. The Chiefs have no excuse to not get the one seed again.  I was really hoping they would lose last night.  But they have the easier schedule from here on out.  Yes, we play them and can gain a game, but we also have the Eagles and Cowboys to play, but the Dolphins again.  The Chiefs only have to play us and the Dolphins once.  

 

In any case, just some thoughts

Divisional games will always be a dog fight.  The Chargers will be giving the Chiefs a boatload to handle.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, Virgil said:

The AFC is down to the Bills, Dolphins, and Chiefs, but even Mahomes has struggled in half his games to the point that we are talking about Swift/Kelce more. 

Yes, I'm pretty happy with this.  It's fine.  better than fine....Here's the question I have:  Are the top teams just incredibly good or are the rest of the teams bad?  But then I remember a 6-0 start one year

Edited October 2, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[mannc]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

Last nights game was a refreshing surprise, but expected to be a blowout.  The cardinals have also been a nice surprise.  I'd still say there are way more let downs that surprise teams 

Let down teams:  Jets, Bengals, Giants, Broncos

Surprise Teams:  Texans, Bucs, Rams, Colts, Cardinals

 

What am I missing? 

[Virgil]

11 minutes ago, mannc said:

Let down teams:  Jets, Bengals, Giants, Broncos

Surprise Teams:  Texans, Bucs, Rams, Colts, Cardinals

 

What am I missing? 

 

You're missing that I like to be right.

 

I'd add the Chargers, Jags, Seahawks to letdowns.

 

I agree on your surprise teams.

 

But none of the surprise teams still look like playoff teams to me.  However, with the way it's going, some will have to squeak in

[BuffaloBillyG]

17 minutes ago, mannc said:

C'mon, the league hasn't expanded since 2002.  The quality of the product has done nothing but improve since then.

 

As to the supposed decline in QB play, it's true that we're in a bit of a trough right now because of the injuries to Murray, Burrow and Rodgers and the recent retirement of Brady, Ryan, Roethlisberger, Manning, etc, and the inexplicable suckitude of Watson and Russ Wilson, but that's only temporary.  There are still a lot of good QBs in the league and there are likely to be quite a few more next year, with Williams, Sanders, Maye etc. entering the league.  Stroud and Richardson look like they are going to be good, Lawrence will get there eventually, and Purdy looks like the real deal.  Hell, even Justin Fields looked really good this weekend...  

 

I strongly disagree.

 

The quality of the product has been watered down to give the results the league wanted. More offense. That's why the rules are so slanted to favor the offense these days. 

 

The simple example of you having to use Murray being injured as a "lull" or the Justin Fields had one good game kind of proves my point. You have QBs like Danny Jones, Dobbs, the aforementioned Fields, Zach Wilson, and I could go on actually starting games. None of those would be starters 25 years ago because of the depth of the league. There just isn't enough talent to go around. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Virgil said:

 

You're missing that I like to be right.

 

I'd add the Chargers, Jags, Seahawks to letdowns.

 

I agree on your surprise teams.

 

But none of the surprise teams still look like playoff teams to me.  However, with the way it's going, some will have to squeak in

Gotta disagree with your additional let down teams.  The Seahawks are 2-1 (only loss is to the surprising Rams) and they will probably go 3-1 tonight.  Jags haven't played very well, but they're 2-2. The Chargers are about where they deserve to be, at 2-2, but I suppose they're somewhat disappointing... 

 

I could see the Texans making the playoffs due to their crappy divisions and I'd have to think the Bucs are now favored to win the NFC South.  And I wouldn't count out the Rams, either.  They are about to get Cooper Kupp back to pair with super rookie Puka Nacua...

[BullBuchanan]

13 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

I strongly disagree.

 

The quality of the product has been watered down to give the results the league wanted. More offense. That's why the rules are so slanted to favor the offense these days. 

 

The simple example of you having to use Murray being injured as a "lull" or the Justin Fields had one good game kind of proves my point. You have QBs like Danny Jones, Dobbs, the aforementioned Fields, Zach Wilson, and I could go on actually starting games. None of those would be starters 25 years ago because of the depth of the league. There just isn't enough talent to go around. 

