NFL 2017: Week 6

Thursday

Eagles-Panthers

Sunday
Bears-Ravens
Packers-Vikings
49ers-Redskins
Lions-Saints
Dolphins-Falcons
Browns-Texans
Patriots-Jets
Buccaneers-Cardinals
Rams-Jaguars
Chargers-Raiders
Steelers-Chiefs
Giants-Broncos

Monday
Colts-Titans

15 Responses to “NFL 2017: Week 6”


  1. Reid

    Besides the Eagles-Panthers, the rest of the games don’t interest me much. Steelers-Chiefs and maybe Rams-Jaguars, but that’s about it.

  2. Reid

    Eagles-Panthers

    This was one of the better games all year–even with the turnovers by the Panthers. Both teams looked like two of the best teams. The Eagles front seven looks like one of the best, and they overwhelmed the Panthers for most the game, taking away the run and putting a lot pressure on Newton. I got the sense they have a pretty deep rotation on the DL as well. I’ve seen other Eagles games–this was the best I’ve seen of the DL. The linebackers were excellent as well.

    The Eagles offense had trouble handling the blitz. It almost look like football from the early 2000s, where so many teams relied on blitzing (Jim Johnson from the Eagles, for example. By the way, we’re so far from that style of defense now.)

    Despite the defensive play the offenses still managed to move the ball and score. I think that’s what made it a good game for me.

    (On a side note, I shudder think about the Seahawks facing the Eagles front seven. By the way, at one point, I felt sorry for the Panther lineman who kept getting bullrushed by Fletcher Cox.)

    Kuechly left the game, as well, but the Panthers still played solid.

    Edit: There were two plays where Carson Wentz ran the ball like Jim McMahon. He’s got to cool it on that sort of thing.

  3. Reid

    Saw many of the games, and many of the games now are a blur, but I’ll post some quick thoughts.

    Steelers-Chiefs

    Steelers gameplan: We’re going pound the rock. I enjoyed watching Bell execute this game plan. I’m not sure if they did this to control the clock, but that’s what happened, and I liked it for that reason. If you play a good ball control offense, a good (maybe crucial) response is for your offense also be good at controlling the clock. This helps prevent you from falling into the death spiralDolphins-Falcons

    Dolphins ran the ball well, and I think this was another example of how the death spiral could work–but in an rather unusual way. In this case, the Dolphins came back from a 17 point deficit by controlling the clock. They held the ball for most of the 3rd quarter. (I think they ran 20+ plays to the Falcons 4 or 5.) I think this put them in the driver’s seat by the 4th.

    Rams-Jaguars

    Rams defense doesn’t look that good for some reason, but the Jaguars defense is worse, because they’re too one-dimensional. What Bortles can do (or is allowed to do) has really shrunk. It’s almost like he’s Alex Smith when Andy Reid took over. (I got the sense that the Jaguars relied on screens.)

    Rams offense seems legitimate, though, and their defense might be good enough. (In a way, they’re sort of like the team the Raiders hoped to be: high-powered offense, plus an OK defense.)

    Buccaneers-Cardinals

    Cardinals looked like an entirely different team–particularly on offense. It’s like the addition of AP made that offense come alive. Everything looked way better.

    Bucs seemed like the Bucs we’re used to.

    Broncos-Giants

    Based on what I saw, my best guess is that the Broncos took the Giants too lightly, maybe looking past them to the next opponent. The Broncos defense didn’t look like one of the better defenses in the league. Maybe there were injuries–I’m not sure, but that’s something I wondered as I watched the game. The offense wasn’t all that better, either. If you asked me which team didn’t win a game yet, it looked more like the Broncos than the Giants.

    I would guess this is a fluke and will serve as a wake-up call for the Broncos.

    Lions-Saints

    Really crazy game, which I stopped watching at some point. This really makes me wonder if the Lions are as good as I thought. Or maybe the Saints are better. I almost get the sense that they’re dispirited from the butt kicking they took last week. Or maybe they’ve plateaued as a team.

