My guess is that since he called for a fair catch, that he had a right to the ball and that it should have been a penalty on the Colts. Is that not the case once the ball bounces?
Checked the DVR during the commercial break. He waved both arms in front of him like he was declining a penalty, which is not a fair catch signal but instead was telling everyone to get away from the ball.
Why are the punt rules different in the field vs near the end zone? Is the ball not dead the SECOND a punt-team-member touches it? Or after they touch it is the play not dead? In which case, why don't they always push the ball down the field to the 1 yard line, no matter where they punt from?
Actually, a punting team member touching the ball is considered a penalty (though no yards, unless they went out of bounds first. Play isn't over til either the ball is stopped or the referee calls it dead as there is no play on it. There was a play earlier this year where the punting team touched it to keep it out of the end zone and the receiving team grabbed it and returned for a touchdown. That's why the punting team goes to control the ball when they do touch it.
The ball is not dead when a punt team member touches it. It is still live, and the receiving team can pick it up and run with no fear of losing a fumble because the ball will be spotted at the point of first touching by the kicking team OR the point where the ball ends up, whichever is more favorable for the receiving team. That's why it won't do you any good to push the ball down the field to the one yard line, and it's also why the kicking team tries to down the ball rather than merely touch it.
by Jon Silverberg (not verified) :: Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:36pm
Contrary to Collinsworth, I thought the ball was catchable...Keller mistimed his jump and was on the way down when the ball got there...not necessarily surprising after running all the way across the field, but still...
It's the weakness of the Bad Sanchez. There's a difference between a QB that's consistently bad and one who vacillated between very good and awful. The former has a chance to be a very good QB.
But it's the playoffs, so if Bad Sanchez shows up, it's not good for the Jets chances this
year.
Great game so far. Now that it's halftime, I have time to post this question:
During the first quarter, one of the Colts WRs lined up near the sideline, a yard or two back from the line of scrimmage. A split second before the snap, he bolted inside at an angle back towards the line. At the snap he was already angling towards the Jets DE, whom he blocked.
That's illegal procedure isn't it? You have to run parallel to the line, I'm pretty sure of that. What's the rule on being set for one second before the snap? Does that apply too?
Angling toward is illegal, but one player is allowed to be in motion at the snap, just not forward motion. The one second refers to two players in motion at the same time, or if one moves forward, for example to be one of the 7 on the line.
Good drive by Jets. Good decision to utilize the running game a lot more. That's probably their best hope for actually winning this game. Sanchez has looked far too inconsistent to have everything riding on his arm.
by Exy (not verified) :: Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:00pm
There was an article posted on Gang Green Nation of an interview with a biomechanics expert that reckons his inaccuracy is a product of bad mechanics resulting from his unhealed left knee. I have to say as I have watched him I have noticed that he almost always takes these huge strides into his bad throws and that article basically confirmed what I had been seeing.
Yeah, that play is exactly why I love Manning. Is there another QB in the league who would kill to a run on 3rd and 9 because he knew exactly what the defense was going to do?
Colts should have gone for it. The Jets held the ball for 10 minutes on their last drive. Surely they can hold it for four minutes here. I like Manning to convert that 4th-and-four more than I like Sanchez to lead a late TD drive.
ummmm. WTF? Does the NFL have any clue whatsoever what their rules are? They just got finished telling us that if a defender is blocked than he can by rule not 'run into the kicker' in the Seattle game. Now the same thing happens, except it's much less contact and they throw a flag in the Colts game.
Except that in this case the defender had several steps and a jump into the kicker that may have absolved the blocker. Not saying it was the right call, but it did seem that the call was appropriate.
by R. Johnston (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:05am
In the Seattle non-call there were fewer steps after the block, the hit wasn't nearly as hard, and there was an effort made to avoid the kicker. If, on the other hand, you take three steps after the block, straighten up to make sure you hit the kicker rather than staying low at an angle so that you might miss him, you hit him squarely, and you had no chance at all to block the kick, that's going to be called a penalty every time.
