37 thoughts on “2020-2021 NFL: Week 3

  1. Sun
    49ers-Giants
    Washington-Browns
    Bengals-Eagles
    Raiders-Patriots
    Bears-Falcons
    Rams-Bills
    Texans-Steelers
    Titans-Vikings
    Panthers-Chargers
    Jets-Colts
    Cowboys-Seahawks
    Lions-Cardinals
    Buccaneers-Broncos
    Packers-Saints

    Mon
    Chiefs-Ravens

  2. Power Rankings

    First tier

    Chiefs, Ravens

    If I based my assessment on last week’s games, the Chiefs would drop behind the Ravens. But unless the defense keeps playing like they did against the Chargers, I’m going to consider it a fluke/bad day (unless there are injuries I don’t know about).

    Second Tier

    Rams, Patriots, Seahawks
    Packers, Steelers, Saints
    Titans, 49ers, Buccaneers
    Cowboys, Bills, Colts, Texans, Cardinals

    I am very high on the Rams. My only question is whether their OL can block well against the better front sevens. If so, they would be my favorite to win the division and they would move to the first tier.

    Patriots-or I should say Belichick–is unreal. Seven players opted out due to the virus–including two defensive starters and a starting O-lineman. Anyone else with that roster would have little chance getting to or going far in the playoffs. Belichick has done this over and over again. Seattle has a much better roster, but the Patriots could have easily won the game. You can never count them out. (If the same happens when they play the Chiefs and Ravens, that will be remarkable.)

    Seahawks seems like team that has to outscore their opponents. If their OL is truly solid against better front sevens, yeah, they have a shot. But it’ll be like the 2018 Chiefs or Rams–and their offensive isn’t that explosive in my view. (They’re probably better at running, but we’ll see.) I don’t like the chances of this type of team.

    Packers close by. The Steelers and the Saints QBs look kinda old. I think both would have a much better chance playing a ball controlled, run-based style. Their good defenses would likely get even better, and the overall approach would increase their chances of winning the Super Bowl.

    49ers are so banged up, I might have to drop them lower.
    Titans goes back to Tannehill in the playoffs.
    Bucs defense looks strong, but I have questions about their offense. If they get in a groove, they’ll shoot up this list–and could be the best NFC team.

    I think the Cowboys, Colts and Texans have to show more. They have potential, but they need to put it together and show consistency. I don’t think the Texans have a huge chance to beat the Chiefs or Ravens, so…With the Bills, my sense is Allen is way too reckless, and by that alone their chances really drop.

    Finally: The Cardinals might be might dark horse pick. I want to see them against better teams before I say anything.

    1. I didn’t see them play this year yet, but the Bills may be a tier 1 team. Does Allen even have a turnover yet this year? If the answer is no, that’s the surprise of the year. If anything I would have Seattle, Bills, and probably the Saints if Thomas can come back at close to 100% in their own tier.

      If you ranked the top ten players on San Fran last year, my guess is 8 of them are not playing right now. That includes Kittle, Sherm, Bosa, Mostert, Buckner, and Deebo. That doesn’t even include guys like Solomon Thomas and Dee Ford. That is crazy. If they can win games it will be just coaching.

      The Raiders have to be in tier 2 if you are going to have that many teams. Their passing game shredded the Saints. I think you are biased to the teams you are cheering for.

    2. I’m pretty sure Allen has a turnover. I didn’t finish watching the Miami game, though. But I’ll put it this way: He’s still doing reckless things. He really reminds me of Newton in many ways, especially early on. Newton was super reckless–trying to make too much happen. And at one point (in 2012, I think), he stopped doing all that. (The problem at that point was accuracy.) Allen is not at the point where he stops trying to do too much. You’re chances of winning a Super Bowl is extremely low if this is the case.

      If anything I would have Seattle, Bills, and probably the Saints if Thomas can come back at close to 100% in their own tier.

      You mean, right below the Chiefs and Ravens?

