If you're a Football Outsider you're a TRUE player and true players don't stick to one passion only, so here's something else to excite you while you're waiting for the game to start. How about a free $30 chip to play slot machine games for as long as you want?
It's amazing, everyone here in NYC is casually convinced that it won't even be a contest and that they will blow through the Falcons. This is a 9-7 team that went 3-5 in the second half of the season and all the talk radio discussion this morning is about how Green Bay is going to be a tough game but they can probably pull out a win. A win versus GREEN BAY. It's unreal - I have never heard of a team (with a better record, no less) being taken less seriously than the Falcons are being taken by Giants fans...
You've never heard of a team with a better record than their opponent being taken less seriously, or never heard of a 10-6 team being taken less seriously?
This is really a fascinating game on paper. We know exactly what level of performance we'll get from the Falcons. It's clear to most that the Giants can win - it's simply a matter of good Giants or bad Giants.
In one of his NYT blurbs last year Tanier referred to the Falcons game plan as "victory porridge: filling and nourishing, but a little bland," which I think is the best description of the Mike Smith era anyone has come up with.
Seeing as how they were one of the most consistently bad teams in the NFL (2008-2009 were their first consecutive winning seasons), victory porridge tasted pretty damn good for a while, but it would be nice to see a little more personality and a little more aggression (on offense and defense). Hopefully they'll come out with a few wrinkles against a very beatable Giants team.
I'm an honorary member of the "let Matt Ryan call every play on the line" club, at this point. They look so much better in no-huddle than base set at times that it makes you wonder why they even bother with the latter at all.
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:03pm
Be sure to join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for IRC playoff football chat! Point your favorite IRC client to bendenweyr.dyndns.org, channel #fo
by Dull Science (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 2:20pm
Watching Manning's trouble with the Falcon's defense emphasizes that breaking Marino's record isn't entirely because the passing game is "easier". Just can't get over how Brees picked apart their defense for TDs, while the Giants have a series of 3-and-outs.
If even modest defensive success gives a high-level QB trouble, isn't that a huge boost *for* the argument that systemic changes to the rules are entirely responsible for breaking Marino's record?
by Dull Science (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:00pm
So are you saying that the Falcons and Giants D gave Brees trouble? Last time those teams met, Brees torched the Gaints 49-24 and Falcons 45-16.
Or are you saying that average defenses allowed Ryan Fitzpatrick, Hasselbeck, etc to score big? I think that was due to the abbreviated training camps due to the lockout. As the season progressed, those guys regressed towards the mean.
I tend to suspect Brees' development + Sean Payton have at least as much to do with Brees', uh, development as the restrictions on defense. Though I could be wrong, of course.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
by Displaced Bolthead (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:56pm
Having watched Brees in San Diego, defenses gave him trouble when he was starting out and he needed the run game. Now in New Orleans, he elevated his game and Sean Payton plays to his strengths with Brees' input. Brees does so many little things right to manipulate the defense (eye discipline, shoulder roll, pump fake, and footwork) that allow him to make plays. More than that, he can process the defensive coverage so fast that he might throw it to his fourth or fifth read for a good gain. That's the scary part about Brees.
When I watch Manning in New York, Manning (STILL!) has the frustrating habit of throwing a duck or into double coverage. Sometimes it seems like he forgets where the receivers are or he already made a decision on where to throw even if it's into double coverage. Don't really see that with Rodgers or Brady and that's the difference between very good and elite.
And yes, I still think about what would have happened had AJ Smith kept Brees in San Diego. And Darren Sproles. And Michael Turner. And Cromartie.
Brees struggled last year, when everyone and their dog was injured at RB, and Seattle played pass-only against them. He still needs the running game.
One of the commentators pointed out that Stafford this year was basically Brees last year, in that DET just cannot run due to injuries, and that affects how defenses play DET.
I suspect Brees has better WRs than Manning, who has to overcome both poor route running and more adverse weather conditions.
by Displaced Bolthead (not verified) :: Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:17am
Yes, but the Saints HBs need to know option routes in that offense, don't really see that with the Giants HB from Jacobs and Bradshaw. I think it was against the Cardinals or Browns, Coach Payton said that Brees threw it to where the HB was suppose to be, the HB went left on an option route, Brees threw it right, and threw it right into the arms of the LB.
I don't remember seeing option routes from HBs in the Giants offense. Of course, I don't watch alot of Giants games, so they could have Jacobs/Bradshaw running routes like Ray Rice or Darren Sproles. However, I really doubt Jacobs is running options routes.
I get what that commentator was saying, but Brees and Stafford are not the same. The regular season matchup between NO and DET, Stafford missed Pettigrew in the endzone because of sloppy footwork, Brees would've hit that. I would say Stafford has elite arm strength, but I wouldn't call him an elite QB.
Intriguing thought on the WRs, I've heard Colston is actually a #2 WR, but in Payton's offense they make him the #1 by design. That would mean Meachem, Henderson, and Moore (and especially Moore) are #3 and #4 WRs. I think Nicks is a legit #1 WR or is developing to that level of Vincent Jackson. I thought the loss of Steve Smith would've hurt more, but seems Cruz is learning. Definitely want to see the next NYG-GB matchup.
I'd have taken the holding penalty. The Giants aren't converting 3rd-and-27, and you might be buying yourself 20 or more yards of field position after giving up a fair chunk on the screen pass.
Syarted a tweeter thing november. Didnt tweey again till today. Raiderjoe_FO
Do not write for FO only at it but one titme another guy said for to start a tweiiter and javw FO in name tjing so people would know it mw. Bbecause theeere is a Raiderjoe giy at titter but not me. Just ome guy whobdoesnt even like football
Goign to start drinking the Sierra Nevada halftime flacs game. Gpnna eat some capanosa kielbasa an d some Polish cow fudge candiss. Gerat day of football drinking and food
Bet that certifiable linebaxler Steelers giong to hit T. tebow high and /or late today. J. Haerison horrible man. No need to injire tebow anywau. Guy will stink and syeelers woll win.
Yeah, it was the right call. He looked outside the tackle, but the ball didn't reach the LOS. And clearly there was no receiver in the area. 2-3 more yards on the throw, he would have got away with it.
Mike Smith is all gut-feeling when making these decisions. It's so frustrating.
If I were interviewing a HC candidate, the first thing I'd ask him is his thoughts about when to go for it on 4th down. If he doesn't have any kind of thought out strategy, I'd show him the door.
This is so easy to prepare for - few variables change week-to-week, so cheatsheets will take an hour to update.
The play-call on the 4th down they went for was also terrible. The quarter ended right before the play, so plenty of time to call something neat - play action, a full back hand off or something guaranteed to get a yard if it's executed properly. But no, it's the QB sneak straight up the gut.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 3:47pm
As a Packer fan, my gaze turns to the Bay Area and a game next week between worthy opponents, although I expect the Saints to win fairly handily. Next week's game in Lambeau will be at least two TDS against either of the teams playing today. Weather will be colder (20) than it is now but not bone-chilling. This whole notion of parity was and is a crock.
There are three great offensive teams who will simply overwhelm all teams against them in a league that rewards offense like never before. There are two or three very good defensive teams that would have a great tournament vs. each other but can't beat the offensive teams-- Pittsburgh could if they were healthy, but they're not.
And then there's a half-dozen teams that could be replaced by a half-dozen teams that missed the playoffs without any noticable difference. Last year the parity was real as there were dangerous teams up and down the playoff roster-- this year DVOA or something utterly missed the boat.
Gotta disagree on that one. Bad weather isn't a factor at Candlestick (now Monster) Park, but there are high, unpredictable winds and it's natural turf. Saints big advantage is on artificial turf (which helps you run faster) and no wind in a dome.
So with weather, that would favor the running game. Both teams have it, but the 49ers have a great run defense. That and the Saints can't cover HBs and TEs. Last time the two teams met was 31-17 Saints. Things changed since then, but one thing that stood out was Brees wasn't as accurate on the deep ball and that was due to wind.
Think the game will be tighter than most people expect.
Falcons fan here - are the Giants just covering everybody really well? 'Cos Ryan sure looks bad - as does Roddy who just dropped *another* pass. Our D is playing fairly well - Ryan has had time to throw but looks way indecisive. eli outpling mryn
Already? Well, the Falcons haven't done a thing on offense. So they either get their dink and dunk going... oh wait, they're sticking with the running game.
Good heavens that coach is holding his team down. AND NOW YOU PUNT?!?!
BTW. Are you watching this on ESPN america? Or what channel is it on in Denmark?
What do you consider to be close vs a blowout? Both of yesterday's games were in realistic contention until fairly late. I don't think either was one-sided or a blowout.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:24pm
17 and 21 pt results are blowouts. So is 17-2 and counting. Sure, the Lions could have made it closer with a non-whistle and catching a couple of INTs, but they didn't. Instead when they got the ball after Brees' fumble, they didn't move it. And they allowed 5 TDs on consecutive drives-- that was hardly a close game.
As for the Bengals they were predictably inept on the road in their first playoff game with a rookie QB-- Yates might have been equally inept if given the chance but the fact was he wasn't.
Lions-Saints was not a blowout. The Lions led at halftime and trailed by only three going into the fourth quarter.
The Texans-Bengals game, as you note, was hugely influenced by a big play (the Watt interception).
Which teams, specifically, does the FO "data base" overrate? The Falcons, I suppose. DVOA likes the Lions less than most other rankings I've seen, ditto the Bengals.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:29pm
Well, I'm making a more general commentary that will become clearer with each succeeding week.
1) The poor seeds weren't any good this year (except Pittsburgh which is an artificially low seed). Last year they were. Instead of noting this, Aaron has proclaimed this the most wide-open playoff season in recent memory, or some such. That was an obviously untrue statement. A 6 seed has lost by 21, another by 17, and a 5 seed is now down 22.
