RSS Feed
02 Oct 2006
Audibles at the Line: Week 4
Each Sunday, the FO staff sends around e-mails to each other, both during and after the games. It lets us share ideas for columns and comments, and get an idea of how teams that we can’t watch are playing. Be aware that the material in this roundtable might seem a bit disjointed and un-edited. It also might still show up later in the week in other columns, or in comments in PFP 2007. Games are chosen based on our own personal viewing preferences, and are going to reflect the teams we support and the cities where we live.
Indianapolis Colts 31 at New York Jets 28
Bill Barnwell: I am still a little skeptical about Chad Pennington being mentally comfortable behind center. Case in Point: third-and-9, the Jets try to run a quick screen with Brad Smith standing to the immediate left of Ferguson. Freeney, of course, runs right by Smith and is a half-step behind Ferguson by the time Pennington's taking his second step. An obviously perturbed Pennington immediately tosses the ball to Smith, who has no blockers in front of him and is actually closer to Freeney than anyone else. Smith nearly fumbles the ball away. That was not so good.
Jets defensive linemen, so far in the first quarter, continue to get absolutely no pressure against the run whatsoever. Dominic Rhodes, much like Willis McGahee last week, is getting to the second wave of defenders without being bothered a good amount of the time.
And then, the lack of Edgerrin James rears its head. Dominic Rhodes doesn't stop Shaun Ellis from getting around him, the Colts right guard is late helping, and Manning tries to run around him and loses 11, killing their drive.
Michael David Smith: Absolutely horrible call by the officials. Jets tight end Chris Baker flinches, Colts defensive end Robert Mathis sees it and jumps across the line, and the officials call Mathis for offsides. It was a third-and-4 in the red zone, so it was quite a crucial play.
Aaron Schatz: That Chris Baker play aside, Pennington is doing a very good job of
messing with the snap count so that the Colts actually do jump offsides.
Will Carroll: Freeney just dove in knee-high and took Cedric Houston's knee out. Didn't have a great angle on it -- from behind on the replay -- but for once, Freeney's dive-in-and-see-what-happens run defense worked for the Colts.
Michael David Smith: Oddly, the bad call actually might have ended up helping the Colts, since Chad Pennington threw an interception a few plays later, but still, if the officials are going to miss the offensive player's flinch and call the defensive player's jump in response to the flinch, defensive linemen are going to have rough lives.
Following the interception on fourth-and-goal at the 2-yard line:
Will Carroll: Really, is there any excuse for this play call? Pennington made a stupid play worse by tossing it up for grabs, though I couldn't tell who was down there. I guess I shouldn't blame Pennington there. No real downside to the INT -- ouch, Utecht is going to be pissing blood for a couple days -- other than 15 yards diff on where the Colts get the ball. Horrible, game-changing call.
Aaron Schatz: Yes and no.
First of all, there IS A downside to the INT. The whole point behind the idea of "it's better to go for it on fourth-and-goal instead of kicking the field goal" is that if you don't score the touchdown, you've backed the other team up all the way to their own end zone. Throwing the interception destroys that part of the equation. The expected score difference between having the ball on your own 2-yard line and your own 20-yard line is roughly two points.
As far as the play call, I had a problem with it for the following reasons:
1) As much as we favor going for it, this was not fourth-and-1. This was fourth and about 2.5 yards to go, much harder to convert.
2) The Jets have been mostly unable to run the ball this year, although they have been successful in this game at times. But the Colts would stuff the line there. So they decided to go with the pass instead...
3) Except that a pass is much less likely than a run to convert in this situation, and there's the chance of the interception, which is what happened. Forcing that ball was EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. Frankly, Pennington would have been better throwing it away and hoping the defense could maybe get a safety.
But look, this is the Colts. You don't kick a field goal against them and think, "golly, this three-point lead sure is safe."
By the way, if Martin Gramatica is supposed to be a kickoff specialist at this point, that's not going to work. His kickoffs are all short line drives. They look awful.
Doug Farrar: So, for those scoring at home, I have it as: Pennington's little swing pass to Leon Washington. Washington handed off to Brad Smith. From there it was (deep breath) Smith to Laveranues Coles, Coles to Chad Pennington, Pennington to Justin McCareins, McCareins to Smith, Smith to Coles, Coles to Nick Mangold, Mangold to Washington (who lost the ball), and the game-ending recovery by Indy's Jason David.
That was fun.
Ned Macey: Anyone else notice the lack of a great team this year? The Colts, Pats, Broncos, and Steelers have serious question marks. Maybe the Eagles, but their defense is getting awful banged up. I'd like to see some more "stomps" out of Baltimore before I anoint them a great team. I guess Seattle is the obvious answer, but they're 8th in "VOA" to date, and they seem to be playing without a running game. Anyway, on to the games...
The Colts seemed to think this was a scrimmage where they could work on the running game. The Jets obliged by never bringing a safety in the box and not necessarily even having seven guys up there. I would just play nickel against the Colts on every down. At a certain point, they can miss a third down or have a holding penalty.
So much talk this week about the arrogance of the Patriots letting all their receivers go (and as an aside, Doug Gabriel is a better player than Givens), but the Colts do the same thing at linebacker. I think Thornton's loss is a big one. Gilbert Gardner never makes a play. Add in Sanders' injury, and this defense isn't 2004 bad, it's pre-Dungy bad.
I'm as surprised as anyone that the Jets look strong, but in retrospect, if Pennington stays healthy, he is a near-elite quarterback. He has consistently ranked as one of the best QBs according to DPAR. It will be interesting to see if Coles is seriously injured. He's quietly had a great start to this season.
The Jets clearly have run defense issues, and I'm curious to see how Mangini addresses it. If they have to bring people up, then their pass defense, which has been solid if unspectacular, will be compromised. Of course, that pass defense when it was needed got shredded on the last drive.
After the Jets ran the kick back for a touchdown, a part of me thought the Colts were in better shape than if they had given the ball to the Jets with plenty of time. Not the best feeling going forward.
Mike Tanier: The Colts' "let's play turtle ball against a bad team" strategy nearly bites them on the butt. Peyton was amazing in the fourth quarter and very flat through three quarters.
All I can say about the fourth down call is that it might be an "I believe in you kids" call. I don't know how much good will something like that generates. I bet a win against the Colts would have generated more.
San Diego Chargers 13 at Baltimore Ravens 16
Ryan Wilson: So much for Philip Rivers having trouble against the Ravens. The Chargers started in a no-huddle and Rivers led San Diego on a 70-yard TD drive. A lot of short passes seemed to have Baltimore off guard.
Doug Farrar: Baltimore has the most sacks in the league (16, tied with Philly) and San Diego is the only team not to allow a sack this year. Good battle there.
Ryan Wilson: Uh, check that. Rivers just threw a pass directly to LB Bart Scott.
Doug Farrar: Who's coaching the Chargers? San Diego just ran two fake reverses in a row in the middle of the third quarter. L.T. took the second one for 29 yards.
Ryan Wilson: Martyball is back. The Chargers seem content running the ball for the rest of the game and making Steve McNair beat them.
Steve McNair beat them.
McNair did a nice job of throwing short on the final drive. In fact, it looks like he can only throw short, but he was much more efficient during the last series. I didn't hear Shawne Merriman's name all day and the Chargers didn't really bring a lot of pressure for much of the game.
In retrospect, I think Marty was a little too conservative in the second half. Of course, I said he was going to run the ball until McNair beat them, and that's exactly what happened.
San Diego's secondary wasn't as bad as I expected, but I wonder if some of that has to do with McNair not being able to throw the ball more than 25 yards down the field.
Either way, big win for the Ravens.