  4. Reid

    On a side note: I’m going to ask what might sound like an obvious question, but I’m not going to ask it because some people I know seem to dispute the basic idea. The more hits a QB takes, the greater chance they have of sustaining an injury, right? Therefore, having an OL that can reduce the number of hits a QB takes will reduce the chances of injury. I’m not just talking about a hits during a game, or even hits during the season, but total hits over a career. Let’s say Russell Wilson takes 800 hits in 2015 regular season (average of 5 hits per game). On the third hit of the 2016 season, he gets hit and has a high ankle sprain as a result. Did the 2016 hits matter? Should we see the injury in relation to the other hits, or should we look at this injury as completely separate?

  5. Don

    Pats, Jets:
    I think the Pats have real troubles on defense. I keep hearing how the Pats started slow in the past and still ended on top or near the top. Although I still have the Pats as a serious contender, it’s waning a lot. And they are only contenders like the Packers were contenders with Rodgers at this point.

    Re Lions:
    It didn’t seem like you thought the Lions were a great team in the first place. You always make the point to say they are a few pieces short. When I saw the Saints play, I thought their defense look okay, and definitely not as bad as the past five or so years. I wasn’t surprised that they could limit the Lions for a half or so.

  6. Reid

    I think the Pats have real troubles on defense. I keep hearing how the Pats started slow in the past and still ended on top or near the top.

    I’m with you, in that I still have the Pats high up there, but I’m having doubts. While your point above is true, there are some key differences. For example, when the Pats relied on the hurry-up, I think this was the case, but a) I think they still won early in the season and b) you could excuse the defense because of the hurry-up offense. I don’t think they’re running the hurry-up as much, and something doesn’t seem right with this team (especially on defense). Still, until I see more evidence, I’m thinking they’re going to turn things around.

    It didn’t seem like you thought the Lions were a great team in the first place. You always make the point to say they are a few pieces short.

    Yeah. I did think they were a dark horse pick, meaning they could emerge as a really good, surprising team. That could still happen, but I think the chances are a lot less now. If the Rams can be considered a dark horse, especially to go all the way, I think I’d choose them.

  7. Mitchell

    Didn’t watch too much this week. Missed the early games altogether, something that hasn’t happened this season.

    Steelers-Chiefs was interesting. Roethlisberger is fading, right? He still can drop your jaw several times a game, but it seems maybe he can’t deliver regularly, the way maybe he used to. Steelers receivers seemed focused, and that late Antonio Brown catch that shoulda been intercepted, although mostly luck, was a thing of beauty. When he gathered that ball into his arms, I was like, “No! Way!”

    Chiefs still look good. Alex Smith’s deep ball was pretty at times. Their three main skill guys are super impressive, although I am not convinced yet that Kareem Hunt is the real deal. Which seems stupid this late into the season.

    That Giants-Broncos game was pretty fun too. I do enjoy a good ground-and-pound game, and we got Good Eli this week. Or at least not-sucky Eli. He can still make heroes out of schmoes sometimes.

    I’m not getting enough football in my life, but I’m not sure where I’m going to wedge some more in. Maybe it’s for the best.

  8. Reid

    Roethlisberger is fading, right?

    Yeah, I’m getting this impression as well. Something is not right with him. Either he’s hurt, getting old, or maybe just not into it. I’m close to the point of saying that the Steelers chances are going down because I don’t think Roethlisberger will protect the ball.

    although I am not convinced yet that Kareem Hunt is the real deal.

    I think he’s good, but it’s hard to know how good in my view, primarily becuase, like the Patriots, I think a big part of the offensive success stems from play design and play calling.

    (By the way, here’s a theory on why Andy Reid may not be great with clock management: He’s calling his own plays. If he is, maybe that’s diminishing his ability with managing the clock.)

  9. Don

    I think Reid (the coach, not the clown) is sort of those smart guys with little common sense. I heard his main interest as a coach is drawing up offensive plays.

  10. Reid

    You think clock management is common sense? I really don’t. I think you have to watch a lot of games, seeing a lot of end game situations and then figure out what’s the best moves. I don’t think someone without this knowledge would be able to make good decisions.