      I’m having doubts about the Saints, even when Thomas comes back. I do think Brees looks a little older, but maybe it’s rust from not having the preseason. That’s the thing: it’s important to remember (and I need to remind myself) that the situation is dynamic. Some teams could look radically different by the end of the season. Some teams could look very different after two more games. I think the teams I have in my two tiers are the ones that have a good chance of rising. Maybe I should include the Eagles, possibly the Raiders, but I have little faith in the latter.

      If you ranked the top ten players on San Fran last year, my guess is 8 of them are not playing right now. That includes Kittle, Sherm, Bosa, Mostert, Buckner, and Deebo. That doesn’t even include guys like Solomon Thomas and Dee Ford. That is crazy. If they can win games it will be just coaching.

      Yeah, it’s crazy. And you didn’t mention Garappolo with a high-ankle sprain. It’s kinda what happened in 2018–and Shanahan did a really good coaching job. This was one of the reasons I thought they had a chance to be really good in 2019. I think they’ll play well, but it’s hard to seeing them going into the playoffs, without most of these guys–especially in the NFC East. If the Cardinals as good as they seem they may be able to compete for the division. (They played depleted offenses so far, so we’ll see.)

      The Raiders have to be in tier 2 if you are going to have that many teams. Their passing game shredded the Saints. I think you are biased to the teams you are cheering for.

      I’d put them at the bottom of tier 2, but I don’t a lot of hope. Look at their defense for most of the first half. Horrid. And this was without Thomas. Granted they played better.

      Also, while Carr and the offense got into a really good rhythm, they had a bad fumble (off the pitch–Richard just dropped it) and Carr mishandled a snap at the goal line. You know how the Lions and Browns would have these boneheaded miscues? (I would say for a stretch, the Cowboys were like that, too.) That’s my sense of the Raiders (and now the Lions seems to be reverting back to that)–Carr particularly. Carr can be hot and cold as a passer, too. Sometimes his accuracy is shaky. Additionally, if you look at his passes (even last night), a lot seem to be of the short checkdown variety. Did you agree with this? He threaded the needle on some of these last night, though. (I also think he’s not as bad in the pocket as you think. I think the problem is his footwork. He doesn’t seem to drop back, hit his back foot and then throw–not a lot anyway. He seems more flatfooted or just not moving into his throw. I don’t know how to explain it.)

      Don,

      With regard to Seattle, would you be happy if the Cowboys were playing like that–defensively and offensively?

      1. Additionally, if you look at his passes (even last night), a lot seem to be of the short checkdown variety. Did you agree with this?… He doesn’t seem to drop back, hit his back foot and then throw

        I believe these are two knocks on Carr from pundits. I haven’t heard them a lot recently, but I heard them a lot when Carr was playing well. But unlike what you are may be saying, they attribute these bad “habits” to not being willing to stand in there. Maybe he’s not scared of getting hit, but just scared of the pass-rush in general. They used to say Carr will check down before letting his receivers’ route develop. In terms of footwork the criticism was because he’s anxious, he may get rid of the ball and throw off his back foot instead of planting and throwing.

        With regard to Seattle, would you be happy if the Cowboys were playing like that–defensively and offensively?

        I would rather my team be built like the Aikman Cowboys for sure. But in Seattle’s case this year, I think it’s the right move to have the team rely on Wilson. If he is not the best QB in the league, he is certainly top three. And he won’t make mistake too often. I just heard that Wilson only threw 28 times. Is one of the issues that he completed too many long passes? Seattle’s defense contain the New England rush attack very well, but that’s sort of Seattle’s MO. They want to stop the run. Yes because of Seattle’s lack of pass rush and possibly they emphasis on containing Cam, they gave up a lot of yards in the air to a below average passing team. But Seattle doesn’t have the defensive personnel. My guess is last year if playing New England, Seattle would have ran a lot in the first half, be behind by ten points, and rely on Wilson to bail them out in the fourth quarter. That doesn’t sound like a better recipe.