What are you talking about? The Seattle guy took as many steps if not more after the contact, he was blocked at the line of scrimmage, and lay a devastating hit on the kicker's legs. The Colts guy tried to keep the kicker upright. And when, exactly was this called during the year? I saw lots of running into the kicker and every single time it was not flagged because there was contact during the play, no matter how many steps he took afterwards, and was 'by rule' considered blocked into the kicker.
by Jon Silverberg (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:13am
+1...
I cannot believe that, after the Holmes drop and the completely-wrong-headed deep throw to Edwards on 3rd & 5, the Jets overcame it all...they've been doing it all season at the end of games, so why should this be any different, I guess (the offense had won at least 5 games in the final minute in the regular season)...wow...
I'm not quite sure what Caldwell was thinking taking that TO w/ 29 seconds to go. He just gave the Jets a MUCH easier field goal there. Didn't he also take a questionable TO in the first Colts Jags game?
That Time Out by the Colts with 28 seconds left has to be the worst decision I have seen in a long time. It basically gave NYJ the chance to get another 20 yards closer for the game winning FG.
That's what I thought too- the draw play seemed to be setting up a long FG where they let the clock run down and use their last TO with 3 seconds left. Maybe the Jets were going to quick huddle and try something but it didn't look that way to me. Caldwell screwed the pooch.
Unbelievable. I thought for sure this was going to be another agonizing loss, but they pulled it out. That timeout by the Colts didn't make a whole lot of sense, it will be interesting to see what the explanation is for it.
by Jon Silverberg (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:10am
I'm sorry, but the Jets tried several times to shoot themselves in the foot, and ended up overcoming it all to win...their offense has proven that it knows how to score at the end of tight games...calling this a lucky win is wrong...the Jets have enough talent to overcome the many mistakes they made tonight...both coaching staffs made questionable calls at the end (Caldwell's timeout, Shotty's long ball to Edwards on 3rd & 5), so they drop out as game changers...the running into the punter penalty only postponed the end of that Jets drive, so it only meant that, without it, the Jets would have had more than 53 seconds for their final drive, so it falls away, too...what you're left with is a team whose offensive line ate the second half, giving Manning only 2 possessions and scoring two TDs on long drives, a defense that limited Manning to two field goals on those two possessions, a special teams group that set up two excellent kickoff returns in the second half, and an offense that moved the ball 35 yards or so in 30 seconds at the end of the game to set up a winning field goal...not luck to me...
I agree. It was the Colts who were lucky. The Jet D was excellent but for one brilliant play, and the Colt D was in typical never-get-off-the-field mode, allowing too many makeable 3rd downs and giving up a couple of longer ones too. The only thing that kept them in the game at all was Sanchez's inaccuracy. Even on the throws he hit in the first half he was sailing them, and that mechanics article seems dead on. In the second, once they stopped throwing it as often, they took over. Sure, Manning figured a few things out and also led three scoring drives (though the give up runs on 2nd and 3rd down before the 14-13 FG were head-scratchers. The previous two third and long runs were into easy fronts... Not so on 3rd and 7 there.), but in the second, without Sanchez to bail them out, the Colt D was hopeless.
Sanchez was awful for two quarters. Simply awful. But it might be the injury... And they overcame it with excellent play. I was very impressed with Ryan's patience and discipline about staying mostly in coverage and not wasting time with the wild blitzes. It was the right call and the Jets executed well. I assumed he would be too stubborn and it would lead to some big plays, but he wasn't. Once they limited the damage their QB could do, they had a huge advantage. That isn't luck.
by Tony (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:49am
If that's accurate, why would the Colts take a timeout in this situation? Caldwell should be blasted over that decision. There's no hope of getting the ball back if you're the Colts.
by Tony (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:47am
I notice now that the play by play lists the Colts as taking that timeout after the Tomlinson run on the last drive. I don't remember them calling one, but if they did, why would you take a timeout there if you're the Colts?
The commentators said Caldwell was trying to preserve some time... But that didn't make any sense. No one really knows, unless Caldwell said something in postgame.
Ryan calling a timeout during Manning's last drive was pretty darn smart. Jets might not have won if not for that. That was a bigger (positive) TO call than Caldwell's (negative) TO call.