2) The entire problem with the ratings this year has been an inability to adjust properly for the growing dominance of offense. GB, NO and NE are much better teams than they are given credit for and will prove it.
Plenty of games are close into the 4th Quarter-- the fact that the Lions got smoked by the Saints when it mattered was not an illusion. the Saints are clearly a significantly better team-- they could play that game 10 times and it would be a double digit Saint victory at least 9.
I didn't necessarily agree with Aaron's wide-open playoffs view, either.
You're vastly overrating the Saints, specifically, and elite NFL teams, in general. The chances of one playoff team beating another nine times out of ten are small; doing it by double digits nine times is virtually zero.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:50pm
Ha Ha.. I don't bet but probably should. I would avoided the Texans game but bet pretty heavily on Saints and Giants. I think Denver will cover, btw-- in a low scoring and borderline unwatchable game. (And now that I've typed those words I'm bound to be wrong)
Hard to enjoy these games-- we've had three stinkers so far and Tebow hasn't even hit the field.
I have no insecurity vis-a-vis the Packers. They will easily beat the Giants as they did in Lambeau last year, and while both the NFC title game and the Super Bowl will be close games for a while, I don't expect either to wind up within a TD. I simply want to be on record well before the fact that the league, in many ways, is not what this site's data base or founders believe it to be in hopes that they will improve their formulas for next year and beyond. They are imperfect but better than the rest-- I am getting on my soapbox in hopes they can get better.
by LionInAZ (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:16pm
Please save your homer drivel and go back to ESPN. This site is for actual discussion of football, not your attempts to bore us with the glorious Packer history and the inevitable triumph of this 'special' Packer team on us.
Also, why can't you just enjoy the games (and apparently, the fact you were right), without always having to point out how other predictions were wrong? Are you really that insecure about the Packers' odds that you have to attack any outlet giving them less than a 90% chance of winning the Super Bowl?
Not counting the early stretch when it seemed like everyone was injured, they were 10-4 in games finished by Aaron Rodgers. That team was more of a 5-seed than a lucky 6-seed. They just weren't good enough early in the season to keep up with the Bears, regardless of health.
Disclaimer: I'm admittedly a Lions fan and may be trying to be too optimistic.
That said, I don't think we got blown out yesterday. Falcons got blown out; Lions just lost, and considering it was the Saints, lost fairly respectably. (Counting their losses, the Saints averaged 13 points more per game than opponents and 35 points per game: we knew the Lions' defense was suspect coming in.) The score probably hinged on the onsides kick – give that a normal kickoff, and I think we're looking at a smaller margin of victory (say 38-28). (Note that I'm not complaining about the onside, was obviously correct.) The word I would use is more "collapse" – the Detroit defense finally just broke, and the turnovers didn't help anything.
As to your points:
1) While valid, I'd just point out that if you expected the Bengals and Falcons to get thrashed this badly, that makes you about the one person to do so. Between the Giants' issues all season and the Texans starting TJ Yates in a playoff game, these things looked much more even coming in – DVOA may have been off, but so was everyone else. (Lions I'll give you, I think just about everyone assumed Saints would put up 40 and Lions in the end wouldn't keep up. But that's more the Saints being exceptional than the Lions being "not any good".)
2) Green Bay is #1; New Orleans #3; New England #4. So they're all at the top, I'm not sure why you say DVOA under-rates them. The fact is that when their offenses get shut down (most dramatic example is of course Packers at Kansas City) they have trouble. It doesn't happen often but it has happened, so especially when they all are top-ranked, on the strength of offense, it seems a little early to start proclaiming that DVOA doesn't appreciate offense properly.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
My two cents on the Lions game: When the score got to 24-14 I thought it was over. I didn't expect the Saints to be stopped the rest of the way. All those dropped INTs--the Lions D blew the chances they had.
by SFC B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:41pm
The Lions and Bengals just aren't elite defenses, hence they dropped their interceptions. The Packers intercept those passes and are, therefor, an elite defense.
In the context of the design of the DET defense and the GB defense, versus the NO offense, GB has structural advantages. DET is reliant upon the front four to create early pressure and to give their shaky secondary a chance, with the LBs cleaning up rushers who leak through. NO, however, has the most talented O-line in the NFL, especially up front, for their runty QB. Thus, NO is the stylistic foil for the DET defense.
GB, by contrast, tends to play landwhales up front to eat up space and prevent rushing, while the talented 4 LBs alternate playing in space or edge rushing, and giving the (more talented than Detroit) 5 DBs a chance to cover downfield and let the LBs attack. This exploits NO's weaker run push and their shaky offensive tackles. GB matches up much better with NO than DET does.
by LionInAZ (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:20pm
This is basically true, except to the extent that the Packer landwhales have pretty much sucked against the run this year, and their secondary has given up tons of room in air space. The two things that have kept the Packer season together are Aaron Rodgers and a ton of opportunistic interceptions. One of those things is pretty reliable, the other is not.
The second time, sneaking with an empty backfield and not making the defense even consider that there might be some other kind of play, was completely appalling. Agreed on the first, though.
The first occasion was the first play of the second quarter, so they had plenty of time to come up with something more creative, less obvious. I've no evidence to back this up, but I suspect QB sneaks work best when they executed quickly, without a huddle.
Mike Smith is all gut-feeling when making these decisions. It's so frustrating.
This needs additional emphasis. Going for it from the 24 and the 21 suggests a "My offense should pick up 4th-and-short, so our expected points are higher going for it than kicking a fairly easy field goal" philosophy. Punting from the 42 suggests "30 yards of field position is more valuable than the potential to keep the ball and score," which is completely at odds with what is expressed by going for it in the other two situations.
I could see going for it all three times. I could see not going for it any of the three times. I could see going for it only from the 42 but taking the field goals when available. I could see only going for it the third time because you don't think a field goal when trailing by 8 helps much at that stage. All have at least a whiff of coherence.
What they've actually done, however, suggests Smith is flipping a coin.
Now he goes for it on 4th and 10. This is insane. At this point I don't care if the math is right or wrong - now I just want him to pick a strategy and stick with it.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:59pm
Packers won 45-17 in Week 16 in a do-or-die game at Lambeau last year that mattered for both teams.
The identity of their opponent in that game is rapidly being expunged by all NFL commentators and analysts-- particularly those based in New York. Eli's playoff success (against a different QB) 3 years earlier will be the only Lambeau game anybody will talk about this week.
Green Bay has no other professional teams. Wisconsin has football and basketball teams that are consistently good, but never athletic enough to be great. GB is a cold industrial city, a cultural backwater so far removed it's not Chicago's satellite, it's Chicago's satellite's satellite, and they're stuck on the ugly side of a pretty lake.
Without the Packers, GB denizens are stuck bereft of professional sports of any kind, with nothing resembling competence in any sport north of Evanston. (Even Pittsburgh has the Penguins, and distastefully, the Pirates) It's women are fat, boring, and can't cook. Let's face it, without the Packers, the men of GB might as well commit suicide.
The rest of us wish they would just hurry up about it.
That's my home town that you're dissing (even if I haven't lived there in 25 years). It's not even on Lake Michigan, but at the southern end of a 100 mile long bay (hence the city's name). Just northeast is the Door Peninsula, which has been favorably compared to Cape Cod and is a favorite spot for Chicago vacationers. The Brewers were in the NLCS. UW has been to the Frozen Four several times and last won the NCAA in 2006. Yes, cultured folk like yourself would have to do without your opera and/or NASCAR. But you can't have everything.
Actually, I don't think he does. AABT clearly wasn't serious about the suicide part, but I think he really was being critical of northeast Wisconsin as far as the desirability of living there goes.
Most of my family hails from the GB area or the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (also Packer territory). I like the people, but was entirely serious that without the Packers, there's not much to root for, other than spring.
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:22am
Door County really is seen as a great place by lots of people. I have only ever spent one weekend in GB (for a wedding) but it was quite a nice town for its size.
These days the disadvantages to living in a smaller town are drastically less than they were 50 or 100 years ago.
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 5:19pm
So what, precisely, will it take to get that pile of chips off your shoulder?
DVOA disrespects GB. The media disrespect GB. Do you enjoy football, or just enjoy complaining about the peripheral crap that doesn't, in the end, matter?
by Paul M (not verified) :: Mon, 01/09/2012 - 1:29am
Gee, that's a bit harsh. But I hear you.
But mull over this one as I pledge to check the homerism at the door. Why do the clear top 3 pass offenses in the league-- who are now the 3 clear favorites to win the SB-- also feature the 3 worst (by yardage, of course) pass defenses in the league?
Obviously it's not a random event. DVOA adjusts them to "bad but not so bad", but still no one can sit here and say that NE, NO and, yes, GB have anything but substandard pass defenses based on any metric you choose. And yet I can't really see anyone other than those three winning the title this year. I'll stop the blathering by simply stating that I think pass offense has taken a semi-quantum leap this year in terms of importance in winning games, and that much, not all, of the seeming defensive weakness of these three teams is simply the effect of a great pass offense, and not some inherent weakness that might still doom them. Only one of them can win the title, so two will be susceptible to a charge that their defense did cause their ultimate defeat, but what explains a 41-8 record so far??
I think it is random. Last year, the Packers had one of the best passing offenses in the league ... and the number 2 defense. One of the oddities of this year is that three of the worst defenses are paired with three great offenses, mitigating the harm the defenses can do.
The Packers defense is terrible. But when you score 35 points a game, terrible doesn't matter as much. The number of interceptions is remarkable, but when you're paired with a quick-strike offense and you can't get off the field on third down, the other team always has the ball. And when you're always ahead, the other team is passing. 400 yards of passing yardage will hurt you every time your offense doesn't score so many points it doesn't matter.
And I'm wearing my Superbowl XLV Champion sweatshirt as I type this.