You may want to look at the QBs of 25 years ago real quick. I'll help: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/passing.htm

 

Guys like Doug Flutie, Steve Beuerlein, Tony Banks, Neil O'Donnell, Charlie Batch and Erik Kramer were all starting QBs.

Edited October 2, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Jauronimo]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Those are not fans, they are not going to stick to watching the NFL the second Swift isn't dating Kelce anymore.  Literally the only gain for the NFL is utterly minuscule in value with a temporary bump in a single players jersey sales that won't even make an impact on their books by years end as it is such an insignificant amount of money.  And the moment there is a breakup, they will be hating on Kelce and the NFL, burning jerseys, etc.  

 

The "boost in ratings" are for a single game, and all that results on is a slight bump in advertising premiums for that one game a week, which again over the course of a season is a minuscule difference for the NFL, its books, and company value.  

 

So it is one thing to have some fun with it and capitalize to some degree, but its a whole other level to utterly annoy and piss off your entire fanbase that made your corporation a $100B company for a small boost that won't even register in NFL value over the long term because none of those fans care 1% about the NFL, they just showing loyalty to Swift until she writes her next album about the Kelce breakup.

 

In my book, pissing off the fanbase that actually makes your company as valuable as its to cater to some people who bring no value to your company and are 100% temporary is not a great business strategy.  NFL took a ton of heat for last nights over the top approach to Swift...I would be surprised if they don't tame it down some moving forward.  

 

 

Just like no one sticks with a product after the free trial period us up and no one buys products after the free sample.  Marketing just doesn't work and the best way to expand your market share is by doubling down on the people who couldn't quit even if they wanted to.

 

Football fans stuck with the league through the concussion scandal, red jerseys on QBs, kneeling, Mike Vick, Covid policies, the helmet anti-hate slogans, and burning their jerseys over the WFT name change but they will be turning away in droves because of the Swift attention, I'm sure of it.  I have seen none of the heat you mention by the way.  Not even from the usual crazies who want to boycott over spilled milk.  This is a league constantly embroiled in scandal.  Throwing a bone to a few Swifties and trying to capture casual/new fans doesn't even register as a credible threat to league popularity.

 

The NFL has no more market share to capture among past their prime, ornery men in the United States like those of you bitching about Swift/Kelce.  As it turns out, women make up 50% of the total human population.  I was incredulous too but the latest U.S. census data confirmed it.  Women of all ages love Taylor Swift which is why there has been a material and immediate spike in interest in Kelce and the Chiefs.  And for the price of $0 the NFL has an opportunity to create life long fans (consumers) out of young women who traditionally have low interest in the NFL outside of reacting to the latest domestic violence scandal.  I would argue that all upside and no cost is a pretty compelling business opportunity, and one worth pursuing.  

[Johnnycage46]

All I know is that if I ever hear about Taylor Swift again it will be too soon.

[Mango]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

This was always going to happen once the league kept expanding teams. And it will get worse if they expand more.

 

With all the roster spots to fill around the league it spreads talent levels way too thin IMO. Quality of starting QB play is declined overall league wide leading to poor offensive performance. And this says nothing to the level of Head Coaches that are sub par. 

 

Lack of depth shows when there are mass injuries. Most teams have issues filling 22 starting spots with starting caliber players as is. So when injury hits there are some real sub NFL level guys seeing snaps. 

 

As far as general competition, you're right. Year in and year out we say how the AFC is stacked or that the Bills have a hard schedule. Then games happen, injury sets in and games seem further apart.

The league hasn’t added a team in (checks calendar)…

 

….21 year!

 

I can get behind a conversation about on how the league is too QB dependent and there just aren’t enough good QB’s to go around.

 

But nobody should be entertaining an expansion that happened nearly a full generation ago. 

[mannc]

21 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

I strongly disagree.