He also sprinted up to the ref before the 50 harder as if to use the last one for icing, which faked me out. That would not have been smart.
Caldwell showed amazing faith in a D that did nothing to deserve it. It worked - luckily - at 14-13. It didn't at 16-14. even more puzzling than the timeout was the call o n the first play of that drive... Lacey gave them that 9.5 yarder. Just allowed it ... Ten yards off the line in a soft zone inviting that exact route. That was even more charitable than the timeout.
I agree - the Jets should have taken their first(?) timeout around thirty or forty seconds earlier than they did, on the previous play. Once the Colts were in field goal range, they were looking to run clock, and the Jets should have been looking to conserve it, which Ryan realised, but not as quickly as he should have. Either the Colts score, in which case you want as much time left as possible, or they don't, in which case you can kneel the game out regardless. The Colts running out of time on that drive was never a possibility.
For exactly that same reason, I thought it was a mistake for the Colts to be hurrying so much at the beginning of their last drive. Particularly when they rushed to get that play off before the two-minute warning. At that point, there's virtually no scenario in which you will end up wishing that there was more time left, so it would have made much more sense to let the two-minute warning come and go.
There was a whole slew of dumb decisions at the end of that game: in addition to the Jets throwing deep on 3rd and 5, and the Caldwell TO, which people have already mentioned, I think he clearly should have had his players stay away from the punter entirely - why even take the chance of allowing something like that penalty to happen?
You're right that there's almost no way the clock would have run out prior to a Colts' FG attempt, but there's a nontrivial chance that time would have become an issue had the Colts been more successful in advancing the ball, and wanted to try to score a TD. There's a big, big, big difference between asking Sanchez to move the ball ~60 yards in a very limited time, and asking him for the mere ~20 he needed to get into FG range. A TD would have been significantly more useful for the Cots, so I can't blame them for wanting to ensure that time constraints wouldn't overly limit their ability to score 7.
OR, if you're already in FG range and trying to score a TD, and time becomes a concern, you just let time run out, and kick the FG as time expires, making how much Sanchez would need to drive moot.
There was absolutely no reason not to take that play after the two-minute warning.
Since this site asks me every time i visit it, no i dont care how to get hot girls or need to know what effing mistakes i make in bed. Why? because my team just beat the great peyton manning!
as for the game, i mean jets committed several errors. weatherford couldnt pin the colts deep early, and when you have that advantage in field position you shouldnt be able to win if you score zero points from it.
The Jets won this game fairly, and I would agree with the posters saying that they disagree with anyone who says that they "lucked" into the win.
That said, anyone who claims that the Jets won this game because Sanchez played well is smoking something. Sanchez was horrible all night. Every throw he made was high...sailing on him...and many of his decisions were poor. However, he was bailed out by some absolutely amazingly atheltic catches by his receivers, especially Holmes and Cotchery and Keller. The final pass that made the FG a short one is a great example...most recievers have only a 40% chance or worse of making that catch, I would say...but there were many others. Early in the game, Sanchez had one 20ish yard completion to a deep (and open) WR, but the ball was about two to three feet over the WR's head, and there were two Colts camping out just behind him. If the reciever doesn't make a perfectly timed athletic leap, it's an INT. Sanchez was making throws like that all game, and he's lucky it only cost him one INT.
And yet mainstream writers and announcers have it all wrong. An article on CNNSI right now talks about how Sanchez gets a B and his receivers get a C. Maybe the WR's were dropping so many balls because the throws were horribly off target?
The Jets defense versus the Pats offense will be an intriguing matchup. But if Sanchez plays like this next week, the Pats secondary is going to eat his throws for lunch. He can't expect his WR's to bail him out like this again.
Agreed. Jets good, Sanchez lousy. It's definitely too early to give up on him as a prospect, given how raw he still is, but as of right now he's a pretty awful NFL quarterback, and there's no guarantee that will change.
by Jon Silverberg (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 3:57am
Agree in part, not completely...yes, Sanchez was bad in the first half, and the throw to Edwards on 3rd and 5 in the 4th quarter was overthrown...however, if I heard correctly, someone in postgame coverage stated that he was 9 for his last 11, including the Edwards overthrow and Holmes' drop (although that certainly wasn't a perfectly-placed ball, Holmes should have made that catch)...he led at least five late drives for wins in the regular season...and he is now 3 out of 4 in the playoffs (all on the road)...I don't agree that that all is remotely covered by the phrase "a pretty lousy NFL quarterback..." He learns from his mistakes, he's only in his second year...given that, he has a great record so far, and I'm very happy the Jets went up to take him in the draft...
