NFL Thread: 2025-26 Season

[bdt2002]

Hi! You all think I made a power ranking, which I get because that's what most people do. But that's not what I did. If I made a power ranking, some combination of "how good do I think you are" and "what have you done for me lately", it'd be something like this.
1) Packers
2) Chiefs
3) Eagles
4) Bills
5) Not sure here. Bucs?

I don't love power rankings though so I didn't do that.

My list is, do you have what it takes to make and win a Super Bowl. That's all I care about.

View attachment 769896

The Chiefs have made the past three Super Bowls in a row and won two of those. They've made five of the past six and won three of those. In the two years of the past seven they missed the Super Bowl, they lost in the Conference Championship game in OT.

I'm really confident they have what it takes to make and win the Super Bowl, so it's going to be hard to dislodge them from 1 on the list measuring that. One close loss, at a (early-season) competent division
rival, won't change that much for me. The Chiefs were flawed, but they've looked flawed and vulnerable in the regular season before, and then won or made the Super Bowl.

I also don't have anyone I'm comparably confident in to replace them.

• I'm quite high on the Eagles, but they're only two years out from an epic 9-32 Wild Card flameout. They don't have the consistent record of success the Chiefs do to make me super confident. Also, their narrow win at home versus Dallas was not super impressive.
• The Packers had an amazing Week 1, but they haven't made the Conference Championship game in their current Jordan Love form. (The Lions did once, 2 years ago.) They have a ton of potential, but they're a less sure thing to make it there, let alone to the Super Bowl.

Because the Chiefs have such an amazing recent track record – even in seasons where the doubters are sure they're going to fall off – it's going to be hard to shake my confidence in their ability to make and win a Super Bowl. With my goal and interpretation of my rankings, it will be very hard to move them. Different people measuring different things will put the Chiefs down for this game, which makes sense.

View attachment 769897

I don't have the Bills on the Super Bowl-ability ranking because their current form under Josh Allen has never made the Super Bowl. I'm a lot less confident they have what it takes. Sometimes teams are good enough and just lose to another good team, and that is one possible explanation for the Bills failing to make it. However, Josh Allen has had seven tries to make the Super Bowl and made zero, giving him no opportunities to win it.

The Bills' win yesterday was very cool and fun, hats off to them, but we know the Bills can beat the Ravens, and we know they can do it in the playoffs too. I didn't learn new information that made me newly confident the Bills can make and win the Super Bowl.

I still put the Bills in winners because this game will help them in playoff seeding, making it more likely they host important games at home. I doubt the Bills, but I think they have real chances to win the AFC, so I do think home games can help them, especially since 3 of 4 losses to the Chiefs were on the road.

View attachment 769901
This is a young team that made the conference championship game immediately. They lost – by a lot – but they could have a Year 2 bump that puts them over.

They might not. They might get worse. The Commanders are not the favorites to make it and win. Their Week 1 was also adequate but unimpressive. But someone has to make the 5 spot, and I like their upside, while the Bills (and Ravens) have a track record of not making it. You might say "the Bills (and Ravens) are more likely to actually get deep into the playoffs, which puts them in better position to win one important game or two, and make or win the Super Bowl." Maybe. I see the logic. I just disagree.

I hope this makes my thought process more clear. I get it can feel weird to see the upset victim #1.

The AFC has had somewhat of a parity problem for the past few decades- in fact, at least one of either the Patriots or the Chiefs has made the AFC title game every season since the 2011-12 season including what some fans have called a “passing of the torch” game in 2018-19. While never a true dynasty, the Broncos have also made four appearances and won three Super Bowls, the first two of each coming before the Patriots’ rise to fame in 1997-98 and 1998-99. Following the Patriots dynasty, the Bills have won every AFC East title this decade thus far, making the Chiefs and the Bills the only active teams with such a distinction (Tampa Bay’s 2020-21 Super Bowl run was as a Wild Card team). Also this decade, only four teams have made an AFC Championship appearance compared to the NFC’s seven (both out of a possible ten) and the Bills and Bengals account for four out of the five non-Chiefs appearances in those games.

For all these reasons and more I haven’t specified during the 2000s and 2010s, it seems hard to believe that the NFC would claim the league’s next arguably dynasty or any consistent Super Bowl winners. The Eagles and 49ers are the two most successful NFC teams so far this decade but the NFC West has been producing varying Super Bowl contending teams for most of the past 15 years and the 49ers don’t have a Super Bowl win since 1994-95 anyways. The Eagles have won two Super Bowls against, coincidentally, recent AFC three-peat attempts, and they’re probably the most likely team to be viewed as the Chiefs’ biggest opps; that being said my point I want to end this post off with is that it’s risky to base a current season’s power rankings off of previous seasons’ results because anything can change in this league on a dime and dynasties rise and fall all the time. That’s to say nothing of teams that aren’t quite dynasty level but are still considered title contenders, too.

If anything, the Bills clutching up in what I thought would be their hardest game of the entire season, and getting said game out of the way immediately at that, only makes their Super Bowl argument stronger to me this season than it already was. They now have a statement win over another first-place conference team and have demonstrated they can come back from a points deficit. It may not have been the flashiest for the Bills at times but what’s more important here isn’t that they won. It’s that they didn’t lose. Which in the playoffs, is all you can ask for, is to just not lose to a perennial contender again.

Bonus Trivia: Following this game, the Bills also now currently hold the highest adjusted universal odds of going undefeated during the regular season out of any team so far this decade at any point in their respective seasons, provided it’s still only Week 1 right now. The 2022-23 Chiefs may have gotten just higher at one point but this would have been well after Week 1 and the teams they beat before their first loss were all worse than this Ravens team Buffalo just came back against.

