2017 NFL: Week 12

Thursday
Vikings-Lions
Chargers-Cowboys
Redskins-Giants

11 Responses to “2017 NFL: Week 12”


  1. Mitchell

    The game I want to see is the Saints and Rams. The Rams are 2.5 point favorites in LA, and the Saints are playing without both of their killer cornerbacks. I honestly don’t know what to predict here.

    The other game I have some interest in (besides Raiders-Broncos) is Panters at Jets. The Panthers are a sneaky 7-3, and on paper they should beat the Jets fairly easily, but how can you predict what this Carolina team is going to do? It looks they are going to fall backwards into the playoffs somehow, and with the second-best defense in the NFL (on a yards-per-game basis), if they make it in you never know what could happen.

  2. Mitchell

    Although I was glad they put the Saints and Rams on TV, I really would like to have seen the Raiders and Broncos. I love it when those teams get into physical fights and people are thrown out of games. It’s a better rivalry when the dislike is this intense.

  3. Reid

    Even though the Raiders won, I still feel a sense of disgust watching them. Part of this has to do with how bad the Broncos have looked–not just on offense, but defense, too. I’m surprised at how much the defense has declined. (Maybe they have a lot of injuries?)

    I feel the same about the Seahawks as well. The Niners are a bad team, but the Seahawks, especially on offense, still kinda struggled. The game does nothing to weaken my growing feeling that they need a coaching change on offense.

  4. Mitchell

    You’re disgusted with the Raiders because of how bad the Broncos look? You have very high standards.

  5. Reid

    How does one feel disgust towards a team that has won. Answer: when they beat a bad team. In such a situation, a team can win even if they play badly. I kinda think a lot of NFL games can be characterized this way this year. A team will win not because they’re good, but because the opponents are so bad. The other common scenario is too mediocre teams slugging it out for a win. Those games are uninteresting and unpleasant to watch as well.

  6. Mitchell

    But did the Raiders play badly? I didn’t see the game so I don’t know. I know you just said it was partly because the Broncos look terrible, but it would make more sense to be disgusted by the Broncos for looking terrible than the Raiders because the Broncos look terrible.

  7. Reid

    But did the Raiders play badly?

    Let’s say that I didn’t think they played well–especially since the Broncos didn’t see all that great. The Raiders play too sloppy in my opinion–whether it’s penalties, dropped balls or even errant throws by Carr. I also don’t like their play calling and offense, which you’re probably sick of hearing.

    If the Raiders played well and blew out the Broncos, I would have enjoyed that much more–not because I hate the Broncos, but rather I care about good performance.

    By the way, what I’m saying about the Raiders I can say about the Seahawks performance against the Niners.

  8. Reid

    I just want to add one thing that specifically frustrates me about the Seahawks. They suck at running the ball. The feeling I get is that about half the amount of attempts have no chance almost right from the start, and a lot of them end up for losses. I’m not sure how accurate that is, but that’s the impression I get. If this is accurate, I think this is one of the key reasons they abandon the run. Granted, even with Duane Brown, the OL is still not great, but it should be a lot better (and Luke Joeckel is back on the field). Seahawks are a pass first team, and I hate that.

    Also, Wilson’s ball security is dipping. It wouldn’t surprise me if he throws INTs later on, in big games. (There’s a pattern forming this year, and I suspect it’s related to their play calling and increased passing attempts.)

  9. don

    Vikings, Lions:
    It’s been a while since I saw this game, but the Vikings are for real. At this point in time, I think I would take them in the NFC (slightly over the Eagles). The Lions were the Lions and played good in spurts.

    Chargers, Cowboys:
    The Cowboys were dominated. This is the worse the offense has played in the three games without Elliott. I would even say I doubt Elliott would have affected this game all that much. That’s how bad the offense performed.

    Titans, Colts:
    I think Brissett can be a starting QB in the NFL. He’s far from great and some of his throws are getting close to terrible, but he’s calm and can make plays. The Titans are not a great team. They cannot run the ball well or protect the QB well. They will not go very far.

    Saints, Rams:
    I heard Phillips (Rams DC) loves to play man. He will mix up a few zone plays to try and confuse the QB, but ultimately he loves to play man. I think that may be a bad match up for the Saints. If the Saints were not rushing well and for good portions they couldn’t, their offense sputtered because their receivers struggled to get guys open consistently. Brees was forced to hold the ball a lot longer in this one than I’ve seen in the past. If it wasn’t for Kamara, who was like Michael Vick out there at times, the Saints wouldn’t have been in this game.

    The Rams are pretty good on offense. They run the ball well and Gurley is pretty good at making the first guy miss. I think at this point though Goff is holding the team back. Goff’s future is bright and is definitely their future, but right now he takes some sacks he shouldn’t and makes some bad decisions. He doesn’t have the games under his belt like Dak and Wentz, which could explain some of his deficiencies. Goff does have a good arm, good footwork, and decent accuracy. I like his future based on what I’ve seen.

  10. don

    I didn’t see the Seahawk game, but I seen that Lacy was playing lead back. That cannot be good, because that guy needs some holes to be effective. He’s not a make someone miss kind of runner.

  11. Reid

    At this point in time, I think I would take them in the NFC (slightly over the Eagles).

    I didn’t see the Vikings-Lions game, but I lean towards the Eagles. I think Wentz is the difference-maker here, with his ability to make plays, especially when a play breaks down. The key will be if he can protect the football–that’s something I’m uncertain about.

    I would even say I doubt Elliott would have affected this game all that much.

    You could be right–the offense seemed to struggle to score points even when Zeke was playing. What do you think the problem is? It kinda seems like defenses have figured out a game plan to defend Prescott, and Prescott is struggling to come up with answers right now. I think something similar happened to Russell Wilson near the end of his second season as well.

    . I think at this point though Goff is holding the team back.

    To be fair, though, his performance is light years ahead of last year. It’s really surprising to me. Having said that, I don’t share your sense of optimisms, particularly about some of his attributes. For example, I don’t think his pocket play or footwork is that good, and I would say he needs a lot of work in both. The biggest thing, though, is the extent to which his ability to throw breaks down when under pressure. The performance of all QBs dips, at least a little, when they face pressure. The dip in Goff’s performance, when under pressure, is significant, although not necessarily in terms of turnovers.

    I didn’t see the Seahawk game, but I seen that Lacy was playing lead back. That cannot be good, because that guy needs some holes to be effective. He’s not a make someone miss kind of runner.

    Yeah, but to be fair, if the half the run plays are blown up from the get-go, that’s a bigger problem than Lacy.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.