The last few weeks have been a reminder of some of the little nuances of the NFL that make it so damn watchable.

You'd be forgiven, if you just tuned into Bill Simmons's weekly NBA vs NFL rants, or if you only follow the twitter account of some guy who happens to also be one of, if not the most powerful men in the world, that the NFL is at a complete low point. Bad games, bad QBs, bad refereeing, bad coaching, bad company, bad analysts... bad everything.

And yet... a lot of it isn't actually true. Sure, I've got my own gripes with the NFL's pursuit of the all ighty ollar, but my irritations regarding play on the field are lessening a little in the face of one of the most compelling NFL seasons for years. Here is my response to a trope that has been trumpeted a million times to me in the last few months, almost to the point where I started to believe it earlier in the season....

Myth: NFL Quarterbacks are worse than ever

Reality: Our expectations of Quarterbacks have changed considerably over the last 10 years.

I hear this one A LOT. First off, the absence of a certain QB who is being blackballed by the league for his politics makes this a far more emotive and obvious statement to make. Of course Colin Kapernick, even at his worst, is better than Nathan Peterman and Tom Savage. He just is. If you don't think he is, you don't watch football. It's that simple. He is a better player than both, has a far better upside than any of the seriously bad backups who've come in, and whether you agree with it or not, and without imparting my own perspective or judgement, he doesn't have a job because of his political views.

Fact. Don't believe me, enjoy this from Jon Bois. It is a handy refutation of even the most myopic idiot who can't see that Kaepernick could do a passable job for about half the league.

But this isn't about Kaepernick himself. His lack of a job is just the easiest way for NFL critics to pan the bad QBs at the bottom of the league. 'Why does Cody Kessler have a job? He's terrible, Kap could do that!' is the simplistic (and correct) argument. The problem is that Cody Kessler isn't a new phenomenon. He's existed in his previous iterations for decades, churning around the bottom of the roster for various injury-prone or trigger-happy bad teams...

So are 2017's Quarterbacks really that much worse than years ago?

We have a tendency to eulogize the past and denigrate the present because we're wired to be nostalgic and talk about how things have changed beyond all recognition. It's a comforting element of growing old that makes us feel like we saw the best of something and you're just watching a diluted product. Maybe it's a way of compensating for being you know... old. I do it ALL the time and have to check myself because it isn't always true at all.

Sure, the NFL has changed in some ways that I hate, but let's take a trip back in time to the land of 2007, and the starting QB matchups of week 15 of that NFL season and see how many of us make it to the end of this list without weeping:

Cleo Lemon vs Kyle Boller

Brodie Croyle vs Vince Young

Philip Rivers vs Jon Kitna

Jay Cutler vs Sage Rosenfels

Carson Palmer vs Shaun Hill

Trent Edwards vs Derek Anderson

Marc Bulger (end of the road version) vs Brett Favre

Chad Pennington vs Tom Brady

Kurt Warner vs Drew Brees

David Garrard vs Ben Roethlisberger

Chris Redman vs Jeff Garcia

Matt Hasselbeck vs Matt Moore

Peyton Manning vs Josh McCown v.1.0

Donovan McNabb vs Tony Romo

Todd Collins (no, really) vs Eli Manning

Tarvaris Jackson vs Kyle Orton

Seriously. That all happened. And it wasn't an abberation, it is always like this.

I've put the really obviously bad ones in bold, but it's not hard to see that at least half of the league had a simply AWFUL QB by this point of 2007, the point that a lot of NFL critics cite as the cut-off between 'good' and 'bad' NFL. That's before we even get to the stage where we talk about mediocre players like Pennington, Young or Anderson (who was in the middle of his WEIRD PRO-BOWL SEASON). The overall standard was pretty much a shrug of the shoulders.

Apart from the fact that 10 of the above QB's are still playing (and 7 are even starting), bad QBs are nothing new. Imagine someone trying to sell you Cleo Lemon vs Kyle Boller. Seriously. What would your pitch be? The guy who has a job because Trent Green nearly died of concussions, and who managed to beat out Gibran Hamdan (total career passing yards: Seven), vs the guy who would go down as the biggest QB failure of Brian Billick's long, storied history of poor QB decisions.

Amazing. But yeah, it was a sell-out, everyone loved it, blah blah... Funnily enough, that game was the one that took the 0-14 Dolphins to 1-14, and quite honestly, it was pretty much the only reason to watch. Just like when we watch the Browns play Baltimore this week.

And I could go on and on. Craig Nall, Brock Berlin, Quinn Gray, JP Losman, Vinny Testaverde, Gus Frerrote, AJ Feeley, John Beck, Troy Smith, Brooks Bollinger, Patrick Ramsey and Kellen Clemens all started games that season. This year's Peterman, Foles and Beathard were 2007's Beck, Losman and Croyle. Those dynamics have always existed, we just used to be more excited about seeing no-name QBs step in out of sheer curiosity.

