Week 12 NFL

[Aggies7]

Texans and Bills tonight. Allen just went down but looks like it was just the wind knocked out 

[Aggies7]

It’s absolutely amazing to me how bad the quarterback play is in the NFL in 2025. Or do we just expect too much? I know Mills is a backup but how can there only be a dozen or so guys in the entire world that can be good at the QB position?

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Aggies7 said:

It’s absolutely amazing to me how bad the quarterback play is in the NFL in 2025. Or do we just expect too much? I know Mills is a backup but how can there only be a dozen or so guys in the entire world that can be good at the QB position?

That's a good question. It really is amazing..

[Aggies7]

5 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

That's a good question. It really is amazing..

Or is it just perception? Clearly quarterbacks are better now than even 30 years ago, if not for the rule changes alone. But it seems like the chasm between the top ten or so and everyone else hasn’t been bigger than it is now 

[Aggies7]

This game has to be maddening for Houston fans 

[Aggies7]

Texans D is abusing Allen 

[Aggies7]

18 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Texans D is abusing Allen 

And they allow a 4th and 27 😬 

[gunnarthor]

2 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

It’s absolutely amazing to me how bad the quarterback play is in the NFL in 2025. Or do we just expect too much? I know Mills is a backup but how can there only be a dozen or so guys in the entire world that can be good at the QB position?

I think the rule changes have helped offenses so much that the QB position has gotten too powerful. I don't think the 2000 Ravens could win in this era. If you remember the late 90s, early 00s, the QBs that got to the SB included Brad Johnson, Hasselback, Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer, Rex Grossman. 

[The Great Hambino]

13 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

Or is it just perception? Clearly quarterbacks are better now than even 30 years ago, if not for the rule changes alone. But it seems like the chasm between the top ten or so and everyone else hasn’t been bigger than it is now 

It's an interesting thought.

My theory is that league philosophies are cyclical, and we're in a cycle where defenses are ahead of offenses unless you have an elite QB that can hero-ball their way through it.  With the way offenses are constructed and defenses are matching up against them, I'd suggest that maybe it's harder for lower-end starters/higher-end backups to get by leaning on the run game and playing the field position game than it was in past generations.  Defenses are way more exotic nowadays, and it seems like good defenses can defend the run well enough while staying in nickel.  Fullbacks may be the new market inefficiency to exploit - at least I hope so.  I don't want my kids to one day look at me confused when I tell them I played fullback the way I looked at my grandfather when he told me he played middle guard

[Vanimal46]

35 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

It's an interesting thought.

My theory is that league philosophies are cyclical, and we're in a cycle where defenses are ahead of offenses unless you have an elite QB that can hero-ball their way through it.  With the way offenses are constructed and defenses are matching up against them, I'd suggest that maybe it's harder for lower-end starters/higher-end backups to get by leaning on the run game and playing the field position game than it was in past generations.  Defenses are way more exotic nowadays, and it seems like good defenses can defend the run well enough while staying in nickel.  Fullbacks may be the new market inefficiency to exploit - at least I hope so.  I don't want my kids to one day look at me confused when I tell them I played fullback the way I looked at my grandfather when he told me he played middle guard

You nailed it. The league is full of copy cat Kyle Shanahan and Sean McVay disciples. Every team runs essentially the same style of offense, and the DCs now have schemed ways to stop them (for now). What's interesting is McVay is changing his ways and is using jumbo 3 TE sets almost 50% of the time with immense success.

I've been waiting for the year when a team zigs when everyone else zags and goes back to a smash mouth, run first offense. Go find a Lorenzo Neal/Tony Richardson and spam plays from the I-formation. 

[Vanimal46]

14 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

It’s absolutely amazing to me how bad the quarterback play is in the NFL in 2025. Or do we just expect too much? I know Mills is a backup but how can there only be a dozen or so guys in the entire world that can be good at the QB position?

We probably expect too much. League average for QB rating is 92.1 this year. Compared to 2005, the league average QB rating was 80.1. We expect a lot because the rule changes cater so much to offense and generating points. 