See, the problem with that reasoning is that HE isn't 3-1 in the play-offs. THE JETS are 3-1 in the play-offs. This game specially was won despite of him, not because of him.
Maybe it was the injury, maybe it's growing pains that will be outgrown. But right now, Sanchez is not playing like a good QB. At all.
I'm not denying that Sanchez could improve: as you say, he's a second year player (and one who played very little in college), and I don't get the impression that he's too lazy or egomaniacal to learn from his mistakes. I wasn't critical of the pick at the time - I viewed it as high risk, high reward. He fit the profile of late round successes like Brady and Bulger far better than that of any other high first round pick I could think of, hit or miss. He looked excellent in his very limited college playing time, but the limited body of work and the strength of his supporting cast made it difficult to be too confident of that evaluation. Since then, he's played some really quite good games, several very poor games, and a number that were somewhere in between. Yesterday, his accuracy was dire, and it's not the first time I've seen that problem from him. Even many of the completions were actually bad throws. If it really is a biomechanical issue stemming from an injury - which certainly seems plausible - then that is a positive sign for his future. I still think he played a bad game yesterday and is overall a substandard quarterback as of this time.
by Mike Elseroad (not verified) :: Mon, 01/10/2011 - 1:49am
Jim McMahon's qb rating rating in 1985 was the best in the NFC and second best in the NFL behind NYJ's Ken O'Brien.
McMahon played 11 or 12 games in 1985. I think that was the most games he started when he was a Bear.
I think that the Bears won 20 or so consecutive games in which McMahon was able to start.
My point is that McMahon was an integral part of the 1985 Bears championship team. He was much better than 2000 Trent Dilfer and (so far) Mark Sanchez.
a) Sanchez is, in fact, worse than McMahon. In any case, nobody is confusing the '10 Jets for the '85 Bears.
b) Somebody's got to be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl. If that's Dilfer, so be it. But most QBs who are "not worse than" Trent Dilfer are not going to advance far in the playoffs. It's a simple matter of numbers. There are too many of them.
QB play does matter, and Sanchez was outplayed today in that department. But football is a team game, and in this case, the Jets got enough help from other people.
How on earth did we get to the point where anyone thinks Jim McMahon is comparable to Trent Dilfer?
McMahon's base passing stats were pretty good, better than average, he ran well until he was 31, and he fumbled very, very rarely. Dilfer's passing stats are much, much worse, he wasn't worth much as a runner, and he fumbled quite a bit. They're just not comparable.
My guess is that whoever made that statement never actually saw McMahhon play in the mid-80s. He's probably just going by having heard that Sweetness and the D carried that team. So that must be like the 2000 Ravesn, so McMahonn = Dilfer. Which is just, oh so wrong.
Again, not an elite QB by any means, but also not even the second worse QB to win a SB. I'd take him over Dilfer, Johnson, Williams and Rypien. Not sure about Eli.
I'd take him over Plunkett, Rypien, Johnson, Hostetler, Williams, and most definitely over Eli Manning's career to this point.
In fact, I'm not all that sure how much separation there is between McMahon and Phil Simms. Simms obviously lasted a lot longer, but I'm not exactly convinced he was significantly *better*. Their passing efficiency numbers are quite similar, and McMahon took fewer sacks, ran a lot better, and fumbled quite a bit less.
I made that statement, and I was living in Chicago in the 80s and watched every single Bears game during that time. McMahon was a great college QB who became an average pro QB who could have been above average if not for his injuries. He did have major intangibles, and he was light years above the regiment of suck the Bears had at QB prior to his arrival.
My guess is that most people who remember McMahon in a better light are remembering the magnitude of the upgrade, and not his actual abilities.
