NFL 2023: The Week 2 thread

The dolphins, ravens, and browns are the only afc teams without a loss. Not how I expected the season to start.

In all fairness, the Browns still have to play in Week 2.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:

In all fairness, the Browns still have to play in Week 2.

As much as I would like my Ravens to be alone at the top of the North, there is no way they are going to drop one to the Steelers.

Also, it turns out that Baker Mayfield was not the reason the Browns were losing.

Looking at the Bengals schedule and it looks like they have a Monday nighter against the Rams next week.

Their O Line is playing like trash, Burrow is immobile, and the Rams have Aaron Donald. Donald is a force of nature even against elite O Line play. Cincy is not an elite O Line. And Burrow will not help them out with his feet.

I know it sounds unthinkable to pull Burrow when the team is at risk of going 0-3 with two division losses, but you have to make good business decisions. Putting him into a potential RG3 situation is the grossest of coaching malpractice.

Paleocon wrote:

The dolphins, ravens, and browns are the only afc teams without a loss. Not how I expected the season to start.

The NFC South is collectively 6-1, with the Saints playing tonight, and that only loss is within the division, so teams are collectively 5-0 outside the division. Very, very now how I expected the season to start.

Here's some good news for those cord-cutters who, ah, sail the high seas in search of a Monday night feed: 10 MNF games will be shown on ABC.

They'll be on ESPN, too, just not exclusively.

From the story:

* These games were previously exclusive to ESPN only.

* The expectation is that this will be a one-year situation only and is undoubtedly a result of less programming coming because of the ongoing strikes by both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA.

* The only “Monday Night Football” games that will not be simulcast on ABC will be the New Orleans Saints at the Carolina Panthers on Sept. 18, the Los Angeles Rams at the Cincinnati Bengals on Sept. 25 and the Tennessee Titans at the Miami Dolphins on Dec. 11, 2023.

Rams-Bengals next week are part of a MNF doubleheader. Eagles-Bucs will be on ABC.

Tonight, I'll be flying the Jolly Roger one last week because I don't live close enough to Charlotte to get the local feed.

Tonight is a double header too

Browns Steelers on ABC

So Disney is running football to compete with itself?

*Legion* wrote:

If there’s any possibility that Kirk Cousins could be had in a deal, the Vikings starting 0-2 and presumably falling 2 games behind both the Packers and Lions (assuming wins over the Falcons and Seahawks, respectively) would certainly help the chances.

WELP. Both teams managed to choke their leads away, and now the NFC North has no 2-0 team.

*Legion* wrote:

CMC barrels into the endzone, and the 49ers home crowd in SoFi Stadium roars.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ugort4J.jpg)

I will never get tired of posting pictures of SoFi awash in red.

So, let's say the Bengals pull Burrow and Browning loses the next two (Rams and Titans) and wins against Arizona (because the Cards is not going to be denied Caleb Williams). I can't see them sending Burrow in for SF, SEA, BUF for his first three back either.

This is looking like a rough season for CIN.

Time to toot my own contract nerd horn about the Patrick Mahomes deal yet again despite nobody else caring (and rightfully so)...

July 6th, 2020: Chiefs, Patrick Mahomes agree to 10-year, $503M extension

Me on that very same day:

I think the deal is fine for now, but I think the odds this deal isn't torn up and replaced halfway through to be rather small. (...) It makes for a $10 mil jump over the previous highest QB annual average, but it achieves that by using 2026-2031 dollars that nobody else's deal is.

Today: Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes agrees to terms on restructured contract for record pay day

Sides also plan to revisit the deal again after the 2026 season, effectively cutting the remaining years on the deal from eight to three.

It drives me nuts how few people that report on the NFL understand football contracts. They just reported "10 years $503 mil OMG", and nobody of consequence looked at it and said, "uhm, there's basically no way they're getting to the back half of this deal as-is".

There's no meaningful way to do a "10 year" NFL contract, because you can't reliably project 10 years of salary cap inflation. And the instant the cap grows faster than the deal, the player is unhappy and wants the deal re-done.

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the Chiefs having Mahomes down on paper for 10 years, because I'm certain both sides signed it with the expectation that they would rework it as they go. It's just the people who make their living reporting on the NFL should understand all of this better.

Baker Mayfield on 3rd down so far this year:

20/23, 201 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 0 sacks, 132.1 passer rating.

AS GOD IS MY WITNESS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION.

It turns out that it was, in fact, time to bake.

Kinda wish he had a receiver named Shake. Or Clam.

Prederick wrote:

I'd probably take the L for a healthy Saquon. :(

Good news: it was a simple, non-high ankle sprain, and he won't miss the season.

Bad news: he will miss 3 weeks.

I wish him the best of luck in recovery, but I also won't miss him on Thursday Night.

I'm still expecting Baker to implode and fall back to at-best mediocrity, but, well, if he could keep this rolling through week 13 at the Carolina game, I'd really appreciate that in so many ways.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I'm still expecting Baker to implode and fall back to at-best mediocrity, but, well, if he could keep this rolling through week 13 at the Carolina game, I'd really appreciate that in so many ways.

I hope he doesn't. He seems like a decent fellow. I really want him to show the Browns that he wasn't the issue. That and I want him to make them look like idiots for the whole Watson thing.

Paleocon wrote:

That and I want him to make them look like idiots for the whole Watson thing.

I have a feeling that they're going to manage to do that all on their own this year.

Burrow being completely non-functional in week 1 helped hide the fact that Watson did not look great himself. Last year's mediocre performances were blamed on the suspension, but he looked the same to start this year. Maybe there's a big rebound coming, but so far he's yet to show much of anything in a Browns uniform.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Kinda wish he had a receiver named Shake. Or Clam.

Maybe Easy?

*Legion* wrote:
Prederick wrote:

I'd probably take the L for a healthy Saquon. :(

Good news: it was a simple, non-high ankle sprain, and he won't miss the season.

Bad news: he will miss 3 weeks.

I wish him the best of luck in recovery, but I also won't miss him on Thursday Night.

But the good news of the bad news is he's missing games the Giants would likely lose anyway.

Hrdina wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Kinda wish he had a receiver named Shake. Or Clam.

Maybe Easy?

Best I can do is an old fullback.

Just don't look too close at the latest update to his bio.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

But the good news of the bad news is he's missing games the Giants would likely lose anyway.

Isn't that the rest of their schedule?

*Legion* wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

But the good news of the bad news is he's missing games the Giants would likely lose anyway.

Isn't that the rest of their schedule?

No, they're playing the Jets this year.

Pink Stripes wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Isn't that the rest of their schedule?

No, they're playing the Jets this year.

October 29th though… the Jets could have a new quarterback by then.

Let me amend that: the Jets will have a new quarterback by then, and it could be a good one.

MNF certainly opted for a different start to their broadcasts.

LOL Watson pick six on the first play.

To my eyes, the TE ran the right route, and Watson was wrong. Otherwise the TE would be running right into the stop route that the WR next to him ran.

First snap of the Browns-Steelers game is a Watson pick-six. Wow.