[The Great Hambino]

3 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

You nailed it. The league is full of copy cat Kyle Shanahan and Sean McVay disciples. Every team runs essentially the same style of offense, and the DCs now have schemed ways to stop them (for now). What's interesting is McVay is changing his ways and is using jumbo 3 TE sets almost 50% of the time with immense success.

I've been waiting for the year when a team zigs when everyone else zags and goes back to a smash mouth, run first offense. Go find a Lorenzo Neal/Tony Richardson and spam plays from the I-formation. 

Good call on McVay's pivot.  Even if it's being done out of necessity, truly great coaches separate themselves by being able to adapt their systems to their personnel as well as to league trends.  Part of the reason Belichick won for so long is that he allowed his offenses to evolve into whatever form was appropriate in the environment at the time.

I think the rules are too tipped in the favor of passing for a team to have sustained success with a truly old school smashmouth attack, but being able to incorporate powerful elements within the modern game can really add value.  One reason for the sustained success of the Eagles is having a QB that can moonlight as a fullback when necessary.  Starting with what's effectively first and nine for every set of downs can really wear on a defense.

[Cap'n Piranha]

The problem with running a smashmouth style of offense is that it lends itself to a lot of 3 and outs--one negative play on 1st or 2nd down, and you're in trouble.  It also requires consistently excellent play from multiple blockers, and even if it works, because the game will be shortened so much due to lengthy drives, turnovers become absolute killers.  To top it off, most fans would find it to be pretty boring--12 play, 75 yard drives don't tend to excite the masses like 50 yard bombs.  In short, the resources and dedication required to make it work are probably so high, for such a thin margin of advantage, that no team is going to do it.

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

It's an interesting thought.

My theory is that league philosophies are cyclical, and we're in a cycle where defenses are ahead of offenses unless you have an elite QB that can hero-ball their way through it.  With the way offenses are constructed and defenses are matching up against them, I'd suggest that maybe it's harder for lower-end starters/higher-end backups to get by leaning on the run game and playing the field position game than it was in past generations.  Defenses are way more exotic nowadays, and it seems like good defenses can defend the run well enough while staying in nickel.  Fullbacks may be the new market inefficiency to exploit - at least I hope so.  I don't want my kids to one day look at me confused when I tell them I played fullback the way I looked at my grandfather when he told me he played middle guard

I agree and what I'm about to say may add to your thoughts, it may be a slight alternative, I'm not exactly sure how to frame it:

I think it has to do with the leaps we've seen in athleticism on the defensive side the last decade.  I'm old enough to remember what the athletic profiles of guys in 2010 looked like.  

Would Chad Greenway even get on an NFL team today?  Could Jared Allen be as good as the guys now like Parsons?

Every time an offense steps on the field they square off with 300+ pound guys that can run a 4.7.  Edge rushers with get-off an speed totally unheard of not that long ago.  Linebackers that can run like safeties.  Safeties that can cover and tackle.  So many hybrid-types that are multi-faceted super athletes.  IMO - this has seriously squeezed the space on the field.  Forcing the passing lanes, running lanes, and opportunities to be much more difficult to find.

I wish I had a more quantifiable analysis for it, but it's what I believe to be the issue.  (Coupled with an ever increasing drought of capable NFL offensive linemen.  That is another huge piece IMO.)

[gunnarthor]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I agree and what I'm about to say may add to your thoughts, it may be a slight alternative, I'm not exactly sure how to frame it:

I think it has to do with the leaps we've seen in athleticism on the defensive side the last decade.  I'm old enough to remember what the athletic profiles of guys in 2010 looked like.  

Would Chad Greenway even get on an NFL team today?  Could Jared Allen be as good as the guys now like Parsons?

Every time an offense steps on the field they square off with 300+ pound guys that can run a 4.7.  Edge rushers with get-off an speed totally unheard of not that long ago.  Linebackers that can run like safeties.  Safeties that can cover and tackle.  So many hybrid-types that are multi-faceted super athletes.  IMO - this has seriously squeezed the space on the field.  Forcing the passing lanes, running lanes, and opportunities to be much more difficult to find.

