Which Teams Will Be the Most Fun in 2022?

Arizona Cardinals HC Kliff Kingsbury and QB Kyler Murray
Arizona Cardinals HC Kliff Kingsbury and QB Kyler Murray
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Offseason - The Minnesota Vikings are a better football team than the Arizona Cardinals. But the Cardinals are much, much more fun than the Vikings.

The Cardinals have freewheeling quarterback Kyler Murray, an imaginative offense, more skill-position talent than any team needs, and a flair for off-field melodrama. The Vikings are the team in the gray flannel suit: they produce 1.75 highlights per week, and everything else is a flat pass from Kirk Cousins to Alexander Mattison on third-and-17. The Cardinals could beat the Rams one week and lose to the Jaguars the next. The Vikings are allotted one upset of the Packers and one loss to either the Bears or Lions per year. Everything else is chalk.

The Vikings, in turn, are more fun than the Lions, because the Vikings generally stay in the playoff race. If all three teams were food, the Cardinals would be the honey sriracha wings at your favorite gastropub, the Vikings a turkey club at a corner diner, and the Lions the mashed potatoes in a hospital cafeteria.

In anticipation of the 2022 NFL schedule release, this week's Walkthrough is more interested in fun than Super Bowl worthiness. "Fun" may be hard to quantify, but quantification is Football Outsiders' business, so let's rank all 32 teams in terms of joyful watchability.

Our criteria:

  • Team Quality: Great teams are generally more fun to watch than average teams, which are more fun to watch than most bottom-feeders.
     
  • Quarterback: All NFL quarterbacks were lumped into four categories: Elite, Exciting, Noteworthy, and Boring. When it comes to watchability, a "noteworthy" quarterback like a second-year prospect (Trevor Lawrence), someone involved in a competition (Mitch Trubisky/Kenny Pickett) or a disaster artist (You know who) is better than the same-old same-Cousins.
     
  • Playmaker Corps: More big-name firepower equals more entertainment value.
     
  • Defense: Some teams, like the Steelers, have defenses that are fun to watch in their own right. But most NFL defenses, from the very good to the very bad, add little to the viewing experience for anyone but those true connoisseurs of the chess match who proudly announce how deeply they're enjoying a Thursday Night Football game that's 6-3 at halftime.
     
  • Novelty: New quarterbacks. New playmakers. New coaches. Exciting rookies. Even excellence can get a little stale. Fresh faces don't carry as much weight as being a great team with an elite quarterback, but applying a little spin to the narrative helps to keep viewers hooked.
     
  • Scheme: Designed Kyler Murray runs are exciting. Play-action boot passes to Irv Smith Jr. are about as much fun as commercials for toenail fungus medicine.

Each team gets a rating in each of those categories that I don't feel like sharing, then those ratings are computed according to a method that's too subtle and potentially valuable to reveal, then I put my thumb on the scale so this article flows better. Presto! A scientifically rigorous Fun Index!

Let's just get on with it.

Not Ranked: Cleveland Browns

Fun Index: N/A

The Browns will certainly be interesting this year, and they should be one of the top 10 "fun" teams based on such objective criteria as the quality of their quarterback and the other new faces on the roster. But there's no way the Browns are gonna be pure, frothy "fun." And if you slide into the comments with a detailed argument about how satisfying they will be to watch so long as you fully embrace the philosophical presumption of innocence and carefully compartmentalize on-field spectacle from its real-world implications, you will 100% prove my point about fun.

If nothing else, listening to broadcasters mutter and prevaricate their way through the Deshaun Watson "situation" is likely to cause headaches and nausea.

On the other hand, watching the Browns flail through a year with Jacoby Brissett because Watson gets placed on the Commissioner's Random Discipline List would be an absolute hoot.

31. Houston Texans

Fun Index: 1

Davis Mills does not count as a "noteworthy" quarterback because he's just an immobile Drew Lock surrogate who put up gaudy numbers in a handful of games no one watched. A productive draft brought a cornerback, a guard, and the less interesting of the two injured Alabama receivers. The Texans won't just be bad this season, but perfunctory. They're a placeholder where an NFL franchise should be.

30. Detroit Lions

Fun Index: 1

Jared Goff is back for another dreary tour of duty. Jameson Williams may not need a redshirt year, but he's unlikely to hit the ground running like Ja'Marr Chase in September, either. Don't act like you are likely to change your Thanksgiving plans because you simply must watch Aidan Hutchinson and DJ Chark. And marveling at Dan Campbell's machismo as he struts the sideline gets old in Year 2.

29. New York Giants

Fun Index: 1.25

The Giants get a tiny bump for a new coaching staff and the wisp of interest any Daniel Jones quarterback controversy might generate. Otherwise, at least the Texans and Lions have the decency to mostly stick to early-afternoon kickoffs in their regional markets. The NFL thinks the Giants deserve a London game and will force us to watch them lose to the Cowboys at least once in prime time.

28. Atlanta Falcons

Fun Index: 2

The Falcons began their plunge from awesome to self-destructive to infuriating to a drain on the NFL's entertainment value on February 5, 2017, and they remain committed to the bit. Still, Kyle Pitts, Drake London, and Cordarrelle Patterson could give Arthur Smith a somewhat intriguing offense, and Marcus Mariota vs. Desmond Ridder clears the lowest bar of a "quarterback controversy." The Falcons won't cause viewers to toss their televisions out of second-floor windows and renounce spectator sports forever like they threatened to do last year, but appointment television they ain't.

27. Chicago Bears

Fun Index: 2.5

There's a 5% chance that Justin Fields overcomes his franchise's effort to stuff him down the laundry chute and goes on a compelling Vindication Tour 2022, but a 95% chance that the Bears just become a shame-and-loathing hate-watch. The moment Trevor Siemian jogs onto the field, the Bears will dip to 34th place, below NHRA drag racing and Sunday reruns of Vanderbilt games on the SEC Network.

26. Seattle Seahawks

Fun Index: 3.5

Watching the Seahawks will be like going out for beers to cheer up a recently separated pal. Uh-uh, he started drinking before I got here. Oh no, he's straight-up asking a barmaid his daughter's age out. Maybe we should go get some coffee, buddy? Please stop sobbing.

Drew Lock, in this metaphor, is the Tinder date who is just using the Seahawks for a free dinner.

25. Carolina Panthers

Fun Index: 4

The 2022 Panthers will replicate the 2021 Bears note-for-note, but with Matt Corral instead of Justin Fields, Sam Darnold instead of Andy Dalton, and Matt Rhule impersonating Matt Nagy. That's an off-off-off-Broadway touring cast, and while the results could be amusing in the cringy way, the Panthers will be going through the motions from about Halloween onward.

24. Jacksonville Jaguars

Fun Index: 5

Urban Meyer's Fredo Corleone shenanigans provided lots of fun midweek chatter last year, but Jaguars games themselves were inexcusably dull. Meyer rarely even busted out any wild 'n' wooly offensive tactics for us to enjoy/discuss/autopsy. Doug Pederson will provide professionalism; Trevor Lawrence's attempt to rise from the ashes a talking point; and a supporting cast full of Travis Etienne, Christian Kirk, Laviska Shenualt, and Evan Engram a sprinkle of highlights and intrigue. It won't be great, but it could be diverting and a little promising.

As for midweek chatter, film junkies will give us plenty of I appreciate Travon Walker's 1-tackle, 2-assist performance on more levels than you do Tweetstorms throughout autumn.

23. New York Jets

Fun Index: 6

The Jets climb to the top of the heap of miserable teams thanks to an offseason that will make them more competitive (their three first-round picks, upgrades at tight end and in the secondary, the returns of Carl Lawson and Mekhi Becton) and entertaining (Breece Hall adds highlights and fantasy interest). Also, as was widely discussed on draft weekend, the Jets employ two players named Michael Carter, both a Bryce Hall and a Breece Hall, two defenders named Q. Williams who are brothers, and a Wilson-to-Wilson quarterback-receiver combo. That's an interesting story, right? Actually, that's everything that is interesting about the story.

22. Minnesota Vikings

Fun Index: 9

It's mid-November. The Vikings are somewhere between 5-4 and 3-5-1, as is their wont. Kirk Cousins ranks 11th in DVOA and DYAR, but fourth in passing yards, and he just narrowly avoided leading a fourth-quarter comeback against the Packers. (His 14-play, 75-yard, six-minute touchdown drive cut the Packers lead to eight with 44 seconds left, but the onside kick failed). The Monday sports talk programmers decide to go to one of their most reliable wells—the Eternal Kirk Cousins Debate—and dragoon the usual tastemakers into defending Cousins against his angry legions of doubters.

And lo, millions of sports fans shall turn onto the sports talk industry and proclaim as one, "Yes, we get it, Kirk Cousins is a capable NFL starter. But if we cannot watch true excellence, we prefer potential to bland, overpriced professionalism."

At that moment, the human race will take a qualitative leap forward in self-knowledge and actualization, like when the first Homo habilis sketched a mastodon onto a cave wall and realized what our hearts and minds are truly capable of.

Whatever our species aspires to after that, we will no longer give two sh*ts about the Cousins-led Vikings.

21. Indianapolis Colts

Fun Index: 10.5

Matt Ryan counts as a Cousins-like "boring professional" in our system, though he gets credit as an interesting new face. If folks really found Ryan compelling to watch, the Falcons wouldn't have been the FOX early-afternoon "D" telecast every week for the last three years.

Jonathan Taylor provides some thrills, and the Colts will be wild-card competitive. At best, however, they'll replace the Titans as the token small-market AFC postseason sparring partner.

