Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

Harris-Brady.jpg

» Week 12 DVOA Ratings

Denver remains No. 1 in the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings, but New England moves up to No. 2 and has taken over as our Super Bowl favorite.

01 Nov 2010

Audibles at the Line: Week 8

compiled by David Gardner

Each Sunday, the FO staff sends around e-mails about the games that each of us are watching. We share information about the games that the rest of the group might not be watching, ask questions, and keep everyone else informed about which games they might want to tune into (if they can).

On Monday, we compile a digest of those e-mails and produce this feature. By its nature, it can be disjointed and dissimilar to the other articles on the site.

Please also note that we do not write the e-mails specifically to produce this column, which means we aren't going to cover every game, or every important play. We watch the games that we, as fans, are interested in watching, so your favorite team's game might not be covered to your fullest desires or even at all. (If you are a Seahawks or Patriots fan, you are probably in luck; if you are a Bills fan, not so much.) We have no intention of adding new authors to cover every game on a given Sunday, nor will we watch a different game from the ones that we're personally interested in watching, just to ensure that Audibles covers every game.

Minnesota Vikings 18 at New England Patriots 28

Aaron Schatz: I'm at Gillette watching CBS on one TV, Red Zone on another, and wondering who convinced the Patriots to switch from Direct TV from Verizon so that an NFL press box doesn't even have Sunday Ticket.

By the way, I have to note that Brett Favre really does bring the party with him. This place is a national media festival today. Our little NFL section includes not just me and the ESPN Boston guys but Seifert, Graham, and Ed Werder. The national media section on the other side has Pete Prisco, Judy Battista, Mark Maske, Alex Marvez, and on and on. Bob Ryan is here, I think this is only my second time in the press box where he's been here too. Greg Bedard just showed up for his first game as Globe beat writer. I met Alex Flanagan, the chick who does the NBC FNIA pregame show. She does the on-camera report from whatever they consider the most important afternoon game. And everyone is sitting in the press box watching the Packers-Jets out of one eye while desperately waiting for Favre to get on the field so they can pull out their binoculars and come up with the best possible description of his exact limping form.

Will Carroll: OK, now that concussions are blanketed and taken seriously, can we begin to take a hard look at painkiller usage? Steven Jackson's finger started to sense again with a couple minutes left and while all we'll hear all afternoon is how tough Favre is, it's really that part of his foot is numb. Who knows what long term damage a ton of players are doing to themselves? Why are steroids evil but being numbed into playing condition is just fine? We have players on the field that you wouldn't want driving.

Aaron Schatz: Early report from Foxboro: Patriots seem to be double-covering Moss on pretty much every play, with Brandon Meriweather playing out of the box and shading towards Randy Moss. They better be double-covering him, or else they are manning Kyle Arrington up on Randy Moss and that simply can't end well.

Combine the Patriots doubling Moss with an intensive concentration on stopping Peterson in the front seven, and the Pats' strategy today seemed to be "we'll let Percy Harvin try to beat us." Which Harvin did, with a sweet slant route for 21 yards ... until he crumpled to the turf and was eventually carried off by two trainers with some sort of injury. Uh-oh.

Will Carroll: Looked like an ankle for Harvin, maybe his hip again. Not real clear on the replay.

Aaron Schatz: Just got announced here as an ankle injury.

Madieu Williams just tried to intercept a deep Brady pass to Brandon Tate. At first I thought it was similar to the Terrell Owens play from earlier today, where the Dolphins defender tipped it in the air trying to intercept and Owens came down with it. But on the replay, it looks like the ball literally went right through Williams' arms, barely touching his jersey, and then into the hands of Brandon Tate behind him, almost like a "throw the ball through the tire" drill. Wacky.

The Patriots' "Let Percy Harvin beat us" strategy seems to be working well for Percy Harvin, who came back into the game and is, in fact, beating the Patriots regularly. However, the Vikings made it up to fourth-and-goal and the Pats pushed back, especially on Phil Loadholt, to stop Peterson and end the first half 7-7.

With the Pats on offense, the Vikings don't look like they've changed their defense in the slightest from what they might do if Moss was still on the Pats. Everything is still basically a Cover-2 shell with either zone or man underneath. Talking to the other reporters, this is apparently VERY different from what San Diego did last week -- they really did bring the safeties much closer to the line because the threat of Moss was gone. I will say that anyone who suggested that defenses might double Wes Welker without Moss here was completely wrong. Not only is there no doubling of him whatsoever, but he doesn't even seem to be quite as involved in the offense now that Deion Branch, a somewhat similar player, is the other starting wideout.

Tom Gower: I can't decide who did a worse job on that long Brandon Tate touchdown: Asher Allen for getting roasted in the first place, or Madieu Williams for his utter failure to do anything effective after Tate beat Allen.

Aaron Schatz: Allen wasn't toasted. That play just totally broke down, and Brady had Ben Roethlisberger-like escapability to keep it alive. There's only so long you can expect a cornerback to stay on his man, and Madieu Williams just plain isn't fast enough to catch up to Brandon Tate once Tate catches that ball. The only people I think you can blame for that one are the Vikings pass rushers who broke down the pocket and just couldn't finish the job.

We enter the fourth quarter 21-10. The Patriots' young defense seems to clearly get better in the second half of games. I don't know if that is because they are younger and have more stamina, or because they "Get it" more as games go along, or because the coaches make "halftime adjustments," but it does seem to be the case and is again today.

Meanwhile, at what point do we have to wonder why the Vikings are so reticent to spread the field with multiple receivers? Everything is either is either 2-2-1 or 1-2-2. Bernard Berrian has only been in the game when Harvin was injured. Greg Camarillo has been in for like two snaps or something. We know the Pats do not have depth at defensive back. Why not go four-wide, or three-wide with Shiancoe flexed, and try to get the Pats to bring in Darius Butler or Jon Wilhite? Plus, you spread things out like that, now you create new and interesting lanes for Peterson to run in. It seems to me this is a defense you want to spread out against and get to those corners the same way the goal in baseball is to tire the starter and get to the crappy middle relievers. But the Vikings keep coming out with just the two wide receivers, and while Harvin has made plays, Randy Moss has ONE target so far this game and no catches. Favre is barely even looking at him.

Tim Gerheim: You realize you're arguing in favor of playing more of Bernard Berrian and Greg Camarillo, right? Minnesota has about as much depth at receiver as New England has in the secondary. Also, they may be trying to make sure they keep enough tight ends or backs in to ensure good protection for Favre and his ankle.

Aaron Schatz: Maybe I like Greg Camarillo more than you do. Anyway, they just brought in Berrian and went three-wide, so they're starting to get there.

And, by the way, it turns out my subjective vision of the Pats defense in the second half is completely wrong. The Pats actually are the worst defense in the league in the third quarter this year. The defense has played much better in the fourth quarter, except for Weeks 1-2.

Doug Farrar: It seems that on offense and defense, the theme you're coming up with is that the Vikings are not scheme-creative, and this puts more pressure on their personnel. I agree that they should start considering breaking out of those boxes -- you might also see some advantageous intermediate match-ups if both Harvin and Camarillo are playing slot roles and the Pats respond with a deep safety to address the threat of Moss.

Aaron Schatz: Brett Favre gets intentional grounding to make it third-and-13, so the Pats decide to throw in a corner blitz. For the first time all game, Randy Moss is not doubled. Throw to Moss? Ding ding ding! 24-yard defensive pass interference on Brandon Meriweather. So technically, Moss still has one catch for just eight yards. Technically.

Tim Gerheim: Is it just because I have Randy Moss in my fantasy league, or did it look on that long pass interference against Meriwether like Moss could still have caught the ball and scored if he had wanted to instead of looking for the flag as soon as the infraction occurred?

Tom Gower: I thought the issue with Moss on that long pass play was he lost track of the ball after the contact and couldn't re-locate it until it was too late.

Aaron Schatz: And ... Brett Favre goes off the field with a laceration when a hit after the pass causes his chinstrap to cut up his chin or something. The sad part is, Favre was probably enjoying his best performance of the year so far, and now the Vikings will need to have Tarvaris Jackson lead the comeback. He does the first part by completing a 1-yard pass to a wide-open Naufahu Tahi for a touchdown. 21-18.

Mike Tanier: After that third-and-12 conversion in the fourth quarter, I think I am becoming a Danny Woodhead believer.

Aaron Schatz: Someone in the press box called him the Great White Hope again. Sorry, we don't need to hope anymore. Woodhead just is. And what he is is the Great White Meggett.

Mike Tanier: He is methodone to Flutie heroin.

Aaron Schatz: I think you underestimate the power of the Flutie. Compared to Flutie, Woodhead is not methodone, he's like dipping your pinky in Twinkie filling.

Mike Tanier: I have been trick or treating all day, I have eaten nothing but Twix bars and beer. A Twinkie with frosting would rock my socks.

Doug Farrar: And yet, it's it equally obscure BenJarvus Green-Ellis who's ripping up the formerly impenetrable Vikings run defense.

Aaron Schatz: The improvement in Green-Ellis' field vision since he first showed up two years ago has been phenomenal. He really sees holes. The Pats are running clock now and Green-Ellis is twisting and turning through guys for five, six yards at a clip. This is not the undrafted free agent guy they were stuck playing in 2008 because of injuries.

Will Carroll: Some early reports that Favre has a broken jaw. I think that seems a bit much - they treated him AS IF he had one, but that's the smart play medically. I did see what looked to be some teeth, but at some point, the league might want to think about requiring good mouthpieces and chinstraps. If nothing else, it's visible.

Aaron Schatz: Randy Moss' post-game comments are crazy. He basically sounds like he realizes he makes a huge mistake forcing a trade and wishes he could undo it. He seriously disses the Vikings.

Vincent Verhei: You know, I was talking with a friend about where Moss would be next year, and I realized that I have no idea what makes that guy tick. I have no idea what he wants most -- money, glory, stats, fame, titles. Most guys I can guess what their biggest priority will be, but Moss is a complete mystery to me. Now I guess you can add a family environment to that list, although I still don't know where it goes on the totem pole.

Denver Broncos 16 vs. San Francisco 49ers 24 (in London)

Bill Barnwell: I am about 20 rows off the field in Wembley. Heavy pro-49ers crowd. Will give a few updates here and there.

The three people next to me all left halfway through the second quarter and are extremely doubtful to return.

Vincent Verhei: Frank Gore takes a pitch to the left, finds no room, and cuts back to the right where he is swallowed for no gain. I bring this up only because Troy Smith threw the block of the year after the cutback, catching a defensive lineman much bigger than him completely off guard, hitting him in the chest and putting him on his back.

Bill Barnwell: Tim Tebow's about to come in for the Broncos. Manny Lawson came clean on a twist and just leveled Kyle Orton, driving him into the ground. Blocking back that was in totally lost the plot and was off on the side lost in traffic.

A long touchdown for Jabar Gaffney on a flea-flicker is nullified by a Knowshon Moreno chop block. People in press box: "What's a chop block?"

Tim Gerheim: Bill, were you watching the receiver on that insane long pass to Delanie Walker that led to the San Francisco touchdown? (Also: Who the hell is Delanie Walker?) It looked like a wing and a prayer that somehow was a completion, but I'm wondering if the route improvisation that Troy Smith called for gave that a good chance to be complete, or if the defenders (Champ Bailey and Brian Dawkins) misplayed the ball in the air. As usual, I wish the TV coverage, at least the replays, would show what's going on downfield.

