Look at all the sub-200 yard passing games

[Philosophers]

Mahommes, Rodgers and others managed to have sub-200 yard games yet they won.  Mahommes looked frankly awful yet the Chiefs had an OL opening holes for Isaiah Pacheco and he ran well and was the big reason they won as the offense kept stalling.  Chiefs had a 1st and goal inside the 5 early in the game and could not score a TD.  I think Kelce had maybe 2 catches all game.  Nonfactor as he was not even targeted.  Yet Chiefs win.  Why?

I think good teams find another way to win — great ST's play or lean on D or 2-3 timely play calls.

I dont believe there is a one formula fits all to winning.  You can win throwing under 200 yards per game occasionally but you probably cant win consistently if you can only rarely throw for more than 200 yards.

Daboll/Kafka are failed play callers IMHO so we have no advantage there.  We have at best a mixed bag OL that had a decent game yesterday but many more horrific games before that.  We have no Pacheco type RB (how did the Giants not know about him out of friggin Rutgers for God's sake?)

[MightyGiants]

The Giants would have won yesterday if they had a kicker, in my opinion

[T200]

I don't care too much about Jones' stat line. I care that he moves the offense efficiently and isn't the reason the team loses.

[Fletch]

The Chiefs should have lost yesterday. 4th and 16 yet and yet another bail out the Chiefs with PI, defensive holding / 5 yards and automatic first down. It is becoming really obvious now.

 

[Messiah717]

Not anyone specifically but, the expectations and feelings for this team are so low we're trying to celebrate what still amounted to a loss against a terrible team. 

[Doc16LT56]

Every week people bring up some statistical oddity or exception from around the league. They point out poor offensive performances and then let us know that it's possible to win with a poor offensive performance.

The problem is the Giants have one of the league's weaker offenses year in and year out. You don't intentionally trot out a QB who is going to lead you to one of the worst offenses every year and then claim it's possible to win a game without scoring a lot of points.

There's no reason to spend significant cap resources on a QB who doesn't add much value beyond a replacement level player. This is painful to watch. It's long past time to move on.

[Philosophers]

Many thought the addition of Caleb Williams and Rome Odunze and others would transform the Bears offense.  It has not to date.  To be successful requires so many things to happen such as a center calling out the right blocking scheme, a QB identifying the correct safety coverage and adjusting, etc.  If this sport was simply throw and catch we'd all be out there.

[Doc16LT56]

Many thought the addition of Caleb Williams and Rome Odunze and others would transform the Bears offense.  It has not to date.  To be successful requires so many things to happen such as a center calling out the right blocking scheme, a QB identifying the correct safety coverage and adjusting, etc.  If this sport was simply throw and catch we'd all be out there.

It has not to date? So 2 rookies who've played 2 games helps explain why Daniel Jones and the Giants offense still sucks in year 6?

The Bears have a plan for success. Whether it works out or not will be determined over the next couple years.

The Giants have no plan. They are attempting to tread water with an overpaid replacement level QB.

[Philosophers]

It has not to date? So 2 rookies who've played 2 games helps explain why Daniel Jones and the Giants offense still sucks in year 6?

The Bears have a plan for success. Whether it works out or not will be determined over the next couple years.

The Giants have no plan. They are attempting to tread water with an overpaid replacement level QB.

Where did I assume what the Bears does relates to the Giants?  All I suggest is that winning is more than just a plug and play.

[JT39]

QB play is way down at the NFL at this moment. Outside of 2-3 guys, many of the starting QBs are fungible.

The reality is there arent a lot of great QBs in the league. Mahomes, Allen are definites and maybe Burrow/Stroud - maybe.

[Philosophers]

QB play is way down at the NFL at this moment. Outside of 2-3 guys, many of the starting QBs are fungible.

The reality is there arent a lot of great QBs in the league. Mahomes, Allen are definites and maybe Burrow/Stroud - maybe.

I think it just proves that not everything is valued the same.  For example a QB may go 15-25 for 150 yards in a game but not all the 15 completions are of the same importance.  Maybe 2 were on 3rd and long and kept a drive alive to score an important TD or take time off a clock to preserve a win.  Great QBs have stats like that but they find a way to make the all important completion when it matters.

[Bob In PA]

I think good teams find another way to win...

Good teams have good players. Bob

[Philosophers]

Good teams have good players. Bob

Yes Bob.  They certainly do.  We have Nabers and only like 4 others maybe.

[Bob In PA]

Yes Bob.  They certainly do.  We have Nabers and only like 4 others maybe.

Phil: My number's a bit higher than "four others" (probably seven or eight) but either number is paltry. Bob

[Messiah717]

A lot has to do with nobody plays in the preseason so the first two games of the year can be weird.  Things should start to regulate.