 

[adjectivenoun]

Hi! You all think I made a power ranking, which I get because that's what most people do. But that's not what I did. If I made a power ranking, some combination of "how good do I think you are" and "what have you done for me lately", it'd be something like this.
1) Packers
2) Chiefs
3) Eagles
4) Bills
5) Not sure here. Bucs?

I don't love power rankings though so I didn't do that.

My list is, do you have what it takes to make and win a Super Bowl. That's all I care about.

View attachment 769896

The Chiefs have made the past three Super Bowls in a row and won two of those. They've made five of the past six and won three of those. In the two years of the past seven they missed the Super Bowl, they lost in the Conference Championship game in OT.

I'm really confident they have what it takes to make and win the Super Bowl, so it's going to be hard to dislodge them from 1 on the list measuring that. One close loss, at a (early-season) competent division
rival, won't change that much for me. The Chiefs were flawed, but they've looked flawed and vulnerable in the regular season before, and then won or made the Super Bowl.

I also don't have anyone I'm comparably confident in to replace them.

• I'm quite high on the Eagles, but they're only two years out from an epic 9-32 Wild Card flameout. They don't have the consistent record of success the Chiefs do to make me super confident. Also, their narrow win at home versus Dallas was not super impressive.
• The Packers had an amazing Week 1, but they haven't made the Conference Championship game in their current Jordan Love form. (The Lions did once, 2 years ago.) They have a ton of potential, but they're a less sure thing to make it there, let alone to the Super Bowl.

Because the Chiefs have such an amazing recent track record – even in seasons where the doubters are sure they're going to fall off – it's going to be hard to shake my confidence in their ability to make and win a Super Bowl. With my goal and interpretation of my rankings, it will be very hard to move them. Different people measuring different things will put the Chiefs down for this game, which makes sense.

View attachment 769897

I don't have the Bills on the Super Bowl-ability ranking because their current form under Josh Allen has never made the Super Bowl. I'm a lot less confident they have what it takes. Sometimes teams are good enough and just lose to another good team, and that is one possible explanation for the Bills failing to make it. However, Josh Allen has had seven tries to make the Super Bowl and made zero, giving him no opportunities to win it.

The Bills' win yesterday was very cool and fun, hats off to them, but we know the Bills can beat the Ravens, and we know they can do it in the playoffs too. I didn't learn new information that made me newly confident the Bills can make and win the Super Bowl.

I still put the Bills in winners because this game will help them in playoff seeding, making it more likely they host important games at home. I doubt the Bills, but I think they have real chances to win the AFC, so I do think home games can help them, especially since 3 of 4 losses to the Chiefs were on the road.

View attachment 769901
This is a young team that made the conference championship game immediately. They lost – by a lot – but they could have a Year 2 bump that puts them over.

They might not. They might get worse. The Commanders are not the favorites to make it and win. Their Week 1 was also adequate but unimpressive. But someone has to make the 5 spot, and I like their upside, while the Bills (and Ravens) have a track record of not making it. You might say "the Bills (and Ravens) are more likely to actually get deep into the playoffs, which puts them in better position to win one important game or two, and make or win the Super Bowl." Maybe. I see the logic. I just disagree.

I hope this makes my thought process more clear. I get it can feel weird to see the upset victim #1.

Perhaps I am simply giving into the same overreactive tendencies as every other football fan, but I am a smidge skeptical of the Chiefs at the moment. On the one hand, we've seen them recover from underwhelming week one losses before — remember what happened in 2023-24 after they lost to the Lions in week one — and one data point at the start of season is far from indicative. On the other hand, the Chiefs get less and less convincing by the year. Their offense, despite still having the transformative power of Patrick Mahomes, hasn't shown any ability to crank it up beyond the dink-and-dunk for a while, which will surely not be helped by Travis Kelce having less impact as a pass target and headhunting their prospective WR1. Last year, they were buoyed up by the defense and by their ability to play tighter than their opponents in the clutch; that defense couldn't stop Herbert from throwing like nine times in a row when they most direly needed it, and the offense couldn't convert the Chargers' mistakes into wins in that brutal way we've seen before. I understand that we are all ardently refusing to get fooled again, and I still don't trust that piece-of-shit conference to stop them in the playoffs, but it won't surprise me if this turns out to be the last year that we are all afraid to drop the Chiefs from #1 in the rankings.

 

[bdt2002]

Perhaps I am simply giving into the same overreactive tendencies as every other football fan, but I am a smidge skeptical of the Chiefs at the moment. On the one hand, we've seen them recover from underwhelming week one losses before — remember what happened in 2023-24 after they lost to the Lions in week one — and one data point at the start of season is far from indicative. On the other hand, the Chiefs get less and less convincing by the year. Their offense, despite still having the transformative power of Patrick Mahomes, hasn't shown any ability to crank it up beyond the dink-and-dunk for a while, which will surely not be helped by Travis Kelce having less impact as a pass target and headhunting their prospective WR1. Last year, they were buoyed up by the defense and by their ability to play tighter than their opponents in the clutch; that defense couldn't stop Herbert from throwing like nine times in a row when they most direly needed it, and the offense couldn't convert the Chargers' mistakes into wins in that brutal way we've seen before. I understand that we are all ardently refusing to get fooled again, and I still don't trust that piece-of-shit conference to stop them in the playoffs, but it won't surprise me if this turns out to be the last year that we are all afraid to drop the Chiefs from #1 in the rankings.