Bill Barnwell: Walker pushed off on Dawkins. Should have been OPI.

Vincent Verhei: Demaryius Thomas had a low Playmaker Score coming out of Georgia Tech and we discussed how his numbers were skewed by the triple option offense he played in. It looks like he is going to buck the system. He just had a long gain on a screen pass, breaking and dodging several tackles. Nobody that big should be that shifty.

Bill Barnwell: That was awful tackling. Spencer and Mays basically felt up Thomas.

Aaron Schatz: Delanie Walker is a tight end who never, ever plays tight end. Dude is always flexed out and often he's wide. If Champ Bailey isn't playing specifically on Michael Crabtree, I'm not sure how you end up throwing four passes to Walker and only one to Crabtree ...

Bill Barnwell: Well, there's your Crabtree. The 49ers score after an awful Broncos punt and two passes to Crabtree. One was a nice 13-yard out against Champ Bailey where Bailey was slow turning his hips. The second was one-on-one versus Andre Goodman, and Goodman was just lost. He never looked back for the ball; the first time he saw it was when Crabtree was catching it.

Aaron Schatz: I saw that one on red zone. It looked like a dismayed Goodman was trying to slap the ball out of Crabtree's hands like ARod with Bronson Arroyo in the 2004 ALCS. More pathetic-looking, but at least in football, legal.

Vincent Verhei: The Walker catch looked more like a horrible decision with a lucky break than anything else. I don't want to credit Smith with anything positive there. As for who Delanie Walker is, he's a great athlete who makes a poor football player. The 49ers have tried him at wide receiver, tight end, and fullback without much success. I think They've tried him at kick returner too.

Bill Barnwell: 49ers love those guys. (See: Robinson, Michael).

Tim Gerheim: Aaron, since you've crapped on Brandon Lloyd as a guy who's eventually going to show himself as an asshole and alienate his team mates, do you at some point have to say he's not going to turn back into a pumpkin? He's the Broncos' best receiver until Demaryius Thomas puts it all together, and he has been for weeks. (I'm not trying to call you out; I just don't recall anyone else saying anything more specific about him than that he's been a bust everywhere he's been until now.)

Bill Barnwell: Touchdown pass to him was an isolation against Will James. Will James one-on-one versus anyone is a bad matchup. (Not saying you're wrong.)

Aaron Schatz: Well, it has always been because of his attitude, and I honestly have no idea if his attitude really has suddenly changed or not. As I often say, if I understood what was going through some of these guys' heads, the site wouldn't be called Football Outsiders, it would be called Football Psychologists.

Tom Gower: Lloyd's other problem has been terrible inconsistency. He'll have 2 of the 5 best catches and 2 of the 5 worst drops in the league if he gets enough targets.

Mike Tanier: My theory on Brandon Lloyd is that he is an Eddie Kennison-type who has figured out the mistakes of his early career and is now more committed and ready to be productive in a specific role. Back to begging for candy.

Bill Barnwell: OK. After Matt Prater shanks an XP and the 49ers go three-and-out, the Broncos return the punt for a touchdown .. but it's called back for a block in the back. Orton gets sacked two plays later ... and Ahmad Brooks is rightly called for a shot to the head on the sack. Now the Broncos are driving throwing exclusively to Lloyd, who is being covered by Will James. Neither of these teams deserves anything.

Washington Redskins 25 at Detroit Lions 37

Doug Farrar: Donovan McNabb is the early leader for this week's Life Alert award -- he fell down for one sack, and Kyle Vanden Bosch got him for another in the first quarter.

Doug Farrar: And another trip/slip for Mac5. What's the deal with this field?

Doug Farrar: DeAngelo Hall is officially en fuego. Matthew Stafford throws to Calvin Johnson in the end zone in the first quarter, and while the ball should have been about a foot higher where only Megatron could have caught it, Hall made a great play on the pick.

Doug Farrar: Heh. Kitna's third pick would have been his fault, but it was called back. Defensive holding, it seems.

Doug Farrar: In the "Holy f---ing S--t" Department: Ndamukong Suh sacked McNabb on consecutive plays in the second quarter. A rookie defensive tackle with 6.5 sacks, and we're not even done with Week 8. Turning double teams into mush. I have never written so favorably about a draft prospect in my life, and he's exceeding my expectations.

Tom Gower: The Redskins stuff the Lions on third-and-1 inside the 10, then get called for encroachment on the field goal attempt. Stafford promptly cashes in with a touchdown pass to Brandon Pettigrew. The Pettigrew touchdown pass reminds me of one of my pet peeves: Why are defenders so content to play the back of a receiver in the end zone and let the quarterback have a target who's looking at him?

Rex Grossman comes in with the Redskins down 31-25 with less than two minutes to play, and is immediately sacked, fumbles, and the fumble is picked up by Mr. Suh and returned for a score. Gee, nobody ever could have predicted that.

OK, Mike Shanahan says in his postgame comments he put in Rex Grossman for the final drive because Rex knew the two-minute offense better than McNabb, and that Donovan was fine with him playing Rex. I think I know who the Minnesota Vikings' starting quarterback next year is likely to be.

Mike Tanier: So Rex Grossman gives the Redskins the best chance to lead a two-minute drill, according to Mike Shanahan. I don't know what to say about that, except that McNabb got benched and I don't have to live it all week.

Green Bay Packers 9 at New York Jets 0

Tom Gower: Rather than run the game's sixth-straight punt to open the contest, Rex Ryan called for a fake punt. On fourth-and-18 from his own 20. It was close -- the officials initially gave it to them, but after McCarthy's challenge, Weatherford was properly ruled out at the 37 and one Jennings completion later the Packers were inside the 5.

Doug Farrar: I'd expect nothing less from Mike Westhoff, the man who invented the onside kick (well, not really).

Vincent Verhei: Packers kick a field goal after the failed fake punt. There have been seven possessions in that game, and I believe three total first downs. Why, in such a field-position oriented game, would Rex Ryan of all people call that fake? Very bizarre.

Aaron Schatz: I don't think it is that crazy. It's a big risk-reward play but remember, the Jets call more fake punts than any other team. They've got Brad Smith as the upback and Steve Weatherford, the punter, is a former high school decathlete. Plus, they probably read Walkthrough his week.

Vincent Verhei: It was not a fourth-and-5 at midfield. It was fourth-and-18 deep in their own territory. The upside is that you have a first down well on your side of the field and likely end up punting anyway. The downside is that you hand the Packers a field goal when they could do almost nothing against your defense previously. The more I think about this the more I move from "that was bizarre" to "that was horrifically stupid."

Aaron Schatz: Fourth-and-18? OK, I'll go with crazy, then.

Tim Gerheim: The commentators in Jets-Packers are doing a good job of watching how Revis is lining up. In the first half he was playing outside on one side of the field, not matching up with any particular receiver, and in the second half he's been matching up with Greg Jennings. Unless you want to preserve the opportunity for your corners to blitz from the side they're familiar with, or you play a two-deep type zone, I don't really understand why you would locate your corners, rather than let them match up with a receiver, at least most of the time. Seems like it would improve your ability to use film to prepare for their tendencies and general usage patterns.

Jennings has also been having trouble locating and adjusting to the ball in the air. There have been two fairly long outside passes to him that I've seen where he seemed to have a good chance to get to the ball but failed to. The first one may have just been a good play by the defender in coverage, but it looked like Jennings picked up the ball late and wasn't able to time his jump right. The second he had a step on the defender and the pass was thrown to lead him downfield, but he seemed to turn the wrong way as the ball was in the air, and he couldn't recover in time to catch up with the throw.

Aaron Schatz: OK, you are Rex Ryan, losing 6-0. Mark Sanchez is sacked to make it fourth-and-11 from something around your own 20 with 3:03 to go. You have no timeouts left. Do you go for it on fourth-and-11 in a last-gasp effort? Or do you punt the ball and hope to stop the other offense. It seems like you go for it, but thinking about it ... If you punt it, the other team will get the ball back around 3:00. Each run will take about 35 seconds off the clock, plus you have the 2-minute warning, so if the defense does its job, you will end up with the Packers punting back to you with about 1:20 left. Which is easier: Converting fourth-and-11, or going 80 yards in 1:20 with no timeouts, but starting with a first down again?

Carolina Panthers 10 at St. Louis Rams 20

Bill Barnwell: As someone just noted on Twitter ... Sam Bradford is currently 12-of-15 for 58 yards.

Doug Farrar: My name is Trent Edwards, and I approved this message.

Tom Gower: Sam Bradford just hit Laurent Robinson for a 16-yard gain. That was his 16th completion, and the first more than 9 yards downfield. I refer you to my Audibles comment from earlier this season about how "deep" in the Rams offense is anything more than 15 yards downfield. They simply can't threaten teams downfield, especially with Danario Alexander on the shelf. Damn if Bradford isn't incredibly, incredibly accurate though, and he's also throwing with some anticipation-on the touchdown (completion No. 18), he recognized Amendola would be open quickly and threw the ball before he'd even begin to turn.

Doug Farrar: All kidding aside, I'll give Bradford credit for understanding the situation. Rookie quarterback on a bad-but-improving team, and he's down to his seventh-, 12th, and 29th-string receivers. A lot of guys in his shoes would try to do too much.

Jacksonville Jaguars 35 at Dallas Cowboys 17

Doug Farrar: We need to find a way to "credit" interceptions to other position players. Jon Kitna's first two picks were absolutely not his fault -- there was a bobble by Felix Jones that was picked by Terrance "Pot Roast" Knighton, and
another that bounced off Miles Austin and into the hands of Derek Cox.

Aaron Schatz: Actually, we do have in the charting where INT can have "Dropped" as the reason for incomplete, where the ball bounces off a guy's hands. But that still doesn't take care of interceptions where the receiver runs the wrong route like an idiot.

Then again, a lot of those tipped interceptions are not dropped passes but overthrown passes that the receiver leaps to try to catch.

Bill Barnwell: I don't think that's really fair. We don't give a cornerback "credit" for a long completion when he blows coverage and take it away from the quarterback. You get some breaks, some go against you.

Tom Gower: After Barber gets stuffed at the goal line on third-and-goal, the Cowboys elect with nine seconds left to play in the first half, to pass up the field goal down 14-3 in favor of going for it. It's another handoff for Barber, who runs into Kitna getting the ball, then gets stood up by Daryl Smith at the goal line and can't make it in despite the second effort. The -and-goal situation was set up by a fantastic diving catch by Dez Bryant.

Aaron Schatz: All the offensive linemen were pushed back on that play. Smith was originally on the second level in case of a pass, and had made it past the offensive line by the time Barber even got there.

Bill Barnwell: I'm OK with the decision to go for it there against the Jaguars rush defense down 11.

Aaron Schatz: Oh, right decision, definitely, and honestly, good play call. Just awful execution.

Doug Farrar: You have GOT to be kidding me. 10:56 left in the third quarter: A Jon Kitna pass bounces right off the hands of Roy Williams into the arms of Derek Cox. This was a perfect lob right to Williams in a little zone pouch. These are perfectly good passes that are being wasted. That's three!

Doug Farrar: Halfway through the third quarter, the Jaguars go up, 27-3, on a touchdown pass to Marcedes Lewis in which Lewis is single-covered by Keith Brooking. Seriously. The 300 people left in Jerry World are chanting, "Let's Go, Rangers!"