    3. Re: Carr

      If I’m not mistaken, the propensity to throw a lot of short passes and checkdowns really started when Gruden became the HC. In his best years with Del Rio, I want to say he threw downfield quite a bit. I’m not 100% sure, but I think this contributed to some of the MVP talk he got. I thought the short passes were more a function of Gruden’s offense. I never really had the strong impression that he couldn’t hang in the pocket. But maybe I’m wrong about that.

      As for his footwork, I assumed the mediocre footwork was a result of playing in a spread offense.

      just heard that Wilson only threw 28 times. Is one of the issues that he completed too many long passes?

      No, it’s not that. It’s just the sense that Wilson is the focal point, and running is merely complementary–and more specifically–they’ll run in only favorable conditions (e.g., a light box), otherwise Wilson will check out to a pass. This is a formula that can have great success, if you’ve got a great QB, and a good supporting cast–and this may be the best supporting cast Wilson has had.

      The problem is, an offense has to also be able to run when the conditions aren’t favorable to running. For example, I prefer to be great at running in a run heavy formation at the goal line and during the 4 minute drill. Nothing too fancy, just who’s going to be more physical. If the offense is built around Wilson, and you’re mostly only running in favorable run conditions, do you think that offense is going to be good at running in short yardage or in the 4 minute drill? I’m skeptical.

      And suppose the Hawks face an opponent that can stymie the passing game–without really selling out to stop the pass–e.g., getting good pressure with four linemen. Will they rely on the run game and will it be effective enough to bail them out? Again, with Wilson at the heart of the offense and with him controlling the offense, I’m worried that’s not going to happen.

      By the way, the formations/sets they’re using is what’s creating this impression. For example, they’re in shotgun a lot more, moving away from Wilson being under center and using PA. That’s one red flag. Maybe they did that because they were worried about the Patriots crazy blitzes? I don’t know.

      I’m curious to know if you think a team can run really well from the shotgun–particularly in the 4 minute drill or in short yardage. I don’t really feel good about this. Carroll made 11 personnel shotgun a run formation, but it’s not as effective as running from 21 or 22 personnel with Wilson under center, or a jumbo package.

      My guess is last year if playing New England, Seattle would have ran a lot in the first half, be behind by ten points, and rely on Wilson to bail them out in the fourth quarter. That doesn’t sound like a better recipe.

      Fair point. But if the OL is better this year, they can play a ball control style and not get so far behind. (Then again, if the defense is horrid, that might not be true.)

      Would you still like the current approach if the defense plays over 65 snaps a game, versus playing under 65 in the older approach? I think I prefer the older approach. I’m thinking with the end in mind–namely the playoffs and Super Bowl. The defense playing all those snaps during the regular season can make a weak defense even weaker. And they going to be able to run well when they need it?

      Edit

      In terms of style, would you say the Seahawk offense is closer to the Chiefs/Saints/Eagles or Aikman/2014 Cowboys/Titans/Vikings. If you say the former, then you know why I’m unhappy or at least concerned they’re going in that direction. (Edit: Texans offense–that’s another defense I’d add in the Chiefs/Saints/Eagles category. Hawks offense looks kinda close to them.)

  3. Jaguars-Dolphins

    Fitz had the magic last week, and it continued this week. I thought the Dolphins OL.

    The Jaguars couldn’t do much on offense, but they weren’t terrible either.

    1. Oops, I was going to say I thought they looked good for the entire game, but then I realized it was more on the first drive, where they looked dominant. Actually, after that, I’d say the OL was solid at worst–so, yeah, good all the way through. Fitzmagic is in a groove.

      Minshew had some turnovers, but he looks solid, potential to be a legit starter. John Clayton said that he looks like Mayfield–that is, plays like the way one would expect from Mayfield. I think there’s some truth to that. There’s a part of me that makes me think of Fitzpatrick, too–maybe just his stature and the fact that both are better runners than people think. In any event, Minshew looks like a guy who knows how to play QB.

      1. I planned to listen to it on the radio (since I enjoyed the Monday night game that way), but I promised our classmate Vicky I’d sit in on a seminar related to her MLM around that time. We were done by 3:30 but by then I was deep into my work. Also, Jaguars and Dolphins.