Tebow missed a 3-rd down pass where his receiver was open - the pass missed him by roughly 10 yards.
I'm sure Elway winced when he saw the replay. But not as much as he will the next time some idiot reporter asks him why he doesn't support Tebow as much as he's supposed to.
Tebow missed a 3-rd down pass where his receiver was open - the pass missed him by roughly 10 yards.
I'm sure Elway winced when he saw the replay. But not as much as he will the next time some idiot reporter asks him why he doesn't support Tebow as much as he's supposed to.
reply
Tebow with an absolutely perfect 40-yard pass to Thomas. He is so bipolar.
I think Royal was out of bounds.
I hate the Broncos for getting my hopes up.
I just looked at it again (this time on YouTube)...Very close, but you may be right...YouTube has the long shot from the other sideline...the game replays were all from the same sideline, which mostly prevented you from seeing when the knee touched and gave you the best look at where Royal's butt hit...given the lack of a close shot from the far sideline, and thus no disproving visual evidence, of course let's go with the call on the field...
So the gameplan of "stop the run and contain Tebow, but let the receivers run one-on-one" doesn't work either.
Looks like the Steelers are changing their plans.
Do they just stop calling Offensive Holding in the playoffs?
VanDenBosch was mugged all night last night and Clady just got away with a two-hand outside the pads clutch in the middle of the field that was textbook.
I can understanding turning down the whistles a bit, but seriously.
Yes, right before he said he was labeling a three-man rush on the interception, proceeded to draw four lines, played the tape where five people ran in on the rush, and did not acknowledge either of the latter points.
I'm ok with bad commentary. I mean, half the population sucks at their jobs, it's ok.
But what I can't stand is dumb commentary.
Just now he says the linebacker is blocked; he's tripped by his own man. That man is probably a backup because of the injuries; the defense is probably in pass defense mode since it's the end of the half and 2nd and 9.
In just one little piece of talking by that idiot I can poke so many holes...
Most injuries happened (or that was at least the perception) when defenseless receivers got hit while catching the ball.
The idea is that a player who can brace himself is fair game. Also fair as in; that he can be the one now who can deliver.
Yeah, the Steelers are lucky on that one due to circumstance. But what about the play call? I understand that WR screens can be effective, but when you run it so often that 2 or 3 defensive players are over there behind the line of scrimmage every time, it may be time to go another way.
On the replay, you could see that the ball was at around the 19 when released, and at about halfway between the 18 and 19 when it hit off Wallace's hands. Wasn't that obvious.
That may be the solution: On close plays like that, don't blow the whistle until someone has picked up the ball, but still allow the officials on the field to rule the play an incomplete pass if that's what they think it was. Of course, this would have implications for the clock (which would have kept running before the play was ruled an incomplete pass). This would allow the play to be challenged and result in a recovery by the defense. It also wouldn't be unfair to the offense if the play isn't automaticlally ruled a fumble (i.e., the officials could still rule it incomplete on the field), so that the burden of using a challenge wouldn't be shifted to them always.
Of course, I suspect that the NFL would cite player safety concerns as a reason for not doing this, as it would lead to more wild scrambles for loose balls on plays that really are incomplete passes.
Tihs onevreason why nba better tham nfl. Ball either in net or not. Ball either released before colck ecpired or not. Also in nbaget to see coool tattoos like abe lincoln on neck of D. Stevenson. Guy maybe insane. Shit maybe 30 threes already but only shot like trhee twos
Now wait a second. This rule was changed a couple of years ago. If a whistle is blown because a ref things it's an incomplete pass, but the other team obviously recovers it, you CAN challenge that it was a fumble, not an incomplete pass, and gain possession.
It usually comes up on the issue of "was the QB's arm moving forward" plays, but it certainly should apply to forward versus backward pass plays as well.
This is absolutely the WRONG call. No question whatsoever, unless they changed the rule back again and I"m not aware of that. Anywone have the actual rulebook?
Still, not exactly surprising...bad refereeing going the Steeler's way in the postseason...
At the point the whistle blew, the ball was loose. You can't say with certainty that Denver would have gotten the ball absent the whistle, because you can't know whether the Steelers stopped going for the ball after hearing the whistle. And if you get into the judgment calls of, "Well, the Broncos would have gotten the ball anyway," then hell, just stop playing the game and let the league decide what would have happened anyway.
by Anonymous5321 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:32pm
I also remember a "clear recovery" rule being instated for instances like these: inadvertent whistle on a loose ball, but the referees can award a turnover if the defense exhibits a "clear recovery" after the whistle
and this is relevant to the refs blowing whistles for a forward pass because...?
The rule already is that forward is forward. Only, when a ref sees it as forward he blows it dead, and that's too bad when it was a latteral.
Maybe when in doubt, let them play and see later if you were right.
That's not even accurate. To be a forward pass the quarterback's hand has to be moving forward with the ball in it. Whether the ball eventually comes out of that hand and goes backward is irrelevant.
by RichC (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:53pm
Wasn't there a rule put in a couple years ago that if it was clear who was going to recover a fumble and the whistle blew, that the refs could award the ball? I seem to remember something like that.
Yeah, there is such a rule. They need to tighten that up and make it so that plays like we just saw result in a fumble and recovery by the defense rather than just being whistled dead.
Of course, that may be easier said than done. Look at how they tried to clarify the Calvin Johnson rule. We still get lots of confusing and controversial calls on passes where the receiver ends up on the ground and the ball comes out or is bobbled at some point.
The Bronco's preparation and play design is excellent.
Their actual playcalling and in-game decision making is terrible. Honestly...run, run, long 3rd down pass, over and over again? Punting on 4th and 2 from the other team's 38??? Punting?????
I'd put Prater at about 75% from 55 yards at Mile High. I think a FG attempt makes sense. Going for it still the best option I think - Tebow is tough to defend i short-yardage situation (anecdotally, haven't seen the numbers).
I hate that pass interference. I know it gets called every time. But I think if the WR slows/stops and the DB is looking back at the ball, that they need to get rid of the automatic call.
Another idiot Phil Simms comment: "Roethlisberger can't move..." after he scrambles around to throw and rush for 6. It's probably because of the pain killers and not just adrenaline. But, man, that must be a lot of pain killers.
Would it be possible to make a "Comments of the Week" column on this site. I'm thinking of all the early-game righteous comments that turn into cring-worthy material. FO could save them up over the season, and have people vote for the winner/loser commenter of the year award for willful obtuseness or homerism.
by 40oz to Freedom (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:43pm
Sorry, I was referring to the cheaper alcohol you can buy in the States that come in 40 ounce bottles. A common brand is "St. Ides" also known as the "Crooked I"
It's cheap, it's potent, and with a game like this you might need one. Or two.
I'm a steelers fan and put 5 euros on the Broncos (4.30 odds). So in case the steelers lose, it's money to ease the pain.
I don't know if it makes sense, but I did it anyway.
No. What used to be the five-yard variety is no longer supposed to be called. Only a grasping/twisting/pulling should be a penalty now, not incidental contact.
It's a little easier when he actually plays well. He's got a nice deep ball for sure, but anything else ... his release is timed with an hour-glass, and once he's on the run, he should just run, because he can't throw at all on the move. Those long passes today, though, when he could wind up and unload, were right on the money.
Every sports movie tells me the Patriots are doomed. We saw the early season loss when the Lions crushed Denver. Then they bounce back, have a winning streak before losing to the big bad Patriots. After that, nobody believes in them anymore, they go through a losing streak. Then, miraculous comeback, they beat the Steelers, setting them up for a rematch with the Patriots. And we know how that movie ends.
The gold dust blows away; Rick sends Ilsa off with Victor; Robie is not the thief; Osgood and Daphne pair off; Rhett doesn't give a damn; Terry decides to inform; Don, Cosmo and R.F. pull the curtain up, showing Kathy doing the real singing; despite escaping from her wedding with Elaine, Benjamin feels empty; all she had to do was tap her heels three times...
Nice way to pass an evening...any number can play...
Still confused about the playoff OT rules (not that it matters now). Team A vs. Team B.
A wins the toss and opts to receive. A gets the ball and moves it well, but stalls out near the opponent's 30. They ultimately settle for a FG and get the three.
B gets the ball and moves well, but they stall out at their own 35. It's now 4th and 10. If they punt, do they lose-- since they had a possession but didn't match the other team's FG (like college)? Or if they punt, is it just next team to score, wins-- except the score will still be tied.
I sort of understood the OT rules in the context of the moved-up kick-off line, where teams routinely got the ball with good field position and didn't have to move far for a FG. But now that they're moved back and most teams are starting at their own 20, Sudden Death seems OK to me. And still better than this convoluted system is something like a 7 minute OT without Sudden Death.
Oh well. Can we hope that at least next week will be a close game, or should we assumed that NE will run up the score and win by 50?
by Byrk (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:54pm
The rule is that if Team A gets a FG, then team B must either get a FG on their next possession and then regular sudden death from there or a touchdown which ends a game.
The rule is that each team gets an opportunity to possess, which means that if you muff a kick off or punt it counts as an opportunity to possess the ball. That means if you onside kick to start and recover, a FG will win it. It also means that after a FG, an onside kick and recovery wins the game as well. A safety also wins the game for your team.
I think an interesting play would be to choose kick off and then surprise onside, since a recovery means you don't have far to move for a game winning FG.
But a failure to recover the onside kick means that the opposing team only has to go about 40 yards to score a game winning TD. Also, a surprise onside kick that is executed really poorly sometimes gets run back for a TD pretty easily, which in this case would win the game. Either of these results gets the head coach fired.
Me too. It's simpler, seems fairer to me, encourages going for TDs more, and I think we all want to see some team win by scoring not one, but two safeties in over time.
But it's almost the same thing. The only two practical differences under "first to four" are that one safety won't win it and an exchange of non-scoring possessions wastes everybody's time.