 

The quality of the product has been watered down to give the results the league wanted. More offense. That's why the rules are so slanted to favor the offense these days. 

 

The simple example of you having to use Murray being injured as a "lull" or the Justin Fields had one good game kind of proves my point. You have QBs like Danny Jones, Dobbs, the aforementioned Fields, Zach Wilson, and I could go on actually starting games. None of those would be starters 25 years ago because of the depth of the league. There just isn't enough talent to go around. 

Go back and look at the 32 starting QBs in 2001 or 2002...there were plenty of bums, probably at least as many as there are right now.  And of course, some of the current bums, like Zack Wilson and Josh Dobbs, are starting now because of injuries to the starters.  Look at the top 12 starters now...it's a pretty strong group:  Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Herbert, Stafford, Prescott, Hurts, Jackson, Lawrence, Tua, Purdy, and Cousins ...then there are guys like Stroud, Richardson, Howell, Murray, Geno Smith, Watson and Russell Wilson who are either up and coming or at least still have the talent to play some good football.  I challenge you to look at the lineup of starting QBs from 1995-2002 and tell me it's markedly better.   

Edited October 2, 2023 by mannc

[Virgil]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

Gotta disagree with your additional let down teams.  The Seahawks are 2-1 (only loss is to the surprising Rams) and they will probably go 3-1 tonight.  Jags haven't played very well, but they're 2-2. The Chargers are about where they deserve to be, at 2-2, but I suppose they're somewhat disappointing... 

 

I could see the Texans making the playoffs due to their crappy divisions and I'd have to think the Bucs are now favored to win the NFC South.  And I wouldn't count out the Rams, either.  They are about to get Cooper Kupp back to pair with super rookie Puka Nacua...

 

I hesitated to include Seattle, but only because I personally didn't think they were that great last year.  Walker looked strong and Geno surprised everyone, so I guess I expected more of a leap this year.  Plus, I expected the Rams and Cardinals to be complete trash, so I thought the Seahawks would have an easy schedule.

[mannc]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You may want to look at the QBs of 25 years ago real quick. I'll help: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/passing.htm

 

Guys like Doug Flutie, Steve Beuerlein, Tony Banks, Neil O'Donnell, Charlie Batch and Erik Kramer were all starting QBs.

What, you're not a Charlie Batch fan?

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

What, you're not a Charlie Batch fan?

I'm more of a Billy Joe fan - Both Tolliver and Hobert.

Look at this cast of elite passers:

Edited October 2, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Mango]

19 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

I strongly disagree.

 

The quality of the product has been watered down to give the results the league wanted. More offense. That's why the rules are so slanted to favor the offense these days. 

 

The simple example of you having to use Murray being injured as a "lull" or the Justin Fields had one good game kind of proves my point. You have QBs like Danny Jones, Dobbs, the aforementioned Fields, Zach Wilson, and I could go on actually starting games. None of those would be starters 25 years ago because of the depth of the league. There just isn't enough talent to go around. 

Just to be clear I am going to math this for you. 
 

25 years ago there were 30 teams compared to the 32 we have today. 
 

You named 5 QB’s. 
 

If you cut the worst two teams in the league there would still be 3 bad QB’s. And frankly the Bears and Carolina aren’t a topic as to why some thinks the league sucks at the moment. 

[AuntieEm]

3 hours ago, Eastport bills said:

Great news, that means we have a better path to a championship. I’ll worry about the quality of the league after we get a ring.

Be more than happy for the league to be the Bills doormats for a extended period if time say the rest of Josh's career.  He's more fun to watch than Brady ever was so other fans will enjoy the Allen years even if they aren't Bills fans.

[Shortchaz]

The games are better as the stakes get higher. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

30 minutes ago, Mango said:

The league hasn’t added a team in (checks calendar)…

 

….21 year!

 

I can get behind a conversation about on how the league is too QB dependent and there just aren’t enough good QB’s to go around.

 

But nobody should be entertaining an expansion that happened nearly a full generation ago. 

While you're checking calendars check out when the NFL started to slide the rules in favor of the passing game to make it easier on passing offenses. 