Mike Tanier: Score one for the Schotten-Haters. He played to his critics today. The Chargers moved the ball easily early in the game, and their gameplan looked great. They ran a lot, of course, but mixed in all kinds of play action and were spreading the ball around.
Then, with the score 13-7, Marty went into ultra-conservative mode. You know that fake reverse play they run, which is just a souped-up off tackle run by LaDainian Tomlinson. They called it at least seven times. When they had the ball deep in their own territory, they kept calling the key-breaker up the gut to Lorenzo Neal. Meanwhile, they were blitzing like maniacs on defense, and Steve McNair was stating to figure things out. At one point, he caught them in an all-out blitz and threw a high lob to Derrick Mason, but the ball went through Mason's hands.
It was just a dumb gameplan in the second half. I'm all for running the ball to kill the clock, but you don't start doing it in the third quarter when you are up by six points.
Aaron Schatz: I'm curious to hear from somebody exactly what went wrong with the Chargers at the end of a game they seemed to control throughout.
Doug Farrar: Looked to me like the Chargers backed off on the final drive (bringing three), allowing the short pass. On the Heap TD, the guy who could have tackled him (I think it was Edwards) went for the kill shot/fumble instead of wrapping up.
If I were Brian Billick, I wouldn't be doing any preening after that one.
Tim Gerheim: The Chargers' pass defense was pretty bad all day. They were able to keep the Ravens in check because, 1) the Ravens aren't that good a passing team, and 2) their pass rush is strong. The difference in the final drive was that even when the Chargers were putting pressure on McNair, he was completing short passes, and they weren't trying for runs that were getting stuffed. So basically they were able to put together a good drive passing on the Chargers, which doesn't sound that surprising.
Throughout the second half I was muttering to myself how a six point lead was precarious, the Chargers needed to put away this game that they'd been dominating. The Chargers at this point are the ultimate run-the-ball-and-stop-the-run team, and it's hart to sustain drives or stop desperation comeback attempts that way. Philip Rivers was OK, and it may be unfair to pin the mediocrity of the Chargers passing game on him. The receivers had a hard time getting open all day. The touchdown came on a play when the corner fell down. The long pass the Chargers needed on the final drive was broken up by Samari Rolle because he was right in the receiver's back pocket. Antonio Gates didn't light it up either.
Vin Gauri: I think McNair really got bailed out on that last drive against the Bolts. Clayton and Heap made some great plays on poor-to-average throws by McNair and the Bolts had some really shoddy tackling. He's still one of the toughest SOBs around, but aside from a great scramble for 12 yards after the two-minute warning, he looked like Trent Dilfer to me.
Arizona Cardinals 10 at Atlanta Falcons 32
Doug Farrar: I'm not watching the the Falcons-Cards game, but Atlanta outrushed Arizona 72 yards to 5 in the first quarter. I'm all for voiding the James to Arizona deal. This is just ugly.
Will Carroll: Yeah, so am I. When is the trading deadline? What could the Colts do that would make that work under the cap?
Michael David Smith: One of the things that makes me proud to be part of FO is how far ahead of the curve we were on Adrian Wilson. He just had a 97-yard INT TD and the announcers are talking about how he's one of the most overlooked players in the league. Not around here, he isn't.
Doug Farrar: At this rate, Wilson will have more yards than James…
Aaron Schatz: Halfway through Q3, Edgerrin James has 9 carries for 3 yards, and the Cardinals are down 22-10. This is the same Atlanta defense that Deuce McAllister sliced through last week.
Mike Tanier: I guess we should thank Abraham Zapruder for his camera work on that Adrian Wilson interception.
Do they measure TOP in nanoseconds? I was shocked to see the Cardinals had the ball over 28 minutes in this game, but most of it was one long drive in the first quarter, then lots of goofing off in the fourth. Every time I turned around to check this game out, the Falcons had the ball.
San Francisco 49ers 0 at Kansas City Chiefs 41
Aaron Schatz: During the halftime show, Terry Bradshaw referred to "young quarterback Damon Huard." Gee, Terry, young compared to you, maybe. The guy's been in the league for a decade.
Doug Farrar: The 49ers are 22nd in pass defense VOA through three games against St. Louis, Arizona, and Philadelphia. Not great, not horrible. Damon Huard is ripping them to shreds. The Chiefs are up 24-0 at the half, and Huard is 13 of 15 for 152 yards and 2 touchdowns.
Dallas Cowboys 45 at Tennessee Titans 14
Michael David Smith: Albert Haynesworth should get a 10-game suspension for what he just did. Dallas's Andre Gurode had his helmet come off during the play, and after the play, with Gurode on the ground, Haynesworth stomped on his head. It's a grass field, so I assume Haynesworth is wearing cleats. It was perhaps the dirtiest move I've ever seen on a football field.
Ned Macey: I was curious to see Young, but this game got out of hand before I could tell. That situation is a disaster down there. A once-excellent franchise is in complete disarray. If you looked hard enough before the season, you could see a talented defense, but they've got nothing. This is their third straight terrible season. If I didn't like the head coach of my favorite team, I would start thinking about getting Jeff Fisher.
Aaron Schatz: If you want a list of players that FO supported ahead of the curve, you can add Pac-Man Jones to the list with Leigh Bodden and Adrian Wilson. (Frank Gore is on that list too.) Despite his immaturity off the field, the fact is that he is far ahead of the Titans' other cornerback, Reynaldo Hill, and the opposing coaches know this. Pac-Man covered T.O. most of the time and he was only thrown two passes with no receptions. He also pulled an offensive PI trying to get Pac-Man away from him. When Pac-Man was not on T.O., he was thrown three passes, caught all three, and had 78 yards. (Pac-Man did give up a TD to Glenn on a play where he was covering Glenn and not T.O.) I don't know what happened in the second half, I know Dallas scored a ton of points but I really think the problems are Thompson and Hill, not Jones and Chris Hope.
Vince Young looked good and bad. He runs too much sideways, I think assuming he can make yardage out of nothing the way he did in college. On the other hand, he had a scramble where he avoided two or three tackles and spun around twice and ended up getting six yards for a first down (it was cancelled by a Dallas penalty that gave the Titans a first down anyway). He also had a pass on third-and-7 where Dallas had a huge 7-blitz and the Titans didn't convert DESPITE picking up ALL the blitzers because Young threw to the tight end only three yards down the field.
Interesting point: we all thought Ben Troupe would be big in Tennessee, but Bo Sciafe is actually the starting tight end -- and he went to Texas, so Young is already used to his habits.
Mike Tanier: Haynesworth is soap scum. He is something that is better off flushed.
I thought the Titans had built a pretty good defensive line. Admittedly, I haven't watched them carefully since about Week 9 or 10 last year. They were pitiful, even before Haynesworth put the derby on and broke into Singing in the Rain. On one TD, I am sure all the replays will show two or three Titans defenders on the ground. That happened on about three or four pass plays in the first half.
The Titans ran an option with Vince Young, they pulled a double reverse, and they gave him some designed runs. The Cowboys just stayed in their lanes, and he had nowhere to go. I'm obviously not burying Young after one game, but I don't see him as a "class by himself" athlete like Michael Vick.
Detroit Lions 34 at St. Louis Rams 41
Michael David Smith: On the local Detroit pregame show, Dre Bly is talking about how the new defensive coaching staff has decided that he'll line up against the other team's No. 1 wide receiver no matter whether that receiver lines up split left, split right, in the slot, or anywhere else. It's quite telling that with a totally new defense, Bly is so superior to the Lions' other DBs that two different defensive staffs would come to the same conclusion about how to use him. And it's another reason that our game charting project is awesome: People who read PFP know Bly matched up with the No. 1 receiver more than any other CB in the league. That's the kind of information that seems so basic and simple and yet you never hear it on TV or read it in the papers.