  4. General thoughts about the upcoming games

    Raiders-Patriots
    My sense regarding teams, particularly their offenses, beating a Bill Belichick team: 1) threaten the defense with the run game and 2) hit on 2-3 deep passes, preferably utilizing play action. For sure, if the offense is one dimensional, the team likely won’t win.

    Rams-Bills
    Good test for both teams. I’m watching for the Rams OL, specifically how well they run versus the Bills run defense, and defense overall; also, Josh Allen’s decision-making and ball security.

    Texans-Steelers
    Man, the Texans have to have one of the toughest opponents in the first three weeks that I can remember. It’s kinda unfair. They could be 0-3 and actually much better than that.

    I’m curious to see how good the Steelers defense is. And if Roethlisberger doesn’t look so old.

    Titans-Vikings
    I don’t have a good feeling about the Vikings. If they’re serious about going far this season, I feel they need to make a move for a WR. I wonder if Danielle Hunter will be playing. They really need him, too.

    I hope the Titans defense improves. They might be might dark horse pick, if they could qualify for that designation.

    Cowboys-Seahawks
    Hearing about the injuries on the defensive side of the ball, for both teams, is disappointing, as it points to a game with a lot of offense and no defense, one of the least enjoyable type of games I have to watch.

    I think for both offenses, it’ll be another test about their identities. Are the Seahawks going to play like the Texans/Chiefs style or a more run-based style? Same with the Cowboys? Which team will shy away from or neglect the run–versus really get it going? I hope the Seahawks can pound the Cowboys on the ground and stick to it, but I have a feeling they won’t.

    Lions-Cardinals
    I’m very close to writing off the Lions. They haven’t had Galloway, but they’ve just played like the pre-Caldwell Lions. Every time I watch them now, I think of Caldwell, and how the Lions should have never fired him. They should have stuck with him like the Bengals stuck with Marvin Lewis for so long. The Bengals, for a long time, were almost as woebegone as the Browns, if I recall–but Marvin Lewis changed that. They had some down years, but they got away from being a factory of sadness, a la the Browns (and Lions), and they had solid playoff teams. If they had a great QB, they might have gone to a Super Bowl, and won it.

    Packers-Saints
    For football fans, it’s disappointing that Michael Thomas isn’t playing. As an aside, I just want to say again that I think the Saints should take on a running identity–like what Peyton did in his last year. The Saints defense isn’t as good as that Bronco defense, but Brees and the offense is better than that Bronco offense in my opinion.

    Chiefs-Ravens
    I’m looking forward to this heavyweight match-up. I’m interested in seeing both defenses. I kinda would like to see the Ravens get behind and then see Lamar sling it a lot to bring them back. That’s a test he needs to pass in my view.

  5. Rams-Bills

    Josh Allen played well up until he made that crazy throw, which helped the Rams. The Rams offense got on a roll, putting the Bills on their heels, and they seemed unstoppable. Allen got reckless with this scrambles. (He was really irritating me.) I’m not sure if the Bill started relaxing too early, but they’re lucky to win this.

    Titans-Vikings

    While watching this game I kept thinking: I wish the Seahawks played in a similar offensive style as the Vikings and TItans. Indeed, I wish they were able to get Gary Kubiak as their OC.

    This was a decent game, and the Titans made an impressive comeback. (I think if the Vikings will not win a lot of games if they have to make a comeback, primarily because their OL can’t pass protect in these situations.)

    1. Bills-Rams:

      I didn’t catch the last half of the 4th, but it was a tale of two halves. Rams’ offense was good in the first half, but they couldn’t do much in the red zone, whereas the Bills was unbelievable in the red zone. There was a series in which the Bills scored three times but two came back because of penalties. Absurd. The Bills defense is supposed to be good this year, but based on this game and the stats of previous games, I don’t think they are that good.

    2. I didn’t have the impression that the Rams offense was good in the first half–but this is relative to how they normally looked. The Bills were controlling their run game, I thought, and they pressured Goff.