Dilfer, on the other hand, was an average QB who is remembered as being worse than he was because he had a poor statistical season the year he won a ring. His best years were with Tampa, and he suffered from not being able to will an average offense to above-average heights.
So, no, Alvaro, McMahon =/= Dilfer. However, they share the property that they won a Super Bowl without being their teams' MVP, which is how I'd imagine Sanchez may win one on this Jets team.
While Trent Dilfer may have had a poor statistical season in 2000, it was poor in comparison to the league, not in comparison to other Trent Dilfer seasons. If he's remembered as being worse than he was, that's not the reason why.
In fact, I think he's often remembered as *better* than he was, because the phrase "game manager" seems to have become attached to him, I assume as a result of his having won while playing with a great defense. In fact, Dilfer is about as far from being a game manager as any QB could be, because he turned the ball over a lot, both with picks and fumbles.
However, they share the property that they won a Super Bowl without being their teams' MVP, which is how I'd imagine Sanchez may win one on this Jets team.
So did Brett Favre, Ben Rothlisberger, and Bob Griese. What is your point again?
mainstream writers and announcers usually have it all wrong. A few things of note:
it is entirely possibly Sanchez is playing with a bad throwing shoulder that needs to at best be cleaned out, and at worst surgically repaired. the Sanchez i've seen play doesnt miss balls like the one he missed to holmes late in the 4th. He also throws a better, crisper deep ball than the one he threw to Braylon. Last year he threw a beautiful 50 yard bomb into the wind, on a dime to Edwards against Atlanta. Something is not right physically right now.
Another media darling is Joe Flacco. Like Flacco, Sanchez is 3-1 in his first 4playoff starts, all on the road. However Sanchez has been significantly better in those starts than the Ravens qb, yet i dont hear anyone saying that Flacco might not be the answer in Baltimore.
Who's saying Sanchez is not the answer in NY? He might be, he might not be. If he's at his ceiling, then he's definitely not. If he can still grow into his potential, then he probably is. But it's too early to tell, and as he is right now, he is a liability more than an asset.
Even better is that he gives Manning a C- and piles on.
I'd love to be shown one mistake Manning made. Avoided trouble against a D that played VERY well and took away his weapons and left with a lead. But yeah, they lost because Manning and the offense went to sleep. Cold hard facts!
I've been to enough games in person and heard enough from people I respect to truly believe BM is not good.
I do realize it is difficult to evaluate football players without knowing what they were supposed to do and it is especially hard to evaluate DBs since they are often not in the TV shot, but who have you heard say he is even average? Or do you go to enough games to believe that from watching him in person?
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 01/10/2011 - 12:01am
"but who have you heard say he is even average"
Well, for one, the coaches that voted him in to the probowl. For another, the coaching staff that continues to put him on the field more than Pat Chung, James Sanders, Jarrad Page, etc.
Merriweather's primary responsibility this year has been deep coverage. Its no coincidence that the Patriots gave up almost no long passing plays this year.
after watching the Charles rushing TD replay like 5 times, he tried to describe the blocking. he completely butchered it even though it was zoomed in and main field/sky cam
--------------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.
I haven't watched too much Jamaal Charles before this game, but holy hell is he fast. Everywhere he goes there's a defender flying just behind him because they misjudge his speed.
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 3:37pm
Do you get complete intentional grounding immunity when you throw out of bounds? There was one play when Flacco was falling to the ground from a hit and threw way out of bounds. He was in the pocket, so I thought it must be grounding. Does the out of bounds negate that?
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 4:02pm
Well, the referees just made it "clear" for us. The sideline isn't automatic protection. If you're Flacco and going to the ground when you throw away it's fine. When you're Cassel and only marginally pressured and you throw away that's intentional grounding.
To be honest, even against the Texans (pass defenses don't come much worse) Cassel didn't look very impressive. Nice fantasy performance, but actually, when you can't even manage 7ypa against Houston, that's not very good. Several drives in that game stalled due to bad plays by Cassel. I don't rate him.
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 4:25pm
That would imply that they ever had any momentum to begin with. The Ravens have looked poor on offense thus far, but the Chiefs appear to have no offense whatsoever.