Buffalo Bills 10 at Kansas City Chiefs 13

Aaron Schatz: I just went to look and try to figure out how on earth Buffalo-Kansas City is 0-0 despite KC having 100 more yards than Buffalo. Apparently, after a long first-quarter drive, the Chiefs punted from fourth-and-8 on the Buffalo 33. I repeat. PUNTED FROM THE BUFFALO 33. Are the winds that bad that you don't want to have Ryan Succop try a 51-yard field goal? And even so, why not go for it? Instead, Dustin Colquitt put it in the end zone for a touchback and 13 fabulous yards of field position. Yay, Todd Haley.

Bill Barnwell: KC's actually been really good about going for it on fourth-and-short, although they just punted on fourth-and-1 from midfield.

Manny Lawson just cost himself a sack with a facemask on Kyle Orton. This game is just as bad as everyone involved with the league hoped it wouldn't be.

Tom Gower: It looks like the Bills are driving for a potential game-winning field goal, then on the edge of field goal range Ryan Fitzpatrick has a ball slip out of his hands and go straight to Eric Berry, far from any receiver. Matt Cassel gets sacked, and we're headed to overtime.

Tom Gower: Rian Lindell hits from 53 yards in overtime, only Todd Haley had called a timeout before the kick. After the timeout, Lindell misses. The Chiefs drive down, but Succop puts it wide left from 39. We're 3:38 away from a tie game, and it's feeling quite possible.

Miami Dolphins 22 at Cincinnati Bengals 14

Doug Farrar: Carson Palmer throws to T.O., and Chris Clemons has an intercept ... Oh, no he didn't! He bobbles the ball into Owens' hands and it's a touchdown.

Tennessee Titans 25 at San Diego Chargers 33

Tom Gower: The Chargers go three-and-out and drop back to punt. Being The 2010 San Diego Super Chargers Special Teams, the Titans now lead 2-0.

Aaron Schatz: I believe this movie is called "Mike Scifres in the Ninth Circle of Hell."

Mike Tanier: Did the Chargers just have another kick blocked?

Vincent Verhei: Yes, the Chargers have another punt blocked, this one for a safety. They have tied the record for STDs (see Any Given Sunday, Raiders over Chargers) and the season is not yet half over.

Also, I'm sitting at a table with three guys discussing black holes and dark matter. It's like having lunch with three Gregg Easterbrooks.

Tom Gower: Kenny Britt goes down with a probable right hamstring injury after just failing to haul in a deep pass from Vince Young when he was a couple yards clear 40 yards downfield. No matter, VY the next play hits Jared Cook on sideline pattern where Cook used his physical ability to run away from the linebacker. I'm not a big fan of Fouts as a commenter, but he is useful for pointing out uncalled DB contact-Cason on Britt's play, then Jammer on Damian Williams the play after the Cook completion.

Before this drive, the Chargers methodically marched straight down the field, primarily getting their yardage on short to medium passes. I think it was on the Matchup show this morning (might've been Playbook) that they showed the Titans singled up Will Witherspoon on the opposing TE in crunch time. I'm sure there's a good reason they don't do that regularly.

Chris Johnson had a 29 yard run where he probably ran 75 yards. The play design was to go right, and he went right, found no space, danced, then cut back across the field, almost got pushed out of bounds on the left sideline, got a block from VY about 18 yards downfield, and made it into the end zone. A great play by CJ, but some horrific work by the Chargers in terms of pursuit and tackling.

Jason McCourty picks Rivers at the close of the first half, as Rivers tries to finally hit something deep against what looks like zone coverage. McCourty grabs the ball with about :11 left and decides to try to break the return instead of getting what he can and going down. He manages to burn :09 and get 11 yards to very long (maybe 63) field-goal range, then a block in the back pushes the Titans back even further. Very frustrating.

Kenny Britt was apparently carted to the locker room from the sidelines with what was confirmed to be a right hamstring injury. The Titans have nonetheless been throwing the ball downfield with some success, as VY has 7 completions for 150 yards and could easily have two more 40+ yard completions.

Well, OK, considering Antonio Gates just burned him for a 48-yard touchdown, maybe singling Will Witherspoon on the opposing team's top TE isn't a recipe for surefire success. That was a five-play, 91-yard drive for the Chargers that was almost a disaster-Michael Griffin was called for grabbing Antonio Gates' jersey on 3&6 to negate his own pick-6 after he used the leverage to undercut the ball. The other big play on the drive was a 36-yard outside gallop by Mike Tolbert, which was about as ungainly as you'd expect from that description. I think rookie corner Alterraun Verner was supposed to have outside contain and blew it, and I know Tolbert ran him over at the end of the play.

The Titans have now gone three-and-out, four-and-out, and three-and-out in the second half. Credit to San Diego's D for getting off the field on third down, but VY hasn't been entirely sharp either.

VY hits Nate Washington for a 71-yard score after Cason and Weddle both decide to take the same guy and neither bothers to follow Washington. The 2-pt conversion play was another candidate for "burn this play"-an ugly swing pass for CJ.

Tennessee special-teamer Donnie Nickey just got tossed for punching an official (by accident) as part of the wrangling after the kickoff.

The San Diego Super Chargers 2010 Special Teams Adventure continues, as they blow the XP to leave it a one score game at 33-25.

VY scrambles and goes down awkwardly, then immediately grabs his left ankle area, so he may have aggravated his existing left ankle injury. Fouts immediately claims Achilles injury.

The Titans back the Chargers up to their own 1 after a punt, then the Titans are flagged for what's called offsides. After announcing the offsides call, the ref confers with his compadres and properly changes the call to a false start. Something you don't see every day there. The Titans nearly get their second safety of the game the next play, as Hester just barely gets out of the end zone on a pass to the flat.

Kerry Collins is unable to lead the Titans' to a game-tying score, and the Chargers come away with the victory. CBS credits the Titans with six dropped passes, the last of which came when CJ was unable to haul in a pass from Collins on 4&2 at the 15. Yes, VY is still the best option at QB in Tennessee.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 38 at Arizona Cardinals 35

David Gardner: The Bucs aren't able to cover any Arizona receivers, but that's OK -- Arizona doesn't have a quarterback who can complete passes to them.

As I write that, Cody Grimm falls down in coverage biting on a playfake and leaving Larry Fitzgerald wide open for the touchdown.

By the way, you have to love every time Fitzgerald catches a touchdown because he is donating $5,000 to breast cancer research for each.

Max Hall just missed a handoff and got sacked for a loss of five. Growing pains.

... And then threw a pick-6 to Geno Hayes.

Aaron Schatz: Ooo ... This is the long-awaited Geno Hayes-Gerald Hayes deathmatch!

David Gardner: Mike Williams and Josh Freeman continue to show off their great chemistry on a deep touchdown pass.

Aqib Talib just added a pick-6 for the Bucs. He bated Hall into throwing an out route and jumped in front of Steve Breaston. And Derek Anderson is warming up.

Derek Anderson came into the game and got the Cardinals down to the 4-yard line before Breaston dropped a touchdown pass in the end zone.

Doug Farrar: A drop compounded by the fact that Anderson threw the ball off the helmet of one of his offensive linemen. There is no Max Hall or Derek Anderson. There is just "Arizona Quarterback."

Tim Gerheim: That's not fair. It's true in 2010, but Warner was obviously Warner, not Arizona Quarterback. Jake Plummer was unique, and there were only a few years of wandering in the desert between the two. Saying that is really an insult to Chicago QB; that situation is one of a kind.

Mike Tanier: How much worse would Leinart have been than their current situation? Or how much better?

Aaron Schatz: The difference is that we don't know. With Leinart we didn't know, and let's be honest, with Hall, there's the possibility he'll develop, so we don't fully know. With Anderson, we know, and we've always known, and that's what makes the decision to a) start him from the beginning of the year and b) go back to him today so damn head-scratching.

Tom Gower: I'm pretty sure that with Matt Leinart we already do know, and that Leinart would not have been clearly better as a short-term option and we already know his long-term future is limited, but I already sent you that email.

Arizona has to answer, I think, two questions:

1. Why did you not make a serious effort to acquire a better quarterback in the offseason? Moot right now.
2. How do you best find out if Max Hall can be a competent NFL quarterback? I think the lesson of the two pick-6's to Whisenhunt was that he's not ready enough to the point where he's seriously hurting the team. In that case, you play Derek Anderson even though Derek Anderson is a known really mediocre quantity.

Tom Gower: Our Hayes Touchdown Battle is now tied at one, as Gerald recovers a LeGarrette Blount fumble and returns it to match Geno's pick-6 from earlier in the game.

Aaron Schatz: I may have to stand corrected, as Derek Anderson seems to be bringing Arizona back against the Bucs.

Mike Tanier: Anderson has always been good at random hot streaks.

Aaron Schatz: I'm don't generally have a problem with alternate uniforms, but the Cardinals wearing uniforms that have almost no red on them whatsoever is a little strange.

David Gardner: Geno Hayes just laid a lick on Steve Breaston, who dropped it. Then Barrett Ruud came in and picked it off. Unbelievable awareness by Ruud. Tough day for Breaston.

Tim Gerheim: That pass was for Stephens-Howling, not Breaston.

David Gardner: My bad. Down 38-35, Derek Anderson had the Cardinals down in the Bucs' red zone with just a little more than two minutes left. Anderson then threw into triple coverage. Interception by Aqib Talib. The next play, LeGarrette Blount got hit in the backfield then spun out and broke off a 45-yard run. Brian Billick said, "I won't even say a word. You have got to come back and see this again, folks."

Aaron Schatz: Remember when the projection system spit out an 8-8 mean projection for the Bucs and I couldn't figure out what was going on because it was just a lot of little factors adding up and nothing obvious? They're going to be 5-2 here and I still can't figure out what's going on other than an easy schedule.

Tom Gower: Passing game, particularly the improvement of Josh Freeman and addition of Mike Williams. It's 20 percent better than it was last year in DVOA terms. I'm not in love with him like I am with Bradford, but Freeman's far ahead of where I thought he'd be in terms of learning curve.

Seattle Seahawks 3 at Oakland Raiders 33

Vincent Verhei: On fourth-and-1, Raiders line up with one receiver, and that receiver is Marcel Reese, a fullback who played receiver in college. (How did SF miss this guy?) He runs a perfect slant, catches the ball for a first down, the Seahawks miss some tackles, and the Raiders are up 10-0.

Ensuing possession, Seattle goes three-and-out -- for the fifth time in fifth drives.

At the start of the fourth quarter, the Seahawks have just over 100 yards of offense, five total first downs, and they're 0-for-10 on third down. I'm not surprised to see the offensive line manhandled, but the wide receivers have been manhandled too -- they have four catches, total. Darrius Heyward-Bey has that many by himself. Oakland's defensive backs are just crushing them.

Doug Farrar: The Raiders scouted those defensive back blitzes Pete Carroll loves very well -- they have been blowing open lanes all day when the Seahawks have gone with those calls.

Vincent Verhei: Seahawks are down to undrafted rookie Nate Ness at corner. Heyward-Bey promptly gets a 69-yard touchdown. How is Josh Wilson doing in Baltimore?

Oh, and now Tyler Polumbus, in for the injured Russell Okung, is down on his back. Wonderful.

Vincent Verhei: Nnamdi Asomugha gets his feet tangled with Golden Tate and goes down grabbing his ankle on agony. He is carried to the bench. That sucks.

Bill Barnwell: Seahawks are 1-of-15 in converting third downs.

Pittsburgh Steelers 10 at New Orleans Saints 20

Aaron Schatz: Did these teams forget to bring their offenses this evening?