    Reid’s interest in plays sort of fits with what I’m saying, at least if play calling and clock management aren’t kinda separate. By the way, the reason this idea came to mind is because I heard someone say criticize Ben McAdoo for his clock management–and they also pointed out that he was calling his own plays, too. (If Sean McVay has this problem, that would be further evidence.)

  11. Don

    But some of Reid’s problems is not just based on clock management, it just seems to be lack of common sense. Some of the stuffs he’s known to do, a guy who knows nothing about football, could tell you that it was wrong.

    Like Dallas was criticized for leaving too much time for Rodgers to score. That could be considered bad clock management. But when you just do something so ridiculous that it seems like you don’t even know the clock is moving type of ridiculousness, that could be considered common sense. I know some of the criticisms of Reid in the past had been just head scratchingly bad.

    So I think there is a line of bad clock management. I’m not discrediting what you are saying about a coach calling plays and not being completely aware, but if I remember correctly Reid’s trespasses on the clock crossed into the absurd.

  12. Reid

    Current Power Rankings After Week 6

    Here’s the first tier–although if I could, I would say I don’t have a first tier, and this is all second tier teams. I would say the difference between these teams are relatively small, and that anyone could beat

    Patriots (Question marks on defense)
    Cowboys (They would drop a few notches if they don’t have Zeke.)
    Eagles (I think they rely too much on Wentz making difficult throws; Not sure if Wentz will protect the ball because of this, too.)
    Panthers (If they had Kuechly, they look like a solid team all around.)
    Vikings (Solid all around. Not sure if run game, ST and defense can make up for question mark at QB.)
    Falcons (Can offense control the ball?)
    Rams (Not sure about Goff in big games or their defense, but I’m going to put them here.)
    Chiefs (Still not believer in Alex Smith, although he’s having best season)
    Broncos (Defense or running game has to be close to great. Siemian needs one or the other or both.)
    Steelers (They could rise if they become run-first team. Losing trust of Roethlisberger.)

    Seahawks (Don’t trust their OL; they just lost Joeckel for 4 weeks or more)

    Raiders
    Redskins
    Lions
    Bills
    Cardinals (Cardinals looked like an entirely different team

  13. Reid

    Some of the stuffs he’s known to do, a guy who knows nothing about football, could tell you that it was wrong.

    If you can think of examples let me know.

    Like Dallas was criticized for leaving too much time for Rodgers to score

    You’re referring to what was said on GM Street? If so, I don’t remember all the details, but this was one of those criticisms that didn’t seem clear to me. The Cowboys also had to score, too, right? There’s no guarantee that they would score, so you have to make sure that happens–over eating away a lot of clock. Also, did the Cowboys have to score a TD? If so, the point is even more true.

  14. Don

    I didn’t agree with the criticisms on the Cowboys but they were all around the sports world, not only on GM Street. Yes they had to score a TD because they were down 4. I think most criticized a pass play they called on second and one which was a couple plays prior to Dak running for the TD. So if Dallas ran the ball instead of passing on second and one, GB would have had around 30-40 seconds less than they ended up having if Dallas was content running the clock and huddling.

    But the draw back to that would have been limiting the play calling (ie: had to pass) going forward after that play. Sort of what happen to Seattle in the Super Bowl. Seattle ran a play and let the clock run the down a bit to ensure Brady didn’t have much time left on the clock. But that made it so Seattle would have had to pass one of the downs when they were at first and goal (ie: It would have been hard to run 4 straight downs, based on the time left on the clock).

  15. Reid

    But the draw back to that would have been limiting the play calling (ie: had to pass) going forward after that play.

    Right, and here’s another important thing: How was the defense playing the offense on that play? Maybe I’m wrong, but criticizing a play call without referencing what the defense was in seems really questionable. If the Packers were sold out to stop the run, do you still call a running play? This might make sense if running time off the clock was a much higher priority than scoring, but in the specific situation, I think scoring was the higher priority.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.