Bill Barnwell: Another sign the game charting project is doing its job -- Scouts, Inc. was gushing over how Leigh Bodden versus Randy Moss was going to be a premiere matchup this week.
Ned Macey: Dre Bly is really good. Holt is doing nothing on him, but of course, inside the 20, the Lions somehow have Daniel Bullocks in single coverage on Holt. Are they serious?
Also, the Rams had all three timeouts in the final minute of the first half. Has that happened in the past ten years? (And as I write that, the Rams waste one in the third quarter.)
And when did Mike Furrey get good? He was the 6th receiver on the Rams, and now he is playing well for Detroit.
After the game was over:
That was an extremely fun game to watch. Martz clearly wanted to show off his genius, and he was getting a little too excited at times. The offense was good (again Furrey was impressive), but Kitna made a big mistake late that cost them the game. The Rams offense looked 2002 good (the part with Bulger), but of course, Favre looked this good against the Lions last week. That 9-6 Seattle game may prove to be one of the oddest scores of the season.
The Rams were clever about getting Holt on other DBs. They would often start Holt and Bruce on the same side and then move one into motion to get Holt freed off of Bly. On the game-winning touchdown, they moved Bruce, but Bly stayed on Holt which got Fletcher picked and allowed Bruce to score.
New Orleans Saints 18 at Carolina Panthers 21
Mike Tanier: The Panthers really are terrible on third down, in part because they seem to be in third-and-8 a lot. In the passing game, they want to funnel everything through Smith and Keyshawn. That leads to a lot of early down incompletions. They are also having a hard time with the pass rush up the middle, and Mike Wahle got hurt in this game, which could make things worse.
The Saints were impressive on both sides of the ball coming off an emotional Monday Night win. They only scored three points through three quarters, but they were constantly driving. Brees really spreads the ball around. Guys like Ernie Conwell are suddenly coming up with important receptions.
Know what I like about the way Sean Payton is using Reggie Bush? For years, when Bush-like guys have gotten drafted, I have heard coaches say "we are going to be creative about getting him the ball in space." Then, by October, we discover "creative" means draw plays, screen passes, and a reverse every six weeks. Well, Payton is actually being creative, using Bush on downfield routes, running a two-halfback offense, using him at WR in the empty backfield. And he's also just putting him in the I-formation once in a while so opponents can't just key on the trickery. I've seen Bush get stuffed several times, backtrack too often, and fumble, but he's also making the big plays we were all looking for.
Miami Dolphins 15 at Houston Texans 17
Tim Gerheim: Dunta Robinson doesn't look like anything special this year. One play Marty Booker caught a pass pretty easily with Robinson in man coverage against him. That on paper ought to be a huge mismatch in Houston's favor. Robinson doesn't look nearly as comfortable playing man as he does playing Cover-2. He's much better when he gets to face the quarterback and cover the short quarter of the field. When he has to turn and run with a receiver he loses a lot of the benefit of his savvy. He seems like he might make a great free safety, but he's athletic enough to play corner.
The Miami offense really has nothing going for it except Ronnie Brown. Maybe Culpepper's problem is just his knee, but he's just wildly inaccurate, and it's proven that their receivers are no better than "pretty good, not great." The offensive line seems to be coming together, but then again that might just be the effect of playing the Texans defense.
New England Patriots 38 at Cincinnati Bengals 13
Bill Moore: What have the Pats done to the football gods to deserve two starting secondary members out against Carson Palmer & Co.? Hank Poteat and Chad Scott return to their "patchwork secondary" roles.
Patriots are getting little pressure on Palmer -- that's not good when two starters are out in the secondary. The D line in general has had two weeks of mediocre play. This isn't good for Pats fans, since the D line is one of the most talented units on the team.
Scott, who has been a free agent bust from a year ago, plays rather soft coverage, yet started well. Other than one play early in which he was playing zone and allowed Chad Johnson to get into a hole despite the fact that there was no one in his zone (nor anyone near it), he has played tough and broken up a few plays. It will be interesting if he can keep it up for another 30 minutes.
Despite midweek "trash" talking, Rodney Harrison has missed some key tackles.
Given his familiarity with Brady and the system in general plus the lack of receivers on the roster, I'm surprised that Troy Brown isn't playing more downs. Gabriel and Caldwell are getting significantly more looks. Brown was a great decoy in the Gabriel TD. Keshervavavavain was originally covering Brown in the slot, but he cut a short hook into Tory James' coverage area. The resulting hesitation by James was the key in making Gabriel wide open.
Ryan Wilson: Bill: Welcome to the 2002 Pittsburgh Steelers. Fans are very familar with the craptitude of both Poteat and Scott. And knowing that, I don't think you can call him a 'a free agent bust.' He's always been awful. Well, at least this century.
Bill Moore: Hee. Fair point. I only say bust 'cause when you make an offseason contract signing (i.e., not just a pickup replacement guy) you expect him to add value. He surely didn't.
I wouldn't want to be Reche Caldwell, but Kesheshesheshian got robbed of defensive steam rolling.
Meanwhile Hawkins tried to make a statement hit in return on Whoseyourdaddy, and basically whiffed. Can you say Shawn Estes on Roger Clemens?
Ned Macey: There may be something to this whole year-after ACL thing even for quarterbacks. Palmer's VOA was -8.1% before this very mediocre game. He really hasn't been that much better than Culpepper, but the Bengals defense had been carrying them.
Bill Moore: Two things changed the momentum of this game. In the first half, the NE D line was getting no pressure and was not playing up to their talent level. Sparked by inspiring play from Jarvis Green, the often overlooked and underrated backup DE, the D line created pressure and, more importantly, turnovers.
Secondly, the Patriots' two-back running game kicked into action. Cincinnati's run defense is average at best (4.13 adjusted line yards, 28th on power runs, and 15th on 10+ yards). Dillon, who has special motivation in Cincy, and Maroney began running all over the Bengals. And I don't mean pounding out 3-yard runs. These were 15-yard, 20-yard, even 40-yard runs.
The Patriots kicking game needs to be looked at. The phrase, "he's just a kicker" may be thrown around a lot, but kickers are pretty important. Gostkowski had another miss.
As for Cincinnati, they need to do a better job protecting Palmer. Going into this game, they were 29th in adjusted sack rate. This is now two weeks in a row, that Palmer was just hammered. OK, his ACL and MCL are fine and in working order. Let's stop putting it to the test. Palmer was sacked four times and fumbled twice. He was hit hard a number of other times where he miraculously made the completion.
P.S., I alluded to it earlier. I think Harrison has lost a step.
Editor's note: Bill's comments do not represent the opinion of Football Outsiders as a whole on the topic of Rodney Harrison, for whom we have the utmost respect.
Ryan Wilson: What's funny about the Bengals O-line is that they've historically done a very good job of protecting Palmer in the past. I know center Rich Braham is out, but the Steelers got five or six sacks last week too.
Bill, calling the Bengals run defense average is a compliment. This is the second straight week they've been treaded.
I just saw Keanu Kaesvaharn's hit on Reche Caldwell. It's amazing how much better he is when he's plugged into the Matrix.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but right now, the Ravens are the best team in the AFC North.
Jacksonville Jaguars 30 at Washington Redskins 36 (OT)
Ryan Wilson: Well, I was in the middle of writing that the Redskins' defense, after three weeks of looking pretty bad, looks like the 2005 version against the Jags. And then Leftwich hit Maurice Drew for a nice 51-yard TD pass. That play aside (and the one where Reggie Williams continues his bid for Comeback Player of the Year Who Was on the Verge of Being a First-Round Bust) the defense is at least getting more pressure on the QB.