Mike Tanier: So, do they just give the Steelers a touchdown every time they get inside the five at this point?

Doug Farrar: Wow -- Pete Morelli just totally screwed up that challenge by saying the no-touchdown ruling stood. Ball was short, but it's hard to believe that he couldn't remember that the original ruling was a touchdown.

By the way, Pete Morelli was the same ref who overturned the Polamalu interception in the 2005 divisional game against the Colts. So, there's yinz conspiracy theory, Steelers fans.

Mike Tanier: Its hard to believe how often the Steelers get that premature touchdown call. Can the league make Steelers touchdowns a point of emphasis this week? Can they remind the referees that the ball has to cross the plane in the player's possession, even if that player is wearing black and gold? Sure, this play was called properly, and it resulted in a field goal instead of a touchdown. But we wouldn't want another game to come down to one of these oddball calls.

Posted by: David Gardner on 01 Nov 2010

160 comments, Last at 03 Nov 2010, 8:11pm by Andrew Potter

Comments

1
by jimm (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:17am

Aaron Schatz - "Meanwhile, at what point do we have to wonder why the Vikings are so reticent to spread the field with multiple receivers? Everything is either is either 2-2-1 or 1-2-2."

I suspect they are scared that their line will not hold up and Favre will get killed.

128
by zlionsfan :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 8:26pm

I think part of it is that Favre doesn't trust any of the other guys to catch the ball. I think Camarillo dropped a couple of passes in the Detroit game (although the ESPN box score says he caught both passes intended for him), or at least at some point early this season, and after that, he was dead to Favre.

3
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:27am

I'm surprised there's no mention of the weird calls on the two GB interceptions that more or less decided the game - they looked exactly like catches with the receiver coming down to the ground with the ball caught between the two players, then a split-second later the DB ripped it out of the their hands decisively. I've never seen that called as an interception and they did it twice, even after the review.

The strangest part though was they brought up Mike Peirera via satellite to explain what the refs were seeing and his explanation made absolutely no sense. It was a sputtering, confused, mess that seemed to contradict itself. I'd love for some to put that clip on youtube because it was hilariously mangled...

They also overturned a very disputable spot on the 4th and 18 punt fake that I have never seen get over-turned. Like I've never seen a spot get moved significantly, even in situations where the evidence is far clearer (like Manningham's non-conversion in NG vs. Dallas last week)

11
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:41am

I thought both of those plays were pretty much impossible to rule on even with replay.

16
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:56am

I agree they were close - but I have never seen the receiver get anything other than a heavy benefit of the doubt in close cases and, indeed, the rules are written to give receivers benefit of the doubt (disputed possession goes to the WR as a catch - and the play is over when the reach the ground.) I was more shocked by Peirera's utterly incoherent explanation - seriously, it made no sense and the dude sputtered like a guy caught having dinner with a young lady who isn't his wife...

104
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:40pm

I agree (FWIW they looked like interceptions to me). I also thought they absolutely made the correct call on re-spotting the fake punt play.

14
by Flounder :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:46am

I thought watching it that the Tramon Williams play was clearly and INT, and the Woodson play clearly was not. But the Jets had used their challenges, so too bad, so sad :)

22
by Mike W :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:11am

I agree completely - first one was an INT, second one was a gift to GB. And the refs did make the correct call on the fake punt play, and Pereira explained the use of two camera angles perfectly.

73
by Mike B (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:14pm

Actually, I thought quite the opposite - the Williams interception was a disputed possession that Williams stole once they were both on the ground. The Woodson INT was an extension of "must maintain possession all the way to the ground" rule, because the ball was not in control when he landed. It's true the ball is dead when he hits the ground and is touched, but *only* if he has established possession when he does. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I'm the only one who sees it this way...

81
by Mike W :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:43pm

You may be right on both counts. I felt Williams had the ball when they hit the ground. The tie-goes-to-the-offense rule is another example of a rule that isn't necessary with the advent of replay. It's there to give referees an out when the play is too close to call. Pereira mumbled something along the lines of this play being like a scrum fighting for a fumble, which is incompatible with the above rule, so I don't know what is true to the rules. I felt Williams had a better claim to the ball. I didn't see a loss of control by the receiver on Woodson's INT, but if that was the case, then yeah, easy INT.

Save some crazy pills for me.

83
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:46pm

I actually agree with the Mikes. That's what made Peirera's "interpretation" so weird - it's like he wasn't talking about what had happened. At all. And realized he was talking out of his ass after a few moments. It made him seem like he didn't know the rules and, on top of it, didn't know how to interpret the new made-up rules he had just decided to apply to the situation.

44
by Jetspete :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:58am

i like your assessment, Mike Peirera rarely makes any sense and agrees with the refs something like 132% of the time. My problem is replay was never meant to overturn the weatherford puntrun (when you need to piece together multiple camera angles) or the stripped catch calls. Replay should be used to determine whether the ref made an egregious error in judgment based on what he saw (ie the ref ruling vinny testeverdes helmet crossing the goal line a touchdown)! It is also great for plays in which the ref is out of position such as catching a ball when going to the ground. I am a firm believer the camera plays tricks when youre trying to determine plays to the smallest degree of error.

that said, this Jet game was lost because of inexplicable drops by the receivers and an almost never seen holding call on Nick Mangold. Defense played really well, GB was only 2-14 on third down.

and also to the discussion on end of game situation, Rex Ryan is sneaky awful at clock management. He got away with it the last two games, this one not so much

47
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:03pm

Pereira did disagree with the officals on the Williams interception (I didn't see him speak regarding the Woodson one). He said that it should have been a simultaneous catch, but that that's unfortunately not reviewable. The review was whether the Jet was "down by contact" after possessing the ball, and, based on the call on the field that the Packer was in possession, there was no evidence to overturn.

(I also disagree with you on the purpose of replay; I have no problem with the referee using multiple camera angles to piece together a solution. But I understand this is probably a preference, so I won't say you're wrong.)

58
by Jetspete :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:28pm

good points, usually whenever perreira wants to disagree with a call he always adds a qualifier. like two weeks ago, he admitted the jim leonhard hit should not have been flagged, but then said the ref did his job in that when in doubt you are supposed to throw the flag. I guess i'm more of a black and white guy, in that there should usually be a right call or a wrong call, or a call that can or cannot be overturned. That said i understand the other side of the argument

84
by Jon Silverberg (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:46pm

Yeah, I have to assume Pereira knows whereof he speaks when it comes to what's reviewable...which is why all the sturm und drang about Ryan using up his challenges and therefore being unable to overturn the Woodson call is neither here nor there...if Ryan had somehow known that "whose possession" calls are not reviewable, and therefore, hadn't thrown his second red hanky in the first half, he couldn't have used it on the Woodson call in the second half, either...I thought the receiver was clearly down before the ball was taken away in both cases, and, if such calls are not reviewable, like a killer PI call, it's another example of how flawed the review rules are, because such calls are among the most important plays in a game...

105
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:44pm

Don't forget the fake punt call - that contributed as much to the loss as any other play, and has to be a top-3 worst coaching decision of the year to date.

154
by Tracing plan (not verified) :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 7:10pm

That play is totally overrated. They netted 17 1/2 yards on that play. The average net punt goes for 35ish. So it cost 17 yards on average. Add 17 to the 20 yard field goal they kicked and you have...a 37 yard field goal which they likely make.

2
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:25am

"and Madieu Williams just plain isn't fast enough to catch up to Brandon Tate once Tate catches that ball"

Tate reminds me a bit of Moss, in his speed. He doesn't look like hes moving all that fast, but he blows by people if there's an opening. Big long strides.

I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that Favre is concussed. You don't need help walking off the field for a cut chin. Getting hit in the chin is a pretty common way to get knocked out in boxing.

5
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:28am

He looked so old and helpless on the cart taking him into the locker room. I felt bad for him - he really looked like an old man who probably shouldn't be doing this shit anymore...

8
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:35am

Yeah, was kind of sad (and I hate the guy)with him curled up in the fetal position and rocking back and forth.

9
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:36am

Exactly - it was really a "why is he doing this to himself?" moment that just felt so ugly.

18
by Rick C. (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:03am

$$$

26
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:13am

I guess. It's always weird to me when multi-mega-millionaires decide to destroy themselves for a little more money. And he's just getting destroyed this year - did he really need more money? I mean, he probably gets all the jeans he wants for free.

75
by rfh1001 :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:20pm

Or because he's still good at it, his entire self-definition is bound up in being an NFL QB, and he'll be retired forever. I'm a comparatively crappy 37 year-old field hockey player with much less self-definition bound up in playing competitive sport, whose knees and back are disintegrating and I can't give up playing at the highest level I can, even though it's pretty much certain to lead to long-term problems.

79
by Will Allen :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:36pm

Yeah, I doubt money is the primary motivator, although he's certainly motivated to try to squeeze every last nickel out any team which employs him. I'd say it is more likely that the guy is an adrenalin junkie, and he knows he'll never again get the fix he gets jolted with 16 or more times a year, once he retires.

85
by Mike W :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:49pm

Jeez, guys, Favre's been ramping up the drama and self-glorifying comments far beyond his normal level. His behavior in that area hasn't been bad at all until recently (remember his comments when he broke all Marino's records), but lately it's approached Donald Trump/Reggie Jackson-level cravenness. I think it's very clear he's playing because he needs the attention and can't bear being a mostly forgotten-about private citizen.

89
by ChaosOnion :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:08pm

I think this support my hypothesis: We are all bearing witness to the real-time mental disintegration of a football players mind/brain. If anyone has cumulative concussive disorder, it is Favre. At times during games he is punch drunk and at others he is classic Favre. The questionable behavior, the grandstanding and the pity party, they are all measures of lack of self control.

I state this with no intention of providing an excuse for his or any other football players actions.

77
by B :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:33pm

It's a cliche, but in this case I don't think it's about the money for Favre. I think in his case, he really likes being the center of attention, and once he actually retires for real, he won't get that any more.

152
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 4:44pm

Well, he DOES have to buy an "I'm sorry honey" diamond for the wife over the whole text thing. Can't pay for that with the last of the Wrangler money.

48
by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:04pm

Farve's chin is exhibit 1.3 million why putting padding on the OUTSIDE of helmets is a good idea. Not having a rock hard weapon on top of everyone's head would reduce all kinds of injuries. Naw, f-it, we need helmets to look shiny and cool!

113
by Whatev :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:26pm

Man, if looking cool is more important to you than keeping your brains from turning to mush, your brains must ALREADY be mush.

117
by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:47pm

Sarcasim dude. Thats why I said padding should be on the outside of the helmet.

12
by P (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:43am

IIRC, Williams didn't have to "catch" Tate, but Tate blew by him while he stood there doing nothing.

24
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:12am

Williams was about 15 yards downfield. As soon as Tate caught the ball, he started heading towards the opposite sideline. The sideline was further away than the endzone... there was no way Williams was going be able to keep Tate from turning the corner on him.

Williams only option was to force him to go outside and hope someone else could catch him coming from the other side of the field. It didn't happen.

43
by BucNasty :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:57am

He didn't just stand there, he danced a little jig.

62
by RickD :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:44pm

Agree that Favre probably had a concussion. Like you say, a blow to the chin is a great way to get one of those. And while I haven't had a concussion myself, I have had some bleeding cuts in the head, including one where I flew off the front of my bicycle and landed on my face. Lots of blood but no need to have people helping me stand up.
When I heard "laceration" I was sure Favre would be bandaged and back in the game. Even 8 stitches wouldn't take that long to do. So yeah, he was hit with a few hundred pounds of force to the jaw, and he probably saw his brain bounce around inside the skull a little bit.