      But in the second half the Rams run game and the entire offense got going. I almost got the sense that the Bills were exchanging yards for time, which if true they took it too far.

      As for the Bills defense, they do not seem like a dominant defense, although if they can play like they did in the first half consistently maybe they could be.

      Allen has some foolish scrambling in the last half of the 4th. They’re lucky to win this.

      1. I’m pretty sure the Rams didn’t punt in the first half. They may not have punted all game long. Also I think when they showed the stats in terms of yards in the first half, the Rams had a slight edge (It was virtually equal.).

    3. The Rams didn’t punt all game, but in the first half they had 2 FGs, one missed, and an INT. They only had 4 possessions in the first half (one was for 30 seconds or so).

  6. Cowboys-Seahawks

    I can’t really think of too many specifics, but my overall feeling was that this was crap game–kinda by both teams. The injuries were ridiculous, and I’m sure that contributed. But even though the Cowboys OL was decimated, the Seahawk DL couldn’t dominate. Now, they didn’t look utterly terrible, and they made plays, but this is with a lot of backups. The explosive passes they gave up were sickening to watch.

    The Seahawk OL has a rough time–they didn’t look as good as they did in the first two games. And I think that affected Russ’s accuracy. Oh, one specific I remember is Metcalf’s boneheaded early celebration. (He had an important 3rd down drop, too.)

    Besides the quality of play, my impression that the Seahawks offense is more like the Texans/Chiefs is a bummer to see for me.

    1. I thought the Seahawks pass pro was really good. Dallas blitzed a lot in the first half, and was getting to Wilson. In the second half though, Dallas hardly blitzed and Seattle’s pass-pro was great. Dallas are not great right now. Their defense is pretty bad. We shall see against Cleveland next week.

    2. Like many other aspects of football, I guess pass pro is relative. Relative to the first two games, I wouldn’t call the pass pro very good. If Russ didn’t make extending plays look effortless, I’m not sure passing game would have been so effective.

      Would you say the Seahawks are more pass-first–a la Texans, Steelers, Chiefs? Objectively, I would say that’s what they’re doing.

      Dallas is bad, but in fairness, their OL and secondary have been utterly decimated. Zeke had a bunch of drops that I thought was worrisome. Dak’s two picks were not great, and he also had a third, too.

      1. In terms of Seattle’s pass pro, try checking out the second part of the third quarter till the end of the game, I’m pretty sure you would think their pass pro was good to great.

        I forgot to mention that in the first half especially, both teams, but mostly Dallas, was slipping and sliding on the field. It wasn’t raining, so I’m not sure what was going on.

    3. I agree about the slippery surface. None of the reporters asked Carroll about this, but it was something I wondered. There were several Seahawks that went out with knee and ankle injuries, so I’m wondering if that contributed to it. I might watch the 3rd quarter again.

  7. Raiders-Patriots

    You can see the Raiders’ boneheaded miscues I complained about (e.g., 4th down penalty giving the Pats a first down; fumble near on the Pats 30; penalties in the red zone leading to a FG; Carr fumbling, etc.)

    Early on, I kind of got the sense that the Raiders were better team overall–in terms of talent. But then the Patriots just started dominating. Seemed like the Patriots broke the Raiders with their running.

    Belichick should win the coach of the year if they do really well.

    1. I was switching between this game and the Bills game, but the parts I saw the Raiders’ defense wasn’t great. Your comment was the Raiders’ defense was horrid against the Saints, they seem worse in this one. Yes the defense has to key on Cam, but he wasn’t doing much and the Pats kept running it down the Raiders’ throat.

    2. The Raiders defense was mostly horrid in the first half of the Saints game, and then they got less horrid. But now, I’m wondering if that’s because the Saints offense is struggling now. Yeah, they were horrid against the Pats–that’s how they look in general, though.

      Did you see the type of boneheaded miscues that I mentioned?