20. Washington Commanders

Fun Index: 18

Carson Wentz provides elite rubbernecking opportunities. Jahan Dotson, Terry McLauren, Antonio Gibson, and Curtis Samuel will keep the Commanders competitive during Wentz's hot streaks while removing excuses for his cold snaps. Chase Young leads a defense with the potential to cause some upsets and mayhem.

The Vikings and Colts may field better teams than the Commanders, but those teams will be like prestigious Netflix dramas you give up on after two episodes because they take too long establishing some mythology you couldn't care less about. The Commanders are a CW series about a D-list superhero, with the angst cranked up to 11, the plot twists coming by the commercial break, and the special effects a little wonky. Trust me: you will learn to love to hate-watching to see what happens next.

19. Tennessee Titans

Fun Index: 20

The main things the Titans have going for them from an entertainment standpoint at this point are Derrick Henry and a playoff pedigree. The Curse of 370 may claim Henry and the Titans' playoff plans simultaneously this year, with the A.J. Brown trade providing a crowbar to their kneecap. Hence, the Titans are lumped among the wild card fodder, a notch below both the true AFC contenders and all the challengers who gained ground in the offseason.

18. Philadelphia Eagles

Fun Index: 22.5

Jalen Hurts is often entertaining and sometimes effective. Nick Sirianni uses not one but several hinky, unpredictable schemes, so if you don't like this week's House of a Million Screens game plan, stay tuned for next week's tribute to the 1966 Army-Navy Game. And the Eagles are generally competitive. Everything about the Eagles is good-not-great or fun-not-breathtaking, however, so their best games will feel more like Belk Bowls than New Year's Day matchups, and their worst games may be 13-10 losses to the Giants.

17. Las Vegas Raiders

Fun Index: 22.5

The Raiders are better at accumulating fascinating personalities and generating boardroom intrigue than fielding a successful team. Last week's sudden, bungled dismissal of team president Dan Ventrelle is a fine example. Ventrelle's allegations against the Raiders organization are gravely serious, but Mark Davis' B-movie mobster attempt at a coverup—Imma get ahead of this scandal with a cryptic, suspiciously-worded tweet, signed by me personally so I lose all deniability—suggests that no protracted investigation will be necessary. Ten minutes of sub-Columbo level interrogation, and Davis will be admitting to crimes committed before he was even board.

Oh yeah: Derek Carr gets to throw to Davante Adams now. Yippee.

16. New Orleans Saints

Fun Index: 28.125

Yes, I'm surprised the Saints turned out this high according to my (not-cobbled-together-in-any-way) system, because it's not like salary cap machinations are fun to watch on Sunday afternoons. But the Saints have Jameis Winston, Alvin Kamara (maybe), Michael Thomas (we'll see), Chris Olave, a new head coach, a defense that will produce some four-turnover games against pathetic bottom-feeders and a schedule that guarantees four wins against pathetic bottom-feeders. The Saints may not engage in many 41-38 shootouts, but they'll be playing important games in December, whether by merit or default.

15, New England Patriots

Fun Index: 33

Another team I take little joy in watching, but the system is like, "Yeah yeah, they're good tho, and folks dig Mac Jones for some reason."

If Bill Belichick led a squad of Pop Warner youths onto the field with Nike the Dog as his offensive coordinator, we would all tune in to see what would happen, and he would probably still sweep the Jets. But we are still about one year of kooky drafts, free-agent defections, and coaching departures away from that actually happening.

14. Pittsburgh Steelers

Fun Index: 40.5

Kenny Pickett vs. Mitch Trubisky qualifies as a B-tier quarterback controversy in a year with none on the A or S tiers. Najee Harris, Chase Claypool, George Pickens, and Calvin Austin headline a diverse playmaker corps. T.J. Watt leads a Steelers defense that's fun on a bun. And who knows how good the Steelers can be when their quarterback doesn't need a baseball windup and an hour of hot yoga to throw the ball 30 yards downfield anymore?

13, Miami Dolphins.

Fun Index: 43.75

Tyreek Hill. Jaylen Waddle. The Adorkable Mike McDaniel and His Amazing YAC Attack Offense. (It's just begging to become an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.) Tua Tagovailoa melodrama which could melt into a Teddy Bridgewater redemption narrative. Yes, I will like-and-subscribe to weekly Dolphins football, thank you very much.

12. Denver Broncos

Fun Index: 47.25

You know the Broncos had a rough half-decade when Russell Wilson's arrival only makes them the third-most interesting team in the AFC West.

11. Green Bay Packers

Fun Index: 50

How entertaining do you find watching Aaron Rodgers scowl and grimace while walking off the field after a three-and-out? It's a dangerously addictive substance to me; I would rather watch Rodgers radiate misery than eat or breathe. Rodgers and the Packers remain excellent enough to win lots of games while publicly shaming each other, broadcasting their codependency through a fanbase that treats 13-4 seasons like catastrophes. Other Super Bowl contenders may be sweet or spicy, but the Packers are delectably umami.

10. Baltimore Ravens

Fun Index: 54

The Ravens are likely to steer into their skid and break out the Knute Rockne playbook this season with 10 running backs, six tight ends, and three-fourths of a receiver, and it will probably work until either a) Lamar Jackson gets blamed for not being able to lead a two-touchdown comeback with Mark Andrews as his top vertical threat; or b) the entire roster gets injured simultaneously.

9. Los Angeles Chargers

Fun Index: 56.25

The NFL's official Next Big Thing™. Justin Herbert is a blast, and Brandon Staley's willingness to go for it on fourth-and-whatever fuels analytics-approved high drama. If teams must first become interesting before becoming excellent, the Chargers are heading in the right direction.

8. San Francisco 49ers

Fun Index: 62.5

This ranking assumes that Trey Lance is the quarterback and Deebo Samuel is in the huddle, giving the 49ers a creative, high-octane offense to go with a turnover-happy defense. Dock the 49ers five spaces if Jimmy Garoppolo is somehow still in the starting picture or Deebo moves on. If both of these things happen, the 49ers will be about as fun to watch as one of those tow-truck rescue shows on the Weather Channel.

7. Dallas Cowboys

Fun Index: 70.25

The Cowboys are most amusing when they are set up like cartoon villains to fail comically and spectacularly, so this promises to be a delightful season. The Cowboys still field a rhinestone-studded offense and defense, which should keep them buoyed atop the standings all year and make their periodic pratfalls and January meltdown all the more hilarious.

6. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Fun Index: 75

Fake retirements! Illuminati-like controversies! It feels like we're straining for fresh Tom Brady storylines. Up next: an evil twin, or perhaps a petulant alien sidekick that only Brady can see.

The Buccaneers will win lots of games, but they lack novelty, and Brady's quest to become greater than the greatest great only appeals to his hardcore mega-stans and ultra-casual sports fans anymore. Think Law & Order: Special GOATS Unit, a well-produced show that tops the ratings but isn't cool to talk about around the water cooler.

5. Buffalo Bills

Fun Index: 75

That first-round wide receiver run in the draft kept the Bills from topping this list. Selecting Kaiir Elam made more sense than, say, trading three years worth of high draft picks for Chris Olave. But selecting Olave would have made better drama.

4. Cincinnati Bengals

Fun Index: 93.75

Joe Burrow and his cohort are much more appealing as gutsy underdogs who fell a few inches short than they would have been as insouciant, cigar-chomping, Tom Brady pajamas-wearing Super Bowl champions. The Bengals left us wanting more in 2021, and their relatively quiet offseason only makes them more intriguing and likable. Bengals games will have a John Wick feel as Burrow tries to blast his way back to the top.

3. Arizona Cardinals

Fun Index: 101.25

The Cardinals are a Madden team in real life. They have the kooky playbook, the scrambling quarterback, and a roster with more skill-position talent than Kliff Kingsbury and Kyler Murray will know what to do with. Even when DeAndre Hopkins is suspended, Murray must figure out how to dole out targets to Marquise Brown, Rondale Moore, A.J. Green, Zach Ertz, and Trey McBride, among others. The results will probably include wicked streaks and slumps, over-engineered play designs to get everyone involved (Oooh, a Murray-Moore-Brown double reverse! For a loss of 6!) some behind-the-scenes sniping, and probably a few Murray trade/Kingsbury hot-seat rumors once the Cardinals get mired in third place. Effective? Not really. Fun? Absolutely, on multiple levels.

2. Los Angeles Rams

Fun Index: 112

The Rams' obnoxious smartest-guys-on-the-planet routine makes them fun wrasslin' heels: satisfying to root against but hard to truly despise because the shtick is so self-consciously silly. (The Brady Patriots honestly believed they were social philosophers; Sean McVay and company are just cosplaying The Wolf of Wall Street.) Matthew Stafford is always one bad decision away from a stunning upset, while Aaron Donald gives the Rams one of the league's most fun-to-watch defenses. It should all make for great football and great storytelling, but the Rams still cannot quite hold a candle to the…

1. Kansas City Chiefs

Fun Index: 112.25

Tyreek Hill is gone, but the thrill remains. We'll tune in for Patrick Mahomes: Phase 2 the way we flocked to theaters to see if Marvel could follow up on the success of The Avengers, and JuJu Smith-Schuster, Marquez Valdes-Scantling, and Skyy Moore could turn out to be the Guardians of the Galaxy. (C'mon, "Skyy Moore" even sounds like a comic book name.) Throw in a defense with fresh faces and whatever new play designs emerge from Andy Reid's skunkworks and the Chiefs remain the NFL's most compelling team to watch, even if they are no longer the league's best team.