4
by Flounder :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:27am

Three comments about the GB game:

1) Fantastic, fantastic job by the GB punter.

2) The move Matthews pulled out for the sack at the end of the game was just sick. The speed and power with which he made that spin move was amazing.

3) Tramon Williams is making himself a huge amount of money. He's playing at a pro-bowl level.

7
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:29am

Yeah, the GB punter was booming them - to a point I thought he had the wind at his back initially, but then became confused as to which way the wind was blowing at all because his kicks were so great in either direction.

6
by bigtencrazy (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:29am

Agree with jimm. Loadholt is a turnstile out there and only looks competent if the refs 'let the teams play'. He regularly holds, hands to the face, and will pull a guy down by the facemask.

Loadholt is a good run-blocker which is why he keeps a job. But in pass protection against anyone decent he's a joke.

10
by jimm (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:37am

I think Favre's lack of mobility makes the Viking offensive line look worse than it is.

The Viking schedule gets softer from here but road games in Wash, Phil, Det, Chic and home to NYG suggests the odds are very long that they will make the playoffs.

The offence is coming around but they are so conservative in the red zone they are losing games not being able to convert. I think most of that is a result of their fear of Favre taking a sack or throwing a stupid int.

On the defensive side - Jared Allen has gone for great or very good to downright awful. On the key 3rd and 12 that NE converted on their last TD drive, Allen was blocked one on one by a TE and he was wiped out. He's invisible in the pass rush. Teams don't even bother chipping him. All their attention is in the middle with K. Williams and some time with Ray Edwards. Allen doesn't deserve the full time reps he's getting based on his play this season. He might not even deserve to be starting based on this years body of work.

13
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:44am

"On the key 3rd and 12 that NE converted on their last TD drive, Allen was blocked one on one by a TE and he was wiped out. "

That play did look bad, but Alge Crumpler isn't really a TE anymore. He's an eligible lineman.

15
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:47am

didn't know who it was, but even if Crumpler is essentially a lineman - no one schemes a play that way unless they aren't worried about the rusher much. It's clear in the last two games GB and NE did not fear Allen at all.

28
by Independent George :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:15am

I knew he shouldn't have shaved the mullet.

21
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:10am

Tarvaris Jackson in mop up for Favre

27 attempts, 66.7%, 2TDs, zero ints

Toss in his 08 season and you get

176 attempts, 60.2%, 11TDs, 2 ints.

92
by giraffesturbation (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:14pm

27 attempts, 66.7%, 2TDs, zero ints*

*against one of the league's worst pass defenses. And the only pass he completed that wasn't against a prevent defense was his 1 yd td pass to a full back with enough time and room around him for a Baptist bbq.

106
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:51pm

Well actually - the two point conversion pass was quite well done - just doesn't count in the stats.

I don't think there is much you can tell from anything he did over the last two seasons because he's hardly played. But I think it's interesting that he posted a 10.8 DVOA in 08 when the other QB (Frerotte) put up a -10.0 DVOA.

Also, I never really understood the hate on people have for Jackson. He put up better numbers every year. They weren't great numbers but take a look at what he was playing with on offence.

Personally I find it depressing to watch Brett Favre play now. It's like watching a once great over the hill boxer taking a whipping - like Holmes pounding on Ali.

I think the Vikings should sit Favre down - give him a concussion excuse and let him bow out gracefully if he wants. Favre won't do that of course and I doubt Childress has the strength of character to admit his mistake and bench him, but I think it would be the right move on two fronts:

1) Favre is done and Jackson or any other middling QB would be an improvement, and

2) Your playoff chances are about 10% at best, and you have no QB under contract next year save for Webb. You need to find out if Jackson has improved to the point you sign him as your starter for next season.

I sure as hell don't want Donovan McNabb.

17
by ammek :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:03am

The Packers lost a couple of unlucky games in overtime, and now they've won a couple with a fair bit of luck. Obviously, outside of FO, luck goes by the name of 'moxie', and the Packers have now found theirs (though quite where it had been hidden, I'm not sure).

Although they were lucky (with the picks, the opponent's drops and a missed field goal) the defensive scheme was outstanding, given that they were starting their #6 safety and gave snaps to their #10 defensive lineman (it's a 3-4 scheme). Dom Capers rushed three or four on most plays, knowing that the Jets' line would hold up even against a blitz; let his ILBs play the run and spy on Sanchez; and mixed up the coverages, dropping six or seven players. Sanchez had all day on some throws, but he still struggled to find an open receiver. Santonio Holmes was the best at getting open, but he came out of the game for much of the second half.

27
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:14am

I watched that game. As a Viking fan I was supposed to want the Packers to lose but found myself cheering for the Packers. Probably some NFC North pride and a hate for the over rated Jets.

Having watched the Packers a few times - I think they are as good as any team in the league. But I think I could say that about 15 teams this year.

Luck will be the big factor this year in deciding the Super Bowl winner.

32
by Mike W :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:21am

Also - no turnovers, very few penalties. In many respects that was their best game of the year.

19
by BJR :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:06am

My impression after watching the game was that PIT should have run the ball more, because Roethlisberger was not coping well with the pressure that was being thrown at him and the timing was off from the start. Having said that, if you take out his long TD run, Mendenhall didn't have a good night either. Credit to Gregg Williams really for the super-aggressive gameplan, with all his DB starters out injured.

I don't know what's been happening so far this season, but Drew Brees was back to absolutely flawless execution in the second half. A definite cause for concern for the rest of the NFC.

23
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:11am

Brees was on fire in the second half - didn't he end up 23 of 26 or something like that? Against Pittsburgh! NO is such a weird team - for years they've displayed talent, but (except for last year) have just been so consistently inconsistent...

64
by Joseph :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:47pm

I only saw the 2nd half of the Saints/Steelers, but have seen most of every Saints game this year.
1. The Saints have played 8 games--in FIVE!! of them (Vikes, Steelers, Bucs, Cards, & Browns) the defense has only allowed ONE TD to each. Against the Cards, their TD shouldn't even COUNT against the D--the Cards started on the 2, and OL Levi Brown had to recover the fumble on 3rd down and dive into the end zone to score that TD. (Against the Browns, even their offensive scores were pretty much driven by special teams.) Even in the games that they allowed more than 1 TD, they won 2 (49ers, Panthers) and the loss (ATL) was in OT after Hartley shanked his short FG attempt.
2. If the offense gets going, look out. [It probably will get better, whether Bush comes back this week, or waits till after the bye. Two or three plays a game have seemed to sputter because the Saints have no other RB/TE with his speed.] However, for the offense to work well, the O-line HAS TO play better. Brees is being sacked/pressured more than in recent years, and all 5 seem to take a turn getting beat/taking a penalty/not sustaining a block/etc.
[NOTE FOR BEN MUTH: I doubt you would change teams mid-stream, but you said last week that you probably wouldn't be studying the Cowboys any more because of their horrible record {for which I commend you}. Would you consider doing an article on the Saints line?--General wisdom was that Bushrod would improve with experience, the guards were two of the best, and C Goodwin & RT Stinchcomb were solid veterans with a few good years left; yet they have seemed to regress--not much, mind you, but enough that it has been noticed and has made a difference.]

20
by johonny (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:09am

I can't believe the Dolphins settled for a touchdown on that one drive. They were in perfect field goal range.

63
by RickD :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:46pm

+1

71
by Yesimadolphinsfan (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:08pm

Well played.

I'm convinced Tom Brady's hair is an homage to Dan Carpenter.

25
by Brooks :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:12am

I'm not sure calling an NFL reporter a "chick" is exactly appropriate...

38
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:42am

It's the NFL. Professionals in the industry can treat women literally however they want (from rape to simple harassment) without repercussion. Oh, I forgot, these guys are outsiders.

29
by dmb :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:17am

"Doug Farrar: Wow -- Pete Morelli just totally screwed up that challenge by saying the no-touchdown ruling stood. Ball was short, but it's hard to believe that he couldn't remember that the original ruling was a touchdown."

The announcers were befuddled by this too, but I could swear I heard the ref announce that the Saints were challenging the ruling that the ball was inside the one (or not a touchdown, etc.). I initially assumed the ref misspoke, until he came out and said that the ruling was confirmed. This leads me to believe that the issue was some really terrible communication by the refs, and not the actual call(s).

Some other thoughts:

-McNabb falling on 2 of the Redskins' first 5 snaps wasn't due to the field, but rather due to being stepped on by Casey Rabach. I don't know if that's McNabb's fault or Rabach's, but I do know that it wasn't the turf's.

-Suh's ability as a rookie is just silly, and having him on a line with Corey Williams and Kyle VandenBosch ... the Lions have one of the top units in the NFL, something I don't think you could say about them for years. The Redskins' line was just flat-out embarrassed yesterday.

-I know that NFL coaches aren't exactly gospels of truth, but I don't understand why so many people aren't just taking Shanahan's comments at face value: that McNabb was replaced because he's not good in a 2-minute offense. As scared as I am of any Rex Grossman Experience, he's absolutely correct that McNabb has always struggled in hurry-up situations. And Shanahan does seem to substitute more freely than many coaches -- e.g., he's been rotating Heyer and Brown between series at RT all year. I'm not saying Shanahan made the RIGHT decision, but analyzing "what it means" and all that is a little crazy; I'm pretty sure Shanahan was saying exactly what was going on.

-Tom is absolutely right that the improvement in the Bucs' passing game has been quite substantial. 2010 Freeman is much better than 2009 Freeman, and in Mike Williams it seems he'll actually have a competent wideout for the forseeable future.

45
by The Other Ben Johnson (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:59am

If "McNabb has always struggled in hurry-up situations," then why trade for him? Or else, now that you've already traded for him, why not tailor your system to his talents in order to put him in a position to succeed rather than benching him in favor of ICE-COLD NO 1ST TEAM PRACTICE REPS REX EMEFFING GROSSMAN when you're only down 6 points?

It reeeeeks of Shanahan coaching hubris. If you think your system is so good that you can just plug Rex Grossman into it at the end of a game, you're living in an alternate reality where wishes are currency.

The ironic thing is, the benching removes McNabb from blame for the way the game ended. It only makes the Shanahans and their almighty system and all-important 2 minute drill terminology look bad. How about make up some better-understood-by-your-clear-best-option-at-quarterback terminology, guys?

Now I understand what it's like to be an Eagles fan. It's like stepping through the looking glass.

61
by dmb :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:42pm

Even at this age, McNabb is a pretty clear upgrade at QB, which was probably the rationale for getting him. Although being inadequate at two-minute drills is a significant flaw in a QB, it's far from the worst possible deficiency. But I don't think Shanahan could really do anything to "tailor [his] system to [McNabb's] talents" in this situation; McNabb was also awful in hurry-up situations in Philly, operating in a completely different system. He's got bad situational awareness, and although he's a great athlete, he seems to get winded a bit more easily than most QBs. It has nothing to do with play design, etc. I really don't think Shanahan can do much scheme-wise to cover up for it.

Now again, I'm not saying that Shanahan made the right decision, or that Grossman is ever better than McNabb in any conceivable situation. But I do think that Shanahan was actually being straightforward when explained his decision.