Regardless of the end result of whether it is ruled an incompletion of a fumble, im wondering what jamaal charles value is when he blocks. im guessing not too high
That punt by Koch that was wiped out by the penalty is a great example of just how much of a role luck can play in this game. Bounces like that can make a huge difference in tight games, and that had nothing to do with skill, coaching, or execution.
We know this, of course, but it'd be nice if an announcer would catch it sometimes.
As much as that NFL Playoffs commercial still stings, it muses me that it features Simms being proven dead wrong just seconds after making a declaration (re: blitzing).
Also, VW, my car did all that in the accident I had 12 years ago.
This was the Ravens best game of the season. Looks like their defense will be healthy and well-rested going into Pittsburgh, should be able to stuff Mendenhall at least, but Ben still will be able to throw. Last game vs. Steelers Heap was injured on the first play, he looked great today and should help them quite a bit.
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 5:29pm
Were you watching the same game I was? I saw the Ravens play one of their poorer games of the season on offense. Their defense played well as you would expect, but not great.
I agree with both of your points for the next game, though. The Ravens are too good to repeat a game like this, plus they tend to get up for their division rivals.
I think factoring the yardage disparity (390-160), turnovers (1-5, not including Nakamura's fumble), first downs (25-8), 3rd/4th down conversions (10/18 - 1/10), time of possession (42 - 18 minutes), it was easily the Ravens most dominating win of the season. Plus on the road against a pretty good (but not great) opponent.
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 5:59pm
I think if you look back for cause and effect, you'll find that the Ravens offensive numbers were all set up by the fact that the Chiefs offense was non-existent. Look at the time of possession. If you have the ball that long you had better accumulate some yardage. And why did they have that ToP? The Chiefs turned it over or punted quickly on just about every drive.
If you want to see a silver lining on offense, I think you've found it with the 3rd down conversion rate, which is what kept the couple of decent drives the Ravens did put together going. The defense played reasonably well, though, as KC never got anything going.
I also disagree with your characterization of the Chiefs as "pretty good." DVOA puts them at exactly average with 0.1%. And their weighted DVOA is -11.3% (25th) which is closer to being just south of "pretty bad." The Ravens played okay, but they were beating up on an inferior opponent.
Or maybe I'm way off base. I'm looking forward to seeing what DVOA tells us.
by Intropy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/09/2011 - 6:02pm
I should add that the Chiefs appeared to me to be playing even more poorly than their weighted DVOA would suggest, especially with respect to Matt Cassel. Those interceptions were terrible passes and decisions against competent defending.
RSS Feed
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Peyton Manning doesn't know what bombastic means.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Maybe he heard "bomb-tastic"!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
See, Santonio Holmes did that on purpose to bait Caldwell into wasting a challenge.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Santonio must be high again. What was he thinking?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
My guess is that since he called for a fair catch, that he had a right to the ball and that it should have been a penalty on the Colts. Is that not the case once the ball bounces?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Not sure, but why even get close to a ball that's bouncing around and run the risk of it taking a crazy hop into your leg?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
He didn't call a fair catch, he was waving off the rest of the Jets.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
?? I thought any broad wave counted as a fair catch.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Have to wave your arm over your head. It's to distinguish the fair catch wave from the "get away from it" wave.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
That's what I thought I saw. I'm sure we'll hear about it in post-game coverage.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Nah, he was waving them in front of him. If I saw it right, of course...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Checked the DVR during the commercial break. He waved both arms in front of him like he was declining a penalty, which is not a fair catch signal but instead was telling everyone to get away from the ball.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
In the words of Sir Charles... That's just turruble.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Shhh... nobody tell the Colts they have Peyton Manning as their quarterback...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I think they just remembered...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
A-Yup
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Why are the punt rules different in the field vs near the end zone? Is the ball not dead the SECOND a punt-team-member touches it? Or after they touch it is the play not dead? In which case, why don't they always push the ball down the field to the 1 yard line, no matter where they punt from?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Actually, a punting team member touching the ball is considered a penalty (though no yards, unless they went out of bounds first. Play isn't over til either the ball is stopped or the referee calls it dead as there is no play on it. There was a play earlier this year where the punting team touched it to keep it out of the end zone and the receiving team grabbed it and returned for a touchdown. That's why the punting team goes to control the ball when they do touch it.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The ball is not dead when a punt team member touches it. It is still live, and the receiving team can pick it up and run with no fear of losing a fumble because the ball will be spotted at the point of first touching by the kicking team OR the point where the ball ends up, whichever is more favorable for the receiving team. That's why it won't do you any good to push the ball down the field to the one yard line, and it's also why the kicking team tries to down the ball rather than merely touch it.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Ahh, ok, thanks to you and MurphyZero for explaining. Makes sense haha.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The relative weakness of Sanchez is starting to show.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Posted one play before the pick, TYVM.