For any basketball dual-sport fans out here, notice how this same exact thing that you just said is… not the entire reason, obviously, but it was part of what brought the Warriors back down to Earth. The Western Conference (Spurs, Lakers, Warriors) and the AFC (Broncos, Patriots, Chiefs) actually really remind me a lot of each other as far as recent history is concerned. Eventually Golden State did run out of steam and in their place we’ve had championship winners that weren’t them and have focused on perfecting the new fundamental standards that were established by the now-old dynasty. For this reason I actually already have the Chiefs out of my #1 spot and this week’s game only further solidified that opinion for me.

I’m telling you guys, it’s going to be the Bills and the Eagles by the end of this thing. Washington’s only played the Giants so far, the Lions I have a sneaky feeling are still going to be in the NFC running despite this loss and my stock in Seattle already rose back up maybe a little too quickly between June/July and the actual preseason, which is a trend normally followed by disappointment early. Buffalo is my clear #1 right now and I don’t know who else it could be besides them, the Eagles, or the team the Bills just beat.

1. Bills
2. Ravens
3. Eagles
4. Everyone else

 

[ItsScaryCary]

Probably not as embarrassing as it might sound. AI would probably pick players in a more consistent manner than in actual leagues, where some people auto-pick and others go off of projections and a third person might only pick players they like. Dare I say, AI actually sounds more fun to watch play this than people of varying interest levels in the sport. My own fantasy teams rarely all win on the same week and I believe a large part of that is because there’s no balance in our more casual league settings.

Think of it this way- there’s reason I prefer to simulate every team in a Fantasy Draft in Madden than pick a whole team myself. I would rather everyone start on a (relatively) even playing field with their rosters and build my team up with what the game gives me to work with. As opposed to, “let’s have one human player, me, and 31 CPU drafted rosters and the one human player dominate the entire league”. It just doesn’t feel as fun that way.

only way for me to win is if DeAndre swift scores 10.73 more fantasy points than dj moore

 

[Adeleine]

The AFC has had somewhat of a parity problem for the past few decades- in fact, at least one of either the Patriots or the Chiefs has made the AFC title game every season since the 2011-12 season including what some fans have called a “passing of the torch” game in 2018-19. While never a true dynasty, the Broncos have also made four appearances and won three Super Bowls, the first two of each coming before the Patriots’ rise to fame in 1997-98 and 1998-99. Following the Patriots dynasty, the Bills have won every AFC East title this decade thus far, making the Chiefs and the Bills the only active teams with such a distinction (Tampa Bay’s 2020-21 Super Bowl run was as a Wild Card team). Also this decade, only four teams have made an AFC Championship appearance compared to the NFC’s seven (both out of a possible ten) and the Bills and Bengals account for four out of the five non-Chiefs appearances in those games.

I never thought about it that way. That is interesting and true.

it’s risky to base a current season’s power rankings off of previous seasons’ results because anything can change in this league on a dime and dynasties rise and fall all the time. That’s to say nothing of teams that aren’t quite dynasty level but are still considered title contenders, too.

It is incorrect that dynasties rise and fall all the time, at least in our NFL world. The definition of a dynasty is something that takes a long time to fall, and there are not enough dynasties for us to see that all the time. For dynasty falls comparable to the Chiefs falling, we've had one in the past 20 years. Dynasties do fall eventually, and there will be one season where the Chiefs dynasty falls. I see no particular reason to think it will be this season versus any other. (I wrote this before AN's recent post, which I will respond to separately.)

It's also missing a bigger picture point. Any kind of predictive ranking is a numbers and odds game. Past performance can dramatically change, but it is unlikely to for any given team, for any given season, and I'll rank on what's more likely.

Let's deep dive a bit. Pretend the Chiefs have a 20% chance to collapse every year from 2023-2028.

Each year, I would predict the Chiefs to not collapse. And given what we pretend, I would just, be objectively correct here. Every year, it would be unlikely for the Chiefs to collapse.

However, they eventually would. In that timespan, they have a 75% chance to do so at some point. That low-probability event would probably happen at some point, and it definitely would eventually. Which is fine. I accept that's how it goes sometimes. I made the right play that year and got unlucky, it happens. If I were making longer-term predictions, those would be different than the single-year odds rankings I make here.

only makes their Super Bowl argument stronger to me this season than it already was. They now have a statement win over another first-place conference team

They have a bare minimum win, at home, over a team they are evenly matched with. The game was exciting and cool, but the Bills did exactly as much as they needed to win and nothing more. The comeback matters, and the embarrassing slaughter before, that preceded the known chokers choking, also matters.

The Bills being able to score a lot of points against a good team and make comebacks – in the regular season – is not a statement that tells us something new. They've done this before. They beat the Chiefs in the 2021 and 2024 regular seasons, hanging 38 and 30 points, respectively. Josh Allen had 13 4th quarter comebacks before, like Week 1 of last season, where they came back from 17-3 and won 34-28 against the Cardinals. They still whiffed in the playoffs then, too. He has 0 4th quarter comebacks in the playoffs (6 losses), and we'll see if that changes soon enough.

I saw two statement wins this week. One was a home team, like Buffalo. But GB dominated against an expected superior, while Buffalo scraped past an equal. One was a narrow win, like Buffalo. But LAC beat an expected superior deluxe on neutral ground. The Bills beat an equal at home. You may consider beating the Ravens at all as a statement win, but I don't (see below).

they didn’t lose. Which in the playoffs, is all you can ask for, is to just not lose to a perennial contender again.

The Ravens aren't a perennial contender. They're a perennial "wins a lot of games in the regular season, guaranteeing them to appear in mid-leverage games, which they lose." They pubstomp bad teams and, especially in the playoffs, lose to the cream of the crop. Here is the ranking of teams by playoff wins since COVID (post-2020). (I make two lists: one gives a team no credit for getting a bye to the wild card round, denying themselves the chance to win that game, and the other gives a team a win credit for this bye, treating it as a win.)