125
by The Other Ben Johnson (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:50pm

Really? I was under the impression that he had a lot of talent as a quick-strike artist on long throws to speedy receivers getting free on double moves, especially with his still extant ability to buy time with his legs. The Skins don't have a lot of receiving options that fit the bill for such a QB, but they do have two excellent pass-catching tight ends which could combine to create matchup issues.

But that's all theoretical because the play was for Grossman to launch the ball 20 feet in the air, a la the "kill the person with the ball" soccer hybrid I used to play in recess circa 1989. Which is actually perfect for his skillset.

I understand the "that was a straightforward explanation" line of thought, and I don't want to overreact to this one little benching. But: it seems an awful lot like a stupid move by a franchise with a recent history of many stupid moves. You try being a Redskins fan and then take these people at their word when they say anything but "jersey sales are not a part of revenue sharing, that's why we bring in overpriced new talent every year, and why we consistently rank at the top of the league in profitability."

It's a little on the tinfoil-hatty side, but the only other explanation is that Dan Snyder is an idiot. I prefer to think of him as effective but sinister.

134
by dmb :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:45pm

I'm not saying that Shanahan can't design his plays/scheme to McNabb's strengths. (In fact, I think Shanahan's offense is a good fit for McNabb, or will be once McNabb really feels comfortable in it.) I'm saying that some of McNabb's weaknesses make him ineffective in hurry-up situations, regardless of what he's being asked to execute. No play design will endow McNabb with the necessary levels of situational awareness or endurance. (Shanahan brought up the latter issue today.)

Agreed on what play suits Grossman's skill set, though.

Two other quick points on your remarks: (1) Despite Snyder's agonizing habit of meddling, I would be quite surprised if he had anything to do with the benching. I'm a little confused why you bring him into this at all. (2) I am a Redskins' fan.

68
by RickD :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:54pm

The original call was a TD. The Saints challenged that and it was changed to a non-TD. Morelli's mistake was saying "confirmed" instead of "overturned". He did go on to say that the Saints were not being charged a timeout. Had the original call been confirmed, the Saints would have been charged a timeout.

It's easier for me to believe that Morelli misspoke one word than that he has no understanding of the challenge process whatsoever.

76
by ChaosOnion :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:22pm

He misspoke a great deal of words in the course of that challenge.

144
by spatne (not verified) :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:51pm

Except that he got it backwards in the announcements before *and* after he watched the replay. At least once, he said "not a touchdown" when describing the initial ruling.

145
by dmb :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 1:40pm

I was starting to think I had an auditory hallucination or something. I'm glad someone else heard that too...

131
by zlionsfan :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 8:58pm

You couldn't say that about the Lions for a long time. Even with Shaun Rogers here, the surrounding talent wasn't that good. I don't know that they've had four good DL for, I don't know, ever? Maybe the early '80s? Back then, I didn't watch much other than the ball, so I can't say from experience.

Given the strength of their line, it didn't surprise me that Shanahan had McNabb out at the end of the game. I was surprised he didn't say something like "blah blah blah" that really meant "I don't need my starting QB getting sacked four more times in a game that was going to be difficult to win [if they couldn't slow the pass rush]." OK, maybe McNabb doesn't run a two-minute offense well, but does Grossman run it better? Because if the answer is "yes", I don't believe it. (And I'm not just saying that because Grossman went to my rival high school.)

133
by justanothersteve :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:23pm

In the mid-90's, the Lions had Robert Porcher, Luther Ellis, and Tracy Scroggins, which was pretty decent. (Can't remember the fourth person.) The problem was Wayne Fontes was an idiot.

140
by Will Allen :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:34am

Wasn't Henry Thomas in that group? He was a decent to good player.

155
by Pat Swinnegan :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 8:39pm

I could swear I heard the ref announce that the Saints were challenging the ruling that the ball was inside the one (or not a touchdown, etc.). I initially assumed the ref misspoke, until he came out and said that the ruling was confirmed.

You heard right, and it was very odd.

30
by ammek :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:20am

Is there an NFL unit that manages to do less with its signature play than the Packers' rushing offense? Mike McCarthy loves his stretch run, but in four and a half years it's never been productive, and without Ryan Grant or Mark Tauscher it's even worse than usual:

Here are the Packers' numbers for runs off end under McCarthy, and their NFL rank:

Yr … % runs off end (rank) … ALY runs off end (rank)
2006 … 29% (4) ……… 4.12 (11)
2007 … 36% (1) ……… 3.63 (27)
2008 … 38% (1) ……… 4.08 (17)
2009 … 28% (7) ……… 4.06 (21)
2010 … 32% (2) ……… 2.83 (29) — through week 7.

I suppose the theory is that stretch runs force the linebackers to play sideline-to-sideline, thus opening up space in the middle for gains off play action. But the Packers use very little play action, and aren't very successful when they do.

(Of course not all stretch runs are off end, but cutback lanes between the tackles have been few and far between for years now.)

Green Bay opened the game with two ambling runs behind the rookie Bulaga and the second- and third-string tight ends, and as I watched Brandon Jackson trundle sideways towards the sideline for a 1-yard gain, I knew it was going to be a long day offensively.

31
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:21am

Aaron Schatz - "K, you are Rex Ryan, losing 6-0. Mark Sanchez is sacked to make it fourth-and-11 from something around your own 20 with 3:03 to go. You have no timeouts left. Do you go for it on fourth-and-11 in a last-gasp effort? Or do you punt the ball and hope to stop the other offense. It seems like you go for it, but thinking about it ... If you punt it, the other team will get the ball back around 3:00. Each run will take about 35 seconds off the clock, plus you have the 2-minute warning, so if the defense does its job, you will end up with the Packers punting back to you with about 1:20 left. Which is easier: Converting fourth-and-11, or going 80 yards in 1:20 with no timeouts, but starting with a first down again?"

You left out option three - fake punt!

Wouldn't be all that much dumber than the first one they tried on 4th and 18.

33
by are-tee :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:33am

Neither Ryan nor Westhoff called the fake punt. Weatherford admitted it was his decision.

35
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:39am

nice decision.

37
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:41am

The best part is that Weatherford apparently had failed to notice they were in 4th and 18, like he thought they were in 4th and 8 and Rex had to run over and point to where the first down marker actually was once Weatherford took off: "No, you idiot, it's up here!" Probably why you shouldn't give the punter carte blanche in these situations.

34
by Crymeariver (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:36am

Thanks for the clarification on Alex Flanagan. Although Dan Patrick introduced her last night as Alex, during her report she was id’d as Felix. She’s hot in either case, but it’s a little easier getting up for someone who stirs memories of Alex Trebeck than someone who reminds you of Felix Unger.

36
by roguerouge :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:40am

According to NBC, the Jets punter went for it on his own.

52
by B :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:15pm

Was it a bad snap or something? Seems like a strange decision for him.

53
by Athelas :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:18pm

Nope--he saw the opening to make the 8 yards he thought he needed.

Too bad he needed 18.

65
by RickD :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:47pm

So he was looking at the wrong end of the chain gang?

Bwa-ha-hah-hah!

87
by BJR :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:03pm

And he wasn't watching the game in the lead up to the punt? Is that usual for special teams players?

39
by Will Allen :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:45am

I'm glad I got back into the country in time to see perhaps the worst Vikings defensive performance since the early Mike Tice era. With the exception of Kevin Williams, the highly paid defensive line sucked. Pat Williams is done, which should not be a surprise, given he is 38. I have no idea what has happened to Jared Allen. These guys were barely on the field in the first half, and yet they looked utterly gassed when they needed to get the ball back with five minutes left in the game. Asher Allen makes Woodhead look like Walter Payton on a key third down. Simply horrible.

Offensively, they get limited schematically because they don't have confidence that their 41 year old qb with the broken ankle can be left without the protection of a tight end and/or running back. This would be manageable if the coach understood the value of a field goal at the end of the first half of a close game, and the defense would make a play, instead of blowing it, like letting a easy int get turned into a long completion.

When I looked at the schedule, 2-5 sure didn't look extremely unlikely, but in some ways it is worse that in all five losses, it was a one possession game late in the fourth quarter. Yesterday was the loss in which they were most thoroughly beaten, and even then they had a good chance to win. Well, in some ways I enjoy the NFL more when I'm not rooting for any particular team to do well, so if The Chiller's Reign of Error comes crashing down over the next couple of weeks, all will not be lost.

40
by bigtencrazy (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:45am

Allen really wasn't very good last year EXCEPT against the Packers who used a guy I think was cut in training camp and hasn't been signed by anyone else. Barbre?

Viking linemen known as pass rushers have an interesting history. Chris Doleman fell in love with stats and stopped defending the run. Same with John Randle. But at least they pressured the passer. Allen isn't doing anything.

He looks healthy. Is he trying to avoid injury because of a contract?

42
by ammek :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:51am

Barbre played exclusively right tackle, and got beaten by Ray Edwards, Antwan Odom, and anyone else who lined up in front of him. Allen had his big games against then-rookie TJ Lang (now appearing on the Packers' defensive line in goal-line packages) and a beat-up Chad Clifton.

41
by Tballgame (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:45am

Didn't see it mentioned anywhere, but there was an odd play in the Miami game, maybe in the first quarter. The Bengals' RG shifted after the line had set. No whistle. One of the defensive players points at the RG. No whistle. At least a full second passes. Carlos Dansby runs through the line (still pre-snap), stands next to Palmer, and points at the RG. Whistle. False start on the RG.

Why do the refs not call the movement when it happens, then call it seconds later? I was sure when the whistle blew that they were ringing up Dansby for offsides unabated. And the announcers applauded Dansby for showing off his high football IQ. Isn't it a bad idea to step out of the play and commit a penalty to try to get the refs to throw a flag?

46
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:59am

"Aaron Schatz: I'm don't generally have a problem with alternate uniforms, but the Cardinals wearing uniforms that have almost no red on them whatsoever is a little strange."

I said this in the MMQB thread, but it's especially strange because the Cardinals are named after the color, not the bird. (Their original uniforms were hand-me-downs from the University of Chicago football team, the Maroons.)

50
by Dean :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:09pm

I know that the political correctness police changed Stanford a few years back from the Cardinals to the Cardinal so as not to offend bird lovers, but I wasn't aware that they were named after the color, too.

I guess the whole bird-on-the-side-of-the-helment-thing seems to me as if they're named after the animal. You certainly hear Big Media refer to them as The Birds in the same way as the Falcons, Eagles, Ravens and Seahawks.

66
by RickD :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:50pm

Stanford has always had the color as its mascot.

Your comment is a good example of how the phrase "politcal correctness" is only used as a perjorative, and often inappropriately blamed for all sorts of things.

70
by Travis :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:07pm

Stanford's nickname was the Indians until 1972, Cardinals (plural) from 1972 to 1981, and Cardinal (singular) since late 1981. Both "Cardinals" and "Cardinal" referred to the color.

95
by Dean :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:22pm

I most definitely used it as a perjorative, make no mistake about it. I would disagree that I used it inappropriately.

98
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:25pm

Yeah, that political correctness, always making people try to show respect for other races and cultures. It's out of control, you know? It's like people don't get that calling folks Indians (because they are from India, of course) isn't intended as an insult, but a sign of respect for those people's fierce, warrior-like nature. Indians (from India) truly are the noblest of savages.

136
by matt w (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:50pm

Well, the problem is that there's no evidence whatsoever that any sort of politics had anything to do with the decision to change the name from "Cardinals" to "Cardinal." That's why using "political correctness" to describe it is ridiculous.