I wish I had a more quantifiable analysis for it, but it's what I believe to be the issue.  (Coupled with an ever increasing drought of capable NFL offensive linemen.  That is another huge piece IMO.)

I think those are all good points. The honey-badger type safeties have really changed the game but OLB/Edge types who can rush and cover are on a whole different level than what we saw even 15 years ago. The room for error is almost non-existent for offenses. And, as you say, with less capable offensive linemen, QBs have even less time to process.

[The Great Hambino]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I agree and what I'm about to say may add to your thoughts, it may be a slight alternative, I'm not exactly sure how to frame it:

I think it has to do with the leaps we've seen in athleticism on the defensive side the last decade.  I'm old enough to remember what the athletic profiles of guys in 2010 looked like.  

Would Chad Greenway even get on an NFL team today?  Could Jared Allen be as good as the guys now like Parsons?

Every time an offense steps on the field they square off with 300+ pound guys that can run a 4.7.  Edge rushers with get-off an speed totally unheard of not that long ago.  Linebackers that can run like safeties.  Safeties that can cover and tackle.  So many hybrid-types that are multi-faceted super athletes.  IMO - this has seriously squeezed the space on the field.  Forcing the passing lanes, running lanes, and opportunities to be much more difficult to find.

I wish I had a more quantifiable analysis for it, but it's what I believe to be the issue.  (Coupled with an ever increasing drought of capable NFL offensive linemen.  That is another huge piece IMO.)

I'm following what you're saying, but I don't think the leap in athleticism is limited to the defensive side.  I think defenses are trying to mirror the changes on offense, so in a way, Greenway-type linebackers getting replaced by safeties in big nickel or corners in regular nickel mirrors fullbacks becoming H-back type tight ends or slot receivers.  There's a natural progression of athleticism that occurs over time across most sports, and football isn't any different.  Take any era of football, and it's hard to envision most players fitting in 20 or 30 years later if you were to put them in a time machine.  It's why Jim Brown is still my preferred answer to the greatest football player of all time - he still sized up well decades after his playing career was over because he was a mutant among his contemporaries.  It'd be like if Patrick Ricard moved like Derrick Henry in today's terms.

As to where guys like Greenway and Allen would play, it depends on how you're looking at it.  If they were born later, would they have taken advantage of improved methods of training, nutrition, etc so that they'd be better versions of themselves?  Or are they hopping in that proverbial time machine as they were?

Regarding OL struggles, I think part of it is modern football strategy puts them on an island more often, and they're moving backward or laterally more often as opposed to driving off the ball.  So even if they're bigger and more agile than they were before, it's not enough to stop a hard-charging Myles Garrett when you have to let him come to you out in space.  Also, there was a period where the college game didn't prepare o linemen very well for the pro game, although I think that gap has been closing to a degree.

Not exactly sure where I'm going with this, other than discussing the philosophy of football on a baseball forum sure beats the hell out of working

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

I'm following what you're saying, but I don't think the leap in athleticism is limited to the defensive side.  I think defenses are trying to mirror the changes on offense, so in a way, Greenway-type linebackers getting replaced by safeties in big nickel or corners in regular nickel mirrors fullbacks becoming H-back type tight ends or slot receivers.  There's a natural progression of athleticism that occurs over time across most sports, and football isn't any different.  Take any era of football, and it's hard to envision most players fitting in 20 or 30 years later if you were to put them in a time machine.  It's why Jim Brown is still my preferred answer to the greatest football player of all time - he still sized up well decades after his playing career was over because he was a mutant among his contemporaries.  It'd be like if Patrick Ricard moved like Derrick Henry in today's terms.

As to where guys like Greenway and Allen would play, it depends on how you're looking at it.  If they were born later, would they have taken advantage of improved methods of training, nutrition, etc so that they'd be better versions of themselves?  Or are they hopping in that proverbial time machine as they were?