(*pats self on back*)
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Contrary to Collinsworth, I thought the ball was catchable...Keller mistimed his jump and was on the way down when the ball got there...not necessarily surprising after running all the way across the field, but still...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The greater sin was not hitting Keller while he was going across the field wide open.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Bad throw sure, but surely Keller should have recognised he was open and stopped and sat in the zone, rather than carrying on running into traffic?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
It's the weakness of the Bad Sanchez. There's a difference between a QB that's consistently bad and one who vacillated between very good and awful. The former has a chance to be a very good QB.
But it's the playoffs, so if Bad Sanchez shows up, it's not good for the Jets chances this
year.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Great game so far. Now that it's halftime, I have time to post this question:
During the first quarter, one of the Colts WRs lined up near the sideline, a yard or two back from the line of scrimmage. A split second before the snap, he bolted inside at an angle back towards the line. At the snap he was already angling towards the Jets DE, whom he blocked.
That's illegal procedure isn't it? You have to run parallel to the line, I'm pretty sure of that. What's the rule on being set for one second before the snap? Does that apply too?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Angling toward is illegal, but one player is allowed to be in motion at the snap, just not forward motion. The one second refers to two players in motion at the same time, or if one moves forward, for example to be one of the 7 on the line.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Good drive by Jets. Good decision to utilize the running game a lot more. That's probably their best hope for actually winning this game. Sanchez has looked far too inconsistent to have everything riding on his arm.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
There was an article posted on Gang Green Nation of an interview with a biomechanics expert that reckons his inaccuracy is a product of bad mechanics resulting from his unhealed left knee. I have to say as I have watched him I have noticed that he almost always takes these huge strides into his bad throws and that article basically confirmed what I had been seeing.
The article can be seen here:
http://www.ganggreennation.com/2011/1/7/1920070/biomechanics-expert-is-c...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Collinsworth mentioned the same over-stride issue, and the NBC broadcast showed a nice replay of him doing it on one of his overthrows to Keller.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Audible to Rhodes with Taylor going away from the point of attack sick. Just sick.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Yeah that was pretty sweet.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Yeah, that play is exactly why I love Manning. Is there another QB in the league who would kill to a run on 3rd and 9 because he knew exactly what the defense was going to do?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
And yet, if the Jets get three more first downs, I'm more than happy to oblige.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Colts d is not the right d to run the pistol option against
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
All Rhodes lead to nowhere.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Wayne just crushed Revis* on a downfield block on a nice but otherwise unremarkable 3rd down conversion (slant to Garcon).
*I think it was Wayne on Revis, but it wasn't visible on the replay, so I may have misidentified one or both parties.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Colts should have gone for it. The Jets held the ball for 10 minutes on their last drive. Surely they can hold it for four minutes here. I like Manning to convert that 4th-and-four more than I like Sanchez to lead a late TD drive.
Hail Hydra!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
And then Holmes makes Caldwell look brilliant.
Hail Hydra!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Not entirely. That Gang Green article seems on the money: High throw to the right.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
To be sure, but the pass was good enough. Holmes had both hands on it.