You're missing the other huge practical difference. If one team scores a fg on an drive, it doesn't end the game. You have to reach 4 points. In the current system 3 points is enough if you can stop the other team once.
Well, no. If you surprise-onside, fail, and the other team kicks a field goal, the game isn't over. They still have to kick off and you get a chance to answer. Right? Not entirely certain...
by JPS (not verified) :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:04pm
I did not see that coming. I was surprised that Denver was able to force overtime at all! I was sure that Big Ben would drive them down for a game-winning field goal. And then for the last play, Denver chose the perfect time not to follow their trend all game of running on first down. The commentators showed how one of the safeties cheated up, leaving no deep help.
Also, the altitude probably worked in DT's favor on the last play by just that little bit. Had DT been caught on the 50 we'd likely still be playing.
by Independent George :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 10:52pm
The Steelers are starting to look like the late-90s Cowboys to me. The core talent is still there, but too many of their starters are on the wrong side of 30, the QB is showing the cumulative effects of getting the snot kicked out of him for a decade, and they just don't have the depth on the bench to get them through 16+ games. They've got better & more stable management than the Cowboys did, though, so I don't expect that kind of precipitous fall, but I think they're in for another 2-4 years of 9-7 while they retool the OL and defense.
I was just thinking that what really surprised me was how many long passes the Broncos were able to complete against what is supposed to be a top defense. Tebow averaged an insane 31.6 yards/completion!
I wonder how much of that is the altitude. I've gone for a run near Denver, and it was much, much harder than I was used to at sea level. I would think this might not affect too many guys, but perhaps when, as the earlier poster said, you're on the wrong side of 30 ...
That was a crazy game. I was so sure that Denver would lose 26-23. Then Dumervil, Miller, and Ayers stepped up and knocked them back out of (mile high) field goal range. I would not have expected that ending at all. That end-of-regulation sequence was absolutely huge.
by WeaponX (not verified) :: Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:45am
That play and ensuing drive was completely terrible. I know the football world got a very exciting finish out of it but the crew really got in the way of the game there. But wow, what an ending!
RSS Feed
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So... good NYG or bad NYG?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
It's amazing, everyone here in NYC is casually convinced that it won't even be a contest and that they will blow through the Falcons. This is a 9-7 team that went 3-5 in the second half of the season and all the talk radio discussion this morning is about how Green Bay is going to be a tough game but they can probably pull out a win. A win versus GREEN BAY. It's unreal - I have never heard of a team (with a better record, no less) being taken less seriously than the Falcons are being taken by Giants fans...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You've never heard of a team with a better record than their opponent being taken less seriously, or never heard of a 10-6 team being taken less seriously?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Either way, it sounds *exactly* like the TB/Giants playoff game four years ago, with FO playing the role of the 2012 Giants fans.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
On the other hand, it looks like the Giants blew right through the Falcons.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Good NYG.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
This is really a fascinating game on paper. We know exactly what level of performance we'll get from the Falcons. It's clear to most that the Giants can win - it's simply a matter of good Giants or bad Giants.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
They have found something in passing that Tewbo led the league in. Avg air yards/ pass att.
(iirc)
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
air yards of completed passes, per pass attempt? or air yards of all pass attempts, per pass attempt?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
In one of his NYT blurbs last year Tanier referred to the Falcons game plan as "victory porridge: filling and nourishing, but a little bland," which I think is the best description of the Mike Smith era anyone has come up with.
Seeing as how they were one of the most consistently bad teams in the NFL (2008-2009 were their first consecutive winning seasons), victory porridge tasted pretty damn good for a while, but it would be nice to see a little more personality and a little more aggression (on offense and defense). Hopefully they'll come out with a few wrinkles against a very beatable Giants team.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You mean like shelving the run-into-the-line-and-fall-down-twice strategy?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'm an honorary member of the "let Matt Ryan call every play on the line" club, at this point. They look so much better in no-huddle than base set at times that it makes you wonder why they even bother with the latter at all.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
34-24
9-6
That's what I just texted a friend.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Be sure to join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for IRC playoff football chat! Point your favorite IRC client to bendenweyr.dyndns.org, channel #fo
Or for a web-based solution, just use this mibbit link: http://chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23fo&server=bendenweyr.dyndns.org
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Watching Manning's trouble with the Falcon's defense emphasizes that breaking Marino's record isn't entirely because the passing game is "easier". Just can't get over how Brees picked apart their defense for TDs, while the Giants have a series of 3-and-outs.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Come to think of it, we're watching 2 high-level system QBs go at it.
And Falcons fail to convert on 3rd-and-short with the upback dive.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I see Ryan being a system type QB, but Eli? Not all that consistent, but plenty able to make big plays, seems like the opposite of a system QB to me.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I see, my friend, that you don't listen to the Greg Cosell podcast with Doug Farrar. Eli Manning is a high level system quarterback.
Excuse me, I meant "The Great" Greg Cosell.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
If even modest defensive success gives a high-level QB trouble, isn't that a huge boost *for* the argument that systemic changes to the rules are entirely responsible for breaking Marino's record?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So are you saying that the Falcons and Giants D gave Brees trouble? Last time those teams met, Brees torched the Gaints 49-24 and Falcons 45-16.
Or are you saying that average defenses allowed Ryan Fitzpatrick, Hasselbeck, etc to score big? I think that was due to the abbreviated training camps due to the lockout. As the season progressed, those guys regressed towards the mean.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I said that defenses gave E. Manning and Ryan trouble. Defenses used to give Brees trouble, back when defense was legal.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Ok, got it, but disagree with you. Brees is elite, Ryan and Eli Manning are not.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I tend to suspect Brees' development + Sean Payton have at least as much to do with Brees', uh, development as the restrictions on defense. Though I could be wrong, of course.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Having watched Brees in San Diego, defenses gave him trouble when he was starting out and he needed the run game. Now in New Orleans, he elevated his game and Sean Payton plays to his strengths with Brees' input. Brees does so many little things right to manipulate the defense (eye discipline, shoulder roll, pump fake, and footwork) that allow him to make plays. More than that, he can process the defensive coverage so fast that he might throw it to his fourth or fifth read for a good gain. That's the scary part about Brees.
When I watch Manning in New York, Manning (STILL!) has the frustrating habit of throwing a duck or into double coverage. Sometimes it seems like he forgets where the receivers are or he already made a decision on where to throw even if it's into double coverage. Don't really see that with Rodgers or Brady and that's the difference between very good and elite.
And yes, I still think about what would have happened had AJ Smith kept Brees in San Diego. And Darren Sproles. And Michael Turner. And Cromartie.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Brees struggled last year, when everyone and their dog was injured at RB, and Seattle played pass-only against them. He still needs the running game.
One of the commentators pointed out that Stafford this year was basically Brees last year, in that DET just cannot run due to injuries, and that affects how defenses play DET.
I suspect Brees has better WRs than Manning, who has to overcome both poor route running and more adverse weather conditions.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes, but the Saints HBs need to know option routes in that offense, don't really see that with the Giants HB from Jacobs and Bradshaw. I think it was against the Cardinals or Browns, Coach Payton said that Brees threw it to where the HB was suppose to be, the HB went left on an option route, Brees threw it right, and threw it right into the arms of the LB.
I don't remember seeing option routes from HBs in the Giants offense. Of course, I don't watch alot of Giants games, so they could have Jacobs/Bradshaw running routes like Ray Rice or Darren Sproles. However, I really doubt Jacobs is running options routes.
I get what that commentator was saying, but Brees and Stafford are not the same. The regular season matchup between NO and DET, Stafford missed Pettigrew in the endzone because of sloppy footwork, Brees would've hit that. I would say Stafford has elite arm strength, but I wouldn't call him an elite QB.
Intriguing thought on the WRs, I've heard Colston is actually a #2 WR, but in Payton's offense they make him the #1 by design. That would mean Meachem, Henderson, and Moore (and especially Moore) are #3 and #4 WRs. I think Nicks is a legit #1 WR or is developing to that level of Vincent Jackson. I thought the loss of Steve Smith would've hurt more, but seems Cruz is learning. Definitely want to see the next NYG-GB matchup.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'd have taken the holding penalty. The Giants aren't converting 3rd-and-27, and you might be buying yourself 20 or more yards of field position after giving up a fair chunk on the screen pass.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Syarted a tweeter thing november. Didnt tweey again till today. Raiderjoe_FO
Do not write for FO only at it but one titme another guy said for to start a tweiiter and javw FO in name tjing so people would know it mw. Bbecause theeere is a Raiderjoe giy at titter but not me. Just ome guy whobdoesnt even like football
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Don't have twitter but all the best.
Now I only hope you won't be plugging your account every time a bird sings.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Will noy be doing that. Will wventially link it to name maybe
Yes!!!!!!!!! Int groun. on e. Mannjg. Grwat call by ref. Qb not out of taclle box
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Picld
Falcs to win
Steelerd to win
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Oh, RJ, you reverse curser you.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Goign to start drinking the Sierra Nevada halftime flacs game. Gpnna eat some capanosa kielbasa an d some Polish cow fudge candiss. Gerat day of football drinking and food
Bet that certifiable linebaxler Steelers giong to hit T. tebow high and /or late today. J. Haerison horrible man. No need to injire tebow anywau. Guy will stink and syeelers woll win.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Man, this is why I come to this site.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Picld? Isn't that what happens after a lot of drinking the Sierra Nevada?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Seems like NYG got a very favorable spot on 4th Down based upon replay
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
See... endzone, no one in the area. So is Coughlin angry at his offense or the refs?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Nice to see a crew with the guts to call a grounding in the endzone.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yeah, it was the right call. He looked outside the tackle, but the ball didn't reach the LOS. And clearly there was no receiver in the area. 2-3 more yards on the throw, he would have got away with it.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That bappened earloer in season. Did not pay attenition to crew
Maybe same ref maybe not
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Going for 4th-and-inches from the 24, then punting on 4th-and-inches from the 42 on the next possession, makes no kind of sense.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Mike Smith is all gut-feeling when making these decisions. It's so frustrating.