Regarding OL struggles, I think part of it is modern football strategy puts them on an island more often, and they're moving backward or laterally more often as opposed to driving off the ball.  So even if they're bigger and more agile than they were before, it's not enough to stop a hard-charging Myles Garrett when you have to let him come to you out in space.  Also, there was a period where the college game didn't prepare o linemen very well for the pro game, although I think that gap has been closing to a degree.

Not exactly sure where I'm going with this, other than discussing the philosophy of football on a baseball forum sure beats the hell out of working

I do think it's a combo of things and you're right that athleticism does progress over time.  I guess my thinking is that in a playing field that isn't getting any larger, there is only so much room on the field.  Yes, the offensive athletes are even better, but that doesn't make the playing surface larger.

It's a distinct advantage for the defense to narrow down/shrink the room the offense has to operate.  The offense has no such counter now that they've maxed out the vertical spacing they can achieve.  (That's why I think the late 90s, early 2000s saw a huge jump.  Vertical spacing became a huge factor.  Defenses have now largely eliminated that with 2 deep looks while still having enough athleticism to shrink the intermediate and shallow areas of the field)

It's my explanation for the pivot to jumbo sets.  Or LA running 4 tight ends.  They know they can no longer stretch the field as an advantage, so they're going to rely on winning by pure size instead.  There will be more ebbs and flows, but I think one thing that will be here to stay is that defenses are going to be much, much more difficult to attack because they can simply defend far more of the field, far faster, than they ever have.

The only solution (and I'd wager we start hearing about it soon) is to widen the playing surface.

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I do think it's a combo of things and you're right that athleticism does progress over time.  I guess my thinking is that in a playing field that isn't getting any larger, there is only so much room on the field.  Yes, the offensive athletes are even better, but that doesn't make the playing surface larger.

It's a distinct advantage for the defense to narrow down/shrink the room the offense has to operate.  The offense has no such counter now that they've maxed out the vertical spacing they can achieve.  (That's why I think the late 90s, early 2000s saw a huge jump.  Vertical spacing became a huge factor.  Defenses have now largely eliminated that with 2 deep looks while still having enough athleticism to shrink the intermediate and shallow areas of the field)

It's my explanation for the pivot to jumbo sets.  Or LA running 4 tight ends.  They know they can no longer stretch the field as an advantage, so they're going to rely on winning by pure size instead.  There will be more ebbs and flows, but I think one thing that will be here to stay is that defenses are going to be much, much more difficult to attack because they can simply defend far more of the field, far faster, than they ever have.

The only solution (and I'd wager we start hearing about it soon) is to widen the playing surface.

Interesting thoughts.  The one question I would have on widening the playing surface is the physical ability to do it.  How many NFL stadiums can realistically widen the field by another 3-5 yards (the minimum to make a difference I would think) without having to undergo major renovations to remove seating?  Keep in mind that even though I'm sure most stadiums more or less have that room, do they have that room when taking into account the necessity to maintain a workable sideline?

[The Great Hambino]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I do think it's a combo of things and you're right that athleticism does progress over time.  I guess my thinking is that in a playing field that isn't getting any larger, there is only so much room on the field.  Yes, the offensive athletes are even better, but that doesn't make the playing surface larger.

It's a distinct advantage for the defense to narrow down/shrink the room the offense has to operate.  The offense has no such counter now that they've maxed out the vertical spacing they can achieve.  (That's why I think the late 90s, early 2000s saw a huge jump.  Vertical spacing became a huge factor.  Defenses have now largely eliminated that with 2 deep looks while still having enough athleticism to shrink the intermediate and shallow areas of the field)

It's my explanation for the pivot to jumbo sets.  Or LA running 4 tight ends.  They know they can no longer stretch the field as an advantage, so they're going to rely on winning by pure size instead.  There will be more ebbs and flows, but I think one thing that will be here to stay is that defenses are going to be much, much more difficult to attack because they can simply defend far more of the field, far faster, than they ever have.

The only solution (and I'd wager we start hearing about it soon) is to widen the playing surface.