Comments

120 comments, Last at 20 May 2022, 3:04pm

#1 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 10:25am

Everything about the Eagles is good-not-great or fun-not-breathtaking, however, so their best games will feel more like Belk Bowls than New Year's Day matchups, and their worst games may be 13-10 losses to the Giants.

Oh, heck no. I feel like the Eagles' worst games will be when their secondary collapses and they lose like 44-21 or something. I mean, maybe the Giants defense suddenly becomes super-good and they do end up with a low-scoring loss but that's more to do with the other team than Philly.

Plus if they *do* end up with a low scoring loss like that you'll probably get frustrated diva WR displays, too.

Points: 0

#10 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 10:58am

The worst Eagles games are the ones where their LBs break and they get gashed on the ground for 280 yards on 5 drives total, and lose 31-20, but trail the entire game.

Points: 0

#18 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 11:19am

Dating yourself a bit there: Philly's given up 280+ yards exactly one time in the past like, 30 years, thanks to the wonderful coaching combination of Chip Kelly (who cares about run defense!) and Lovie Smith (run offense is everything!).

Philly linebackers tend to have more issues in coverage rather than run defense, mainly because guys like Schwartz and JJ tended to play heavier in the box regularly.

Points: 0

#2 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 09, 2022 - 10:37am

Based on...?

Patriots need to be lower. Seahawks too. Going to be horrible watching DK and Lockett be wasted with Lock overthrows. McVay establishing the run (with Akers instead of Henderson especially) won't be fun as announcers blather on about Stafford (nonexistent) HOF resume.

Points: 0

#39 by KnotMe // May 09, 2022 - 2:56pm

I'm curious how NE got so high also. 

Quality: all sign point to regression but they did win 10 last year so...ok

QB: I suppose you can charitably give Mac Jones a Noteworthy, but that's mostly bc nobody knows what to make of him. 

Playmaker Corps: Considering one of their best recievers was the odd man out on a division rival...gonna say no

Defence: They arn't the steelers. connoisseurs only

Novelty: Maybe? I suppose we get to see the random people BB overdraft. Wil probably wear off soon however.

Scheme: Probably not?

So yeah, don't get it. 

 

 

 

Points: 0

#42 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 09, 2022 - 3:05pm

I take no pleasure in a BOB offense with Mac Jones. Defense without Gilmore, Jackson or KVN.

I will only have fun if they're losing.

Gotta only be that high out of respect for Billy B

Points: 0

#3 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 10:43am

If all three teams were food, the Cardinals would be the honey sriracha wings at your favorite gastropub, the Vikings a turkey club at a corner diner, and the Lions the mashed potatoes in a hospital cafeteria garbage can.

FTFY.

The Vikings are in reality sort of the Seahawks Northxxxxx South. A retrograde team who plays a defense it doesn't quite have the horses for anymore, and who insists on running despite their best weapon being their QB, whom they despise, bombing passes to their slightly flaky receiver room.

It's amusing that the Cardinals are also this, except they are trying to murder their despised QB by making him do everything.

Points: 0

#9 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 10:57am

I don't understand why everyone's assuming the Vikings will be this boring, old-school team next year? I mean, that was Zimmer's whole thing, and he's gone. Why in the world does everyone think that the former OC of the Rams will be in any way similar?

Points: 0

#15 by Scott P. // May 09, 2022 - 11:13am

For the same reason we assume the Bears will have bad to mediocre QB play regardless of who the coach is, who the GM is, or what century it is.

Points: 0

#21 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 11:33am

Yeah, but we know the answer to that. It's because the Halas family's friends apparently never left the 1970s. I mean, they've flat-out come out and said that the Bears are a "defense and special teams" team in the past and opposed rules changes because of that. It doesn't matter who they hire because by definition they're going to hire someone who does what they say. The Bears hired Indy's DC, for crying out loud.

I mean, sure, O'Connell could end up being a yes-man like Nagy who's totally hamstrung the entire time he's there, sure, but I'd be surprised because it'd be super weird with their new GM.

Points: 0

#23 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 11:44am

70s, hell! The 40s! The Bears have never kept up to date since the pure T-formation became antiquated. 

Points: 0

#26 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 11:51am

Well, sure, but the NFL rules turned around and met them again back in the 70s.

Points: 0

#36 by Scott P. // May 09, 2022 - 2:46pm

True, but by the same token, the Vikings play in the blandest metropolitan area in the blandest state, so their blandness is overdetermined. :-)

 

"It's like, 'how much more bland could they be' and the answer is 'none. none more bland."

Points: 0

#48 by KnotMe // May 09, 2022 - 4:40pm

Considering I wasn't even aware they HAD a rivalry....possible. Based on what? Blue vs Purple?

Points: 0

#51 by riri // May 09, 2022 - 5:08pm

Based on the Baltimore Colts and the Vikings having both been in the Western Conference in the '60's, before the NFL split it off into two divisions in 1967. So from 1961 to 1966, they played twice a year. It wasn't much of a rivalry, as Johnny Unitas and the Colts outgunned the expansion Vikings.

Points: 0

#52 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 5:23pm

I was thinking bland versus bland.

They are like vanilla vs tapioca. Indiana is a great state that's on your way to somewhere else.

Points: 0

#31 by serutan // May 09, 2022 - 1:47pm

the Lions the mashed potatoes in a hospital cafeteria garbage can.

FTFY

 

  A bit unfair.  Don't get me wrong; the Lions are not good, and I think that not drafting a QB early indicates they're well aware of that.  But I think there is something to be said for a team that never quits even though they suck.  Which is why I'd have them around 27 instead of 31.

Points: 0

#33 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 2:19pm

I rank them above the Giants if only because Lions fandom is not in denial about what its team is, and is simply grateful that Patricia isn't still looking for his pencil on the sidelines.

They are also a relaxing team to hate-watch -- like a blind, 3-legged dog chasing squirrels. They have no chance, and you get taunt to any opponent that gives them a tight game for losing to a bunch of losers.

Points: 0

#66 by Joey-Harringto… // May 10, 2022 - 9:04am

"you get taunt to any opponent that gives them a tight game for losing to a bunch of losers."

That is so true.  I laughed my ass off at the Vikings and Cardinals last year (the Packers only appeared to be trying for one half), and somehow the tie with the Steelers was even funnier (the angst on Steelers fan comment boards was really something).

Points: 0

#69 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2022 - 9:30am

I got a kick out of the 49ers desperately trying to choke a huge lead away late in the 4th quarter.

Points: 0

#4 by OmahaChiefs13 // May 09, 2022 - 10:48am

What if 370 never really claims Derrick Henry? What if he's the Tom Brady of running backs?

 

What do we do?

Points: 0

#14 by OmahaChiefs13 // May 09, 2022 - 11:13am

Best idea I've heard all month.

 

I mean, to be fair, it's a young month.

Points: 0

#11 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 11:00am

Quoting Aaron from 2007:

Since we began doing football research a few years ago, we've developed a number of axioms that tend to come up over and over again, both on our Web site and in Pro Football Prospectus. With both Shaun Alexander and Edgerrin James entering free agency this off-season, one precept in particular got a lot of attention: the 370-carry theory.

The 370-carry theory is generally summarized as follows: "A running back with 370 or more carries during the regular season will usually suffer either a major injury or loss of effectiveness the following year, unless he is named Eric Dickerson."

Points: 0

#13 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 11:04am

Or Emmitt Smith. Less true for Curtis Martin, but both he and Smith had 4 ~370 carry seasons (within a handful of 370 in each season). Smith followed up one with an MVP season.

Points: 0

#5 by mehllageman56 // May 09, 2022 - 10:49am

Feel you are underrating the Colts.  Matt Ryan gets to hand off to Jonathan Taylor, and then burn defenses with play action.  The Colts are going to be better than the Titans and challenge the top AFC teams, so that should boost them a little in these rankings.  I could totally see the Titans tanking next year, and therefore belong much lower than where they are in these rankings.  They lost a lot on offense, and it should be clear halfway through the season whether Henry is done or not (he probably is).

Points: 0

#24 by colonialbob // May 09, 2022 - 11:46am

Yeah but like... are they exciting? Trading Wentz for Ryan may have made them better (count me as one of those who's unsure about that) but it certainly made them more boring. The AFC South has been the boringest division for years and this year looks to be leaning into that with a less good/transitioning Titans team, a Jaguars team who traded wild incompetence for steady professionalism, a Colts team who replaced an interesting but flawed QB for a boring but flawed QB, and then the Texans who also get paid to play football.

Points: 0

#25 by Tracy // May 09, 2022 - 11:46am

The question isn't whether the Colts are likely to win the AFC South, but whether it will be *fun* to watch them try. Now, if you're a Colts fan, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. But what if you're not a fan?

Points: 0

#27 by theslothook // May 09, 2022 - 12:00pm

As a Colts fan, I am not all that excited to watch this team next year. 

Points: 0

#7 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 10:53am

Play-action boot passes to Irv Smith Jr. are about as much fun as commercials for toenail fungus medicine.

It's fascinating sometimes to observe what commercials a station runs in a given timeslot and what that says about who it thinks its audience is (and thus who you are).

Various shows have suggested that I am a middle-aged man whose penis no longer works; that I am a senile geezer who needs to sell my legacy back to a concussed football player and/or washed up actor in return for a paltry cash flow and/or wrinkle creme; that I am a spastic idiot who doesn't remember yesterday when Facebook was called Facebook; and a hilarious one who thinks I am fluent in Romance languages and am a HIV+ gay man.

The panopticon is real, but fortunately it's run by morons who can't successfully sell me things.