If I were interviewing a HC candidate, the first thing I'd ask him is his thoughts about when to go for it on 4th down. If he doesn't have any kind of thought out strategy, I'd show him the door.
This is so easy to prepare for - few variables change week-to-week, so cheatsheets will take an hour to update.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The play-call on the 4th down they went for was also terrible. The quarter ended right before the play, so plenty of time to call something neat - play action, a full back hand off or something guaranteed to get a yard if it's executed properly. But no, it's the QB sneak straight up the gut.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Falcons.not plauing crisply but only losoing 2-7 so have a hance stoll to win
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I can't believe you forgot the extra pint!
Thay best line in nfl commwrcial 2011. Votw that ad vest one in FO awatda
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Big Ben time
.hooe atl tries one
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
No they won't. These coaches are not in there to win, they are in there not to get the blame.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Well tjey tried it. Ryan jist couldn't reach end zone. Too far away
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
As a Packer fan, my gaze turns to the Bay Area and a game next week between worthy opponents, although I expect the Saints to win fairly handily. Next week's game in Lambeau will be at least two TDS against either of the teams playing today. Weather will be colder (20) than it is now but not bone-chilling. This whole notion of parity was and is a crock.
There are three great offensive teams who will simply overwhelm all teams against them in a league that rewards offense like never before. There are two or three very good defensive teams that would have a great tournament vs. each other but can't beat the offensive teams-- Pittsburgh could if they were healthy, but they're not.
And then there's a half-dozen teams that could be replaced by a half-dozen teams that missed the playoffs without any noticable difference. Last year the parity was real as there were dangerous teams up and down the playoff roster-- this year DVOA or something utterly missed the boat.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Gotta disagree on that one. Bad weather isn't a factor at Candlestick (now Monster) Park, but there are high, unpredictable winds and it's natural turf. Saints big advantage is on artificial turf (which helps you run faster) and no wind in a dome.
So with weather, that would favor the running game. Both teams have it, but the 49ers have a great run defense. That and the Saints can't cover HBs and TEs. Last time the two teams met was 31-17 Saints. Things changed since then, but one thing that stood out was Brees wasn't as accurate on the deep ball and that was due to wind.
Think the game will be tighter than most people expect.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I would love it if you were right. Haven't seen a spread yet, but assume it's roughly 6 or so. Can't see the Niners covering.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I have no idea what the impact of the Ross injury will be considering the Falcons have thrown at him, like, twice.
Ryan not looking good ...
Falcons fan here - are the Giants just covering everybody really well? 'Cos Ryan sure looks bad - as does Roddy who just dropped *another* pass. Our D is playing fairly well - Ryan has had time to throw but looks way indecisive. eli outpling mryn
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
this may be the game right here-- and another ridiculous QB sneak. Game over-- Falcons are a joke
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
On the bright side, any time an NFL team loses a game with a score of 2, they've made a small claim on history. Falcons can still do it!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Another failed sneak. Yeesh. Eagles-Giants flashback from a couple years ago.
Maybe the Falcons should try throwing it past the sticks on 3rd down?
Danish announcers pinning the deficit on Mike Smith.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
This seems like the dagger to me.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Already? Well, the Falcons haven't done a thing on offense. So they either get their dink and dunk going... oh wait, they're sticking with the running game.
Good heavens that coach is holding his team down. AND NOW YOU PUNT?!?!
BTW. Are you watching this on ESPN america? Or what channel is it on in Denmark?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The channel is called "3+". Why do you ask? You're Dutch, right?
Mike Smith has had a horrible game, I agree.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes, maybe to polish up my Danish.
.
And yes, I could the 3rd and 7 swing to the half back vs a falcons cover 2 coming from Aarhus.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The FO predictions were:
1) Lions-Saints "probably not a blowout" Oops
2) Close game between Texans and Bengals, though a key play could decide it (Watt's INT/TD turned the tide, so that was half right)
3) a toss-up game more likely to produce an upset than any other-- not looking so hot.
Yes, individual games are tough to forecast. But when your data base overrates various teams, this is what will happen.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
What do you consider to be close vs a blowout? Both of yesterday's games were in realistic contention until fairly late. I don't think either was one-sided or a blowout.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
17 and 21 pt results are blowouts. So is 17-2 and counting. Sure, the Lions could have made it closer with a non-whistle and catching a couple of INTs, but they didn't. Instead when they got the ball after Brees' fumble, they didn't move it. And they allowed 5 TDs on consecutive drives-- that was hardly a close game.
As for the Bengals they were predictably inept on the road in their first playoff game with a rookie QB-- Yates might have been equally inept if given the chance but the fact was he wasn't.
Playoffs aren't the place for moral victories.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The Saints game was a blowout like a 5-2 hockey game is a blowout, when the last two goals are scored against an empty net.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Exactly.
The Saints-Packers game was still in doubt well into the 4th quarter. Ergo, not a blowout.
The Giants over the Falcons? That was a blowout.
Steelers over Broncos already smells like a blowout. But neither of yesterday's games was a true blowout.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes, the Saints-Packers game was still in doubt well into the 4th quarter. Until the last play, even. But that was four months ago.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Lions-Saints was not a blowout. The Lions led at halftime and trailed by only three going into the fourth quarter.
The Texans-Bengals game, as you note, was hugely influenced by a big play (the Watt interception).
Which teams, specifically, does the FO "data base" overrate? The Falcons, I suppose. DVOA likes the Lions less than most other rankings I've seen, ditto the Bengals.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Well, I'm making a more general commentary that will become clearer with each succeeding week.
1) The poor seeds weren't any good this year (except Pittsburgh which is an artificially low seed). Last year they were. Instead of noting this, Aaron has proclaimed this the most wide-open playoff season in recent memory, or some such. That was an obviously untrue statement. A 6 seed has lost by 21, another by 17, and a 5 seed is now down 22.
2) The entire problem with the ratings this year has been an inability to adjust properly for the growing dominance of offense. GB, NO and NE are much better teams than they are given credit for and will prove it.
Plenty of games are close into the 4th Quarter-- the fact that the Lions got smoked by the Saints when it mattered was not an illusion. the Saints are clearly a significantly better team-- they could play that game 10 times and it would be a double digit Saint victory at least 9.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I didn't necessarily agree with Aaron's wide-open playoffs view, either.
You're vastly overrating the Saints, specifically, and elite NFL teams, in general. The chances of one playoff team beating another nine times out of ten are small; doing it by double digits nine times is virtually zero.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So, how much money have you won betting on these sure-fire blow-outs this weekend?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Ha Ha.. I don't bet but probably should. I would avoided the Texans game but bet pretty heavily on Saints and Giants. I think Denver will cover, btw-- in a low scoring and borderline unwatchable game. (And now that I've typed those words I'm bound to be wrong)
Hard to enjoy these games-- we've had three stinkers so far and Tebow hasn't even hit the field.
I have no insecurity vis-a-vis the Packers. They will easily beat the Giants as they did in Lambeau last year, and while both the NFC title game and the Super Bowl will be close games for a while, I don't expect either to wind up within a TD. I simply want to be on record well before the fact that the league, in many ways, is not what this site's data base or founders believe it to be in hopes that they will improve their formulas for next year and beyond. They are imperfect but better than the rest-- I am getting on my soapbox in hopes they can get better.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Please save your homer drivel and go back to ESPN. This site is for actual discussion of football, not your attempts to bore us with the glorious Packer history and the inevitable triumph of this 'special' Packer team on us.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
sorry. I'll stop. Let's enjoy the games, and when they're over we can figure out what it all means.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Also, why can't you just enjoy the games (and apparently, the fact you were right), without always having to point out how other predictions were wrong? Are you really that insecure about the Packers' odds that you have to attack any outlet giving them less than a 90% chance of winning the Super Bowl?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Last year, GB was an artificially low seed, too.
Not counting the early stretch when it seemed like everyone was injured, they were 10-4 in games finished by Aaron Rodgers. That team was more of a 5-seed than a lucky 6-seed. They just weren't good enough early in the season to keep up with the Bears, regardless of health.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Disclaimer: I'm admittedly a Lions fan and may be trying to be too optimistic.
That said, I don't think we got blown out yesterday. Falcons got blown out; Lions just lost, and considering it was the Saints, lost fairly respectably. (Counting their losses, the Saints averaged 13 points more per game than opponents and 35 points per game: we knew the Lions' defense was suspect coming in.) The score probably hinged on the onsides kick – give that a normal kickoff, and I think we're looking at a smaller margin of victory (say 38-28). (Note that I'm not complaining about the onside, was obviously correct.) The word I would use is more "collapse" – the Detroit defense finally just broke, and the turnovers didn't help anything.
As to your points:
1) While valid, I'd just point out that if you expected the Bengals and Falcons to get thrashed this badly, that makes you about the one person to do so. Between the Giants' issues all season and the Texans starting TJ Yates in a playoff game, these things looked much more even coming in – DVOA may have been off, but so was everyone else. (Lions I'll give you, I think just about everyone assumed Saints would put up 40 and Lions in the end wouldn't keep up. But that's more the Saints being exceptional than the Lions being "not any good".)
2) Green Bay is #1; New Orleans #3; New England #4. So they're all at the top, I'm not sure why you say DVOA under-rates them. The fact is that when their offenses get shut down (most dramatic example is of course Packers at Kansas City) they have trouble. It doesn't happen often but it has happened, so especially when they all are top-ranked, on the strength of offense, it seems a little early to start proclaiming that DVOA doesn't appreciate offense properly.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
My two cents on the Lions game: When the score got to 24-14 I thought it was over. I didn't expect the Saints to be stopped the rest of the way. All those dropped INTs--the Lions D blew the chances they had.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The Lions and Bengals just aren't elite defenses, hence they dropped their interceptions. The Packers intercept those passes and are, therefor, an elite defense.