67
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:53pm

Remember, the Cardinals were founded back in 1920 (maybe 1919) - they're the oldest surviving franchise. Obviously, there were no helmet logos back then, so I assume they added the cardinal logo much later.

Another interesting fact: they were originally called the Racine Cardinals, but that's not because they played in Racine, WI. Rather, their field was located off Racine Avenue on Chicago's south side.

74
by Travis :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:14pm

The Cardinals actually were founded in 1898, predating the NFL by 22 years.

I don't believe they added the cardinal bird logo until 1947.

103
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:31pm

I knew I could count on you for more info, Travis. Much appreciated.

49
by Dre538 (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:06pm

What's going on with the Bucs? An easy schedule and luck. None of their wins are impressive. Close wins against the Browns, Bengals, Rams, and Cardinals aren't exactly proof of greatness, and I can't imagine they'll continue to pull out every close one. They've played two high quality opponents and got blown out by both of them. Their secondary and run defense is awful, and despite Blount's success their running game isn't impressive either. Their passing game has been pretty good and I like Josh Freeman, but I still think overall they're a below average team. Their schedule the rest of the way isn't hard and being 5-2 already they should be able to be about 8-8 but with New Orleans and Atlanta in their division I think they're a playoff longshot. I like them and Raheem Morris but they're still a few years away IMO.

57
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:25pm

As a Bucs fan, I totally agree. I don't think the team is actively good, but they're improving, and that's all I need. As for the secondary, yeah, it could be better (particularly if Tanard Jackson could, you know, put the @#$!! bong down), but I wouldn't call it "awful". Now, the run defense, yeah, that sucks, and the fact that Gerald McCoy is getting pushed around so much is worrisome. I know he's a rookie, but there should be more improvement there (and there is improvement, they were worse last year). You also forgot to mention how utterly terrible their pass rush is and how a so-so offensive line is beaten up with injuries.

Easy schedule makes all the difference. I do, however, see a lot of promise, and expect a heck of a 2012 season.

69
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:56pm

Forget 2012 - I actually think this is the year for mediocre teams to get their hopes up. There are so few really good teams, that a team like the Bucs could seriously entertain making a Superbowl run. Just imagine if in the playoffs they got a bye and then had to go through Seattle and Chicago or something. And then play the Jets or Texans in the Superbowl? The Bucs could definitely pull that out.

Even if, say, they have to go through the teams with the best DVOA, that's the Eagles, Giants and Pittsburgh. Hardly an impossible slate even for a mediocre team...

72
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:09pm

While I will admit to hosting the occasional pipe dream of playoff success, the Bucs have played two good teams and have gotten utterly stomped by both the Steelers and Saints. They still have to play the Saints, Baltimore, and Atlanta twice, games I fully expect them to lose. The Bucs are so far beating the teams they should beat, and losing to the teams they should lose to, which is certainly a good sign.

While it would be great for some magic playoff run to happen, I don't expect it.
You can run up the middle on their defense, and you can throw the ball deep on them, as Talib's the only standout member of the secondary. I figured they'd win 6-7 games this year, now it'll probably be 8 or maybe 9. After last year's 3-13 debacle, I'm good with that.

82
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:43pm

yeah, you're right. But I do look at every half-decent team this year and think "Man, they could win it. Really, what's stopping them?" Delightfully, the Cowboys are one of the teams I do not think that about.

108
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:06pm

I dunno. Sure, the parity's there in force this year, but I think the NFC is rounding into shape and the true contenders are emerging. The Vikes and Cowboys were not who they thought they were (although I called both preseason), but GB and NO look like they're putting it together, and along with the Giants and possibly the Eagles and Falcons (those last 2 seem capable but have ???s), and I think you have a an upper tier of the conference. I don't know if I'd call any of those contenders great and there's probably not that much separation between them, but I think they're a notch or two better than the other NFC teams.

132
by Sander :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 10:03pm

Oh goodie, the ´McCoy is getting pushed around myth´shows up again. He´s not getting pushed around, at all. Yeah there´s the occasional play zhere he´ll get moved, but he is getting fairly consistent penetration and while he hasn´t shown up on the stat sheet he´s certainly shown a lot of potential. His problem is simply that he´s a rookie: he´ll get penetration but will get lost beyond that.

The improvement in run defense attributable to him should be obvious: we´ve been much better up the middle than last year, ze´ve been getting gashed on perimeter runs where the corners (even Ronde) have struggled to set the edge.

112
by Gridirion Grammarian (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:26pm

While I agree that the Buccaneers aren't as great as their 5-2 record makes them appear to be, there's been something more than mere luck going on in the games they've won. It's been their youth and inexperience that has undermined them, resulting in very inconsistent play and far too many penalties. And it's true that they didn't compete with the only two great teams they've met so far. But they have beaten a couple of decent teams, and they have also demonstrated a good amount of focus and composure in orchestrating their come-from-behind wins -- characteristics that are unusual in such a young team. That's going to serve them well as they shore up a team poised to be a genuine contender in the coming seasons.

51
by Athelas :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:14pm

Last week the NY Jets offense was at +14.8%. Really curious where they'll be tomorrow.

59
by Jetspete :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:37pm

i would be surprised if it fell drastically. the Jets had over 5.2 yards per play (which is league median for the season) agains a league average defense (per DVOA). Perhaps Aaron could speculate how those two plays would affect the Jets offense if they were ruled fumbles as opposed to interceptions (since they definitely felt like fumbles).

The Jets offense, despite not scoring, really played mistake laden football as opposed to playing poorly. Drops, penalities and turnovers not caused by Sanchez were the difference after the first three possessions.

60
by Athelas :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:41pm

See--that's the thing--to me the Jets offense looks worse than their DVOA, but that's why I like looking at numbers, since I can't always trust my lyin' eyes.

54
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:19pm

Hey Gower--"I'm not in love with him like I am with Bradford, but Freeman's far ahead of where I thought he'd be in terms of learning curve."

While I find Bradford's accuracy really nice, Freeman has shown some very impressive mobility, and he's developed a great touch on a deep ball. I realize I'm a total homer here, but IMO Freeman's one of the singly most impressive QBs in the NFC this year (and yes, the NFC sucks). He's surrounded by comparably little talent but is still playing incredibly well, not to mention the whole "how the hell does he keep leading game-winning drives every week" thing. 3 INTs in 224 attempts and zero fumbles (as opposed to last year where he had 18 picks and 10 fumbles in 10 tames). And yes, I realize strength of schedule is a major part of it, but Freeman is really having an amazing season and his development between his first and second years is very notable.

At this point, I'm going to assume that the Bucs' "Cadillac Williams Up The Middle For Two Yards" official rushing offense is gone thanks to how well LaGarrette Blount has looked these last two weeks, and having a running game that can at least in theory exceed three yards per carry will help Freeman develop even more.

56
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:24pm

Yeah, his deep ball is a rare and valuable thing, for sure. I think he's really got something and a good QB will keep a team in a lot of games...

55
by andrew :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 12:22pm

When did McCarthy become the challenge king?

He used to be one of the worst in the NFL, but now two weeks in a row he arguably has won games with his challenging prowess...

122
by Dave :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:09pm

Because the calls are so obviously wrong, I think.

If I was the challenge king I don't think I'd consider it a good thing. Rather, I'd be pissed off about the fact that I keep having to throw the flag to get the refs to make the right call.

130
by Arkaein :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 8:54pm

That's a good point.

It's also an interesting coincidence that all three of the calls that he challenged successfully over the last two games involved an incorrect spotting of a foot out of bounds. This is probably the easiest type of play to overturn on replay.

78
by drobviousso :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:34pm

Blah. I watched the Cowboys/Jags, Vikings/Pats and Steelers/Saints games yesterday. I can't remember a more depressing day of football. The Steelers/Saints game was interesting, but the Saints are tailor made to beat the Steelers, which kind of dampened things for me.

80
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:40pm

I found all three of those games delightful, as I am sure many NFL fans did. The hubristic Cowboys getting gutter-stomped by the little-loved Jags was a particular highlight.

The only depressing spot was seeing Favre curled up like a shell of man.

That was some depressing shit.

90
by The Anti-Dave (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:13pm

Depends on what you mean by little-loved.

Is our nationwide fan base fewer in number than most teams'? Certainly.

Is our love for our team less intense than any other team's fans'? Absolutely not.

93
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:20pm

By "little-loved" I mean "can't sell out home games on a consistent basis" and are the focus of 50% of all "team could get moved" stories.

107
by t.d. :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:04pm

Well, the Jags have sold out all of their games this year, unlike our neighbors in Tampa (who actually have an exciting, improving team to cheer for). I'm not sure the stereotype is fair.

110
by Mark S. (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:14pm

Yeah, I saw that same set except NYJ/GB instead of Cows-Jags, and it was a pretty entertaining day of football.

86
by Junior (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 1:55pm

Fitzpatrick gets called for intentional grounding after a lengthy, lengthy huddle and discussion in OT in KC territory. Same play in the NE-MIN game drew an immediate flag before the pass even hit the ground. Later in the Buffalo game Cassel rifles a pass out of bounds to stop the clock (well, his version of a "rifle" - it took 45 seconds to reach the sideline), why wasn't that intentional grounding? He was in the pocket. Is it only grounding if he's being rushed? Does the ball literally have to hit the ground in the field of play? What is the rule exactly? It seems like it's randomly enforced (at best).

91
by nat :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:13pm

From the rules digest:
Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

Intentional grounding can/should only be called if there is imminent loss of yardage due to defensive pressure. It is perfectly okay to throw the ball away because a play breaks down, or because everyone is covered, or to stop the clock.

I left out the paragraph allowing certain throws outside of the pocket. You seem to be aware of those exceptions.

99
by PatsFan :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:25pm

The rule has multiple parts:

* If the QB is out of the pocket (outside the tackles) then as long as the pass makes it to the line of scrimmage it is not grounding, no matter how far away any eligible receiver is.

* [deleted since nat has a better description]

Perhaps someone with the rulebook can look up the full, official rule.

111
by Junior (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:16pm

Okay, cool, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Thought both calls were legit but never knew for sure what the actual grounding rules were.

119
by Gregg (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:54pm

After the intentional grounding penalty was accepted, the game clock did not restart upon the official's signal. Instead, the game clock restarted upon the snap. I'm pretty sure this is wrong. I think the defensive team gets to elect a 10 second run off and the game clock after the runoff starts with the officials signal. If I'm right, the Chiefs would have gotten the ball back with :30 seconds instead of 1:10 (because the bills could have run off time before the snap). Haven't heard anyone mention this.

121
by AudacityOfHoops :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:01pm

I am curious to know if this is true.

Also curious as to whether anybody else thinks Chan Gailey's play calls at the end of regulation and in OT were atrocious. They were on the cusp of field goal range a couple times, and (if I remember correctly) he went pass-pass-pass. Seems like gaining 7 or 8 yards with a few runs has HUGE value at that point in the field. Perhaps Lindell's dying quail would have slipped inside the post if it had 8 less yards to fly.

As a Chiefs fan, I was ecstatic every time I saw QB Bills drop pack to pass at the end of that drive.

123
by Junior (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:26pm

"As a Chiefs fan, I was ecstatic every time I saw QB Bills drop pack to pass at the end of that drive."

Same here. It was nice having that strategic mastermind calling plays on the opponent's sideline and brought back memories of 2008 when KC's offense was "just good enough" in quite a few games to get your hopes up before getting bludgeoned in the chest.