List 1:
Chiefs - 11
Eagles, 49ers - 6
Bengals, Bills, Rams - 5
__
Bucs, Commanders, Lions, Ravens, Texans (2)
Cowboys, Giants, Jaguars, Packers (1)

List 2:
Chiefs - 13
Eagles, 49ers - 7
Bengals, Bills, Rams - 5
__
Lions, Ravens (3)
Bucs, Commanders, Packers, Texans (2)
Cowboys, Giants, Jaguars, Titans (1)

I'm not even locking in teams like the 49ers and Bengals as perennial contenders. But the Ravens are not on the right side of the line. Their two wins were over the anemic Steelers and fraudulent Texans too. 0-4 against the class of the AFC (Chiefs, Bills, Bengals)

Apparently the Chiefs were the only team to be the #1 seed more than once. Interesting, but also go figure.

(If you want to go back further in time, the Ravens can add 1 playoff win - Titans - and 1 bye - lost to Titans - since 2018). This isn't moving the needle for me, since other teams are adding as well.)

If anything, the Bills clutching up in what I thought would be their hardest game of the entire season,

This is less important than everything else I said, but the Bills' hardest game of the season being a home game against a choker who choked, says something on its own. Multiple teams had harder Week 1s (DAL, LAC, ?DET?), let alone games in the entire season. I don't really care about the Bills' regular season performance anyone, because it historically does not predict future Super Bowl relevance, but their easy schedule makes it especially more challenging to see what they're made of. It will help their chance to get the 1 seed and a home game against KC, though, which is nice.

At some point, for me to really change my evaluation of the Bills, they'll have to get past the Chiefs (or other AFC conference championship opponent) when it counts, which they haven't yet.

 

[Adeleine]

Perhaps I am simply giving into the same overreactive tendencies as every other football fan, but I am a smidge skeptical of the Chiefs at the moment. On the one hand, we've seen them recover from underwhelming week one losses before — remember what happened in 2023-24 after they lost to the Lions in week one — and one data point at the start of season is far from indicative. On the other hand, the Chiefs get less and less convincing by the year. Their offense, despite still having the transformative power of Patrick Mahomes, hasn't shown any ability to crank it up beyond the dink-and-dunk for a while, which will surely not be helped by Travis Kelce having less impact as a pass target and headhunting their prospective WR1. Last year, they were buoyed up by the defense and by their ability to play tighter than their opponents in the clutch; that defense couldn't stop Herbert from throwing like nine times in a row when they most direly needed it, and the offense couldn't convert the Chargers' mistakes into wins in that brutal way we've seen before. I understand that we are all ardently refusing to get fooled again, and I still don't trust that piece-of-shit conference to stop them in the playoffs, but it won't surprise me if this turns out to be the last year that we are all afraid to drop the Chiefs from #1 in the rankings.

I mean like. It's hard. What you're saying is all true facts. As a dynasty, they've probably past their peak, and I like your framing of, well maybe we don't get fooled this year, but very plausibly in soon future years, this is going to change.

The big looming specter* to me is, what you get to, who else do I trust? And, besides the Eagles (who are running a positive sample size of 1 year and an unimpressive week 1), nobody. Even if I admit the Chiefs are qualitatively worse than their prior trend line, declining more than their slooooow gradual descent thus far – a point I haven't reached – a downgraded Chiefs still earns my trust more than just about anyone else.

*I actually thought the idiom was looming scepter and had to google it, which gave me this delightful result.

"Looming specter" describes a visible but disembodied spirit or, more commonly, an idea of something unpleasant that may happen in the future

Interesting choice on which one to lead with, google. I hope no visible, but disembodied, buffaloes or ravens haunt me later.

 

[adjectivenoun]

I mean like. It's hard. What you're saying is all true facts. As a dynasty, they've probably past their peak, and I like your framing of, well maybe we don't get fooled this year, but very plausibly in soon future years, this is going to change.

The big looming specter* to me is, what you get to, who else do I trust? And, besides the Eagles (who are running a positive sample size of 1 year and an unimpressive week 1), nobody. Even if I admit the Chiefs are qualitatively worse than their prior trend line, declining more than their slooooow gradual descent thus far – a point I haven't reached – a downgraded Chiefs still earns my trust more than just about anyone else.

*I actually thought the idiom was looming scepter and had to google it, which gave me this delightful result.



Interesting choice on which one to lead with, google. I hope no visible, but disembodied, buffaloes or ravens, haunt me later.

Yeah, it's the question of who to trust over them that has me skeptical, too. The AFC is flush with great quarterbacks, but they all either get stifled by the Chiefs' defensive scheming or are held back by coaching (I maintain that the head coaches are the root problem in both Baltimore and Buffalo). The NFC has produced more Chief-vanquishing teams over the course of their dynasty, but it's also in a much greater state of flux from year to year, and it's not yet clear if it can produce another such team this year (no disrespect, but I'm waiting to see how the Packers fare against a quarterback with legs and fewer than three day-one starters on his offensive line before I pass judgement). My general attitude at the moment is that if everyone feels iffy, the Chiefs are the default winner. I shall await further developments in the season before taking someone else.