Now, one argument I do believe in, is that QBs aren't put in a good position to play well because of lack of practice time. I do buy that, but I think we've also seen a bunch of guys like Dak Prescott, Russell Wilson, Jimmy Garoppolo and others step in with almost no experience and have success. In many ways, that's the NFL in a nutshell: You either sink or swim, and there's no magic wand that makes a high draft pick a guaranteed star. Some are just lucky and fall into the right situation. Others, like Alex Smith, go through years of purgatory in the wrong situations and are only revealed as good QBs once things start going right around them.

Anyway, for comparison, here's a list of this week's starters:

Trevor Siemian vs Jacoby Brissett (ok, that's not a strong start, but stay with me...)

Mitchell Trubisky vs Matthew Stafford

Philip Rivers vs Alex Smith

Jay Cutler vs Tyrod Taylor

Aaron Rodgers vs Cam Newton

Joe Flacco vs DeShone Kizer

T.J. Yates vs Blake Bortles

Andy Dalton vs Case Keenum

Bryce Petty vs Drew Brees

Nick Foles vs Eli Manning

Blaine Gabbert vs Kirk Cousins

Jared Goff vs Russell Wilson

Tom Brady vs Ben Roethlisberger

Marcus Mariota vs Jimmy Garoppolo

Dak Prescott vs Derek Carr

Matt Ryan vs Jameis Winston

I've been super-harsh on Kizer as a rookie and labelled him 'bad' already, and on Foles and Brissett who I think will probably not be judged as 'bad' players, but for the purposes of this, their careers don't exactly indicate otherwise to this point. Now, you can argue that Bortles, Taylor or Dalton are flawed in some ways, but they're actually a step up from most of the players in 2007, or in other cases like Prescott, Garropolo or Trubisky, they're unproven and have the hopes of their franchises attached. Sure, they might be trivia questions one day, but in terms of fan motivation, they're people who fans can buy into. Nobody thought Todd Collins or Kyle Orton were the future of their franchises in 2007.

So what has changed?

Well, expectations for a start. Here are some facts: The top 30 QBs in 2007 threw for an average of 2901 yards that season. Last season, they threw for an average of 3801. Not only that, but they completed more passes (63% vs 62%) in that bigger sample size. We could go back pre 'air NFL' and it would be even more obvious how much the NFL has changed, but I'm deliberately choosing a time when people had begun to air it out.

And guess what? The same number of passers (24) were completing more than 60% of their throws. And for more yards per attempt... more touchdowns... more everything.

Without laboring the point, which I'm sure you understand now, NFL quarterbacks are throwing a lot more than they used to, and because of a league that rewards passing and sometimes deters rushers, we expect that even rookies or backup QBs are able to play at the highest possible level and not experience any drop-off from the starters.

It's kind of unfair, because some other people who played in 2007 like Nall, Berlin, or JT O'Sullivan were also just terrible, yet we didn't complain and foresee the death of the NFL, we just understood that attrition is part of the game, that players get injured and worse ones come in to take their place.

It's the nature of the game, and we ask so much of our QBs that sometimes we forget that they're actually meeting many of our expectations in ways that their equivalents of yesteryear didn't.

And with that off my chest, let's get on with this week's upset watch:

Last week's results:

Criteria

Units

Top 5

+5

Top 5 + Bottom 5

0

All

-10

For some reason, I had last week down as a total failure in my head as it was happening, but we actually worked out ok and took a relatively small hit, while actually winning in our top 5 thanks to correctly getting the San Francisco, Arizona and Atlanta upsets correct. The biggest failures were the Raiders, and the fact that we had the 6th ranked upset (ie: the start of favoring the favorites) as the Broncos v Jets. We could have taken the Broncos there and broken even overall, but sticking rigidly to 5 maximum upsets cost us a win.

Overall results:

Criteria

Units

Top 5

+3.5

Top 5 + Bottom 5

+16.5

All

+59

Thankfully, we have a huge cushion and could afford the 10 unit loss, which still puts us up by a whopping 59 units on the season so far. More pleasing, the other two categories are also positive, something we aim to keep the same through the rest of the season.

1 - Chicago (+5.5) @ Detroit

This might be the first time I've put my Bears at the very top of upset watch, which makes me somewhat nervous. They've actually been pretty good at not letting me down, but this is their biggest test.

Why do I like them? Well, last week was a big old confidence booster. They have a defense that can make plays and they're facing a banged up QB who has a tendency to make erratic throws at times. The Lions haven't won a game by more than 3 points since Nov. 12th (Cleveland), and the Bears ran them close in the reverse matchup in Chicago. The Bears have been streaky this seaon vs the spread, with 4 straight covers followed by 4 straight non-covers (one was a push). Last week they covered, and this week I think they do too.