  8. Packers-Saints

    I don’t know if Brees is on the decline or the Saints really miss Michael Thomas. But it seems like they have almost no passing game, besides checkdowns and other short passes. They did seem to establish the run early, and they did a good job. But if you can’t pass the ball, it’s super hard to have an effective offense (obviously).

    I think the Packers may be the best NFC team. Actually, even though the Rams lost today, I think it’s between the Packers and Rams. The Bucs could be in there. The Seahawks, with Russ, can beat anyone, but man their defense is horrid. And I would put the Saints in this group, too.

  9. Chiefs-Ravens

    To me, the key of the game was the Chiefs defense. Did the Ravens have more than one first down in the first half? Two? If Chiefs defense plays like this, I’d pick them to win it all.

    The Chiefs are more of a pass-first team, but they control the clock (and run the ball well enough). It seemed like the Ravens front seven was winning in the trenches early on, but the Ravens defense seemed to play a lot of snaps in the first half.

    Reid had some nice goal line plays to get them points.

    On another note, this was the type of game where you need to see Lamar throw a lot to give them a chance. He didn’t do that great in my opinion.

    1. Jackson wasn’t great from the pocket, but he did a little better than his stats showed and his receivers didn’t help him out on some big plays. My guess though is, not only is he not super accurate, but he doesn’t throw a really catchable ball. He almost zips it on every throw. There was a play in which Hollywood Brown beat his guy off the line, and Jackson tries to throw a rope to him down the sidelines. But a little air under it, makes it an easier throw and an easier catch if it got to Brown.

      That being said though, Mahomes was unbelievable. The Ravens D really had no answers. Wilson and Rodgers are unbelievable at times, but they don’t seem to be as good as Mahomes when the Chiefs offense is clicking. But give credit to Reid and The Enemy, I mean Bieniemy.

      Oh, and I was wondering since this is the first time I saw the Ravens play this season, they didn’t run the PRO on every play. In fact they only ran it on maybe half the run plays or even less? I thought in the past, they ran PRO on like 75-85% of run plays. Is that what the Ravens have been doing all year so far?

    2. I don’t even know Jackson’s stats–I’m just going by the eye test–and if he keeps playing like this in similar situations, I would include he’s not a legitimate Super Bowl QB. I’m not clear on where you stand. Was his performance reassuring or does it leave questions for you?

      But give credit to Reid and The Enemy, I mean Bieniemy.

      Also, Hill and Kelce–and Edwards-Helaire. The latter has made the run game a true threat. I think he’s elevated the offense.

      Oh, and I was wondering since this is the first time I saw the Ravens play this season, they didn’t run the PRO on every play. In fact they only ran it on maybe half the run plays or even less? I thought in the past, they ran PRO on like 75-85% of run plays. Is that what the Ravens have been doing all year so far?

      What’s “PRO?” Do you mean run-pass option (RPO)? ?

      1. I just don’t feel as strongly as you do that Lamar has to be “great” in the pocket for them to win a Super Bowl. So I’ve seen enough to say that Baltimore can win a Super Bowl with Lamar. That doesn’t mean I think he is just as equipped as Mahomes, Wilson or Rodgers to win a Super Bowl, but I think I would favor Lamar over many QBs in the NFL. In fact we talked about Cousins and Watson in the past, I would put my confidence about the same with Lamar in being able to win a Super Bowl. My doubts with the Cousins and Watson have been I just haven’t seen greatness consistently with them. I guess I can say I should have doubts about anyone that has bad games in big moments.

        Yes run-pass option, but I swear I heard people say PRO as in pass-run option.

    3. I just don’t feel as strongly as you do that Lamar has to be “great” in the pocket for them to win a Super Bowl.

      Maybe not great, but they have to be somewhat effective, don’t you think? For example, if they excel outside the pocket, and they really can’t play well in the pocket, you don’t think that’s a huge problem, with regard to winning a Super Bowl? To me, this was the black marks against Kaep and RGIII. It’s also why I’m fairly confident about Deshaun–he’s shown he can play from the pocket. He may not be as great as some others, but it’s good enough in my view.