 

[ItsScaryCary]

om the plus side if our season keeps going this way we can trade a high pick for good value

 

[ItsScaryCary]

Yeah, it's the question of who to trust over them that has me skeptical, too. The AFC is flush with great quarterbacks, but they all either get stifled by the Chiefs' defensive scheming or are held back by coaching (I maintain that the head coaches are the root problem in both Baltimore and Buffalo). The NFC has produced more Chief-vanquishing teams over the course of their dynasty, but it's also in a much greater state of flux from year to year, and it's not yet clear if it can produce another such team this year (no disrespect, but I'm waiting to see how the Packers fare against a quarterback with legs and fewer than three day-one starters on his offensive line before I pass judgement). My general attitude at the moment is that if everyone feels iffy, the Chiefs are the default winner. I shall await further developments in the season before taking someone else.

I could realistically only see a few nfc teams being top 5 this year and most of them have major flaws

 

[adjectivenoun]

Congratulations to the Chicago Bears on winning one of the great choke-offs of our time! The Vikings tried very hard to let you back in it, but you simply could not be outdone. Truly, it was a Bearing for the ages.

This division is going to fucking suck this year.

 

[Adeleine]

how did they lose when the other team had 85 yards of offense through three quarters

>chicago bears

ah yes.

fun facts:
in the third quarter, both teams combined for 28 yards.
jj mccarthy had one completion to a wr not named justin jefferson
at the start of the fourth quarter, the vikings had six 3-and-outs with 284 punting yards.

on a more serious note, legit congrats to jj for pulling off a 3-TD fourth quarter comeback in his first career start. that's actually sick.

 

[adjectivenoun]

(no disrespect, but I'm waiting to see how the Packers fare against a quarterback with legs and fewer than three day-one starters on his offensive line before I pass judgement)

Update: Fuck.

 

[Adeleine]

Last week, I noted that Detroit had flukes and growing pains go against them, helping explain their poor performance.

The Commies are in a worse boat. Despite the Packers dying from special teams losses and penalties, the Commanders were knocked out of the game with ~10 minutes left, down 17-3 at the start of the 4th (and it could have been worse).

I already wasn't high on their performance hosting the Giants, and this was worse than Detroit's performance last week. The score was closer, but Washington looked worse, wholly unequipped to replicate their success last playoff.

Most stats are pre-garbage time.

How I call garbage time here

I use a start of 24-10, ~9 minutes left, >97% GB win rate per ESPN probability rate.

After writing this whole post, I realized a better start time was 27-10, ~7 minutes left, >99% GB win rate per ESPN.

My start time is not unfair to my description of the Commies here. It is actually a bit generous, because it omits this Commie drive (and no other Commie drives):

It started at the 35, so their average start might be a yard lower than I say here.
Jayden Daniels had two incompletions and no completions, so his completion percentage would be a bit lower than I imply here.
There were no penalties.

Commies average start: Own 38
Packers average start: Own 24

Another way of expressing the above field and penalty stats is that, in 3 ½ quarters of football, the Commies got a 160 yard advantage about without their offense lifting a finger, and they still got tossed. Jordan Love passed for 190 yards about in 4 quarters last week, so Washington had a secret Jordan Love boosting their offense from the shadows.

Just imagine what a good offense can do with 160 FREE yards (free to them, shoutout to my underappreciated special team goats.)

Well, here's what Washington did.

They had 4 drives starting within 10 yards of midfield.

They scored 7 points total with one TD drive, which itself was possible because they failed at 4th and 7, but a penalty saved them.

On the other drives, they had one first down each. A clinic of ineptitude.

You may note they had two missed field goals. Don't get mixed up – they did not drive down the field only to get washed by fluky bad special teams play. All three attempts were >50 yards. Gay made 51, doinked the upright on 52, and missed 58. (Note how the Packers average position was still so much worse, despite these two long misses giving them a short field.) Overall, the Washington special teams did as good as you could expect, which is scary because it means the loss is less fluky.

Unrelated, but these are concerning stats too.

Jayden Daniels
16/27, 119 yards (Before garbage time; 3 ½ quarters)
Yards per Completion: 7.5 about

Jayden Daniels (1st half)
9/15, 47 yards
Yards per Completion: 5 about

Washington Rushing (Before garbage time; 3 ½ quarters; including Jayden Daniels)
44 yards, 16 attempts
Yards per Rush: 2.75 about

The good news is that it's only Week 2, and a very doable next month of schedule awaits, with home dates against the Raiders and Bears, and no teams that won a playoff game last year (no Eagles till Christmas week!). They have time to figure things out. And with how Green Bay is playing (with the caveat that it's only week 2), Washington losing the tiebreaker to them may not matter.

The two week caveat remains, but this could be the best Packers defense this generation.

 

[bdt2002]

A few slight corrections… well, more like adjustments to last week’s posts I want to make tonight: when I was talking about the AFC’s recent success stories, I was using the word “dynasty” fairly loosely and if anything I feel like the phrase “Team of the Decade” would be more accurate in description of those teams. Just figured I would elaborate on that. The important part was that I’m getting tired of the AFC’s shenanigans and greatly prefer the NFC teams on average, both in terms of parity and with how many teams I like from each conference.

My other, more important thing (to me, anyway) I wanted to mention was that at the time of writing about our opener against San Francisco I wasn’t aware of the Tariq Woolen situation. The secondary has some injuries and questions right now but I don’t think as much blame should go onto him as some might suggest. We play on the road this week against a Pittsburgh team whose offense pleasantly surprised me (though that’s more-so because I never bought into the Aaron Rodgers hype) and with all the injuries in the backfield, I don’t really know what to expect. I’m not entirely sold on the Steelers’ defense right now either, though, so this game is most likely going to come down to who can take better care of the football and maintain offensive momentum.

Last week, I noted that Detroit had flukes and growing pains go against them, helping explain their poor performance.