Cleveland Browns 24 at Oakland Raiders 21
Vin Gauri: I'm not sure which is worse, the Raiders' O-line or the Browns' back seven on defense. As expected, just a painful game to watch.
Seattle Seahawks 6 at Chicago Bears 37
Doug Farrar: That was an ugly end to a first drive by Seattle -- going four wide and running the ball on third-and-6 against this defense was one of those "GAAAAAAH!" decisions occasionally made by Holmgren. He's weird with running plays on third down. So far, Chris Spencer is doing a good job on Tommie Harris. This is the battle I'm "ISO-ing."
Chicago's running game (or lack thereof) plays to Seattle's defensive strength, to be sure.
After a rough start to the season, Seattle's offensive line looks good to start. Hasselbeck's getting the nice horseshoe pockets. Good coverage by Da Bears on the red zone drive, though.
Sack.
Ick. Well, Harris just ate Spencer up on that first sack. Hello, Reality!
Remember the San Diego game, where any lack of pressure would "out" the coverage liabilities? Hello, Seattle!
Tim Gerheim: Remember when Ned said there's no really great team this year? I humbly submit the Chicago Bears -- cough -- whom I picked to go to the Super Bowl -- cough cough. Amazingly, their biggest weakness is their running game.
Interception.
Doug Farrar: Wow -- that's the second inexplicable Bledsoe-esque pick Matt's thrown in two weeks. A thing of true ugliness.
Bill Barnwell: I like how Rex Grossman throwing a ball away reminded Madden of Brett Favre.
Interception.
Doug Farrar: Okay -- make that two inexplicable Bledsoe-esque INTs to Manning, Jr. in this game alone. That's a ball you throw away. Period.
Seattle's defense is playing back and tentatively toward the end of the first half, and the Bears are gashing them as a result. It's as if the previous goal-line stand never happened. When the Bears' scoring stats are updated, Hasselbeck should be credited with ten points on two picks.
Pretty much the rest of the game breaks our resident Seahawks fan's spirit.
Doug Farrar: Okay ... uh, wow. This is a game in which the Seahawks just got "out-physicaled" in an embarrassing fashion. Hasselbeck looks like he did in about 2002: rushing throws even when he doesn't need to, trying to make too much happen and proving unable to sustain drives. I don't think they miss Alexander from a production standpoint -- he was averaging 62.3 rushing yards per game and had only two touchdowns through three games -- but they miss the threat of Alexander, and how it forces a defense to adjust. The defense has been tentative, afraid to make a mistake, and never as aggressive as they needed to be. Bad coaching, bad playcalling, iffy defense, and Hasselbeck's worst game in at least two years. They have a bye next week, and they're now tied with the Rams for the division lead after four games. It's going to be "Now Time" very soon.
Bits ‘n’ Pieces
Doug Farrar: This may be an historic moment -- I'm agreeing with Irvin and disagreeing with Jaws. The NFL Countdown debate topic: "Who is the NFL's most valuable receiver?" To me, it's not even worth arguing. Jaws went with Marvin Harrison (aroo? Reggie Wayne?), while Irvin took the unbelievably obvious answer. Could it be anyone but Steve Smith? The more I think about it, the more I think Smith was robbed in the MVP voting last season. Delhomme's ranking is 93.8 this year (88.1 last year) with Smith, 61.5 without. Manning had a 104.1 rating last year.
In 2005, Smith caught 38% of his team's 269 receptions, 44.8% of their 3,485 passing yards, and 48% of their 25 passing touchdowns.
In 2005, Harrison caught 24% of his team's 348 receptions, 27.9% of their 4,096 passing yards and 38% of their 31 touchdowns.
I agree with most (if not all) of the FO staff -- Jaws is the premier NFL analyst. But that surprised me.
Bill Barnwell: Jaws IS human.
Jets-Colts and CBS commercial/production comments:
- I am amazed that someone actually made a more generic version of "Heroes" than the Wallflowers. That's like genericizing America's Choice products.
- Robert Mathis beats D'Brickashaw Ferguson to Chad Pennington's arm for a fumble and the announcers really harp on Ferguson as opposed to Mathis. When the Jets offense/Colts defense were coming on the field for the next drive, they even showed Ferguson walking onto the field instead of Pennington or Mathis -- I can't imagine that would be the case for most OTs, whether they blew a block or not.
- The neighborhood and neighbors in the NFLATINO commercial are out of some Jane Jacobs wet dream.
Aaron Schatz: Dumb graphic of the week: FOX showed a graphic demonstrating that the 0-3 teams were ranked 25, 28, 29, 31, and 32 in total rushing yardage. Well, gee, what a shock: losing teams run less than winning teams.
I think, despite losing, that the Saints and Jets showed today that they are better than we thought before the season. The Vikings, however, are making our preseason projection look more and more accurate each week.
Doug Farrar: I just found this mysterious code all over the place on NBCSports.com: <autotext>Brett Favre</autotext>. Weird!
The Colts, Pats, Broncos, and Steelers have serious question marks. Maybe the Eagles, but their defense is getting awful banged up.
I think Ned forgot about Chicago. Chicago, right now, looks like the best team in the league. Temper that with who they've played, obviously, but still, I don't think there are a lot of question marks there - other than "can Rex Grossman stay healthy" and I'm not a big fan of believing that freak injuries reoccur often.
Ned's comment was sent to the group before the Sunday night (gulp) beatdown.
Any Given Sunday - Redskins v. Jaguars? Were matchup problems causing all of the points, or is Portis really that valuable to the offense? Will anybody mistake the Jaguars for a run-focused team again?
Following DGL's lead, I'm cross-posting my comment from the Manic Monday thread. In summary, I agreed with what Aaron said before I saw he said it:
I know Mangini will get second-guessed by the New York media, but I’m not sure all of it is deserved. You can’t just criticize the call to go for it cause they didn’t make it.
The call for a pass might not have been a good one (if you run it and get stuffed, the colts start from the one) and the throw was terrible, just terrible. But you can’t say Mangini’s a bad coach just cause the final score’s a field goal apart. If the onside kick had failed, would that have made it a bad play call?
I understand newspapers looking at the final score and calling for Mangini’s resignation (has that happened yet?), but I do remember an article on this site not too long ago saying maybe you should always go for it on 4th. I think they should have here too.
Having made the life-enhancing choice to rid myself of television, this evening outing was the first Seahawks game I'd seen all year.
Yikes, is all.
No pressure and the secondary got shredded. Well, okay, not a complete shock. But that offense -- someone have Mouse Davis' number or something? Four receivers on the field does not a spread offense make; it was like, four guys run eight-yard slants and hitches. You see how ossified Holmgren is with some aspects of this WCO stuff; the situation practically demanded that he get outside the box and threaten Chicago in creative ways, but it was like, 5-yard incompletion, Morris 1-yard run, throw behind a marked receiver short of the first down. That first Manning pick, he just jumped the lame quick slant they were trying to run every time. The Bears had good pressure, but Hasselbeck didn't so much respect it as LIVE IN CONSTANT MORTAL TERROR OF IT. He must've run a 10k's worth of happy feet on plays when he had time to step up and throw. Still, though ... the line had its pants pulled down. Chicago consistently won in the trenches on both sides.
And yeah, Holmgren: can we get the @#$! Mack Strong third-and-long draw out of the playbook please? Hasselbeck actually appeared to audible *into* that play once. I've groaned the couple of times I've seen it work to know that pellet means he'll be encouraged to call it 10 more times to see it work again.
Nice win, Chicago. I'm going to get out my copy of last year's NFC title game and reminisce about better times.