I don't see the field size ever changing - too many logistical issues with that kind of move (they're not paying for stadium remodels if they're not paying for grass fields), and that would be a much more foundational change that a typical rule change, and people don't like foundational change.  More likely to me would be rule changes like adopting the college rule where offensive players can block downfield before the pass if it's caught behind the line of scrimmage.  Give the offense a chance to attack more downhill.  Or perhaps a return to more downhill, power-based run schemes as opposed to zone schemes configured within spread formations.  Or more radically, an adoption of some A11-type principles that would use a defense's aggressiveness against them.  Or in the opposite direction fun-wise, getting even more punitive on the defense in terms of who is deemed a defenseless player

Who knows.  It's fun to think about though.  I just don't think they've exhausted all options scheme-wise and rule-wise where they'd have to resort to something as drastic as widening the field

[TheLeviathan]

50 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Interesting thoughts.  The one question I would have on widening the playing surface is the physical ability to do it.  How many NFL stadiums can realistically widen the field by another 3-5 yards (the minimum to make a difference I would think) without having to undergo major renovations to remove seating?  Keep in mind that even though I'm sure most stadiums more or less have that room, do they have that room when taking into account the necessity to maintain a workable sideline?

I'm honestly not sure.  I just think it's a conversation that is eventually going to start happening.  I agree the logistics seem challenging, I'm just not able to think of many viable alternatives.

[TheLeviathan]

45 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I don't see the field size ever changing - too many logistical issues with that kind of move (they're not paying for stadium remodels if they're not paying for grass fields), and that would be a much more foundational change that a typical rule change, and people don't like foundational change.  More likely to me would be rule changes like adopting the college rule where offensive players can block downfield before the pass if it's caught behind the line of scrimmage.  Give the offense a chance to attack more downhill.  Or perhaps a return to more downhill, power-based run schemes as opposed to zone schemes configured within spread formations.  Or more radically, an adoption of some A11-type principles that would use a defense's aggressiveness against them.  Or in the opposite direction fun-wise, getting even more punitive on the defense in terms of who is deemed a defenseless player

Who knows.  It's fun to think about though.  I just don't think they've exhausted all options scheme-wise and rule-wise where they'd have to resort to something as drastic as widening the field

You're right that they probably haven't exhausted everything...but rule changes are hated just as much as the playing surface.  Maybe more.  (Certainly we have lots of examples with roughing the passer, PI, etc)

At some point there are just not enough gimmicks to overcome a distinct advantage the defense has slowly been able to create with the fine-tuning of athletes and coaching them to do a myriad of things well.  It's one thing that both the college and NFL game agree on.  (Colleges fighting against spread formations and all the gimmicky offenses has been a big part in fostering this environment IMO)

[gunnarthor]

Ignoring the Vikings, a lot of teams just look bad this year, no one looks like a world beater except maybe NE and Philly. Lions had to go to OT at home against the Giants, KC is awful for them, Seattle almost lost to Tennessee. Texans beat the Bills. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, gunnarthor said:

Ignoring the Vikings, a lot of teams just look bad this year, no one looks like a world beater except maybe NE and Philly. Lions had to go to OT at home against the Giants, KC is awful for them, Seattle almost lost to Tennessee. Texans beat the Bills. 

Agreed. Buffalo is shockingly bad for them this year. 

There is no elite team this year....unlike last year. 

[Mike Sixel]

Other than Dallas (which, no chance) all the late games are going well for teams behind MN catching them in the standings.....

[Vanimal46]

Congrats to Kirko for looking competent against the lowly New Orleans Saints today

[Vanimal46]

Plenty of runway to get the record this year... Incredible player

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Other than Dallas (which, no chance)

Famous last words... 21 unanswered points and tie game. What is it like to cheer for a team with an offense?

[Mike Sixel]

Arizona blowing a chance to tie the Vikings. 

[Mike Sixel]

Dallas allowing KOC to call short yardage plays....

[Mike Sixel]

31 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Famous last words... 21 unanswered points and tie game. What is it like to cheer for a team with an offense?

This is example a million why I don't bet on sports.