2 - Denver @ *Indianapolis (+2.5) *

Home dog, Trevor Siemian... my underrated team of the season perhaps in the Colts... it's a perfect storm of upset-ness.

The Broncos failed to cover for 8 straight games prior to last week's shellacking of the Jets, and that just really doesn't count as Josh McCown got hurt... blah blah.

Here's my big thing on this game, and it's an x-factor: Although the Colts have not scored many points recently, this week is going to feel like a completely different sport compared to the Snow Bowl of last week in Buffalo. I think you'll see players appreciating their freedom to play a little more. The Colts need to score more points, as that's my big concern, but the Broncos are a beatable team, especially on the road, where they have not won all season and haven't so much as covered the spread a single time.

3 - Philadelphia @ New York Giants (+7.5)

If Carson Wentz was healthy, I'd be all over the Eagles at 7.5, but he isn't, it's Nick Foles. Is Foles that bad? No, but he's coming into his first game with a team preparing for him. This is a guy with a body of work, and he's going up against an interim HC in Steve Spagnuolo who is defensively minded. I fancy the Giants to run them close here.

4 - Green Bay (+3) @ Carolina

I was chatting to some friends earlier and worked out the following: Green Bay's season rests on both winning out, and what happens in the NFC South, which they have a huge say in having played all three teams. They've already lost to the Falcons and Saints, which means that Sunday's game is the definition of 'must win', as anything else leaves them needing a miracle.

Below is my rough working out of what could happen, and it shows exactly why the Packers are essentially out of the playoffs if they lose to the Panthers:

Week 15:

Minnesota beat Cinci = 11-3 IN

_Saints beat Jets = 10-4 _

Falcons beat Bucs = 9-5

Panthers lose to Packers = 9-5

Seahawks beat Rams = 9-5

Rams lose to Seahawks = 9-5

Lions beat Beats = 8-6

Packers beat Panthers = 8-6

Cowboys beat Raiders = 8-4

Week 16:

Saints beat Falcons = 11-4 IN

Carolina beat Tampa Bay = 10-5

Seattle beats Dallas = 10-5*

Rams beat Tennessee = 10-5

Atlanta loses to New Orleans = 9-6

Detroit beats Cinci = 9-6

_Green Bay beats Minnesota = 9-6 _

Cowboys lose to Seattle = 8-5

So week 17 would mean:

In: Minnesota, Philly

New Orleans beat Tampa Bay = 12-4 IN as NFC South champs

Seattle beat Arizona = 11-5 IN as NFC West champs

Rams beat San Francisco = 11-5 in as 1st WC

Atlanta beat Carolina = both on 10-6

Green Bay beat Detroit = 10-6

Atlanta hold a tie breaker over Green Bay and would have the best record in the 3 way series at 2-1. Green Bay would be second at 1-1 and Carolina third at 1-2

Green Bay and Atlanta would also be tied at 4-2 for divisional record, but Atlanta has a 7-2 record vs the NFC, and that would be 9-3 at that stage, while Green Bay would be 8-4 even if they win out.

The Saints also hold a tie breaker over the Packers, so those two are interchangeable if they're tied as both would likely have all tie breakers. The best scenario for the Packers is that the Rams win the NFC West and the Seahawks are one of the tied teams, as this would put them in.

Or to put it another way, if the Packers lose on Sunday, they'd need Atlanta to lose all of their 3 remaining games and hope the Seahawks couldn't win more than one. Neither sounds like something you'd bet heavily on.

So this one is really a bit up in the air. For reference, the last time Rodgers came back from a shoulder injury, he threw for 318yds, 2 TD/2INT, which would probably be enough if coupled with a solid run game.

The Panthers are 9-4 somehow, which is pretty amazing after a rough start to the season. I could definitely see them winning this one if Rodgers is not truly ready, but my gut says he is and because previous analytics are not particularly relevant here, I'm going out on a limb and saying the Packers have a lot more to play for here, as it really is season over if they lose.

5 - New England @ Pittsburgh (+3)

This one is a bit of a trendy upset pick this week, which made me wary of it at first. I think a lot of people get upsets wrong because they're looking for a trend based on reputation, whether it be of players, coaches or teams in general. The Steelers are a classic example of this.

But they are playing better and more cohesively as a unit of late. The Pats had a relatively easy schedule over the last month, playing the Chargers (at home), Broncos, Raider and Dolphins. They still managed to lose against Miami in a hilarious home defeat, and while some people are predicting a big rebound, that kind of revenge-motivation is really not the kind of thing I can see this particular version of the Pats doing, primarily because their team as a whole is simply not talented enough to do so in the way that previous iterations were.