Points: 0

#12 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 11:02am

The NFL thinks the Giants deserve a London game

While they do deserve it, it's not the kudo you treat it as. It's a 9:30 a.m. game -- a time slot even F1 thought was a wasteland for American audiences -- and there's a reason the Jaguars keep ending up in them and why the Packers have historically avoided being deported to it. Because the Packers are actually good and their fanbase would riot if they lost a home game. The Jaguars' fan would riot if he had to sit through a 9th game.

Points: 0

#16 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 09, 2022 - 11:15am

If teams must first become interesting before becoming excellent, the Chargers are heading in the right direction.

The Chargers have been that team since day 1 of the franchise.

As I've said before, they are the anti-Bears -- a team who is occasionally excellent but rarely interesting.

The Bears are basically the Ravens, if you sucked all the joy out of them. They've been so bad on offense for so long (approaching 70 years now...) that they've institutionally forgotten that offense even exists. It's acknowledged as sort of a memory gap between kicks and defensive plays. (Even the Smith Bears mini-renaissance worked this way, trying to win a SB via pick-6s and kick returns while steadfastly denying the existence of offense)

Points: 0

#32 by serutan // May 09, 2022 - 1:59pm

. (Even the Smith Bears mini-renaissance worked this way, trying to win a SB via pick-6s and kick returns while steadfastly denying the existence of offense)

 

    But it did lead to one of the most entertaining press conference meltdowns ever.  ("Crown their asses!!!!")

Points: 0

#55 by serutan // May 09, 2022 - 7:07pm

Not at all - and anyway they're so thoroughly impaled that I'm not sure it's possible to let them off the hook.  Just pointing out that there was the (very) occasional bit of entertainment occasionally, even if not on the field.

Points: 0

#59 by DisplacedPackerFan // May 09, 2022 - 10:47pm

Just in case you did miss the joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmQbk5h86w&t=27s) and if you didn't it's always fun to watch Green get so worked up.

Points: 0

#17 by TopherDoll // May 09, 2022 - 11:15am

And after reading one paragraph realizing I'm in a Tanier piece and need to get out fast.

Points: 0

#20 by theslothook // May 09, 2022 - 11:22am

I am on the pessimistic side of the Bengals for next season. Sorry, but after watching Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez to a lesser degree fool me in the playoffs, I am less inclined to toss away an entire regular seasons worth of results in favor of one turbo charged post season power up.

Now, unlike those other qbs, I like Burrow a lot more, but is he, at his current level, enough to overcome a flawed Bengals roster? At this moment, no.

Maybe the entire Bengals team gets better and I look foolish. But I rather expect next year to have a bunch of growing pains. Long term, I'm quite bullish on Cincy, but not for next year.

 

 

 

Points: 0

#29 by mansteel // May 09, 2022 - 12:40pm

It's worth noting that they were basically a .500 team last season that hit a hot streak late. Maybe that signaled a change in quality; maybe it was just a hot streak. They've got young players at important positions, so their fans can plausibly hope for the former explanation.

Do we know what generally happens to teams like this--mediocre team, deep run in playoffs--the following year? Surely FO has done a study of this at some point.

Points: 0

#30 by theslothook // May 09, 2022 - 12:44pm

I don't know of any study specifically looking at teams coming off a 2021 Bengals like year. But the full season dvoa has always been more predictive than some truncated sample of games, including the playoffs. 

Points: 0

#45 by NYChem // May 09, 2022 - 3:53pm

Probably their closest comps of this millenium are the cardinals of 08, but also the two giants teams and the ravens team that won it all. The cardinals showed improvement in 09, before falling off due to kurt warner retiring. The only team to really tail off at all was the ravens, but that coincided with ray lewis's retirement, and they rebounded a season later. Not that one should generalize from n=4, but certainly no evidence to expect a major regression. Especially, as pointed out, with their youth. 

As a Steelers fan, I'm hoping they're held back by Zac Taylor's coaching. One year with a winning record, he's still got to prove any kind of coaching chops - I mean, he's not dumb, telling Burrow to throw it to Chase is a decent idea, but let's see how he deals with adversity, player discontent, player development, etc. The penalty for a guy not in uniform running on the field at the Super Bowl was not a good testament, but that's not all on Taylor. Now, if it happens again...

Points: 0

#68 by Joey-Harringto… // May 10, 2022 - 9:09am

In reply to by NYChem

2003 Panthers?  16th in DVOA, but lost a tight game to the Patriots in the SB.  They regressed in '04, and were up and down the rest of the decade (solid teams in '05 and '08).  Burrow is better than Delhomme, but Chase seems like a decent comp (if different style) to Steve Smith, in that he has enough talent to carry the team through another surprising playoff run, like Smith did in both '03 and '05.

Points: 0

#77 by serutan // May 10, 2022 - 12:44pm

The other thing is that the Bengals have a really tough schedule - albiet based on last year's results - so they could have a better team but not have it show up in the record.  And IMO 'better team' is at least in the cards since they did seem to address their glaring weaknesses this offseason

Points: 0

#22 by colonialbob // May 09, 2022 - 11:39am

The Cowboys still field a rhinestone-studded offense and defense, which should keep them buoyed atop the standings all year and make their periodic pratfalls and January meltdown all the more hilarious.

Words hurt, you know. 

Points: 0

#28 by theslothook // May 09, 2022 - 12:02pm

An underplayed subplot. Rodgers is now officially at the age where a severe age related collapse is entirely possible. Rodgers' game isn't 100 percent built on athleticism in terms of arm strength and movement, but its built off it enough to make me worried. I think the Packers had no choice but to sign him, but that there is a real danger lurking out there. 

Points: 0

#41 by theslothook // May 09, 2022 - 3:01pm

Brady just might be wolverine at this point. Or maybe he's Benjamin button and we're hitting his middle years.

Aaron Rodgers is 38 and going to be 39 by the end of the season. By this age point Manning was in full decline. And farve was only a few months away from his nadir as well. 

The list of QBs that have been successful past the age of 39 is an extremely limited company. I'd be more willing to believe we've entered a new normal if we hadn't seen dramatic declines in Philip Rivers or Ben roethlisberger, players drafted after Rogers who are now out of the league.

Points: 0

#49 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 4:42pm

It's not just that Rodgers might be close to his decline - it's that the Packers, this offseason, made a choice that essentially banks on the chance of that happening being zero.

Yeah, Brady's playing 5+ years past this point and fine, but both the Patriots and Buccaneers knew that he was defying time. From '16 on (roughly Rodgers's current age!) Brady had contracts of 2 years, 1 year, 2 years, 1 year, and none of those were even close to top-end contracts. Put another way: Rodgers just signed a contract that in half the time is for like at least 30% more than Brady (cap inflation adjusted) made for that entire time.

It's a huge gamble for the Packers.

Points: 0

#57 by Romodini // May 09, 2022 - 8:46pm

A declining Rodgers still seems like a better bet than any rookie QB, especially one named Justin Love.

The only other "good" option would have been trading Rodgers to the Broncos, then using those picks to get Russell Wilson.

Points: 0

#60 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 09, 2022 - 11:09pm

In reply to by Romodini

But sometimes you just gotta laugh at these guys praying for the downfall of good players. 

Rodgers is the back to back MVP but they're scared he'll turn into a bottom half QB in one year without an injury because...magic number. 

Oh sorry is bottom half too specific? Oh is he not likely to repeat as MVP? Well of course not genius. Is Pro Bowl level still such a terrible dropoff? Lol

 

Points: 0

#62 by Romodini // May 10, 2022 - 1:03am

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

Haha definitely not Justin Love, considering he doesn't exist. As I was typing that out, something about it smelled funny, but I was too lazy to figure out what was causing it.

I for one hope his play doesn't drastically drop off because of the vain hope that the Cowboys will knock him off in a playoff game and get retribution for 2014 and 2016. But the Cowboys love to disappoint, even more than Rodgers loves to prove his doubters wrong.

Points: 0

#65 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 10, 2022 - 8:27am

In reply to by Romodini

But the board has been voting for BRADY to be THE one to be MOST likely to SIGNIFINACNTLY decline...for the past decade! When they play different, you treat them different than non MVPs that came before them instead of adhering strictly to the holy random, arbitrary falloff numbers you make  up.

One of is gotta knock out the Cowboys if the 49ers don't figure out their QB and Deebo situation! Lol. Enjoy good players like Dak too though. Just enjoy the back to back MVP more ;)

Points: 0

#70 by Pat // May 10, 2022 - 9:45am

In reply to by Romodini

It's a huge bet in the long term. In the short term it's obviously a no-brainer if you care about having the best team... but realistically is it worth it? They're already cash-strapped and it cost them from being the best team they could (with Adams).

They have to move on from Rodgers at some point, just like New England had to move on from Brady at some point. With New England, they chose to structure it so that moving on from him would be painless, but they risked losing him before the end of his career (which of course happened). With Green Bay, they're doing the opposite.

I'm not even saying it's a bad risk. It's just a really, really big one. I mean, it's not the biggest one. That'd be the Browns. 

A declining Rodgers still seems like a better bet than any rookie QB

Better bet for what? The Packers aren't risking this much for 9-8 and a wild-card bid. They're banking that Rodgers can keep them a Super Bowl contender. If Rodgers declines, they won't be.

Points: 0

#72 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2022 - 10:23am

It's not that weak. The NFC North almost invariably has two good teams -- it's just that the identity of that second team gets handed off like a baton.