I still think it is a little early for people to start panicking about the Patriots' kicking game. Yeah Gosty missed a 48 yarder but those aren't that easy even for the great kickers. He was solid on the PATs and the short field goal, and more importantly his kick-offs have been the best anyone in New England can remember. He consistently kept the Bengals from getting any offensive traction on kick returns, and I think that contributed a lot more to the final result than an extra 3 points would have done.
My favorite part of the Cowboys/Titans game?
Dick Stockton: Parcells went out of his way to single out (punter) McBriar this week, who had an excellent game last week. He's also been very good today....By the way, McBriar hasn't been needed today, as Dallas hasn't had to punt yet.
Congrats to Bill Barnwell for putting "Jane Jacobs" and "wet dream" in the same sentence. I'm not sure if urban planners should be happy for a in-joke custom tailored to 0.002% of the population, or appalled at the disturbing imagery of said joke.
3: Well, it's either that game or incite more accusations of bias with NE/Cin. I think that game was a bigger upset, though. Winning in OT against a playoff team is a gut, but what NE did is a dominate. Sea/Chi would be a good choice too, but I think the Bears were favored.
First, a statistical quibble: Aaron wrote "The expected score difference between having the ball on your own 2-yard line and your own 20-yard line is roughly two points."
Now, me disagreeing with Aaron on stats is akin to Paul McGuire disagreeing with Jaws on the design of a zone blitz out of a 3-3-5 nickel, but regardless: over the past three years (2003-2005, including postseason), teams have started 466 drives inside their own 5 and scored a total of 262 points, or 0.59 points per drive (with safeties counting as -2 points). Teams have started 1,843 drives on their own 20 and scored a total of 2,245 points, or 1.22 points per drive. To me, that says the difference between starting a drive on your own 2 and at your own 20 is only about 0.6 points.
If you decide to go for it, you have a probability (p) of making it, and conversely, a probability (1-p) of not making it. If you expect that the outcome of not making it is giving the ball away on the Colts' 2 (considering Pennington had thrown 0 career interceptions inside the red zone in 120 attempts, that's a reasonable starting simplifying assumption - more later), the expected points of going are 7*p + (-0.6)*(1-p).
Assume that even FO's Favorite Kicker can make a 19 yard field goal 98% of the time, the expected points of the FG attempt are 2.94.
Running the math, that says you should go for it if the probability of making it is greater than about 47%. Average FO Power OL/DL ratings (success rate at 2 yards) are about 58%; individual team ratings will suffer from small sample size, but the Jets OL was at about 67% and the Colts DL at 100%, so if anything you'd expect the success rate to be higher; however, as Aaron says, it was more like 2.5 yards, so perhaps that pulls it down a little - perhaps, to around 50%. Which means, basically, statistics says it's a toss-up.
Even if you add in a 5% chance of throwing an end-zone pick, the threshold probability changes by less than 1%.
So is it a historically bad decision? No. Historically bad decisions are those where statistically it's strongly sub-optimal but you do it anyway. This was a toss-up. And with a team that was widely (I might say "universally") predicted to be totally non-competitive this year, I think the value of the message it sends the team -- we're going to go all-out to win, even if that means eschewing the "safe" decision -- is worth tipping the toss-up in favor of going for it.
If they make it and the Jets win 35-31, everyone is lauding Mangini for "going for the kill" against the Colts because you have to knock out the champ, you can't play around.
Surprised to see that Mario Williams 1.5 Sacks did not gather anyone's attention or his deflected pass that was crucial to the Texans win.
With the kind of performances being turned in by the rookies, would charles casserly admit that their strategy of drafting Mario Williams was not really sound. While i am not coming to a conclusion based on 4 games, one thing is for sure: MW is no Peppers and these 4 weeks showed.
(Disclaimer: I didn't have access to the game)
Rule Question: Here's what happened.
2-10-MIN39 (7:08) J.Losman right tackle to MIN 40 for -1 yards (A.Winfield).
Why is this not credited as a sack? From my memory, it wasn't a planned QB run play. Besides, shouldn't stats be based on the RESULT of a play, not a statisticians INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENT?
Aaron said:
"The Vikings, however, are making our preseason projection look more and more accurate each week."
Wait. Weren't you saying last week that the Vikings were impressive against the Bears? This is really the first week that the Vikings have played poorly. One data point does not make a trend. You should know better than to say this.
10: I think Aaron's two-point differential includes what happens on the subsequent drive, eg after a punt/turnover. It may be that drives beginning on the two are more often followed by opponents scoring TDs rather than FGs or nothing at all.
Here's what I'm trying to tell myself. The Vikes haven't been favored in a game yet, and they're 2-2. Looking at the schedule, I expect them to be favored in 5-7 games. If they can win half the games they're not favored in, and around 75% of the games they are favored in, they can have 9-10 wins. All sorts of problematic logic there, I know, but that's what I'm telling myself.
The Viking D is holding teams under 20, but it's not dominant enough to win on its own. Let me be among the first completely irrational, reactionary fans to say "Brooks Bollinger."
BTW, the official Play By Play for the Jets "Festival of Laterals":
(:08) (Shotgun) C.Pennington pass short middle to L.Washington to NYJ 40 for 8 yards [D.Freeney]. Lateral to B.Smith to NYJ 37 for -3 yards. Lateral to L.Coles to IND 44 for 19 yards. Lateral to C.Pennington to IND 37 for 7 yards. Lateral to J.McCareins to IND 35 for 2 yards. FUMBLES, recovered by NYJ-B.Smith at IND 33. B.Smith to IND 37 for -4 yards. FUMBLES, recovered by NYJ-L.Coles at IND 40. L.Coles to IND 27 for 13 yards. Lateral to N.Mangold to IND 27 for no gain. FUMBLES, RECOVERED by
Not sure if that was cut off by the NFL database field length cutoff (it's about 500 characters) or if the Play by Play guy just got tired of typing.
Aaron, I'll be amused to see what the parser makes of that one.
Does it look to anybody else that, upon being tackled to the ground, Kurt Warner lets go of the ball in order to better brace himself for contact with the turf? If I'm coaching in Glendale, there's no way that Warner plays again if Leinart is healthy.
i don't consider the Jets 4th down attempt to be a bad call, it would have been great if they ran it. I assumed the jets lost because their defense decided to play soft enought to give up 2 giant drives in less than 4 minutes. Even if going for it on 4th was considered aggressive, playing the prevent D is definitely not.
10: I think Aaron’s two-point differential includes what happens on the subsequent drive, eg after a punt/turnover. It may be that drives beginning on the two are more often followed by opponents scoring TDs rather than FGs or nothing at all.
It's based on the "average next score". See here. Just based on a very simple model, it's a little less than two points.
Holy crap . . . did anyone let the Seahawks know they might have been playing for home field advantage throughout the playoffs last night? They played like a team ready to coast into a bye week, and Chicago played like it was a playoff game.
Plenty of blame to go around for that debacle, but first credit the Bears. They came to play. Manning Jr.'s first pick was a great play by a savvy CB. I thought Rex's prior statistical success was a product of the defenses he'd been playing. I knew the 'Hawks secondary could be exploited, but I didn't think Grossman would be the guy to do it. Oops.
As for the 'Hawks, it was like reliving '02, '03, and '04 again. Unimaginative, timid, even absent-minded playcalling on O, a defense that laid back because they'd been soundly beaten on the long ball, only to get beaten by the run. A QB who felt too much pressure (or perhaps felt the pressure too keenly) and forced a lot of passes. WRs dropping wide open receptions. The O-line didn't look great, but Chicago's going to do that to a lot of teams.
To paraphrase Tom Coughlin last week, the 'Hawks getting taken behind the woodshed last night was a "team effort." The only thing to do is go back to the drawing board and bounce back after their bye week in STL, which of course will be a double whammy. An early start east of the Rockies after a bye doesn't have a lot of good mojo attached to it.