The Commies are in a worse boat. Despite the Packers dying from special teams losses and penalties, the Commanders were knocked out of the game with ~10 minutes left, down 17-3 at the start of the 4th (and it could have been worse). I already wasn't high on their performance hosting the Giants, and this was worse than Detroit's performance last week. The score was closer, but Washington looked worse, wholly unequipped to replicate their success last playoff.

Most stats are pre-garbage time.

How I call garbage time here

I use a start of 24-10, ~9 minutes left, >97% GB win rate per ESPN probability rate.

After writing this whole post, I realized a better start time was 27-10, ~7 minutes left, >99% GB win rate per ESPN.

My start time is not unfair to my description of the Commies here. It is actually a bit generous, because it omits this Commie drive (and no other Commie drives):
View attachment 770511

It started at the 35, so their average start might be a yard lower than I say here.
Jayden Daniels had two incompletions and no completions, so his completion percentage would be a bit lower than I imply here.
There were no penalties.

View attachment 770512
View attachment 770508

Commies average start: Own 38
Packers average start: Own 24

Another way of expressing the above field and penalty stats is that, in 3 ½ quarters of football, the Commies got a 160 yard advantage about without their offense lifting a finger, and they still got tossed. Jordan Love passed for 190 yards about in 4 quarters last week, so Washington had a secret Jordan Love boosting their offense from the shadows.

Just imagine what a good offense can do with 160 FREE yards (free to them, shoutout to my underappreciated special team goats.)

Well, here's what Washington did.

They had 4 drives starting within 10 yards of midfield.

They scored 7 points total with one TD drive, which itself was possible because they failed at 4th and 7, but a penalty saved them.

On the other drives, they had one first down each. A clinic of ineptitude.

You may note they had two missed field goals. Don't get mixed up – they did not drive down the field only to get washed by fluky bad special teams play. All three attempts were >50 yards. Gay made 51, doinked the upright on 52, and missed 58. (Note how the Packers average position was still so much worse, despite these two long misses giving them a short field.) Overall, the Washington special teams did as good as you could expect, which is scary because it means the loss is less fluky.

Unrelated, but these are concerning stats too.

Jayden Daniels
16/27, 119 yards (Before garbage time; 3 ½ quarters)
Yards per Completion: 7.5 about

Jayden Daniels (1st half)
9/15, 47 yards
Yards per Completion: 5 about

Washington Rushing (Before garbage time; 3 ½ quarters; including Jayden Daniels)
44 yards, 16 attempts
Yards per Rush: 2.75 about

The good news is that it's only Week 2, and a very doable next month of schedule awaits, with home dates against the Raiders and Bears, and no teams that won a playoff game last year (no Eagles till Christmas week!). They have time to figure things out. And with how Green Bay is playing (with the caveat that it's only week 2), Washington losing the tiebreaker to them may not matter.

The two week caveat remains, but this could be the best Packers defense this generation.

Can I just say real fast that your knowledge of the game is honest really impressive? I mean this as a genuine compliment. Now, what I will say about the NFC North teams and Washington. We’ve seen teams start out hot and cool down late, and we’ve also seen the opposite. The Packers defense is pretty good, but I don’t think their 2-0 record is as strong as it looks seeing as Washington’s one win so far came at home against the Giants and the Lions lost some major contributors and personnel this offseason. I’m not just talking about Ben Johnson either; I’ve been saying for a while now in my head that the absence that’s really going to hurt the most was Frank Ragnow and I believe you (asking adjectivenoun) may have also lost some defensive starters from 2024 but I can’t remember who exactly that would have been.

Ultimately my point is, things can change drastically over the course of a season and since I didn’t have much time to actually watch Week 1 football, I’m really hoping that’s not the case this week and I can study Green Bay’s game and really decide if I think they’re legit or not. I changed my NFC North champion pick back to the Lions at the literal last moment I could for a reason- I still think this team has a good offensive core and I especially like their playmakers.

 

[Adeleine]

Can I just say real fast that your knowledge of the game is honest really impressive? I mean this as a genuine compliment. Now, what I will say about the NFC North teams and Washington. We’ve seen teams start out hot and cool down late, and we’ve also seen the opposite. The Packers defense is pretty good, but I don’t think their 2-0 record is as strong as it looks seeing as Washington’s one win so far came at home against the Giants and the Lions lost some major contributors and personnel this offseason. I’m not just talking about Ben Johnson either; I’ve been saying for a while now in my head that the absence that’s really going to hurt the most was Frank Ragnow and I believe you (asking adjectivenoun) may have also lost some defensive starters from 2024 but I can’t remember who exactly that would have been.

Ultimately my point is, things can change drastically over the course of a season and since I didn’t have much time to actually watch Week 1 football, I’m really hoping that’s not the case this week and I can study Green Bay’s game and really decide if I think they’re legit or not. I changed my NFC North champion pick back to the Lions at the literal last moment I could for a reason- I still think this team has a good offensive core and I especially like their playmakers.

Appreciate it. I've been getting into more baseball lately and their well-developed analytics world has done good for me.

I mean, you're definitely right that's its only two games. Two games at home, too. I similarly think the division has very close projection – I barely have GB as the favorite right now, and the Lions might retake it if they nuke the Bears into orbit this week. And I think a lot of pundits will overreact and act like GB is some dominant favorite when 2 games isn't convincing me there.

However, I'll note that the Washington win matters because they did so well last year. And two games is only two games, but it's rare to start with two Super Bowl contenders back to back, and start-to-finish dominate them, winning in every primary phase of the game (pass, run, pass D, run D). Two makes me significantly more confident than one did, but two still ain't 17, sure.