 

Hint: If the talent on the field can't give you the results you want (points points and more points) then make sure to make it easier. That's reflection on the overall lack of TALENT on the field... specifically at the QB position.

28 minutes ago, Mango said:

Just to be clear I am going to math this for you. 
 

25 years ago there were 30 teams compared to the 32 we have today. 
 

You named 5 QB’s. 
 

If you cut the worst two teams in the league there would still be 3 bad QB’s. And frankly the Bears and Carolina aren’t a topic as to why some thinks the league sucks at the moment. 

I named 5 as a quick example. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

 

I would challenge you to look at the schedule for yesterday and primetime games so far and count to see what percentage of them you would consider to be watchable/competitive games.  It's not about who wins them, it just feels like bad football to me.

 

Yes, I may be spoiled by the Bills.  

 

The Rams/Colts game featured a 23 point comeback by the Colts to get the team to OT and then a walk off TD by rookie sensation Puka Nacua.

The Broncos came back from 21 points down to win by 3 despite Fields having a career game.

The Commanders recovered from their butt-whooping by the Bills last week to take the Eagles to OT where the Eagles won on a long FG.

The Vikings overcame from behind late to win over the Panthers.

The Raiders almost came back on the Chargers.

The Cards hung with the much more talented Niners until late in the game.

The Jests came back from 17 points down to tie the game at 20 late in the game.

 

That's a good number of OT, one score or competitive games for a Sunday.

 

Of course, I was partial to the 48-20 thumping the Bills put on the Fish but then I have never forgiven the Carpies for Zero for the Seventies.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Those are not fans, they are not going to stick to watching the NFL the second Swift isn't dating Kelce anymore.  Literally the only gain for the NFL is utterly minuscule in value with a temporary bump in a single players jersey sales that won't even make an impact on their books by years end as it is such an insignificant amount of money.  And the moment there is a breakup, they will be hating on Kelce and the NFL, burning jerseys, etc.  

 

The "boost in ratings" are for a single game, and all that results on is a slight bump in advertising premiums for that one game a week, which again over the course of a season is a minuscule difference for the NFL, its books, and company value.  

 

So it is one thing to have some fun with it and capitalize to some degree, but its a whole other level to utterly annoy and piss off your entire fanbase that made your corporation a $100B company for a small boost that won't even register in NFL value over the long term because none of those fans care 1% about the NFL, they just showing loyalty to Swift until she writes her next album about the Kelce breakup.

 

In my book, pissing off the fanbase that actually makes your company as valuable as its to cater to some people who bring no value to your company and are 100% temporary is not a great business strategy.  NFL took a ton of heat for last nights over the top approach to Swift...I would be surprised if they don't tame it down some moving forward.  

 

 

 

Your opinion doesn't represent the opinions of all NFL fans, particular female football fans.

 

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

I think you're a little off the mark.

Yes, there are a handful of juggernaut teams. If that's all you care about, your point makes more sense, but that's been true every year since forever. If you take (in no order) Buffalo, KC, MIA, DAL, SF, PHI , the league is super interesting.

• You have an evolution going on in Baltimore right now and Lamar Jackson is playing the best football of his career.
• The Indianapolis Colts are way better than anyone expected them to be and could be the next big threat to rise over the next couple of years with a QB that looks like he has all the tools
• The Houston Texans are likewise putting some interesting games together behind another highly touted rookie QB
• The chargers appear to be a great Head Coach away from being very dangerous
• The Commanders have shown a lot of grit under first year QB Howell, and while it doesn't seem he has a the makeup of a franchise QB, he might be bale to make them respectable as they retool under a new Coach
• The Lions are 3-1 and right now look like the 3rd best team in the NFC. They should coast to a Division Championship for the first time since 1993 if they keep it up
• the 3-1 Buccaneers led by the constantly maligned Baker Mayfield would be the story of the NFC is not for the aforementioned Lions. Baker is playing the best football of his career and may have just needed the right environment to reach his potential.