#17 - NFL Matchup looked at the game-deciding fumble against St. Louis - it was actually caused by the RG. As he got out of his stance, his left elbow knocked the ball out of Warner's hands. So that fumble, at least, wasn't Warner's fault.
Unfotunately, I can't say the same about the rest of them, though.
Has anyone mentioned that the Jets' lateral play wouldn't have counted if they had scored? I didn't feel like wading through 800 posts in the open game thread but thought it might show up here. Only the player fumbling the ball can advance it in the last two minutes of a game and at least one of those "laterals" hit the ground. Can you imagine the uproar if the Jets had scored on that play and then had it turned over on review?
As a closet Jets fan, I'd like to take my place on the "I'm not gonna kill Mangini for going for it" bandwagon. You're tied at 14 with was less than 5 minutes left in the 3rd Quarter of a game nobody expected you to even be competitive in. You're going up against one of the best offenses in the league. I have no problem with deciding that 3 points just isn't good enough. I even liked that decision to pass. After three consecutive run plays (starting from the 1-and-goal from the 7), I can see why you wouldn't run for a 4th consecutive time. But Pennington should have just thrown that ball away instead of trying to force it in there. Big surprise that I disagree with the one aspect of that play that the announcing crew lauded.
Re: 22
I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the laterals hit the ground before the intended recipient had gotten a hand on it, and therefore I think the fumbles were recovered by the player who was credited with the fumble. Like I said though, I could easily be wrong on that.
22: That rule only comes into play when the ball is fumbled forward. As long as the Laterals went laterally or backwards, the play was legal.
24:
One of the laterals wasn't even a lateral, but a backwards fumble along the ground as a player got tackled. I think it was McCareins, or maybe Smith. And I'm pretty sure he was down before he tossed the ball backwards, so there's a 2nd reason it wouldn't have counted.
this has nothing to do with anything, but david carr has completed 81 of 111 attempts. that's what, 10 yards per completion (7.7 per attempt) at 73%?
OK, found the play on youtube (linked). At 0:57 Smith's (?) knee is down.
After watching three games yesterday, thanks to the miracle of TiVo, I'm becoming more and more convinced that delineating between types of interceptions will be a big step forward in the statistical analyis of quarterback play. Brad Johnson's DPAR will be poor this week, partly due to his receivers dropping about 80 to 100 yards of passes, but also because of the two interceptions. Comparing those two interceptions with the two of Hasselbeck's mentioned above, however, and there is no comparison.
Hasselbeck's throws were just plain godawful, whereas Johnson's came on a ball tipped by a poorly blocked de, and when London Fletcher laid out and made a catch, with his body completely horizontal to the ground, that nearly every wr in the league would have on his highlight reel. Note to the Vikings: If the opposition's linebackers continue to be superior pass catchers to your wide receivers, getting to eight or nine wins will be more difficult than expected. In any case, differentiating between different types of interceptions would give a better grasp of how well, or how poorly, a quarterback played, but it isn't obvious to me as to how to go about doing so. I think the drops issue gets balanced out by those occasions when a receiver catches a poorly thrown ball (okay, perhaps not in the case of the Vikings) but I also think that two qbs who end up with 12-16 interceptions on the year may have markedly different actual performance in that regard.
As to other matters, I was waiting for the Bears to stomp a good team before proclaiming them the obvious best in the NFC. Consider it done. The Vikings need to beat the Lions convincingly on Sunday to indicate that they are capable of nine wins; I stated previously that if they are 3-4 after seven, they would have a good chance to reach that level, and I'll stick with that assessment, but just winning a nail-biter vs. what appears to be a bad Lions team will not be a positive indicator, with the following two games in Seattle and the Patriots at home.
Of all the things that I thought might derail them, in their effort to prove the FO's preseason projection of the Vikings' win total entirely too pessimistic, I did not anticipate wide receivers dropping balls, which definitely cost them yesterday's game, and nearly cost them the win in D.C.. Yes, right ot Marques Johnson has issues, but he was non-horrible in the fourth quarter yesterday, when the Bills we're completely geared to rush the passer. They do need to run better, but that gets easier to do when some long passes are completed, and to do that their wide receivers need to make catches that NFL receivers usually make.
I like this team's orientation towards physical play, but a roughly 30 year era of Vikings wide receivers being well above-average in terms of making catches is certainly over.
The worst thing about that play, as I've mentioned elsewhere, was that when Coles had the ball, he had 3 blockers and was on the left sidelines.
There is no way, whatsoever, that Coles should've lateralled the ball away. He had the best shot for the end zone right there - and it was probably pretty good, too. Just needed to coordinate with his blockers a bit, and get to the sidelines and run.
Aaron Schatz: I’m curious to hear from somebody exactly what went wrong with the Chargers at the end of a game they seemed to control throughout.
Mike Tanier summed it up for you:
It was just a dumb gameplan in the second half. I’m all for running the ball to kill the clock, but you don’t start doing it in the third quarter when you are up by six points.
They should have come out of the gate throwing in the second half.
And did anyone think that Samari Rolle should have been called for PI on the long pass play middle of the third quarter? He pushed and grabbed Jackson around the neck.
Re 30:
He tossed the ball beccause he didn't think he'd get by #98. It looked like 98 had a good shot at bringing him down.
Will:
Well, yeah, but there's not always information on how an interception was caused or made in the play-by-play. So you're kinda screwed there.
The only thing I can imagine differentiating is looking at the downside of "deep" versus "short" interceptions.
He tossed the ball beccause he didn’t think he’d get by #98. It looked like 98 had a good shot at bringing him down.
Three blockers. Should've trusted them to take him out (which they did), rather than sacrifice momentum and position.
#30 I really want to see the endzone or overhead angle of that play. It was the second Coles lateral/fumble which piqued my curiosity. It looked like he ran right past his blocker and into the defender when he got the ball, but, of course, I couldn't see anything on my screen and had no idea what the heck was happening on the right side of the field.
Doug--
I didn't get your reference to the league not always taking appropriate disciplinary action, using Shaun Alexander as an example. I'm scratching my head, and I can't remember him ever doing anything other than whining about not winning the rushing title two years ago. To what were you referring?
I don't think the Chargers should have "come out of the gate running" - their strength is in the running game, and that's what they should use. But they didn't even try to keep the Ravens from stacking the box. If you're facing first and 19, there is no earthly reason to run the ball up the middle three times and then punt. That was Schottenheimer at his worst.
Pro Football Prospectus had the Vikings with a 30% chance of winning four or fewer games, and a 30% chance of winning five to six games. If there are any advocates of that prediction who wish to put up $50, to the charity of the winner's choice, that the Vikings will not exceed six wins, I'm still willing to take that risk, despite yesterday's loss. 3-4 after seven puts them in a decent place for eight wins or better, and I'm still sticking with nine wins as the most likely outcome.
Pacifist, Johnson's performance would have been more than adequate with just an average performance by the receivers. Let's not get despondent with the Bolllingerisms.
Er, "come out of the gate passing." I'm dumb.
Re: 25
No offensive player other than the player who dropped the ball can advance a fumble in the last 2 minutes of the game. It doesn't matter whether the ball is fumbled forwards or backwards. I can't say 100% for certain that any of those laterals hit the ground, but I am certain that is the rule.
re:22, 24, etc. I was going to write about that play, but never got around to it. Not only would that play not have ended in a score, but Coles got hurt AFTER the play should have been blown dead.
A Jet, I think it was Smith, clearly had his knee down before lateraling the ball. The play would have been reviewed, and overturned had a Jet eventually scored after that point.