 

[yureion]

like i said last year i come fam of bills v jets - think both looked well obv jets lost but fun watch
as for the bills it went from "JFDFKFL;A" to "AYYEEEEE" - incredible game

all this said ravens will still make the playoffs, jets still gotta prove, & bills still gotta win "the big one"
hell my girls' commanders got taken care of tonight and she didnt even wannna talk lol.
the packers look top tier good rn

 

[ItsScaryCary]

of course when I start ekeler he gets hurt

 

[adjectivenoun]

I’m not just talking about Ben Johnson either; I’ve been saying for a while now in my head that the absence that’s really going to hurt the most was Frank Ragnow and I believe you (asking adjectivenoun) may have also lost some defensive starters from 2024 but I can’t remember who exactly that would have been.

As far as I know, it was less that we lost a lot of defensive starters (though we did lose Za'Darius Smith) and more that we didn't make any big money moves despite knowing Aaron Glenn was almost certainly going to be gone. No explosive trades or free agent signings, which is the typical mode of operation for the Holmes/Campbell regime: They avoid refinancing the house to snag hot players on the market, and they build primarily through the draft. That's all well and good when you're the underdog, and you're picking in the top five every draft, but once your Super Bowl window is definitively open, I think it often becomes necessary to put some more chips on the line in order to get over the hump. The Packers getting Parsons feels an awful lot like the Eagles getting Saquon, and I knew the Lions wouldn't be in the mix for either player. It seems like they believed, as many Lions fans online believed, that the injuries were the only reason for our defensive woes, and no changes or additions would be called for once the injured guys came back, especially Hutch. Well, Hutch couldn't get to Love for most of the game on account of having so little help elsewhere on the line. While the defense did regroup and give an all-around solid effort after the brutal start, it came to nothing because the offensive line was so dire, something they definitely knew was coming and surely could have prepared for a little better.

We're not gonna look that bad the entire season. The starters and new coordinators will settle in, and while we're probably going to struggle to win the division with that in it, I wouldn't be surprised to see us in Wild Card contention. That said, it feels like some opportunities to build on the success of last year were wasted. Other teams got better; we got worse.

 

[bdt2002]

The screenshot you’re looking at right now is the Saints’ regular season schedule and final scores from last season. The reason I’m showing this is to remind people not to get excited too fast if your team starts out hot. Those first two games had people thinking the Saints were genuinely playoff caliber and some even compared that two-game stretch two other historically strong offensive starts by other teams.

I don’t think it’s going to nearly be as bad as this, but I can picture a world where something similar happens with the Packers and they finish worse than people expect. Right now I’d say Green Bay’s floor is right around .500 and their ceiling is around 12-13 wins if pretty much everything goes in their favor.

 

[adjectivenoun]

View attachment 770568

The screenshot you’re looking at right now is the Saints’ regular season schedule and final scores from last season. The reason I’m showing this is to remind people not to get excited too fast if your team starts out hot. Those first two games had people thinking the Saints were genuinely playoff caliber and some even compared that two-game stretch two other historically strong offensive starts by other teams.

I don’t think it’s going to nearly be as bad as this, but I can picture a world where something similar happens with the Packers and they finish worse than people expect. Right now I’d say Green Bay’s floor is right around .500 and their ceiling is around 12-13 wins if pretty much everything goes in their favor.

I understand the cautioning against week one/two overreacting, but I don't really think these are comparable teams. The Saints were in decline for years and projected to be mediocre before dropping eye-popping numbers on two teams that turned out to be among the least remarkable of the season, whereas the Packers were projected to climb after making big moves in the offseason and have suffocated last year's #1 seed and NFCCG loser. I don't expect that they will keep dominating every opponent like that, but I would be stunned if they crashed as hard as the Saints.

 

[adjectivenoun]

Well, I'm still nervous about the pass rush, but that certainly makes me feel better!

 

[bdt2002]

Bruh, am I going to have any games this season I can watch in full without something getting in my way? Two weeks in and I haven’t been able to watch a full Seahawks game yet. We (I keep saying “we” like I’m actually there as a part of the team) played better this week, at least. I knew our division was probably going to be a close race but I can respect a perfect 7-1 start for the NFC West through the first two weeks (only loss so far was a divisional game so that doesn’t count). Obviously it’s not going to stay that way, but it’s still good to see gradual improvement from Klimt Kubiak and the defense is still looking promising more often than not. Next week should be one of our easiest games of the season at home against New Orleans but I don’t want to see us get complacent. The main storyline is going to be how well Kubiak can coach the offense against his old team’s defense.

Well, I'm still nervous about the pass rush, but that certainly makes me feel better!

Congratulations on the solid win. I know I’ve said I think the Bears are going to finish as the worst team this season, but a convincing divisional win early is always a good thing and I do think there’s still room for growth from this team. I’m pretty excited for your next game; I know most people are picking Baltimore to win next week in part because of the disparity in each team’s pass rush, but if it gives you any reassurance the Lions actually have a better sack differential (Even) than the Ravens (-2) through the first two weeks and the running back matchup should be one of the best of any game all season. One final shoutout to Amon-Ra, too, heck of a day for him. First hat trick of his young career, and this may be a hot take but I think he might be starting to challenge Justin Jefferson for the honor of best NFC North wide receiver.

 

[Adeleine]

Ado's Stock Watch /\/​

Wrapping up my takeaways from the week.

Teams win or lose stock with new information on how good they are(n't), or changing their playoff path by securing or dropping a difficult game.

* = Ignoring Garbage Time


↑

In two games against upper-level conference playoff contenders, Green Bay had better pass offense, pass defense, rush offense, and rush defense, all four in both games. It never trailed and put the games into garbage time with multi-possession late leads. Week 1, it could have been a fluke. Two weeks in a row? It could still be hard to replicate, but it looks a lot more solid.