Points: 0

#76 by Pat // May 10, 2022 - 12:42pm

I think it's more that their conference is weak. From '22-'23 if Rodgers is playing at an MVP level they've probably got a 25-30% chance of coming out of the NFC as the Super Bowl participant. I can't imagine gambling that much just to win the division.

In some sense though they're always going to be at a handicap against a team like Kansas City or the Chargers or Cowboys  that can effectively write a contract that relies on the QB continuing to play for the next 10 years, because for Mahomes/Herbert/Prescott that might as well be a full guarantee. Green Bay can't do that so the guarantees in their case have to be real.

So in a lot of ways, Green Bay's really gambling that much on making the Super Bowl.

Points: 0

#74 by theslothook // May 10, 2022 - 11:03am

I think if the Brady sample didn't exist, this deal would look even worse, though like you, the sirens call of immediate inner sanctum contention is too powerful to resist no matter the potential financial calamity that could await.

With Adams departing and the amount of money Rodgers is getting, they basically need him to remain a superstar. Declining into merely a top 10 QB would be a disaster for them.

Points: 0

#78 by Pat // May 10, 2022 - 12:49pm

Oh my God, if Brady didn't exist this deal would look absolutely ridiculous. Even with Brady existing it looks silly because even though Brady's playing as long as he has, he's never been stupid enough to demand he get paid top-dollar by teams when they know he's at the end of his career.

Honestly that's half the reason why I don't like that deal for the Packers. Brady at least had the self-awareness to recognize that his career was ending and try to maximize the results from it, whereas with Rodgers it looks far more about money than being about football. Note that I don't blame Rodgers for that, of course that should be what he does - it's just that given that it's a total win for Rodgers, it's by necessity a bad deal for the Packers.

Points: 0

#79 by Romodini // May 11, 2022 - 12:15am

But if they had chosen to keep Adams instead of Rodgers, who's the QB on this theoretical best team they could be?

I don't see how banking and gambling on Rodgers taking them to a Super Bowl is that big of a risk even in the long run ... how long is your long run by the way? If the goal of football is to maximize your shot at winning a Super Bowl, what better bet could they have made? The Packers have had a 1st round bye ever since Matt LeFleur arrived on the scene, that's a good a bet as any you're going to get outside of Patrick Mahomes's guaranteed championship game appearance every year.

And if he does decline, that seems much easier to stomach than shipping him off to the Broncos and seeing him continue his MVP performances while you're stuck with Jordan Love or the Terry Bridgewaters of the world as a holdover. So unless they had traded for Russel Wilson, the first year is a bust because they wouldn't have wasted that kind of draft capital with this year's QB class. The second year is also a bust because you're breaking in a rookie QB, who you presumably grabbed with the picks from the Rodgers trade. Then you maybe have a shot in the third year.

And if the third year fails? Seems like a fireable offense for the GM. From a job security and fan-reaction-mitigation standpoint, it's much easier to go with the known quantity than outsmart a potential decline with trade and draft shenanigans.

 

 

Points: 0

#80 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 11, 2022 - 8:24am

Which is minimal. 

They already tried the trade (up) and draft shenanigans and they're realizing why he was avaliable and not even a better prospect than Hurts. And those shenanigans almost directly caused the team to miss a SB (maybe even win) or two.

Not to mention you don't think teams like Indy and NE regret trying to move on "at the right time?"  This "better early than late" has always been nonsense. Yeah we all know Rodgers career is closer to the end. We just don't care and, yeah the back to back MVP QB is the driver. Keep him at all costs and figure out the "long term" later. 

Literally no one cares about such a silly "subplot." Lol

Points: 0

#81 by theslothook // May 11, 2022 - 10:29am

Let's keep in mind, neither Pat nor I suggested they made the wrong move extending Rodgers. If it's about championship equity, he gives them a greater shot than any other alternate path. I only highlighted that it comes with risks.

You might say, those risks are true for other QB lead teams, but Rodgers age makes those risks more pronounced. He will be 39 in December. Almost all QBs decline by this age point, with some exceptions that are so few that we can remember them all. If he declines a lot, his contract makes it harder to offset that decline with a better roster.

Thats really all I am getting at.

Points: 0

#83 by Pat // May 11, 2022 - 1:47pm

Honestly, it's like the Colts picking up Rivers in 2020. He absolutely gave them the best chance to win the Super Bowl that year.

That chance still sucked.

In the Colts case they didn't risk much, so it wasn't that much of a gamble. The Packers are risking a lot.

Points: 0

#82 by Pat // May 11, 2022 - 1:44pm

But if they had chosen to keep Adams instead of Rodgers, who's the QB on this theoretical best team they could be?

Where did I say they should've kept Adams? Keeping Adams and letting Rodgers go would've been super dumb.

I'm not saying the Packers would've been better letting Rodgers go. Hell no. They obviously would've been worse. But they're obviously closer to the end of Rodgers's career than the beginning, and you have to start planning. Like I said, both the Patriots and Buccaneers mitigated the risk with Brady by keeping the years short and the money was declining as well.

If the goal of football is to maximize your shot at winning a Super Bowl, what better bet could they have made?

None. You're totally right. It's just a question of how realistic that shot actually is. If signing Rodgers takes them from 0 to 25%, sure, absolutely. If signing Rodgers takes them from 0 to 1%... does that really make sense?

 

And if he does decline, that seems much easier to stomach than shipping him off to the Broncos and seeing him continue his MVP performances

That's... exactly what happened with the Patriots...? Yeah, I'm sure Brady winning a Super Bowl with the Bucs sucked for them, but they're in a very solid position now, and it took all of one year.

And if the third year fails? Seems like a fireable offense for the GM. From a job security and fan-reaction-mitigation standpoint, it's much easier to go with the known quantity

Oh, I totally agree! But that's not to say that the other path isn't better. I mean, in year 3 you're talking about a rookie contract QB plus effectively $150M in rolled-forward savings. That buys a hell of a lot of good players.

And, again, to be clear - the Packers basically only have a real Super Bowl shot if Rodgers continues playing like an MVP. That's it. They have no margin when paying him that much. That's why I'm saying they're literally banking everything on him continuing to play at a high level.

That's why I'm saying it's a huge risk. Not because even declining Rodgers isn't better than what they could get - but because declining Rodgers means they just spent $150M to be a "slightly above average" team, and what the heck is the point of that?

Points: 0

#84 by Romodini // May 11, 2022 - 6:14pm

My statement about them keeping Adams and ditching Rodgers was based on this line --"It cost them from being the best team they could (with Adams)".  I thought you meant this hypothetical scenario was the better pick of two options -- dumping Rodgers and keeping Adams and using the extra cash to build around a rookie QB versus keeping Rodgers --rather than it being about costing them the maintenance of a fantasy team that was never going to happen due to Rodgers driving a hard deal.

The Patriots recovered quickly, true, but I if I were a Packers fan I'd be very wary of that same kind of turnaround without Bill Belichick being the head coach, even with Matt LaFleur's great record and a lot of money to spend. 

The risk of moving on from Rodgers just seems so much higher to me than the risk of him turning into Peyton Manning's dud arm circa 2015.

Points: 0

#85 by theslothook // May 11, 2022 - 6:35pm

It feels so long ago, but it's important to remember Peyton Manning's dud armed decline started in the back half of 2014, one year after he had just won the MVP and broke a bunch of records. I doubt there were many fans of the Broncos or the league overall that expected a dramatic pratfall at that point.

People also seem to be viewing Tom Brady through the 2020 hindsight lens. Prior to that sb, The Patriots offense had experienced a severe decline in the second half with Brady himself looking shot and ineffective in that loss of the Titans. It's cold comfort to Patriots fans now, But it certainly looked like to me that Brady was experiencing what Manning experienced in 2014. 

The reality is we don't know how Rodgers' career is going to play out. But my point that I stated above which I will emphasize here again is that while the decision to extend Rodgers is the best course of action now, Rodgers is at an age where a dramatic decline is thoroughly possible. To pretend like his career is going to follow Tom Brady's and not Brett Favres is not something anyone here can guarantee or even assert with authority. That's what makes it risky. 

 

 

Points: 0

#87 by Romodini // May 11, 2022 - 9:32pm

I think your point about Manning having a great 2013 before declining later the next year is the most convincing one so far.

Points: 0

#92 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 10:47am

To pretend like his career is going to follow Tom Brady's and not Brett Favres is not something anyone here can guarantee or even assert with authority. That's what makes it risky. 

There's another point here too: yes, Brady left the Pats and went to the Bucs and won a Super Bowl. So you might think "hey, this is risky, if we let him go he could go elsewhere and play at an MVP level and we'd be left looking dumb."

Except there are two important points here.

  1. Brady took an under-market deal with the Bucs and Rodgers took an over-market deal with the Packers. Brady literally handed the Bucs ~$10M/yr and Rodgers took ~$15M/yr, treating average starting vet QB at $35M. For the Bucs this is practically a no-brainer. Same situation the Colts had. If it doesn't work out, you move on, and you're not behind any of the other teams. Not ahead either, but keeping pace is fine.
  2. The Bucs roster was already underpaid, especially on offense, just like the Broncos roster was when Manning went there. From 17-20 they drafted 5 Pro Bowl level players. From 19-21, Green Bay's got 1 so far, and I'd be real surprised if anyone else from 17-20 picks up a Pro Bowl slot this year. So unless they had an awesome draft class this year, the rest of the roster's not particularly cheap either.

The reason the Pats probably don't regret letting Brady go isn't because they have Belichick. It's because they're probably smart enough to know they wouldn't've won a Super Bowl anyway. Their roster wouldn't've been close to the Buccaneers.