It all makes sense now.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
In the context of the design of the DET defense and the GB defense, versus the NO offense, GB has structural advantages. DET is reliant upon the front four to create early pressure and to give their shaky secondary a chance, with the LBs cleaning up rushers who leak through. NO, however, has the most talented O-line in the NFL, especially up front, for their runty QB. Thus, NO is the stylistic foil for the DET defense.
GB, by contrast, tends to play landwhales up front to eat up space and prevent rushing, while the talented 4 LBs alternate playing in space or edge rushing, and giving the (more talented than Detroit) 5 DBs a chance to cover downfield and let the LBs attack. This exploits NO's weaker run push and their shaky offensive tackles. GB matches up much better with NO than DET does.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
This is basically true, except to the extent that the Packer landwhales have pretty much sucked against the run this year, and their secondary has given up tons of room in air space. The two things that have kept the Packer season together are Aaron Rodgers and a ton of opportunistic interceptions. One of those things is pretty reliable, the other is not.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Good on going for it on 4th and very short. Bad on the up-the-gut play calls right into the strength of the Giants D.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That's monday morning quarterbacking. I know I would be going "just sneak it" if they'd missed on some weird perimeter play.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The second time, sneaking with an empty backfield and not making the defense even consider that there might be some other kind of play, was completely appalling. Agreed on the first, though.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The first occasion was the first play of the second quarter, so they had plenty of time to come up with something more creative, less obvious. I've no evidence to back this up, but I suspect QB sneaks work best when they executed quickly, without a huddle.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I really hope the Falcons end up with exactly 2 points. I love weird-looking scores, and nothing's weirder looking than "XX-2".
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Don't worry!!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Is Steve Martin calling a punt again?!
Guy should be fired on the spot. Right now; shouldn't finish the game. What a joke.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Borgnine. Mike Smith looks like Ernest Borgnine.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Mike Smith is all gut-feeling when making these decisions. It's so frustrating.
This needs additional emphasis. Going for it from the 24 and the 21 suggests a "My offense should pick up 4th-and-short, so our expected points are higher going for it than kicking a fairly easy field goal" philosophy. Punting from the 42 suggests "30 yards of field position is more valuable than the potential to keep the ball and score," which is completely at odds with what is expressed by going for it in the other two situations.
I could see going for it all three times. I could see not going for it any of the three times. I could see going for it only from the 42 but taking the field goals when available. I could see only going for it the third time because you don't think a field goal when trailing by 8 helps much at that stage. All have at least a whiff of coherence.
What they've actually done, however, suggests Smith is flipping a coin.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Now he goes for it on 4th and 10. This is insane. At this point I don't care if the math is right or wrong - now I just want him to pick a strategy and stick with it.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Packers won 45-17 in Week 16 in a do-or-die game at Lambeau last year that mattered for both teams.
The identity of their opponent in that game is rapidly being expunged by all NFL commentators and analysts-- particularly those based in New York. Eli's playoff success (against a different QB) 3 years earlier will be the only Lambeau game anybody will talk about this week.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
We get it. The Packers are teh awesomesauce. Enough already. They aren't even playing this weekend!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You have to understand.
Green Bay has no other professional teams. Wisconsin has football and basketball teams that are consistently good, but never athletic enough to be great. GB is a cold industrial city, a cultural backwater so far removed it's not Chicago's satellite, it's Chicago's satellite's satellite, and they're stuck on the ugly side of a pretty lake.
Without the Packers, GB denizens are stuck bereft of professional sports of any kind, with nothing resembling competence in any sport north of Evanston. (Even Pittsburgh has the Penguins, and distastefully, the Pirates) It's women are fat, boring, and can't cook. Let's face it, without the Packers, the men of GB might as well commit suicide.
The rest of us wish they would just hurry up about it.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That looks suspiciously like it was posted by Aaron Brooks' Evil Twin.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You have to understand, Aaron Brooks *is* the Evil Twin. Just ask Saints fans.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That's my home town that you're dissing (even if I haven't lived there in 25 years). It's not even on Lake Michigan, but at the southern end of a 100 mile long bay (hence the city's name). Just northeast is the Door Peninsula, which has been favorably compared to Cape Cod and is a favorite spot for Chicago vacationers. The Brewers were in the NLCS. UW has been to the Frozen Four several times and last won the NCAA in 2006. Yes, cultured folk like yourself would have to do without your opera and/or NASCAR. But you can't have everything.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I think you need to adjust your sarcasm meter.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Actually, I don't think he does. AABT clearly wasn't serious about the suicide part, but I think he really was being critical of northeast Wisconsin as far as the desirability of living there goes.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Only partially.
Most of my family hails from the GB area or the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (also Packer territory). I like the people, but was entirely serious that without the Packers, there's not much to root for, other than spring.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
And spring arrives...in August?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'd like to hear why it's called 'Green' Bay. I've always enjoyed the translation for Lake Winnebago.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Door County really is seen as a great place by lots of people. I have only ever spent one weekend in GB (for a wedding) but it was quite a nice town for its size.
These days the disadvantages to living in a smaller town are drastically less than they were 50 or 100 years ago.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I spent some time living in chicago.
Anyone who is favorably comparing anywhere in that part of the country to Cape Cod has never been to Cape Cod.
It isn't 35 degrees at the end of september in Cape Cod.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So what, precisely, will it take to get that pile of chips off your shoulder?
DVOA disrespects GB. The media disrespect GB. Do you enjoy football, or just enjoy complaining about the peripheral crap that doesn't, in the end, matter?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'm getting pretty tired of it too. And I've been a Packers fan since the Lombardi days.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Posters like him is why FO comments need an ignore feature. Nothing Paul M has said has been the least bit interesting for months.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Gee, that's a bit harsh. But I hear you.
But mull over this one as I pledge to check the homerism at the door. Why do the clear top 3 pass offenses in the league-- who are now the 3 clear favorites to win the SB-- also feature the 3 worst (by yardage, of course) pass defenses in the league?
Obviously it's not a random event. DVOA adjusts them to "bad but not so bad", but still no one can sit here and say that NE, NO and, yes, GB have anything but substandard pass defenses based on any metric you choose. And yet I can't really see anyone other than those three winning the title this year. I'll stop the blathering by simply stating that I think pass offense has taken a semi-quantum leap this year in terms of importance in winning games, and that much, not all, of the seeming defensive weakness of these three teams is simply the effect of a great pass offense, and not some inherent weakness that might still doom them. Only one of them can win the title, so two will be susceptible to a charge that their defense did cause their ultimate defeat, but what explains a 41-8 record so far??
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I could see the Ravens winning.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I think it is random. Last year, the Packers had one of the best passing offenses in the league ... and the number 2 defense. One of the oddities of this year is that three of the worst defenses are paired with three great offenses, mitigating the harm the defenses can do.
The Packers defense is terrible. But when you score 35 points a game, terrible doesn't matter as much. The number of interceptions is remarkable, but when you're paired with a quick-strike offense and you can't get off the field on third down, the other team always has the ball. And when you're always ahead, the other team is passing. 400 yards of passing yardage will hurt you every time your offense doesn't score so many points it doesn't matter.
And I'm wearing my Superbowl XLV Champion sweatshirt as I type this.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The BEARD!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
*sigh* Tebow... at least let the WR attempt to catch it...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Tebow missed a 3-rd down pass where his receiver was open - the pass missed him by roughly 10 yards.
I'm sure Elway winced when he saw the replay. But not as much as he will the next time some idiot reporter asks him why he doesn't support Tebow as much as he's supposed to.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Tebow throws where the ball can't be intercepted.
Unfortunately, that also means he frequently seems to throw it where it can't be caught.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
and all the time I thought he was just so far off that I seriously wondered if the guy needed glasses or had another distorted vision
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
by RickD :: Sun, 01/08/2012 - 4:55pm
Tebow missed a 3-rd down pass where his receiver was open - the pass missed him by roughly 10 yards.
I'm sure Elway winced when he saw the replay. But not as much as he will the next time some idiot reporter asks him why he doesn't support Tebow as much as he's supposed to.
reply
I hope you'll remember these words.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That was well beyond five yards, so that was illegal contact at a minimum.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Agreed. The tripping was incidental contact. There was nothing incidental about being pushed 10 yards downfield into another player.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The first decent completion Tebow makes and he nearly gets his receiver killed
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
If that were in the end zone, that never would have been ruled a catch.
Unless it was a Saints game, anyway.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The guy doesn't maintain possession while going to the ground. I don't know what the discussion is about.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Tebow with an absolutely perfect 40-yard pass to Thomas. He is so bipolar.
I think Royal was out of bounds.
I hate the Broncos for getting my hopes up.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Wow! Pittsburgh should stick with man-to-man, Jebow toasted their DBs in zone.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Following replay, there's no doubt. TD.
A nice couple of passes and grabs against near-perfect coverage. I will not staart hoping. I refuse.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Suspicious the lack of replays and analysis on that Royal TD catch
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Are you serious? They showed several replays, all of which confirmed his thigh/butt landed in bounds.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Agree on Royal: one third of one cheek landed in the white...I don't think the rule says 5/6's in, 1/6 out is in...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
His knee hit first inbounds once that happens it doesn't matter where the rest of him lands.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I just looked at it again (this time on YouTube)...Very close, but you may be right...YouTube has the long shot from the other sideline...the game replays were all from the same sideline, which mostly prevented you from seeing when the knee touched and gave you the best look at where Royal's butt hit...given the lack of a close shot from the far sideline, and thus no disproving visual evidence, of course let's go with the call on the field...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Hmm...Broncos switch fields, and apparently Tebow thinks its the 4th quarter. Two long passes and a TD!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
DJ Williams i coverage on Wallace 30 yards downfield. Brilliant scheming.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Ah, Lord Tebow will fix that.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Steelers are overcompensating. Don't do that.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So the gameplan of "stop the run and contain Tebow, but let the receivers run one-on-one" doesn't work either.