Pittsburgh have won 8 straight, and as favorites in the last 7. However, what is interesting is that they failed to cover 4 of their last 5 spreads, eeking out marginal 1-3 point victories in all 4.

The biggest thing for me is that the Steelers are equipped and mentally prepared for a shootout, whereas I have a feeling that the Pats, as good as they are, could be somewhat overhelmed, given that the last time an opponent scored more than 30 points against them was all the way back in week 4 against Carolina, a loss at home.

I'm not saying they've had it easy since, but they've largely dominated their opponents who have been sub-standard on offense, and I don't think that's representative of how Sunday's game will go.

6 - LA Chargers @ Kansas City (+1)

I usually go with 5 underdogs, but this week we're taking a 6th. To be quite honest, there could be more (the Rams and Cardinals were both tempting) but I will stick with the 6 as anything more may be overkill and go beyond what is prudent in any given week. We'd be heavily exposed to favorites winning, which we don't need to be at this stage of the season.

How crucial is this game? Well, the winner will likely be the AFC West winner, especially if it's the Chiefs, who would then hold the tie breaker over LA. Although both teams have equal motivation to win, I think the Chiefs were just laboring their last few games under the millstone of being unable to win against lesser opposition. This one comes at the right time, having dispatched of the Raiders at home last week, they have a great chance in a prime-time, late night Arrowhead TV game. That's where I like them.

And the rest of this week's matchups:

7 - LA Rams @ Seattle (-2.5)

As above, this one could well go to the Rams, but they have been decidedly off against big NFC opposition, losing to the Eagles, Vikings, Seahawks and the (then good) Redskins.

In England there's a phrase that's appropriate: 'Flat Track Bully'. It means a team that is fine when they're playing against lesser opposition, but when they come up against their real rivals, struggle. This Rams team needs to prove it can beat the best teams in the NFC.

8 - Arizona @ Washington (-4.5)

If this moves out any further, I'll be tempted by Arizona at +5.5. The Redskins are just too banged up to trust, even if they do have a resilient QB and some sneakily good receivers in Ryan Grant and Josh Doctson who can still hurt teams.

9 - Cincinnati @ Minnesota (-10.5)

This is some dicey territory, but the Bengals just can't score points. Discounting the Browns (always...), they have only scored more than 20 points 3 times this season. The Vikings? they've only scored less than 20 points 3 times in 2017...

10 - Tennessee @ San Francisco (-2)

The 49ers are favored, and we now know that the Jimmy Garoppolo era has officially begun. I think it's well deserved after their recent play, and the Titans, as we said last week, are in real trouble. This is a big test of how Marcus Mariota plays under serious adversity.

11 - Dallas (-3) @ Oakland

The Raiders seem bereft of momentum. The only reason I'm worried about this one is that they can stay in the AFC West playoff hunt by winning, especially as one of their fellow divisional opponents (KC or LA) will be within 1 game by the time this is played. The Cowboys aren't out of it either though, and can get an unlikely wild card spot themselves if they win out.

12 - Baltimore (-7) @ Cleveland

The Browns have established their position as one touchdown worse than all of their opponents. Their history vs the spread (3-10) says they'll inevitably be worse no matter what you set the spread at though, so I'm sticking with Baltimore who are on a good mini-surge at the end of the season. Could the Ravens pitch their 4th shutout of 2017? Is that a record? I don't even know but it sounds like it is.

13 - Houston @ Jacksonville (-11)

This was a tempter, because the Jags can be flaky against inferior divisional opposition, but they've started to score points again, and the Texans have managed more than 16 points just once in their last 6 games.

14 - New York Jets @ New Orleans (16)

The Jets and Bryce Petty vs the Saints and Drew Brees... it's really not a contest, and even if I had a gut feel about Petty, I would stick with the dominant Saints who are clearly now the best team in the NFC after Carson Wentz's injury.

15 - Atlanta (-6) @ Tampa Bay

The Falcons have every incentive to win this and on Monday Night Football, I can see them delivering a big old beatdown. The Bucs are a disaster and will be getting a new HC in January. I mentioned this to a few friends too, but Jameis Winston is also not secure in his role. Sure, he'll get next season, and his injuries have played a role, but I have a strange feeling the Bucs would happily trade him this offseason if they could get a shot at another QB in the draft in May.

16 - Miami @ Buffalo (OTB)

This one is off the board, I'll pick it on Friday. All indications are that Tyrod Taylor plays, which should make the Bills favorites. I'll be picking the Dolphins though, as they have done just enough to convince me that they can be a semi-competent NFL team. That's progress for them, as I did not believe that a month ago. GREAT JOB GUYS!!!