 

The Chargers don't need a great HC to be a dangerous team.  A competent one would be good enough.

[mjt328]

1 hour ago, Johnnycage46 said:

All I know is that if I ever hear about Taylor Swift again it will be too soon.

 

Sunday night Chiefs games were already unwatchable with Chris Collinsworth's endless Patrick Mahomes love-fest.

 

This whole Taylor Swift thing is going to ruin all of their games.

 

[Shaw66]

The thing is, Virgil, that the league always is the same: 4 or 5 good teams, 2 or 3 really bad ones, and 25 teams struggling to get over .500.  

 

But the hype gets worse and worse.  Watch any preseason game, listen to the local announcers, and they're saying what we used to say:  if this guy and if that guy and if this comes together.  If, if, if.  

 

I mean, Rodgers is great, but he's only one guy.  Their offense was still a mess, bringing in Packer retreads so he had someone to throw to.  

 

The only point of the first half of the season is to unmask all the pretenders. 

[WhoTom]

Something I thought was funny: many Midwest stations who were originally slated to cover the Bears/Broncos game complained and got the Bills/Dolphins game instead. Turned out that the more competitive game was the one between the bottom-feeders. I might actually watch the replay of that game - looks like it was entertaining. (Not as entertaining as watching the Bills destroy the Dolphins, at least from the perspective of a Bills fan.)

 

To the OP's point, yeah, you have to wonder what they were thinking putting the Pats*/Cowboys in the 4:30 slot yesterday. But then again, I thought the opening night game would be a blowout and it turned into an upset.

 

Any given Sunday (or Monday, Thursday, and occasional Saturday) ...

 

 

[ticketssince61]

I think one reason so many games are totally uninteresting is the search for the Elite QB

 

More younger QB's are playing based on

a) the QB salary structure and

b) the need to find an Elite QB

 

Teams can not afford to let a rookie QB sit on the bench for a year or two until they are ready so we have the pleasure of watching not-ready-for-prime-time QB's such as Ridder, Howell, Young, Richardson, Pickett, Fields, ...   

 

They may turn into great QB's, but they are not very watchable as of now

Edited October 3, 2023 by ticketssince61

[Virgil]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

The Rams/Colts game featured a 23 point comeback by the Colts to get the team to OT and then a walk off TD by rookie sensation Puka Nacua.

The Broncos came back from 21 points down to win by 3 despite Fields having a career game.

The Commanders recovered from their butt-whooping by the Bills last week to take the Eagles to OT where the Eagles won on a long FG.

The Vikings overcame from behind late to win over the Panthers.

The Raiders almost came back on the Chargers.

The Cards hung with the much more talented Niners until late in the game.

The Jests came back from 17 points down to tie the game at 20 late in the game.

 

That's a good number of OT, one score or competitive games for a Sunday.

 

Of course, I was partial to the 48-20 thumping the Bills put on the Fish but then I have never forgiven the Carpies for Zero for the Seventies.

 

 

 

Your opinion doesn't represent the opinions of all NFL fans, particular female football fans.

 

 

The Chargers don't need a great HC to be a dangerous team.  A competent one would be good enough.

 

You should refrain from mentioning the Bears and Broncos if you are trying to defend the quality of the NFL 🤪

[SoTier]

28 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

You should refrain from mentioning the Bears and Broncos if you are trying to defend the quality of the NFL 🤪

 

The NFL is entertainment, and the game was entertaining.  Lots of passing early on, some great defensive plays late.  Drama.  You want to talk about an unwatchable game, consider the Bills-Browns game from 2009 which resulted in a 6-3 win for the Browns on a FG after a muffed punt.  The Browns passed for fewer than 75 yards.   The difference is that fourteen years ago there were fewer non-Sunday afternoon games, so that kind of game would have only been shown in the local markets.  With fewer options on Sundays, more games are sent to larger areas.