Looks like the Steelers are changing their plans.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Do they just stop calling Offensive Holding in the playoffs?
VanDenBosch was mugged all night last night and Clady just got away with a two-hand outside the pads clutch in the middle of the field that was textbook.
I can understanding turning down the whistles a bit, but seriously.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Not sure about the holding, but I have noticed some serious home-town officiating this weekend
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I refuse to get my hopes up.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
What?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I wrote in an earlier comment, that I hate the Broncos for getting my hopes up, making it hurt so much more when they crush those hopes later on.
Therefore i refuse to get my hopes up.
17-6. Not hoping.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Did he just say the Bronco fans were drowning out the Steelers fans?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes, right before he said he was labeling a three-man rush on the interception, proceeded to draw four lines, played the tape where five people ran in on the rush, and did not acknowledge either of the latter points.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Now he praises Quinton Carter for a "nice, rough tackle", on what looked like a blatant helmet-to-helmet hit.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'm ok with bad commentary. I mean, half the population sucks at their jobs, it's ok.
But what I can't stand is dumb commentary.
Just now he says the linebacker is blocked; he's tripped by his own man. That man is probably a backup because of the injuries; the defense is probably in pass defense mode since it's the end of the half and 2nd and 9.
In just one little piece of talking by that idiot I can poke so many holes...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Ayers with the pancake. Holy smokes, Max Starks left the ground!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
This game is exactly the opposite of what I thought was going to happen.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I was thinking the same thing. Of course, even if the Broncs win, they get NE next week. In Foxboro. It could be really ugly.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Everything breaking the Broncos way.
Will not hope.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You sound just like I did in 2001 (Patriots fan here).
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
QUIET!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
See ya next week!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The defense is just dominant right now.
I know there's a lot of injury-related context, but they've been absolutely lights out the last 10-15 minutes.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
How was that not helmet-to-helmet on Mike Wallace?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The Steeler helmet was on the wrong guy.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Seen it argued that he wasn't defenseless. Not sure on the actual rule, though. Can it be called on ball carriers?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
No. Only on receivers who are catching the ball (and QBs, kickers and grandmas).
Was he a ball carrier?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
He meant Mike Wallace took a helmet-to-helmet hit.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Wallace took the hit after he had completed the catch and was therefore a ball carrier.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Not a defenseless receiver - helmet to helmet is legal.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I understand that's the rule, but I don't quite understand why that's the rule. It's OK for WRs to get concussions because there are more of them?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Most injuries happened (or that was at least the perception) when defenseless receivers got hit while catching the ball.
The idea is that a player who can brace himself is fair game. Also fair as in; that he can be the one now who can deliver.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Is it the ankle with the black or yellow shoe, thats the injured one?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes.
(Actually, the left. The right is a broken foot.)
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Haven't been watching the game. I'm excessively confused by the score I just noticed.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
It's easily the best game of Tebow's career
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Thats a must challenge. Looks backwards to me.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Whistle blew before Denver got the ball. Should be Pittsburgh's ball, even if it's a backward pass.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yeah, the Steelers are lucky on that one due to circumstance. But what about the play call? I understand that WR screens can be effective, but when you run it so often that 2 or 3 defensive players are over there behind the line of scrimmage every time, it may be time to go another way.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Ugh. Whistle blew.
Mr. Hochuli, Philip Rivers on line one.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Terrible officiating there. How can they not see that was a backwards pass?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The official blew the whistle. Inadvertent whistles happen. It doesn't help when the announcing crew is clueless.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I know the official blew the whistle. That's what I'm complaining about!
The QB was standing at the 20. The receiver was at the 18. This isn't rocket science. It was obviously not a forward pass.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
On the replay, you could see that the ball was at around the 19 when released, and at about halfway between the 18 and 19 when it hit off Wallace's hands. Wasn't that obvious.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
It was close enough that no one should be blowing a whistle until after someone has picked up the ball.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That may be the solution: On close plays like that, don't blow the whistle until someone has picked up the ball, but still allow the officials on the field to rule the play an incomplete pass if that's what they think it was. Of course, this would have implications for the clock (which would have kept running before the play was ruled an incomplete pass). This would allow the play to be challenged and result in a recovery by the defense. It also wouldn't be unfair to the offense if the play isn't automaticlally ruled a fumble (i.e., the officials could still rule it incomplete on the field), so that the burden of using a challenge wouldn't be shifted to them always.
Of course, I suspect that the NFL would cite player safety concerns as a reason for not doing this, as it would lead to more wild scrambles for loose balls on plays that really are incomplete passes.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Tihs onevreason why nba better tham nfl. Ball either in net or not. Ball either released before colck ecpired or not. Also in nbaget to see coool tattoos like abe lincoln on neck of D. Stevenson. Guy maybe insane. Shit maybe 30 threes already but only shot like trhee twos
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Do not get post wron.g like nflmore than nba. Just sayign are several things nbs better than nfl
Nfl not perfect
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Now wait a second. This rule was changed a couple of years ago. If a whistle is blown because a ref things it's an incomplete pass, but the other team obviously recovers it, you CAN challenge that it was a fumble, not an incomplete pass, and gain possession.
It usually comes up on the issue of "was the QB's arm moving forward" plays, but it certainly should apply to forward versus backward pass plays as well.
This is absolutely the WRONG call. No question whatsoever, unless they changed the rule back again and I"m not aware of that. Anywone have the actual rulebook?
Still, not exactly surprising...bad refereeing going the Steeler's way in the postseason...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
At the point the whistle blew, the ball was loose. You can't say with certainty that Denver would have gotten the ball absent the whistle, because you can't know whether the Steelers stopped going for the ball after hearing the whistle. And if you get into the judgment calls of, "Well, the Broncos would have gotten the ball anyway," then hell, just stop playing the game and let the league decide what would have happened anyway.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I also remember a "clear recovery" rule being instated for instances like these: inadvertent whistle on a loose ball, but the referees can award a turnover if the defense exhibits a "clear recovery" after the whistle
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
and this is relevant to the refs blowing whistles for a forward pass because...?
The rule already is that forward is forward. Only, when a ref sees it as forward he blows it dead, and that's too bad when it was a latteral.
Maybe when in doubt, let them play and see later if you were right.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Phil Simms completely botched that explanation. Of course, Ron Winter didn't explain it very clearly, either.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Seriously! Can we get Mike Mayock to call games instead of Phil Simms? It's like bad voices in my head.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yes, yes he did. And this was just after his brilliant insight while looking at the first replay of the play:
"Remember, to be a forward pass the ball has to go forward."
Classic. Thanks for demystifying that piece of NFL rulebook minutia, Phil.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That's not even accurate. To be a forward pass the quarterback's hand has to be moving forward with the ball in it. Whether the ball eventually comes out of that hand and goes backward is irrelevant.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
He meant that laterals (parallel) are considered backwards.
Yes, the guys makes you dumber, but that wasn't that bad.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I for one, appreciate being informed that a ball must go forward to be a forward pass.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
This is almost as fun as when Tomlin "unleashed Hell" a few years back.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Surely you jest.
Mike is the most underrated gameday coach of all time.
Look at the great adjustments, clock use, timeout use, team discipline, and general strategy.
You do know he inherited an 0-16 team (for 19 consecutive years) and turned them into a SB contender , right ?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Looked like Steelers football out there to me today.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Anyone else noticing several uncalled illegal formations today? I saw two in the Giants game and more than that by the Steelers today.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Wasn't there a rule put in a couple years ago that if it was clear who was going to recover a fumble and the whistle blew, that the refs could award the ball? I seem to remember something like that.
Denver just got absolutely screwed.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Which is apt, as it was Denver who benefitted from it in the situation to which you refer.
(Not that two wrongs make a right; they don't. Horrible, horrible call.)
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yeah, there is such a rule. They need to tighten that up and make it so that plays like we just saw result in a fumble and recovery by the defense rather than just being whistled dead.
Of course, that may be easier said than done. Look at how they tried to clarify the Calvin Johnson rule. We still get lots of confusing and controversial calls on passes where the receiver ends up on the ground and the ball comes out or is bobbled at some point.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
For what it's worth,
here is the explanation from Pereira
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Which also explains the Detroit-NO call. That was a case of the Hochuli Exception, because it was actually a fumble instead of an incomplete pass.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
usyeeles can stil come back. Enough time to do so
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Penelope hopes he does.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Scylla and Charybdis are therefore the Hobson's Choice of the Tebow Read Option?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Jerk/lb Harrison didnt keep contain on t. Tebow there. Not disciplined there.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The Bronco's preparation and play design is excellent.
Their actual playcalling and in-game decision making is terrible. Honestly...run, run, long 3rd down pass, over and over again? Punting on 4th and 2 from the other team's 38??? Punting?????
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You wanted them to try for a 55-yard field goal? Or turn over the ball at the 38?
I'm OK with that punt. They had a 14-point lead at the time. They buried the Steelers inside the 20, and got a fumble recovery in great position.
Oh, wait...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I would normally favor going for it, but with the 14-point lead, I think you're right. Punt it there.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'd put Prater at about 75% from 55 yards at Mile High. I think a FG attempt makes sense. Going for it still the best option I think - Tebow is tough to defend i short-yardage situation (anecdotally, haven't seen the numbers).
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I hate that pass interference. I know it gets called every time. But I think if the WR slows/stops and the DB is looking back at the ball, that they need to get rid of the automatic call.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Completely agree
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
OPI whistled for contact 20 yards away from the pass?? WTF???