Again, just to stress (as you've done too!) I'm not saying I wouldn't've taken the risk. Given how bad the NFC is overall, I probably would have. But given the standards that the Packers have set over the years, I'd say there's a really high chance they're going to be in for some unusually lean years. And being realistic, I think they paid $150M for a single NFC Championship, at best.

Points: 0

#93 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 10:59am

If I gave the Packers and there fans a deal - a SB and 10 years of misery or take your chances as is, I think the overwhelming choice is the SB.

Whether that line of thinking is correct is another matter entirely( and partly the result of how the media mythology machine works).

I can't help but think of a SB like the opportunity to lose ones virginity.

Points: 0

#95 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 11:17am

C'mon, the whole "what would you do for a Guaranteed Super Bowl" is silly. Obviously you'd take anything for a Super Bowl. But you can't get a guaranteed Super Bowl.

It's about increasing your chances of winning one. In the end I don't think the Packers actually have more than a 10% chance of winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 years with Rodgers. An NFC championship, sure. That I could see, maybe 30% or so. But I can't help but see the best-case scenario being Rodgers plays at an MVP level, they're still good but worse overall than 2021 (WRs are supposed to actually be worth $25M/yr, right?), the NFC as a whole is worse due to setbacks with the Rams and Cowboys (and Lance not turning elite or something in year 1), and they get to a Super Bowl... and get crushed by a far better AFC team.

I can't help but think of a SB like the opportunity to lose ones virginity.

I feel like the Packers are making a huge risk for a shot to play in the Super Bowl. Keeping Rodgers and losing Adams definitely keeps them in the thick of things in the NFC. Absolutely. I just don't see how it keeps them anywhere near the AFC.

Again, I'm not saying that letting Rodgers go and keeping Adams would've been better next year. Or letting them both go. None of those things gets them near the AFC either. I think their realistic shot at a Super Bowl went away the instant Rodgers demanded $50M/yr.

Points: 0

#99 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 12:25pm

The reason I raised that thought experiment is because that's how people think. Its almost never framed in terms of probabilities(or risks) because it takes extensive amount of training to live in that world. I certainly never viewed it in that lens until many many years. 

And really, its effectively an expected utility equation where the probability, low as it is, is rendered irrelevant because the utility of the SB win is essentially infinite.

If you plotted the utility on the Y axis and wins on the X axis, the curve would be essentially flat across wins with one enormous spike rising to infinity at 22. 

Points: 0

#107 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 1:54pm

But I mean, it's the wrong way to frame this argument. If you come out and ask a fan "hey, do you think teams should just go crazy and risk everything for every little chance to win a Super Bowl, regardless of the consequences?" and then say "yes!!" and then you follow it up with "even though that's what the Eagles did in 2011 and it led to a 4-win season and 2 years of pretending Chip Kelly's Rocky and Elvis placards were smart football?" ... I'm pretty sure you'll get a changed reaction.

OK, maybe not, considering what happened in 2017, even though it's unconnected. I need a better example.

Anyway, my point is, of course the Packers are going all in for a shot at the Super Bowl, and yes of course teams should maximize their chances at one. It's just... it's not really a very good shot anyway, and it's a hell of an all in.

It's also a huge turnaround for a franchise that let Brett Favre walk. Which probably says all you need to know about Jordan Love. :)

Points: 0

#108 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 1:58pm

Look I don't agree with the utility that teams and most fans assign, but I seem to be in the minority - as are you considering the amount of replies we have gotten thus far.

None of the rebuttals has even hinted at the expected chance of a SB and whether its worth the said cost. Its been defacto - Rodgers give us the best chance of a title; To what degree?? Who cares! At what cost? Shut up!

Points: 0

#110 by KnotMe // May 12, 2022 - 2:10pm

Well, it's hard to say to what degree. Last years preseason projections
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-analysis/2021/2021-dvoa-projections-predict-bucs-chiefs-rematch
Top team was 18%.  Due to cap and parity, your probably never gonna get much over 20. 

Even if you had a 20% chance to win the SB every year for 5 year period (pretty unlikely honestly), your odds of winning 1 or more in that 5 year period are only 67% (i.e. you have a 32% chance of ZERO). 

Keeping Rodgers probably increases their changes by a factor 3-10+ but we are talking really small numbers. I mean, the base expectation for SB wins is probably 1 every 32 years.

Points: 0

#111 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 2:28pm

That's probably a fair assessment. I wouldn't put any one team's odds higher than 15 percent honestly. Just way too many things can get in the way. 

And over a 5 year period, I probably would top out the chances of a SB win at 50 percent. The Chiefs have had practically the clearest path so far and have 1 win to show for it and they are frankly fortunate(not in an underserving way) they have that 1 win at all.

The real issue is the cost and I think its not properly measure both in terms of pro paying Rodgers and con paying Rodgers. Irrespective of cap gymnastics, the Saints situation this year IS as close to a measurement of the true financial ramifications of bloating your cap to chase a title. If it results in at most 1 to 2 lost seasons and then a total reboot; then it seems ok. However, it is worth noting that that decision cost them Sean Payton, who is somewhere among the very best coaches and probably a hall of famer; so that's a big miss.

However, the costs of moving on from Rodgers are pretty terrifying too, you are now in the wilderness and join the other teams chasing a QB difference maker. I outlined the Bears in a prior thread, but missing on Trubisky wasted 3-4 years and landed them right back where they started; which means again facing a 2-4 year fallow period and another repeat cycle.

As much as I would love it for teams to finally take a hard line with overpaying QBs, that alternate reality of being stuck in a doom loop for what could end up a decade long miasma is unbearably harrowing. Its empty stands and a lost fanbase.  

Points: 0

#112 by KnotMe // May 12, 2022 - 2:35pm

Team life cycle/cap wise, I think the key would be to take the pain all at once if possible. I.e. write is contract so if he retires or something, you basically just take the rest of the cap hit the next year.  It will be horrible, but you'll get a high pick at least.  Not sure how you would do that or if it's possible, but I think that's how you would want to manage it. Having dead money for years is what kills you. You want the bad years to be really bad and short as possible. 

 

In the Packers defense, betting on the survivor bias isn't the worst thing. (i.e. he's manage to stay good to now, so something is sustainable). Basically, if you can make it as far as Rodgers, you usually just keep going till you get injured (Bree's, Manning, Brady hasn't gotten injured yet).  There arn't alot of examples so it's really hard to say, but the idea makes some sense. Most of the guys who make it this far, it seems like injury gets them rather than age. Invest in that O-line. 

Points: 0

#118 by Pat // May 13, 2022 - 9:02am

Dead money always hits in one year, that's the way it works. It never gets spread out. The post-June 1 stuff works by pushing forward the dead money to the next year - typically in that case it's a very low cap hit in the cut year because it's just the proration.

What really kills you is clinging to hope when there's no real hope there and continuing to spend money and resources chasing a title that's realistically out of reach. The more you do it and borrow from the future, the more time and resources you're wasting.

Honestly, what really hurts the Packers is that they pivoted: they clearly were planning for a post-Rodgers future when they drafted Love, and then when he didn't work out, they doubled-down on Rodgers final few years. In the short term that's clearly the better option, but if they were willing to double-down on Rodgers in the first place, they should've just done it before. But obviously I think everyone recognizes that.

Points: 0

#119 by KnotMe // May 13, 2022 - 3:13pm

QB transitions are always tough. Only way to do it is get super lucky. It's hard to draft a successor since you won't be bad enough even if your HOF QB declines. (the only draft spot with a noticeably higher elite hit rate is 1 and even that isn't THAT big) and you can't really spend a first rounder on a QB with Rodgers around.  So....doubling down on him and hoping he either stays good or collapses so the can draft a replacement is probably not the worst plan. 

It's one of those situations where I don't think there IS a good plan. (NE is probably the current BAD plan example). 

Points: 0

#115 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 12, 2022 - 4:13pm

I outlined the Bears in a prior thread, but missing on Trubisky wasted 3-4 years and landed them right back where they started; which means again facing a 2-4 year fallow period and another repeat cycle.

As much as I would love it for teams to finally take a hard line with overpaying QBs, that alternate reality of being stuck in a doom loop for what could end up a decade long miasma is unbearably harrowing. Its empty stands and a lost fanbase.  

It could be much worse.

The Bears in a very real way are still trying to replace Sid Luckman.

Points: 0

#113 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 3:09pm

I wonder if the rebuttals change if it's any other team besides the Packers.

I mean, the Patriots and Steelers are the other two franchises that have ludicrously high standards, but the front office/coaching staff for the Packers is much newer. Like, it makes sense for the Patriots to have faith in Belichick and for the Steelers to believe that Tomlin can manage something. But maybe Packers fans have absolutely no faith in their front office after the botched QB relationship and so their entire hopes and dreams are Rodgers? Who knows.

Then again Saints fans are similar too, and that whole thing is just totally insane.

Points: 0

#116 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 12, 2022 - 4:14pm

Keep in mind, Kraft over in NE is making angry noises about the Patriots' lack of performance after the last two years. Belichick is undertaking non-significant risk by cutting Brady early.

And if he's at risk...

Points: 0

#86 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 11, 2022 - 8:04pm

Who never finished higher than 3rd. Speaking of MVP voting, Favre finished 4th at age 40.

The "decline" could simply be...oh I don't know...the same reason he wasn't MVP in 17/18. Misallocation of resources. I wonder if they've done that recently. 

If Mahomes (CONTINUES to) decline, guess what, KC is in trouble too. Literally goes for everyone. 

There's no evidence that he's going to decline outside a magic number that doesn't apply anymore to a league that protects QB at all costs.