A lot went right for the Birds. People were overly high on the Steelers for narrowly beating the Jets, and we shouldn't overreact too hard to the Birds beating them. But a multi-possession win on the road against a playoff aspirant is meaningful. Plus, the division contenders look very fallible. San Francisco is unfortunately mired in misery again, and the Rams are limping into wins, escaping a wide-open slapfight against the Texans and keeping the Titans competitive into the 4th. Seattle could pull it, even though... every other NFC West team is unbeaten???

Hold up.

ARI, SF, LAR games against bottom 5 teams: 4 (NO, NO, CAR, TEN)
ARI, SF, LAR games against other teams: 2

I see.

Detroit goes above and beyond to fire back at Week 1 doubts, easily keeping their heads in the division race. Beating the Bears is one thing, dropping 50 is another. The Vikes' collapse – more of them later – helps clear the field for them too.

Daniel Jones, doing it against Denver is much more impressive than doing it against Miami. It's good to not get carried away after two weeks, but there's a new meaningful possibility that the Colts found a medium-term answer at QB, one who can bring them to a playoff berth and maybe a win.

...however, Indy was lucky to sneak away with a home win here, and I think the Broncos are just about average. A playoff spot is certainly plausible, but Colts have a lot of work to do to become true competitors.

Every win is more odds they won't have to visit Lambeau in the playoffs. Winning in KC is always impressive, even if we knew this team could do that, but it was certainly possible they failed to win, so it's good they did.

They'll have to bump up a bit from the below in a Super Bowl rematch, though.

↓​

Egads. Got humbled in their house by a mid-tier. There's no reason to freak out for J.J.'s long-term after one game. But with 7/8 quarters of bad football, against the Bears and Falcons, it's time to worry about the short-term of this offense. Even if he figures it out this season, how many games will the Vikes have dropped by then? In fact, to summarize their week, they need the rare honor of a triple stat display.

Because it wasn't bad enough(?), J.J. is also hurt for Week 3's game.

This is a team with Super Bowl aspirations. Staring down a possible sophomore slump, it needs to look in the mirror, because it doesn't look playoff-bound right now.

I cover their game in more detail here. Suffice to say they were absolutely smothered on run and pass, Jayden squeezed into wimpy checkdowns, while letting Green Bay driiiive down the field.

Washington drives starting at own 40 or better: 4
Total points scored on these drives: 7 (needed GB penalty to undo failed 4th and 7 conversion)

GB drives starting at own 10 or worse: 3
Total points scored on these drives: 14

Last week against the Jets, the Steelers were notable because Rodgers got many touchdowns, and the defense gave up many touchdowns. Seattle is about average, but that's still better than the Jets, so maybe it's not a huge surprise that only the bad trait of defense stayed, and the good trait of A-Rod touchdowns died. But playoff aspirants can't be turning in turgid games like this, at home against average teams.

Second Half Points: 3
Turnovers: 3 (2 Aaron Rodgers interceptions)
Length of only Touchdown Drive: 21 yards
Other Redzone Appearances: 1 (ended in Aaron Rodgers interception)

Blowing a touchdown lead to a backup quarterback over 3 quarters is the kind of job that moves you from "in the playoff fringes" to "out of the playoff fringes." The Colts' rise is bad news too.

T-Law Interceptions: 2 (1 in CIN Endzone)
CIN Points off Interceptions: 10
JAX lost by: 4

I'm not sure the Cowboys have what it takes to be a pretender this year. Needing a 64 yard field goal, and perfect 44/46/51 kicking elsewhere, to survive into overtime against the Giants, at home, is dismal. Kicker Brandon Aubrey, specifically, gets to be a winner.

(As a reminder, Russ had 45% completion for 170 yards and 0 touchdowns last week.)

Amount of OT time Cowboys required to score 1 point: All of it

Honorable Winner:
Bengals win with backup QB heroics. I hope they have more, because Burrow is out for 3 months.

Dishonorable Loser:
I'm not long-term concerned about the Chiefs' quality, but they'd rather host Buffalo at home, and they are 2 games behind now. They have plenty of time to make that up, including a big date in Buffalo early November, but they need to start winning at some point.

My Top 5 (Criteria: SB odds on pure quality, ignoring path difficulty)
1 - Eagles ↑
2 - Chiefs ↓
3 - Lions ↑
4 - Packers ↑
5 - Bills ↑

The Lions barely fend off the rising Packers for the third spot with an exceptional performance. They'll probably have to win in Baltimore to keep it, but Green Bay could lose in Cleveland too. Who knows?

With some notable faces falling down from injury and collapse (CIN, SF, WSH, MIN), the playoff field already looks a lot thinner than at season start. Of course, a lot can change in 15 weeks.

(Arrows show whether a team gained or lost stock, not whether their order in the list changed.)

 

[adjectivenoun]

A fun fact I learned today: Ryan Poles has a win percentage comparable to Matt Millen.

I think the Bears might be historically ass, and no win against them should be taken as indicative of much.

 

[bdt2002]

A fun fact I learned today: Ryan Poles has a win percentage comparable to Matt Millen.

I think the Bears might be historically ass, and no win against them should be taken as indicative of much.

Yikes. That is a stat, all right. How bad of a team are we talking here? Was 3-14 too generous of me?

If anyone’s curious, the 2020-21 Jaguars have the worst record so far this decade at 1-15 and the Jets of that same season have the worst point differential over that same time span at -214. The 17th game added in 2021-22 could help the Bears out in their attempts to achieve peak pathetic-ness.