      But the issue last night wasn’t just playing from the pocket–it was having to throw a lot to mount a comeback. Another way of saying this: Can the QB throw to win when the running game is not a factor? This was a black mark against Alex Smith and Matt Schaub (and Schaub could play from the pocket). In the playoffs/Super Bowl, this is almost certainly will happen. So if you’re QB can’t do this, then you should move on. (It’s why I think the Chiefs moved on, wisely, from Smith.) I feel like you and I agree on this issue, right?

      I guess I can say I should have doubts about anyone that has bad games in big moments.

      Yep, and I’m with you here. But “big moments” is more general. It can mean a big 3rd down. It can mean the performance in a playoff game, etc. It can also mean, you’re team is down by two scores with 8 minutes left in the game.

      Re: RPOs

      (I never heard of PROs, but whatever.) I can’t recall if they did this a lot last year. I want to say no. Basically, I didn’t feel like they did this a lot less. What stood out more was the lack of pre-snap motion and misdirection/option plays–it seemed a little less and less varied.

      This is one of the first times I got the sense that the opposing defense didn’t really struggle to contain the Ravens offense. I don’t know if KC just found a good blueprint to defending the Ravens, or their defense is really good. If it’s the latter, man.

  10. Dang. Eight people on the Titans (3 players and 5 staff) tested positive. Titans have stopped practices. I believe the Vikings have, too, although I haven’t heard any of them having tested positive.

    Someone suggested a bye for all teams this weekend. That idea appeals to me. Many teams have injured players, which would give them extra time to heal up. And you wouldn’t have to make crazy adjustments to the game schedule–to make up games for the Vikings and Titans.

    However, one problem is that the Titans and Vikings wouldn’t be able to practice much, if at all, before their next game. I’m not sure how that’s going to work. Ugh.

    1. See my original plan to stop games at 12 sounds more appealing now right? Pushing the season back is sound, too, but I would be slightly more in favor of just pushing on and cutting the season short. How many more weeks/times can the season get pushed back?

      That being said though, no MLB games have been cancelled since the beginning games were I believe.

    2. I don’t think my issue was shortening the season to 12 games. I had questions about the use of byes and when you would get rid of the byes. Your plan was a little complicated, and I may not have fully understood it as well. Did your plan include blacking out an entire week of games–i.e., if one team can’t play all the teams will have a bye for one week?

      As for how many more weeks the league can be pushed back, I’m not sure. But even with this idea of having a bye for all teams this week, there’s still the problem of those the Titans and Vikings not being able to practice. I’m not sure how you get around that problem.

      1. Yeah I didn’t really straighten out the details, but the basis of my plan is to let every team, coach, and fan know before the season starts (ie: upfront), that if we have a Covid breakout and if we have to cancel games, the season “could” be shorten to 12 games. To me if this isn’t said upfront, it would be unfair to do it midseason.

    3. Let’s say the league implemented your suggestion. How would they handle the Titans’ and Vikings’ games this weekend? Would they reschedule and play on week 13? Or would all games be cancelled this weekend? I kinda like the second idea, but there’s the problem with when the Titans and Vikings would practice, although that would still exist if their week 4 games were moved to week 13. (They wouldn’t be practicing for week 5 games.)

      1. What is week 13? Is that when both the Titans and Steelers have byes? At this point my plan would be to reschedule the game or it may have to be multiple games and use this week as the Titans, Steelers bye week. So as it stands now, in my plan, the NFL is still going to have a 16 game schedule. But if the Steelers and/or Titans would have to miss an another game, every other team would get an extra bye week and the season would now be a 15 game season. And so on and so on if need be.

    4. I’m operating under the premise of your plan of 12 weeks. So week 13 would be the open week.

      My understanding is that they’re going to try to play their games on Monday or Tuesday now–and they might not have many days to practice, if at all. I assume that the players/staff with covid are not in quarantine and won’t play.

      Edit

      Now, the game is moved to a later time in the season. I’m guessing they’re going to move around the byes, if both teams don’t have a bye on the same week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.