Taking away 30 seconds from CBS Ad time - $500,000; Laveranues Coles seperated shoulder - 4-6 weeks; Seeing how the Meadowlands would have reacted when the game winning TD was overturned on replay - Priceless!
Disclaimer - I have no real status on Coles. I have no idea the extent of his injury. It just sounded good.
37: My Brooks Bollinger cries are extreme and reactionary, I know.
How about a more reasonable proposal: more plays for Mewelde Moore. He's better at breaking tackles, has more potential for longer runs, and is a better receiver out of the backfield. Chester Taylor looks like a great "plow away to hang onto a lead" RB, but Moore might be the more dynamic performer who could, you know, get the team in the endzone.
Re: SD-BAL
You can hang that loss on the coaching staff and special teams. Marty came out in the 2nd half playing for FGs, which is a problem on a windy day against a team which seems to have an above-agerage ability to block kicks (no stats to back that assertion up, just observations). 1 wind-assisted miss, 1 FG block, and then their punter got creamed, resulting in the team taking an intentional safety on the re-kick. The intentional safety was actually a good call, until the Chargers' D collapsed in the last 3 minutes.
Classic Martyball, though, playing for FGs way too early in the game.
Yeah, Moore has real talent, but unfortunately he always had shown a propensity to get injured when saddled with just an average workload, and he still doesn't block well. Ya' can't afford to have a poor-blocking running back on the field a lot with 38 year old starting quarterback.
Yes, they are in need of improvement in more than one area, but first and foremost they need their receivers to catch the catchable balls thrown their way. I don't know if their is a quick solution to this, unfortunately.
#34: My bad - after watching it again, it isn't Coles that was the idiot. It was Pennington. Look at around 0:53 on the YouTube clip, after Coles laterals it back to Pennington. Jets players (Ferguson and Kendall?) are in PERFECT position to block the only remaining Colt defenders in the area. But Pennington never looks around to see the situation - he just keeps running to the middle of the field. If he had cut left to the sideline behind Ferguson, that's an easy touchdown. There was even an extra blocker well downfield as insurance. No way the Colts would've gotten to him.
Instead, Pennington heaves it cross-field where there are far more Colts than Jets.
And all of this happened well before anyone was down, and before the ball ever hit the ground.
Make that about 0:47 or so.
coltrane #23:
did anyone let the Seahawks know they might have been playing for home field advantage throughout the playoffs last night
Lets see Seattle look like they will definitely win 10 games before we annoint them as playoff locks. They've got at least 4 more probable losses coming up (@ Rams, @ Chiefs, @ Broncos, San Diego), and the way the NFL works, they will probably lose at least one other game they are "supposed" to win, the way they nearly lost hosting Cowboys and @ 49ers and @ Titans last year, because they clearly aren't as strong a team as last year. They could easily lose the 4 games above, plus @ 49ers and hosting Vikings, and end up 9-7 if they play like they did last night and @ Lions.
Re: 33 "Three blockers. Should’ve trusted them to take him out (which they did), rather than sacrifice momentum and position."
I agreed with you elsewhere, but I went back and looked again, and Robert Mathis (98) was not blocked until Coles slowed and turned, allowing Ferguson (I think) to catch up and block. If he hadn't turned to lateral, Mathis was unblocked and probably would have got him.
Err I thought Daunte looked his best all year. When the Texans finally backed off late in the game he passed the team right down the field twice. The Dolphins oline looked over matched all day. Although the Texans #1 pick rarely was the one getting pressure. He did get to Daunte a few times after a teammate had collapsed the pocket for him. Marty Booker fell down at least 3 times when he was open. I suggest the Dolphins ownership spend a little of the money they are stealing from the Marlins to buy some new cleats.
Re: 44
Sorry about 47; guess I type slow.
I still disagree though. Only reason Pennington wasn't tackled immediately by someone (27? Jennings?) was cause he started towards the middle and faked a flip back to Coles. Once he's past 27 (?), the situation downfield is different. When the throw is in the air, I see at least one unblocked Colt downfield, and reversing fields often works.
Well, looking again, it seems it was mostly momentum that took him to the middle. That and the fake pitch. Pennington isn't the greatest cut runner and I don't think he had much of a chance to stop and survey the field.
43: that's the sort of safe thinking that is currently dooming the Viking offense.
Is it logical to not play Moore much because then he would get hurt and not be able to play at all?
And if you keep RB A out JUST BECAUSE RB B is a better blocker, you are saying that the actual running and catching of the football is not a priority for a RB (I realize this isn't what you're saying, I'm just illustrating). IF Moore proves he is more capable of making positive plays with the ball than Taylor, then Moore should play because the Vikings need points.
So far, there isn't even data to make an argument: Moore's superior yards per rush are a result of getting the ball on 3rd and long. However, Moore has shown he still has moves to avoid tacklers and might be able to do more with the blocking than Taylor is doing. I'm not suggesting Taylor be benched entirely, just suggesting that more plays for Moore would help the team (and it looks like he is getting more plays as the season goes on).
I don't know the quick fix for WRs dropping the ball. These are fundamentals (like blocking) that need to be worked on in practice. I do know that a struggling offense could use a dynamic player like Moore a bit more, rather than relying on a RB who has barely made a cut this season.
#47: Yeah, that's my bad - you confused me elsewhere by suggesting Coles. It was Pennington that screwed up. When Coles lateralled it, Mathis got blocked, leaving Pennington room for what would've been one of the best plays in the history of the NFL had he just looked around.
Re: 46
I'll admit I didn't see the game live, but you got to attribute some of Seatle's problems to Chicago's D, right? Plus, Alexander won't be out the whole season, which should change their gameplanning, as Doug Farrar pointed out.
I also think saying Rams and Chiefs are probable losses is stretching it. Sure, they could lose, but I don't know about probable.
Pennington isn’t the greatest cut runner and I don’t think he had much of a chance to stop and survey the field.
He should've tried. The opportunity was just flat golden, and he should've seen the situation when he was running behind Coles. It wasn't much of a cut that he would've needed - he could've just planted his hand on Ferguson's shoulder, and pushed off to aid the cut.
I don't agree he could've done it though - he actually had to turn his body pretty awkwardly to throw the ball. It would've been easier for him to turn upfield and get behind Ferguson.
The fake handoff which froze the defender was just comedy gold. If that play had worked, that guy would've been the goat of the week.
Re: 51
To be fair, you suggested Coles first. You're definitely more right about Pennington, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it idiotic.
re: Jets 4th down.
I actually thought Madden made a good overall defense of going for it. As well as the obvious bit about needing everything you can get to beat the Colts, there was also the fact that people who wouldn't go for it there also wouldn't have kicked onside, and therfore still would have likely lost.
You can't cherrypick the bad risks as the ones that didn't work after the fact (unless you want to work on TV).
Re: 51
If that had in fact been Coles instead of Pennington, that probably would have been a touchdown. Pennington doesn't exactly scare defenses with his legs, so I can't really blame him for trying to get the ball in the hands of someone (McCareins) more accustomed to running with the ball.
Re: 46
Agreed, if the Seahawks play like they did last night, they're headed for 9-7, maybe 10-6.
However, I have a fan's faith that the "real" Seahawks are the team that held serve convincingly against the Cardinals and the Giants. I've circled the same games you noted, I just don't have all of them as losses.
Re: 55
Or you name rhymes with Egg Geaseterbrook.
Wanker79 #23:
a game nobody expected you to even be competitive in. You’re going up against one of the best offenses in the league. I have no problem with deciding that 3 points just isn’t good enough.
Whoa Hoss!
TMQ says: "Kick early, go for it late." Held true here once again.
Coaches constantly out-think themselves in situations like this and leave points on the board.