Points: 0

#88 by Romodini // May 11, 2022 - 9:37pm

Yeah the typical numbers don't hold as much water for older QB's who survived the earlier rules. Seems like Rodgers has always had great line protection as well, although I don't have the sack numbers at the ready to make a real case for him being protected.

Points: 0

#89 by Scott P. // May 11, 2022 - 10:32pm

What's your sample size? If you think Brady is the only comp, you're going to get skewed results.

Peyton Manning retired at 39. Roethlisberger at 39, Rivers at 39. Eli Manning retired at 38. Brees made it to 41.

Points: 0

#90 by Romodini // May 11, 2022 - 11:10pm

Roethlisberger, Manning, and Rivers seemed to slowly decline over a few years. Brees was still really good, his arm just couldn't survive the full season leading his performance to suffer in the playoffs every year. I think if he hadn't retired, and the Saints were somehow able to work out a unique situation in which Taysom Hill or Jameis Winston could QB most of the games until the playoffs, Brees could have had another chance to lead them through the playoffs and a Super Bowl.

Because of no noticeable decline in Rodgers' play, he seems most comparable to Brady, who doesn't seem to have declined, and Manning, who appeared to decline quite suddenly.

Points: 0

#94 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 11:06am

It's not just "Rodgers vs Brady" or even "Rodgers vs Rivers" or "Rodgers vs Brees." It's Rodgers vs Brady/Rivers plus $25M/yr. The Packers aren't taking a big risk by keeping Rodgers at his age. They're taking a big risk by paying him absolute top of the market rate. Literally all 3 of those guys - Brees, Rivers, and Brady - finished up their contracts (ok, assuming Brady's done after this year) at $25M/yr.

There is one big caveat here, though - the details on Rodgers's contract aren't actually out anywhere, so maybe the Packers mitigated that risk somehow, who knows.

Every other team that's signed a vet QB bordering on 40 paid them under market value, which makes sense because you don't have that many more years to maximize chance for a Super Bowl. The Packers paid over market value, which means it'll be harder for them to win a Super Bowl. Obviously when your team does something no other team's done before, it's risky.

The whole "what else were they gonna do?" is a red herring. I totally agree that maximizing their shot for another Super Bowl means keeping Rodgers. Obviously. I'm just saying that was a huge price to pay for what will end up being an unlikely Super Bowl if they win it.

Although I will say if the Packers do end up winning a Super Bowl in the next year or two, it'll almost certainly depress the WR market.

Points: 0

#98 by Romodini // May 12, 2022 - 12:16pm

I'm not sure how the cap hits are structured, but I'd imagine that they're spread out enough that the bigger hits will come in the last two to three years when the cap will grow massively in response to all the new TV deals I keep hearing about.

Maybe by that time it will be an under market rate, with Lamar making the real funny money. Or maybe it'll be too late. Either way, yes, he sure wasn't interested in giving them a home team discount which doesn't help the Pack to compete with the Bucs, at the very least

Points: 0

#102 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 12:42pm

when the cap will grow massively in response to all the new TV deals I keep hearing about.

It does not matter if it does, because the other teams in the NFL will have that cap space too. The only way you can say "the cap doesn't matter" is if Rodgers's deal forces the Bills/Chiefs/Browns/Cowboys to rip up their QB deals and pay them more too.

I mean, look at what just happened - the Packers lost Adams because the Raiders were willing to pay more and WRs are now making up to $30M/yr. Next year they have 32 players signed and $22M cap space, with limited ability to push money forward. That "huge cap surge" (which is likely a 1 year blip, mind you, long term the TV deals are still just a ~5-6% growth rate) means everyone else is going to have money, too.

Points: 0

#96 by KnotMe // May 12, 2022 - 11:25am

Brady was able to bounce back bc, in retrospect, he was carrying the Patriots horrible WR room. TB got real WRs and recovered. That doesn't really apply to GB. (in fact they lost a WR). Still, getting an elite QB is so hard, it makes sense to bet on Rodgers beating father time than hoping you can somehow get another top tier QB. Rodgers is old enough he could just retire if he drops off anyway. You could make an argument that Rodgers is a similar risk to Russel Wilson with DEN. (older but higher baseline, less injury history, higher chance he hangs it up if he declines)  

Not sure we want to say the Pats bounced back either. I guess they made the playoffs, but they are FAAAR from being able to do anything useful there and don't seem to even have a path back to actual contention.  

Points: 0

#100 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 12:27pm

But it wasn't known back then. It was a debate. Brady's age became the real complicating factor that many, including myself, caused us to lean in the direction of a decline. The fact that Brady has lasted this long is just a marvel about Tom Brady much like the fact that he was a 6th round pick. Its a nice testament to him, but not sure what you can draw from it for the future. 

Points: 0

#101 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 12:30pm

 

Still, getting an elite QB is so hard, it makes sense to bet on Rodgers beating father time than hoping you can somehow get another top tier QB.

The goal isn't "get an elite QB." It's "win a Super Bowl." In some sense the Packers are hoping Rodgers beats Father Time and completely disproves the idea that WRs are worth $25-30M/yr.

There's obviously a cap point at which you don't resign an elite QB because you can't make a team competitive with other teams around them. I don't know what point that is, but the Packers are treading new ground. By a hell of a lot.

  • Rodgers, $47M/yr constant current cap dollars
  • Allen, $42M/yr constant current cap dollars
  • Prescott, $42M/yr constant current cap dollars
  • Watson, $41M/yr constant current cap dollars
  • Mahomes, $36M/yr constant current cap dollars

That's ~12% higher than the next highest teams. And keep in mind, I'm not trying to say Rodgers and QBs aren't worth it. But, I mean, they're at an $11M/yr handicap relative to Kansas City, for instance.

Not sure we want to say the Pats bounced back either. I guess they made the playoffs, but they are FAAAR from being able to do anything useful there and don't seem to even have a path back to actual contention.  

If the Packers were in the AFC I don't think they'd get any farther than the Patriots. That's kindof the point I'm making. And saying that the Patriots "don't have a path back to contention" is a bit unfair. Of course they do. They've got $250M in cap space on a 3-year timescale. There's your path!

Points: 0

#103 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 12:46pm

"There's obviously a cap point at which you don't resign an elite QB because you can't make a team competitive with other teams around them"

This tipping point is made harder by the fact that Rodgers or any elite QB getting paid a higher figure trickles down to the next guy. Assuming the ratios stay the same - ie someone like Tannehill's money relative to Mahomes' money - that ratio stays constant even as QB inflation grows, then it won't alter the elite Qb pay now = team hinderance because those costs are just getting pushed up to the next rung.

If the rookie contracts weren't a thing, this tipping point would occur when someone like Fitzpatrick or Stidham plus a loaded team is better than Rodgers or Mahomes with nothing but street free agents. 

As is, I think Mahomes took a discount and that capped what Allen got. Rodgers was the only QB, given his play and the team's position, who could credibly say - I want the max plus some apology money. Now he, plus Deshawn, have warped pay evne further such that Lamar can credibly say - I am an MVP too and I deserve equal or slightly more because I am younger and all of it guaranteed because a guy with major off the field question marks who never won an MVP got it too. And then the Cowboys will face the same thorny dilemma in a couple years. 

Points: 0

#104 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 1:09pm

Now he, plus Deshawn, have warped pay evne further such that Lamar can credibly say - I am an MVP too and I deserve equal or slightly more because I am younger and all of it guaranteed because a guy with major off the field question marks who never won an MVP got it too. And then the Cowboys will face the same thorny dilemma in a couple years. 

Watson just blew up the guarantee number - in terms of constant cap dollars he's basically the same as Allen and way below Rodgers. But the QB guarantee number's pointless anyway for a vet. It was only an issue for Watson because of his legal stuff.

I agree the Ravens are in a bit of trouble with Lamar Jackson. The Cowboys mostly aren't, unless the Ravens are wacko and give Lamar like $52M/yr in constant cap dollars (which, for reference, would be like a 5 year, $300M contract this year, so that's the level of wacko we're talking about. If you're talking about a 5 year, $260M contract (which is above Rodgers's contract in average but well below in constant cap dollars), that's not a big deal for the Cowboys to outdo in '25. The cap should be ~$260-265M at that point, so, for instance, even a 5-year 300M contract at that point would be really affordable.

Like I've been trying to say, the biggest issue with Rodgers's contract is that while it's only like a 12% bump over Allen (which is bad enough!!) it's a 100% jump over the established market for end of career vets. And unless this extremely blows up the "young QB" market too, the Packers are just going to be at a big disadvantage (in terms of market ability) in the next few years, because they can't push the dollars forward like the younger QBs can. And they were already at a disadvantage this year.

Points: 0

#105 by KnotMe // May 12, 2022 - 1:12pm

The problem is, with QB and WR BOTH getting mega deals you basically have to spend on your offence (Offence vs Defense spending would be an interesting study). The game is tipped toward offence so you can't compensate as easily on the other side sadly.  Mia seems to be testing if a midrange QB+ elite WR can also work.  Seems difficult however as one elite WR cost almost as much as an elite QB but has much less impact. The teams that really get hurt is the ones with borderline QB, i.e. whoever of the young crop of Murray, Herbert, Burrow and Allen doesn't quite make the elite jump. 

I thought Mac Jones might actually be a smart pick (i.e. guy who can be top 10/15 but isn't flashy and doesn't have a crazy draft pedigree for a super-mega deal) if it wasn't for NE's terrible ability to evaluate WRs. 