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I didn't see it, but they described it as a WR blocking early.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The play was a WR screen. The other WRs can't be blocking downfield before the pass is caught. It was a perfect call.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
They should call it something other than pass interference.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Those zone read plays sometimes has me totally confused. Tebow can be down by contact and I'm still looking at the RB in the flat.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Another idiot Phil Simms comment: "Roethlisberger can't move..." after he scrambles around to throw and rush for 6. It's probably because of the pain killers and not just adrenaline. But, man, that must be a lot of pain killers.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Would it be possible to make a "Comments of the Week" column on this site. I'm thinking of all the early-game righteous comments that turn into cring-worthy material. FO could save them up over the season, and have people vote for the winner/loser commenter of the year award for willful obtuseness or homerism.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
DISASTER
no sense challenging.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Grab a 40, 'cause you're going to need it.
Still, it's going to be hard for Pittsburgh to come back
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Grab a 40? Is that some sort of reference, or is my vocabulary simply to small?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Beer.
A 40oz bottle. Learned it today.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Sorry, I was referring to the cheaper alcohol you can buy in the States that come in 40 ounce bottles. A common brand is "St. Ides" also known as the "Crooked I"
It's cheap, it's potent, and with a game like this you might need one. Or two.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I'm a steelers fan and put 5 euros on the Broncos (4.30 odds). So in case the steelers lose, it's money to ease the pain.
I don't know if it makes sense, but I did it anyway.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
WOW!! Just wow! I don't know what's crazier, the fumble recovery, or Pitt's O-Line getting man-handled by Denver.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Sorry neighbors.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Rushing 3 and dropping 8 is just not working at all for Denver.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
WHOOOAAAA!!!!! What a catch!
I need another 40!!!!!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Champ Bailey will haunt my dreams.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Just as he already haunts mine.
(Patriots fan. 2005 playoffs. THAT Ben Watson hustle.)
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yo tambien.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
A missed facemask/roughing/head call according to radio announcers on 2nd down - any thoughts anyone seeing video?
And then advancing after a fair catch?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Facemask, I'd say incidental - which in today's NFL, I believe means no-call.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Don't QB helmets have a different rule applying to them though?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
-Some- quarterback helmets.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
No, they should all be 15 yards now.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
No. What used to be the five-yard variety is no longer supposed to be called. Only a grasping/twisting/pulling should be a penalty now, not incidental contact.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
How's that for a Champ Bailey play? Smart to sink back into coverage and deflect that throw
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
What has more chance?
FG or hail mary?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
To be honest, I'd go for the FG in Denver air.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Even if Shaun Suisham is kicking?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I like putting some rush on the hail-mary. Always surprised more people don't do that.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
With Playoff OT rules, and defenses both playing pretty well, doesn't kicking off in overtime seem a not so stupid idea in playoff games?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
[double post deleted]
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Cool. First ever NFL playoff OT game under the sudden-I'm-fine-I-think-I'll-go-for-a-walk rules!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So, I guess the new rules work!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
WTF! Tebow time gets another chance at NE I guess.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Well, that was quick.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I was hoping for the kick return TD, which isn't actually addressed by the new rules.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
So it is sudden death after all!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Wow.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Pats are not going one-and-done this year.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
@ Danish Denver-Fan
Congratulations, have a good night.
Nice game. Too bad I got to hear more about Tebow now.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
It's a little easier when he actually plays well. He's got a nice deep ball for sure, but anything else ... his release is timed with an hour-glass, and once he's on the run, he should just run, because he can't throw at all on the move. Those long passes today, though, when he could wind up and unload, were right on the money.
The last thing I expected.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Steeler fans, I believe the phrase you are looking for is "Hasa diga Teebowai".
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Good night all.
At least you've got your winnings Theo.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Well I guess this saves the Pittsburgh old men from being embarrassed by Brady and co next week. What a terrible defensive performance.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Demaryius Thomas 4 catches for 204 yards, wtf?????
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Every sports movie tells me the Patriots are doomed. We saw the early season loss when the Lions crushed Denver. Then they bounce back, have a winning streak before losing to the big bad Patriots. After that, nobody believes in them anymore, they go through a losing streak. Then, miraculous comeback, they beat the Steelers, setting them up for a rematch with the Patriots. And we know how that movie ends.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
With Terrell Suggs and Haloti Ngata killing Tebow in Baltimore a week later?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Yea, it's the football equivalent of Rocky going the distance but not beating the champ in Rocky I
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Spoilers!!!!!
God dammit.
Just to get you back: It's Kevin Spacey.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Rosebud was his sled
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Bruce Willis' character was dead.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The ship sinks.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Katherine's her sister AND her daughter.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Kenny is Mysterion.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The chick is a dude.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Snape is his father.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The gold dust blows away; Rick sends Ilsa off with Victor; Robie is not the thief; Osgood and Daphne pair off; Rhett doesn't give a damn; Terry decides to inform; Don, Cosmo and R.F. pull the curtain up, showing Kathy doing the real singing; despite escaping from her wedding with Elaine, Benjamin feels empty; all she had to do was tap her heels three times...
Nice way to pass an evening...any number can play...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
"It's Kevin Spacey."
Debatable.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Still confused about the playoff OT rules (not that it matters now). Team A vs. Team B.
A wins the toss and opts to receive. A gets the ball and moves it well, but stalls out near the opponent's 30. They ultimately settle for a FG and get the three.
B gets the ball and moves well, but they stall out at their own 35. It's now 4th and 10. If they punt, do they lose-- since they had a possession but didn't match the other team's FG (like college)? Or if they punt, is it just next team to score, wins-- except the score will still be tied.
I sort of understood the OT rules in the context of the moved-up kick-off line, where teams routinely got the ball with good field position and didn't have to move far for a FG. But now that they're moved back and most teams are starting at their own 20, Sudden Death seems OK to me. And still better than this convoluted system is something like a 7 minute OT without Sudden Death.
Oh well. Can we hope that at least next week will be a close game, or should we assumed that NE will run up the score and win by 50?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
If they punt, they lose.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
And the head coach gets fired for not knowing the rules.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The rule is that if Team A gets a FG, then team B must either get a FG on their next possession and then regular sudden death from there or a touchdown which ends a game.
The rule is that each team gets an opportunity to possess, which means that if you muff a kick off or punt it counts as an opportunity to possess the ball. That means if you onside kick to start and recover, a FG will win it. It also means that after a FG, an onside kick and recovery wins the game as well. A safety also wins the game for your team.
I think an interesting play would be to choose kick off and then surprise onside, since a recovery means you don't have far to move for a game winning FG.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
But a failure to recover the onside kick means that the opposing team only has to go about 40 yards to score a game winning TD. Also, a surprise onside kick that is executed really poorly sometimes gets run back for a TD pretty easily, which in this case would win the game. Either of these results gets the head coach fired.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I still prefer the idea of 'first to four points' over the 'FG doesn't count, except when it does" system.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Me too. It's simpler, seems fairer to me, encourages going for TDs more, and I think we all want to see some team win by scoring not one, but two safeties in over time.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
But it's almost the same thing. The only two practical differences under "first to four" are that one safety won't win it and an exchange of non-scoring possessions wastes everybody's time.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
You're missing the other huge practical difference. If one team scores a fg on an drive, it doesn't end the game. You have to reach 4 points. In the current system 3 points is enough if you can stop the other team once.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Well, no. If you surprise-onside, fail, and the other team kicks a field goal, the game isn't over. They still have to kick off and you get a chance to answer. Right? Not entirely certain...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I did not see that coming. I was surprised that Denver was able to force overtime at all! I was sure that Big Ben would drive them down for a game-winning field goal. And then for the last play, Denver chose the perfect time not to follow their trend all game of running on first down. The commentators showed how one of the safeties cheated up, leaving no deep help.
Also, the altitude probably worked in DT's favor on the last play by just that little bit. Had DT been caught on the 50 we'd likely still be playing.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
The Steelers are starting to look like the late-90s Cowboys to me. The core talent is still there, but too many of their starters are on the wrong side of 30, the QB is showing the cumulative effects of getting the snot kicked out of him for a decade, and they just don't have the depth on the bench to get them through 16+ games. They've got better & more stable management than the Cowboys did, though, so I don't expect that kind of precipitous fall, but I think they're in for another 2-4 years of 9-7 while they retool the OL and defense.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Is it just me, or did the Steelers just look old and slow today (discounting for Roethlisbeger's injury)?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Polamalu did.
I was just thinking that what really surprised me was how many long passes the Broncos were able to complete against what is supposed to be a top defense. Tebow averaged an insane 31.6 yards/completion!
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Polamalu looked like hes looked the last couple years:
He bites on everything. Sometimes that means a great play, sometimes that means him getting burned.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
I wonder how much of that is the altitude. I've gone for a run near Denver, and it was much, much harder than I was used to at sea level. I would think this might not affect too many guys, but perhaps when, as the earlier poster said, you're on the wrong side of 30 ...
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Polamalu is so-so these days, and PIT had three other defensive starters out today, and the center.
For someone like Polamalu who is all athleticism as opposed to technique aging doesn't go well.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
Injuries and age go together. Unless you're the 2010 Packers.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That was a crazy game. I was so sure that Denver would lose 26-23. Then Dumervil, Miller, and Ayers stepped up and knocked them back out of (mile high) field goal range. I would not have expected that ending at all. That end-of-regulation sequence was absolutely huge.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
As was the bad snap that probably cost the Steelers 3 points before halftime.
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
And the inadvertant whistle that probably gave the steelers a 10 point swing?
Re: Sunday Wild Card Discussion
That play and ensuing drive was completely terrible. I know the football world got a very exciting finish out of it but the crew really got in the way of the game there. But wow, what an ending!
Still terrible.
But WOW!
Post new comment