127
by Gregg (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 7:48pm

After doing some research on the NFL rules (more difficult than I would have expected), I think the officials called it correctly because the penalty did not occur in the last minute of play. If it had occurred in the last minute (instead of 1:20), then there would have been an automatic 10 second runoff and the game clock would restart at the ready signal. In that case, the Bills would have punted it with nearly no time left. The rare case where the 10 second runoff hurts the defense.

88
by Otis Taylor89 :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:03pm

Suh=Monster

OK everyone, Bradford or Suh now?

I love Bradford, but Suh seems to be that Reggie White player that hasn't come around since....Reggie White.

94
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:22pm

A good QB trumps an All-Star DT.

96
by ChaosOnion :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:24pm

I would have traded up for Suh. I would not have traded up for Bradford. If Suh was on NEB this season, NEB would be undefeated #1 and Suh would win the Heisman.

97
by Dean :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:24pm

1) To answer the question - Bradford.

2) Revisionist history is worthless. You make the best decision you can make at the time with the information available, which was also Bradford.

Even if Suh becomes a Hall of Famer, the correct pick is still Bradford.

101
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:30pm

Also, when the Lions played the Eagles this year, I barely even noticed Suh. And that's with the Eagles patchwork line... He's good, but let's not crown him yet... (please note that I very much did notice Javhid Best - that's a player right there, too.)

129
by zlionsfan :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 8:43pm

It's hard to say for sure, given the differences in quality of opposition, but it certainly seems as though the Lions' DL as a whole has improved during the season. Suh has been an important part of that, no question, but it's not just him. If you put him on, say, the 2007 line in place of Shaun Rogers, he'd probably be about like Rogers. With another competent DT in Williams, quick DEs in KVB and Avril, and surprising depth, Suh is able to make plays partly because he is, so far, playing up to his billing, but partly because you can't just double-team him and let the other guys go.

So keep that in mind ... Suh looks better in part because he is the type of DT that the Lions needed and because they got players to surround him. He wouldn't have that kind of impact on St. Louis, not this season.

I think you have to keep in mind what your own needs are. If you need a QB and you see a guy who could be That Guy, you take him, even if he doesn't work out. Yeah, Stafford may not be That Guy (what I've seen so far hasn't made me think he could be, not yet - I mean, Shaun Hill can run this offense well), but who should they have taken? Yeah, Curry or Orakpo might be nice, but you'd want to trade down, right? Jason Smith, maybe ... Cherilus seems to be working out OK, and Backus has done all right given that he's survived the entire Millen Disaster, but it's hard to go wrong with a solid OT.

Still, linemen don't cause excitement in Jack and Jill Fan. QBs do. A great block looks good to people like us, but a great pass looks good to everyone (except the defensive coordinator). I can understand the Stafford pick, and I agree with the Bradford pick as a neutral person. (Obviously as a Lions fan, I love how it worked out ...)

135
by dmb :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 11:00pm

Between the consistently excellent contributions from the (few) Lions' regulars here, the hiring of Schwartz as head coach, and the frustration that all with any sort of affiliation with the franchise have experienced, it is very, very easy for this non-Lions fan to be happy with how Suh (and other developments) have turned out thus far. (Admittedly, I'd be even happier if some of those positives signs didn't come at the expense of my own favorite team...)

109
by t.d. :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:09pm

I don't think there's a bad choice. They both look terrific. While I think ordinarily a great quarterback trumps everything else, a Hall of Fame pass rusher (not saying Suh's there yet) is the one position that comes closest. Bradford and Suh have already contributed to remarkable transformations for their teams

115
by Dean :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:35pm

One of the few logical things Walterfootball mentioned this offseason (when he wasn't playing Peter King to Jimmy Clausen's Brett Favre) was the Suh/Bradford debate.

The analogy he made was to 1990. The Colts passed on Cortez Kennedy because they needed a franchise QB. It doesn't matter that the QB turnedo out to be Jeff George - it was still the right call at the time.

Seattle seemed thrilled to have Kennedy fall into their laps. He was far and away the best player on the board. He's not in The Hall yet, but if he'd played in a major media market he would be. He personally could not have done better. The pick is an absolute slam dunk. But the team over the next decade never once finshed better than 8-8. Why? Because they had QB issues for the next decade. The QB is simply that much more important than the DT.

If you need a franchise QB and you have a chance to take a franchise QB, you absolutely cannot pass him up, no matter how good the other guy may end up being.

116
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:43pm

Yep, Walterfootball was entirely correct.

Though there's an important caveat: you really have to believe that the QB you're drafting is going to be a franchise QB. Don't take a QB your scouts (or numbers, or whatever) don't like.

118
by Dean :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:52pm

Agreed. If there's no potential franchise QB in that spot, then that's when you have the freedom to take a guy like Kennedy/Suh. And the mixed opinions on Bradford (I freely admit I had my reservations) made for an interesting debate. But once the Rams decided he was a potential franchise QB, then the decision is made.

124
by Eddo :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 5:28pm

This is nearly exactly how I felt. I did not particularly like Bradford as a franchise QB prospect at the time of the draft (though he does look like the real deal so far). And yet, I would have thought long and hard about Okung at #1 overall. I never thought Suh would be as good at rushing the passer as he is.

126
by Independent George :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 6:12pm

Agreed. Put another way, taking Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch over Suh would have been the correct based on the available information (both were universally hailed as good picks at the time), even if they later proved otherwise.

Alex Smith or JaMarcus Russell, not so much.

120
by B :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 4:51pm

I think the answer was Suh at the draft, and I think it's Suh now.

100
by jmaron :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:26pm

I'm not sure how DVOA will come out but based on Sagarin pure points rating - Detroit is now 8th in the NFL.

Also interesting in those ratings is the imbalance in the NFC Divisions.

The NFC North average rating of 23.1
NFC East - 21.2
NFC South 16.4
NFC West 14.5

Because the two stronger divisions are playing one another this is jamming up the NFC and letting weaker teams like Sea, TB and St Louis compete for a playoff spot.

The AFC is very balanced.

AFC East - 21.7
AFC North - 21.5
AFC South - 21.3
AFC West - 20.4

102
by IsraelP (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 2:30pm

"Can they remind the referees that the ball has to cross the plane in the player's possession"

Isn't it "break the plane?" Just touch the chalk line?

114
by Gridirion Grammarian (not verified) :: Mon, 11/01/2010 - 3:29pm

That is correct.

137
by FireOmarTomlin :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 7:43am

Between Tardlins's great use/non-use of challenges, and continued insistence of keeping Tardrians around, what a great game! You would think that after loss after loss after loss the last few years to teams stacking the box and housing it he could design passing routes that develop quickly and know when to use them. Too bad they traded away the only receiver they have that can really get open that quickly. 3rd and 5? Facing a big inside blitz? Run a bunch of deep developing sideline routes. Derp derp derp. That one drive where they really moved it well looked like Ben calling the plays.

FIRE THESE CLUELESS CLOWNS!

-------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

138
by RichC (not verified) :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:04am

loss after loss?

139
by FireOmarTomlin :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:52am

reading comprehension much? guess not.

I said ...
"keeping Tardrians around, what a great game! You would think that after loss after loss after loss the last few years to teams stacking the box and housing it he could design passing routes that develop quickly and know when to use them."

THE LAST FEW YEARS TO TEAMS STACKING THE BOX AND HOUSING IT.

THAT IMPLIES SPECIFIC GAMES AGAINST OPPONENTS EMPLOYING A VERY SPECIFIC COMMON STRATEGY OVER A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME

---------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

141
by DeltaWhiskey :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:07am

Thanks, the CAPS really clarified it for me.

142
by RichC (not verified) :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:32pm

Exactly when over the years have the steelers had "loss after loss after loss?"

I can see only one spot where the steelers have lost 3 games in a row with Tomlin as a coach. His record is 36-18, which I believe puts him pretty damn close to the top in winning percentage.

And significantly better than Bill Cowher.

143
by chemical burn :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:45pm

Hey man, your reading comprehension sucks: this guy is clearly complaining about how teams can beat the Steelers every year since Tomlin has been the coach because they stack the box and the Steelers traded away the only receiver that can beat that sort of coverage at the beginning of this season. Also, there is someone named Tardians involved with these decisions on the Steelers. Get with it, man, LEARN TO READ!

Also: a tag clearly written by someone earning little gratitude and absolutely impotent in their revenge.

146
by FireOmarTomlin :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 2:22pm

Not only can you not read anything for meaning (after it's EXPLAINED TO YOU!!!), you can't do basic math (and you copy and paste from a bad wiki article LMAO).

Let's just apply some COMMON SENSE.
4th season as Steeler head coach.
16 games per season. (regular season games only I assume you meant)
this season they are 5-2 (7 games played)
3*16 + 7 = what? certainly not 54 (36+18 that you posted above)

he might be 36-19 in the regular season...

please FAIL AGAIN

---------------------------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

147
by DeltaWhiskey :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 2:42pm

Yes chemical burn, please FAIL AGAIN, FAIL AGAIN, for if at first you don't FAIL...FAIL, FAIL, FAIL AGAIN. or something like that.

Actually, it's a slow day and I'd like to see more rants.

148
by FireOmarTomlin :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 2:45pm

new to learning how to read how the nesting of posts works, are you?

--------------------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

149
by DeltaWhiskey :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 3:06pm

Well, that was disappointing.

151
by Dean :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 3:46pm

Maybe if you offered him three billygoats gruff?

150
by AudacityOfHoops :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 3:27pm

I can't believe Big Johnson got banned, but this guy is still around.

I also love how the difference between 36-18 and 36-19 is supposed to somehow be significant enough to change the conclusion.

153
by Yaguar :: Tue, 11/02/2010 - 5:02pm

With raiderjoe vindicated(!) by the Raiders two-game streak of dominance, and Big Johnson gone, FireOmarTomlin is by far the most WTF poster here.

Tomlin is probably (deservedly) among the ten most job-secure coaches in the league. Maybe not as secure as, say, Sean Payton, but they're not dramatically different in quality.

156
by Jerry :: Wed, 11/03/2010 - 3:16am

If you consider the tenure of Tomlin's two predecessors, as well as his success, he's as secure as anyone.

157
by chemical burn :: Wed, 11/03/2010 - 4:15pm

I didn't realize BigJohnson got banned. He was unseemly, but not more so than a lot of posters that crop up. Was there a specific incident? Is he the guy who now shows up unverified to post things about Bill Barnwell's testicles?

Also, FireOmar's hyper-aggressive, ad hominem name-calling is basically as bad as it gets around here so I'm sure no one would be crying if he got banned. (And, yes, I get that no one would be crying if I got banned either... but still.)

158
by AudacityOfHoops :: Wed, 11/03/2010 - 4:54pm

Yeah, here is the thread where Bill Barnwell kicked him out. Very little there, besides calling somebody a chump. Though maybe there was more that got removed due to foul language or something.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2010/week-7-quick-reads#com...

159
by chemical burn :: Wed, 11/03/2010 - 5:14pm

Wow. That's super mild. And FireOmar hasn't crossed that line? There must be more to the story/something deleted...

160
by Andrew Potter :: Wed, 11/03/2010 - 8:11pm

In that week's Open Discussion thread he'd had a bunch of posts deleted for slinging insults around, and been specifically warned by Bill not to do it again. He followed that up by arguing with Barnwell's warning in that thread, and when he then insulted somebody else in another thread he was banned.

Oh, and yeah he now shows up unverified randomly posting obscene comments about Barnwell.