It wasn't as if the Jets were trailing 14+ points with 20 minutes left. They were tied and could have taken the lead!
If you've made it 40 minutes and only given up 14 to the Colts, I'd say the defense is doing pretty good. Not only have you only given up 14, but 7 of that was off a short field fumble recovery (random dumb luck). In other words, your defense was successful, and you should be able to hold a lead. Yes, the Colts would be expected to score again in 20 minutes of play, but so should the Jets, especially seeing as they then would have had 3 scoring drives in 40 minutes, and none off a short field turnover.
Going for it means sending a message to your defense that you don't believe they are capable of doing what they have been doing much of the game - holding a lead on the Colts, AND not rewarding your offense with the satisfaction of knowing that their effort in driving the ball downfield turned into some points.
Good teams (and good Coaches) don't just score touchdowns, they also kick field goals and take the certain points when given the opportunity due to the stalling of a drive.
Re: 53
Do you think he could have gotten away from 27? When he first touched the ball, he had three Colts in front of him and two Jets. If he has a good cut and quick legs, he gets inside Ferguson and 27, but he has neither. (I still think there were problems further downfield.) I still think his throw was bad (maybe the awkward angle), but I don't think it's fair to call Pennington an idiot for using his arm instead of his leg.
Re: 59
"Going for it means sending a message to your defense that you don’t believe they are capable of doing what they have been doing much of the game"
So, what message was sent by the onside kick? Also, other people have argued that going for it sends the message "we are going to do what it takes to win and not be passive" (or, as Mike Tanier said, “I believe in you kids�). How do you decide what message is being sent?
As a Jets fan, IMO the 4th down decision comes down to "what would Herm do?" He would kick the FG. Therefore going for it was the right move. :)
They lost because they couldn't stop the Colts on the two drives at the end, not because they missed the fourth down. And was I the only one hoping Miller would run out of bounds on the KO return so they could run some time off the clock?
Pacifist, this is the second coaching staff that has looked at Moore every day, and concluded that he isn't the type of running back that can be on the field predominantly. I suspect the primary reason is the blocking, and before that is discounted, think hard about if you really do want Bollinger finishing the season. Who knows? Maybe from here on out Moore will be on the field more, I'm just hesitant to say that two professional coaching staffs in succession, especially the one in place now, have made such a fundamental error, after observing the player in question on a daily basis.
Bill Wallace #55:
As well as the obvious bit about needing everything you can get to beat the Colts,
What is so obvious about that? The Jets didn't need everything they've got to beat the Colts. They needed one more smart decision about kicking a field goal, and no shift to "prevent defense" at the end of regulation. They were handling the Colts offense fine all day. Manning looked just terrible up to that point.
there was also the fact that people who wouldn’t go for it there also wouldn’t have kicked onside, and therfore still would have likely lost.
I don't know about that. Plenty of coaches are willing to kick surprise on-sides kicks (or use other trickery like fake field goals), and also would have been smart enough to take certain points when placed in their hand vs. risky 4th down pass plays where 7-8 guys are running around in the end zone vs. your 4-6 receivers. Honestly, how often do we see 4th and 3 pass plays at the goal line work? Seems like they end up as interceptions more often than being converted. Maybe Aaron could tell us.
And a surprise on-sides kick is really not as risky as you seem to think.
#60: He got away from the first defender with the fake handoff. I can't believe it worked, but it worked brilliantly. After that, there were only two Colts defenders left, and the Jets were in perfect position to block them. If he had just held up, Ferguson could've gotten inside him, and he could've cut back to the sidelines.
I just can't think that throwing across the field was a good idea. They had tons of Jets there, and only a handful of Colts - some of which were on their backs already. On the other side of the field were two wide receivers, and a crapload of Colts as well.
Sometimes reversing field works, but only if you've dragged the defense with you. They hadn't. From Pennington's perspective, it had to look like he was throwing into a sea of white.
Re #64: And a surprise on-sides kick is really not as risky as you seem to think.
Especially when you have Nugent kicking off. I couldn't have been the only one thinking their best chance after the KO return was to do another onside kick.
Before it looks like I'm too supportive of Childress and Co., Pacifist, and at the risk of sounding like an Easterbrook acolyte, let me ask you a question; did Childress' decision to kick on fourth and two, at midfield, on the second to last possession, seem as bad to you as it did to me?
#8-
As an urban planner myself, I'd say that I felt a little bit of both when I read Bill's comment. I sat there and enjoyed the inside joke, and then the realization hit... and I wondered if I was better off not reading the end of the column...
Will, but like you said, injuries have hurt Moore. The first coaching staff really liked Moore, but soured on him with his injury issues. The second coaching staff didn't get a bunch of time to look at him in training camp.
My first question would be, are two years of injury issues enough to make us believe Moore is too injury-prone to get more work? I don't think so.
My second point would be that in game situations, Moore usually performs well. Whatever happens in practice, Moore shows in games an ability to break tackles and make moves that show he could be a very good player.
I'm not going to assume yet that two coaching staffs didn't like him, nor am I going to set aside my opinions of him based on what coaching staffs determined so far. If we were to just go with what coaches say and think, FO wouldn't exist, and all reporters would need to do is transcribe exactly what the coaches say.
It also seems that it's not so much that the coaching staff as determined Moore can't be a good RB, but that Taylor's skills are better suited for the sort of running game they want to run. After four games, it would be reasonable for them (and us, why not, what else are we doing?) to look at the performances on the field and determine if that's still the case.
We'll have to see. Maybe I should change my name to "Mewelde Moore Apologist." Maybe as the season wears on Moore will get more carries as Taylor stays around 3.5 yards per carry and the Viking offense continues to fail to score points.
Re: 65
I'm not totally disagreeing with you. A cutback would have been nice. (Although, there was at least one more Colt downfield on that side, not just the two.)
Also, Ferguson seems to have been thinking like you and he just kind of bumped his man to the inside. The problem is that when Pennington took a glance downfield after the fake (which I'm with you about), all he saw was Ferguson's man and not Ferguson. Maybe he looked too late, but it's hard to fault someone too much for not thinking enough in the middle of a play like that. Most of the time, everything they do they practice over and over. How often do you practice that?
67: I screamed in horror and wrote down the specifics I was so angry about that decision. 7:48 to go, down 11, 4th and 2, you're at midfield--and you punt!?!?
The Vikes are rather lucky they got the ball back for two possessions after that to make the decision not see so stupid. I don't know the percentages, but I would doubt teams get two potential scoring drives after punting with under eight minutes to go. I thought it was a horrible decision.
Dennis #62:
As a Jets fan, IMO the 4th down decision comes down to “what would Herm do?� He would kick the FG.
Yes, and Herm got the Jets to the playoffs how many times? 3 of 5 years, with the 2 misses coming directly from Pennington being injured. Herm was the best coach the Jets had in their history, outside Weeb Ewbanks. Herm would have kicked the FG and won the game. In 46 years, the Jets have had 8 seasons with 10+ wins, and Herm gave you two of them in 5 years. Think about that when you criticize him.
6: Gosty? That's almost as bad as "Sexy Rexy"...
31: Shows you how much confidence they have in Rivers at this point. But let's remember something, this is only his start, and I don't know a lot of coaches who would have utmost confidence in any QB in his third ever start.
35: Joe Horn was fined 30K for taking out a cellphone. Haynesworth could have killed Gurode.
40: That's just mean. (can I use that elsewhere?)
50: Check out last year's DVOA and DPAR (along with conventional stats) to see whether Moore or Taylor was the better back: 2005 RB
Re: Andrew
Like you said, the Jets defense had been holding their own all game. So why is pinning the Colts well inside the 5 yardline (the o