 

 

Points: 0

#109 by theslothook // May 12, 2022 - 2:03pm

I think Dak is somewhere in the back half of the top 10. When he signed his deal, he was the second highest paid QB in the league. If Tua plays well, even if all of it can be traced to his all star supporting cast, hes going to ask for FU money too.

If Mac Jones plays anything above a top 10 QB, he can credibly ask for huge money. Maybe that won't happen with Ne's cast of receivers, but for many reasons, these lesser QBs are not really getting comensurately less money than the big names are. Its all coming from leverage. 

Points: 0

#114 by RickD // May 12, 2022 - 3:55pm

"I guess they made the playoffs, but they are FAAAR from being able to do anything useful there and don't seem to even have a path back to actual contention."  

Keep in mind they were 5-11 the year before they won their first Super Bowl.

The Pats may not be fun to watch, but the path back is pretty apparently.  They just need to play as well as they did in the middle of last season, when BB was personally making calls for the defense, instead of either the beginning or end, when Steve B was making the play calls.

So Bill needs to take Steve on a boat trip...

Seriously, there is a strong need for the defense to improve, but there is a history of the Patriots being able to find defensive pieces.  In spite of their collapse vs. Buffalo, they did have one of the top defenses in the NFL last year, and their running game was good enough to win in Buffalo.  And with Flores gone from the Dolphins, they might even be able to beat the 'Fins for a change.

The deeper question is how much BB will stay sharp as he hits 70 and older.  70 for a coach is like 35 for a QB.

Points: 0

#117 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 12, 2022 - 4:22pm

In reply to by RickD

and their running game was good enough to win in Buffalo.

That was kind of unsustainable. It's really uncommon in the NFL for a game to be such that passing is nearly completely impossible. Rugby games only develop once every few years.

Even the monsoon Miami-Pittsburgh game where the punt just stuck in the ground was a game where passing was possible.

NE also lucked into that game appearing when their roster was such that they could run and stop the run effectively, but their passing and pass-defense were shaky, against an opponent who was completely the opposite.

Points: 0

#91 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 7:04am

I thought you meant this hypothetical scenario was the better pick of two options -- dumping Rodgers and keeping Adams and using the extra cash to build around a rookie QB versus keeping Rodgers --rather than it being about costing them the maintenance of a fantasy team that was never going to happen due to Rodgers driving a hard deal.

What I meant was that Rodgers's contract demands and the cap situation of the team meant that they couldn't be the team they wanted to be anymore. And of course, since modern cap situations push money forward, that only gets worse. As in, teams can borrow from the future to overpay for a while, but at some point, you need to pay the piper and the cap starts closing your window for you. The Packers are at that point.

 

The risk of moving on from Rodgers just seems so much higher to me than the risk of him turning into Peyton Manning's dud arm circa 2015.

OK, let's be clear about what we're talking about. Fundamentally, as you said before, a team's goal is to maximize their chances for a Super Bowl, right? So you're fundamentally asking, is the chance of winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 years with Rodgers more or less than the chance you win a Super Bowl in, say, the next 5-6 years if you move on from him?

It's not just about Rodgers. It's about the team around him too. We can both agree that Rodgers's cost is hurting the team, right? I mean, it has to be - it's literally the highest QB contract in the league by a long shot (due to its short length). That's why this is different than, say, the Broncos sticking with Manning in 2015 or the Bucs sticking with Brady. Both of those were at a cost of around ~11.5% of the cap on a yearly basis. The Packers are paying Rodgers over 20% of the cap on a yearly basis.

So if by paying Rodgers a premium (which is fine, he's totally worth paying a premium for) their chances go from 0% to 30%, that's absolutely worth it. But the only way that happens is if Rodgers stays at that MVP level. Now if your chances go from 0% to 3%... are you really sure that that extra $150M wouldn't've boosted their chances from years 3 to 6 to over 3%? He doesn't need to decline to Manning 2015! He could just decline to Rodgers 2019. ​​​​​​​

Now, you might say "oh, Rodgers was still great then, the problem was McCarthy." But keep in mind what else you said: you were like "well, I wouldn't trust LaFleur to be able to be able to do what Belichick did" - but why are you trusting LaFleur to not screw up Rodgers like McCarthy did? Rodgers isn't some "coach proof, team proof" QB that will always play at MVP level.

Points: 0

#97 by Romodini // May 12, 2022 - 12:09pm

I see the riskiness of the deal most clearly in a different comment you made, that while the Packers are likely to make an NFC championship, an actual Super Bowl win is unlikely because their roster is flawed.

The LaFleur system seems to work pretty well for Rodgers, so I don't know why it would suddenly ruin him. If the reports of McCarthy's massage sessions are true, I think he ruined the team, not Rodgers specifically -- his decline during the last two McCarthy years was due to his injuries, wasn't it? Sudden injury could ruin his MVP play I suppose, but that's true of any QB and not necessarily age related. 

 

Points: 0

#106 by Pat // May 12, 2022 - 1:17pm

that while the Packers are likely to make an NFC championship, an actual Super Bowl win is unlikely because their roster is flawed.

Compared to the teams in the AFC, yeah. That's the point. If the Bucs had signed Brady for like, $40M/yr in '20, I would've been like "woah" but at least you could see the reasoning - big risk, big potential reward.

The LaFleur system seems to work pretty well for Rodgers, so I don't know why it would suddenly ruin him.

Oh, everything seems fantastic so long as the team's winning. The fact that Rodgers wanted such a ludicrous amount of money is a bit of a red flag for me as to what the working relationship is in Green Bay.

Points: 0

#120 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 20, 2022 - 3:04pm

This has to be one of the dumbest flags someone has worked themselves into after their initial argument falls apart. 

"The back to back MVP wanted to be paid so keep him and all the others he has a relationship with because there's a schism!! Doom behind the scenes in KC too!"

Points: 0

#56 by Raiderfan // May 09, 2022 - 8:34pm

“Philip Rivers or Ben roethlisberger, players drafted after Rogers who are now out of the league.”

they were drafted in 04, Rodgers in 05.

Points: 0

#63 by theslothook // May 10, 2022 - 1:06am

In reply to by Raiderfan

Correction, just before Rodgers.

That aside, I'm not sure how this invalidates my overall points. Rodgers is entering a point at which QBs decline. Sure, if you want to be illiterate or intentionally obtuse, you could read a warning about risks into proclamations of certainty. 

But my basic point remains.

 

Points: 0

#46 by Pat // May 09, 2022 - 4:06pm

Of course it does!

Except... the Bucs (and Patriots before them) were like 2 years at a time and until this year, like $20M/yr (so under market top). As opposed to 3 years at market top.

Points: 0

#35 by IlluminatusUIUC // May 09, 2022 - 2:34pm

Kansas City Chiefs

Fun Index: 112.25

 

I think KC has a tendency to enjoy putting on entertaining games, sometimes at the expense of winning them. When they just put their heads down and quit goofing off, they are damn near unstoppable. 

 

 

Points: 0

#40 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 09, 2022 - 2:58pm

Tyreek and Pringle for MVS and Juju might not be as unstoppable. 

Points: 0

#64 by Romodini // May 10, 2022 - 1:08am

To be fair though, every team with a high powered offense and wimpy defense has a tendency to put on entertaining games at the expense of winning them. The Chiefs are the rare breed that rarely suffers that expense, although they certainly did in the AFC championship this year.

Points: 0

#44 by COtheLegend // May 09, 2022 - 3:11pm

Your Cardinals comment is actually pretty accurate: in the current version of Madden (Madden 22), they are arguably the best team to use.

Points: 0

#47 by DGL // May 09, 2022 - 4:19pm

Something based on some semi-obscure player from the '90s with a distinctive name.  I'll throw it open to the creativity of the commentariat.

Points: 0

#58 by Vincent Verhei // May 09, 2022 - 9:32pm

In honor of the 1991 Falcons, the Most Fun Team Ever, let's go with 5-time Pro Bowl LB Jessie Tuggle:

Teams

U

Gotta

Give a

Look,

Everybody

Points: 0

#50 by DisplacedPackerFan // May 09, 2022 - 5:05pm

Looks like a good season to be a fan of the West this year.

NFC West - 279.25
LAR    112
ARI     101.25
SFO    62.5
SEA    3.5
    
AFC West - 215.75
KAN    112.25
LAC     56.25
DEN    47.25
LVR     22.5
    
AFC North - 188.25
CIN     93.75
BAL    54
PIT     40.5
CLE    
    
AFC East - 157.75
BUF    75
MIA    43.75
NWE   33
NYJ     6
    
NFC East - 112
DAL     70.25
PHI      22.5
WAS    18
NYG     1.25
    
NFC South - 109.125
TAM     75
NOR     28.125
CAR     4
ATL      2
    
NFC North - 62.5
GNB     50
MIN      9
CHI       2.5
DET      1
    
AFC South - 36.5
TEN     20
IND      10.5
JAX      5
HOU     1

Points: 0

#67 by KnotMe // May 10, 2022 - 9:06am

AFC: 598.25   NFC: 562.875
Was less unbalanced than I expected, although the AFC is basically down a team with Watson losing Cleveland like 60 points by himself. 

Points: 0

#73 by colonialbob // May 10, 2022 - 10:58am

I wonder if you had the "stats" on this for the last, like, 10 years, how far below everybody the AFC South would end up.

Points: 0

#54 by sharky19 // May 09, 2022 - 6:08pm

If there was a way to parlay that the raiders will have a better record and be more watchable than Denver, I'd bet the farm. Guarantee there will be some "What's wrong with the Bronco's?" articles by Week 6

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Mike
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and . Use promo code TANIER to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Mike.