Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2025

[Pckfn23]

Chiefs are 3rd worst in yards per carry on the ground. They are 11th worst in total rushing yards.

Hunt had the 31st most rushing yards in the league and a 3.6 yard average. The worst average among the top 50 rushing leaders. Pacheco wasn't much better at 3.7.

[go pak go]

Strong disagree. They have the best QB in the league. They have the best C in the league. They have arguably the best DT in the league. McDuffie is one of the best CBs in the league. They have two of the leagues better OGs in the league with Thuney and Smith. Travis Kelce is still one of the leagues better TEs despite on the backside of his career. Then you go across the board and they just have a lot of other solid players. Leo Chenal, Nick Bolton, George Karlaftis, Isaiah Pacheco, Justin Reid. They dont have league worst position groups that kill them like the Packers have had in recent championship pushes.

I'll give you McDuffie, but I otherwise stand by my take. Humphrey arguably is the best in the league sure but C is not a super impactful position. Bolton, Pacheco, Reid, etc. are all nice players but not field-tilters IMO, or anyone you have to gameplan around.

KC certainly is a solid all-around team, which is impressive in a sense, but I think the intangibles is more what makes them great.

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

[Yoop]

I'll give you McDuffie, but I otherwise stand by my take. Humphrey arguably is the best in the league sure but C is not a super impactful position. Bolton, Pacheco, Reid, etc. are all nice players but not field-tilters IMO, or anyone you have to gameplan around.

KC certainly is a solid all-around team, which is impressive in a sense, but I think the intangibles is more what makes them great.

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

awesome post, the thing is, as Papa, Others, and your investigation show, is that a team with weak position will get exploited and the team overall has to be very good

we hear often that defense wins championships, but that's dependent on the offense and ST's getting them off the field for some rest, or they will get gassed just as ours has at times

[go pak go]

If I may interject here. A solid all-around team with a few star players- preferably a star QB, and smart coaches are what a team needs to win a Super Bowl. Most importantly, the team must have no weaknesses.I am convinced that if a team has a weakness at any position group, that weakness invariably will be exposed in the playoffs. So, in summary, I don't think you need a roster littered with field-tilters. You just can't suck anywhere.

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

awesome post, the thing is, as Papa, Others, and your investigation show, is that a team with weak position will get exploited and the team overall has to be very good

we hear often that defense wins championships, but that's dependent on the offense and ST's getting them off the field for some rest, or they will get gassed just as ours has at times

lol. This is so funny to me.

Because the numerous times I posted this before you hated my analysis as it didn't fit your "offense wins championships" agenda.

[Labrev]

Rumor: McCarthy underwhelmed in his NO interview, unlikely to get HC gig there.

https://wisportsheroics.com/packers-mik ... ints-2026/

[Yoop]

I have done data research of SB winners the last 20 years (I've posted this a few times on this board) and looking into if it is better to have a top flight offense or top flight defense.

My findings were that offense or defense didn't really matter. What mattered most was:

1. SB winning teams generally has a top 5 something (offense or defense) and more importantly a top 10 of the other thing.
2. SB winning teams were never in the bottom third in any category (offense, defense, STs).

There are exceptions. The 2006 Indianapolis Colts were bottom in the league in defense but then exploded out of nowhere in the postseason. Also had the 2000 Ravens that was completely carried by a historic defense. 2015 Broncos were similar.

So yes. Usually you need to be pretty good in one facet but then just not belew average in any other facet.

awesome post, the thing is, as Papa, Others, and your investigation show, is that a team with weak position will get exploited and the team overall has to be very good

we hear often that defense wins championships, but that's dependent on the offense and ST's getting them off the field for some rest, or they will get gassed just as ours has at times

lol. This is so funny to me.

Because the numerous times I posted this before you hated my analysis as it didn't fit your "offense wins championships" agenda.

Whaaaaaa? that's a bold faced fib, bordering on outright slander haaaa, I would always disagree that defense wins championships, always, simply because it takes points to win PO games, and typically the last team with the ball, wins

[Yoop]

Rumor: McCarthy underwhelmed in his NO interview, unlikely to get HC gig there.

https://wisportsheroics.com/packers-mik ... ints-2026/

what a twisted report, no way a coach of McCarthy's caliber or tenure will give up control of coaches under him, Loomis is off his rocker if this report has any truth to it, it's the worst situation for McCarthy or any prospect to take, the chance that team wins anything the next 3 years is a guess at best, McCarthy will sit this year out and be a prime candidate next year.

[BF004]

No one answered my question yet, why would Seattle have any interest in trading Metcalf?

[lupedafiasco]

The funniest thing would be the Packers trading for DK Metcalf or Jeffery Simmons when they should already be on this team anyways.

[lake shark]

No one answered my question yet, why would Seattle have any interest in trading Metcalf?

Mainly because he doesn’t have good chemistry with Geno Smith, gets paid a lot, is prone to dumb penalties and has good trade value.

[NCF]

No one answered my question yet, why would Seattle have any interest in trading Metcalf?

Doesn't that chart answer your question? $11M cap savings for Seattle on a tight, messed up cap. That team should be exploring a rebuild, too.

[lupedafiasco]

the Seachickens made the unforgivable mistake of paying big money to a non elite QB. Anytime you do that you flounder in mediocrity. Dak Precott, Andy Dalton, Trevor Lawrence just a few recent examples. A QB good enough to win games in the regular season but never good enough to win in the playoffs against a better QB and defense.

It’s a waste of time and money.