[billsfan89]

The first 2-3 weeks were rough as weeks 1-2 are kind of an extended preseason due to less OTA’s and one less actual preseason games. I think by week 3-4 you see a much better product

Edited October 2, 2023 by billsfan89

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

6 hours ago, Virgil said:

Going into this season, the AFC was meant to be an absolute dog fight for the playoffs.  You had the Chargers finally healthy and Payton to fix the Broncos, creating a super competitive AFC West.  Then you had the AFC North with the returning Bengals, Ravens with receivers, Browns/Steelers defense with an evolutionary step on offense.  The AFC East would have the Jets/Dolphins/Bills battling it out.  The AFC South was the only one team division.  In the NFC, you only had the 49ers, Cowboys, and Eagles, and hopefully continued growth from the Giants, Lions, and offensive explosive Bears.

 

Now, four weeks in, I could barely watch the 4p games yesterday.  Prime time games have been an absolute joke.  The AFC is down to the Bills, Dolphins, and Chiefs, but even Mahomes has struggled in half his games to the point that we are talking about Swift/Kelce more.  Granted, Burrow being crap and Rodgers getting hurt was unpredictable, but still...

 

I hate the idea of flex scheduling for Thursday games and MNF, but at this point, the NFL needs it.  This is as bad a product as I can remember.  Thankfully, the NFL fan will watch anything football.  And of course, the Bills are the only team in the AFC that has another team in their division. The Chiefs have no excuse to not get the one seed again.  I was really hoping they would lose last night.  But they have the easier schedule from here on out.  Yes, we play them and can gain a game, but we also have the Eagles and Cowboys to play, but the Dolphins again.  The Chiefs only have to play us and the Dolphins once.  

 

In any case, just some thoughts

Defenses are finally catching up. I love it. 

[Dr. K]

6 hours ago, Virgil said:

Going into this season, the AFC was meant to be an absolute dog fight for the playoffs.  You had the Chargers finally healthy and Payton to fix the Broncos, creating a super competitive AFC West.  Then you had the AFC North with the returning Bengals, Ravens with receivers, Browns/Steelers defense with an evolutionary step on offense.  The AFC East would have the Jets/Dolphins/Bills battling it out.  The AFC South was the only one team division.  In the NFC, you only had the 49ers, Cowboys, and Eagles, and hopefully continued growth from the Giants, Lions, and offensive explosive Bears.

 

Now, four weeks in, I could barely watch the 4p games yesterday.  Prime time games have been an absolute joke.  The AFC is down to the Bills, Dolphins, and Chiefs, but even Mahomes has struggled in half his games to the point that we are talking about Swift/Kelce more.  Granted, Burrow being crap and Rodgers getting hurt was unpredictable, but still...

 

I hate the idea of flex scheduling for Thursday games and MNF, but at this point, the NFL needs it.  This is as bad a product as I can remember.  Thankfully, the NFL fan will watch anything football.  And of course, the Bills are the only team in the AFC that has another team in their division. The Chiefs have no excuse to not get the one seed again.  I was really hoping they would lose last night.  But they have the easier schedule from here on out.  Yes, we play them and can gain a game, but we also have the Eagles and Cowboys to play, but the Dolphins again.  The Chiefs only have to play us and the Dolphins once.  

 

In any case, just some thoughts

It's still early. Some teams that are playing badly now will get hot and be imposing in November and December. 

[Eastport bills]

3 hours ago, AuntieEm said:

Be more than happy for the league to be the Bills doormats for a extended period if time say the rest of Josh's career.  He's more fun to watch than Brady ever was so other fans will enjoy the Allen years even if they aren't Bills fans.

I think that applies to every team’s fanbase  with the exception of KC and Miami and possibly Cinn, They all think their team deserves success. Between top QBs and innovative offensive coaches, they feel they have better teams.

[ganesh]

7 hours ago, mannc said:

Let down teams:  Jets, Bengals, Giants, Broncos

Surprise Teams:  Texans, Bucs, Rams, Colts, Cardinals

 

What am I missing? 

People keep forgetting Baltimore...is definitely one of the contenders.. Also,  Steelers have been a let down team