Hail Hydra!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
On behalf of Jets Nation, I happily accept the roughing the kicker penalty. Thanks!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Indeed, it was very kind of them to absolve Holmes!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
It's no problem. Manning promised he would make the game exciting.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
ummmm. WTF? Does the NFL have any clue whatsoever what their rules are? They just got finished telling us that if a defender is blocked than he can by rule not 'run into the kicker' in the Seattle game. Now the same thing happens, except it's much less contact and they throw a flag in the Colts game.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Except that in this case the defender had several steps and a jump into the kicker that may have absolved the blocker. Not saying it was the right call, but it did seem that the call was appropriate.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Did you see the Seattle non-call? Look at them one after the other and try to determine what the rule might be.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
In the Seattle non-call there were fewer steps after the block, the hit wasn't nearly as hard, and there was an effort made to avoid the kicker. If, on the other hand, you take three steps after the block, straighten up to make sure you hit the kicker rather than staying low at an angle so that you might miss him, you hit him squarely, and you had no chance at all to block the kick, that's going to be called a penalty every time.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
+1
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
What are you talking about? The Seattle guy took as many steps if not more after the contact, he was blocked at the line of scrimmage, and lay a devastating hit on the kicker's legs. The Colts guy tried to keep the kicker upright. And when, exactly was this called during the year? I saw lots of running into the kicker and every single time it was not flagged because there was contact during the play, no matter how many steps he took afterwards, and was 'by rule' considered blocked into the kicker.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Whhhhyyy? Why go deep on 3rd-and-five near midfield? They don't need points, they just need to play keep away for another 2:30 and they can go home?
Hail Hydra!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Gotta love that Schottenheimer playcalling/Sanchez bad-throwing combo right there. Sigh.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
As we used to say during bad Strat matchups before the roll, "assume the position"
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Hmm, that wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. On to Schatztopia!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Well, this game's in the bag. I guess I'll go to bed. Congrats, Colts.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
http://mitchellarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/dewey-defeats-tru...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Brilliant
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Dewey's presidency changed the face of America.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
+1...
I cannot believe that, after the Holmes drop and the completely-wrong-headed deep throw to Edwards on 3rd & 5, the Jets overcame it all...they've been doing it all season at the end of games, so why should this be any different, I guess (the offense had won at least 5 games in the final minute in the regular season)...wow...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Hahahahah.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I'm not quite sure what Caldwell was thinking taking that TO w/ 29 seconds to go. He just gave the Jets a MUCH easier field goal there. Didn't he also take a questionable TO in the first Colts Jags game?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
That Time Out by the Colts with 28 seconds left has to be the worst decision I have seen in a long time. It basically gave NYJ the chance to get another 20 yards closer for the game winning FG.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I have no idea what he was thinking. It might not have actually changed much, but good grief, I do not understand that decision at all.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I totally agree the TO call was asinine.
However, I bet Caldwell wanted to let his clearly gassed defense a breather, to calm them down, and call a good defensive play.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
They wouldn't have needed a breather, as the Jets looked like they were gonna take the field goal from right there.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
That's what I thought too- the draw play seemed to be setting up a long FG where they let the clock run down and use their last TO with 3 seconds left. Maybe the Jets were going to quick huddle and try something but it didn't look that way to me. Caldwell screwed the pooch.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Unbelievable. I thought for sure this was going to be another agonizing loss, but they pulled it out. That timeout by the Colts didn't make a whole lot of sense, it will be interesting to see what the explanation is for it.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Would really like to hear how the Jets lucked into this victory instead of earning it.
BTW- Revis vs. Wayne. 1 target, 1 pass, 1 catch, 1 yard. Revis Island returns.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I'm sorry, but the Jets tried several times to shoot themselves in the foot, and ended up overcoming it all to win...their offense has proven that it knows how to score at the end of tight games...calling this a lucky win is wrong...the Jets have enough talent to overcome the many mistakes they made tonight...both coaching staffs made questionable calls at the end (Caldwell's timeout, Shotty's long ball to Edwards on 3rd & 5), so they drop out as game changers...the running into the punter penalty only postponed the end of that Jets drive, so it only meant that, without it, the Jets would have had more than 53 seconds for their final drive, so it falls away, too...what you're left with is a team whose offensive line ate the second half, giving Manning only 2 possessions and scoring two TDs on long drives, a defense that limited Manning to two field goals on those two possessions, a special teams group that set up two excellent kickoff returns in the second half, and an offense that moved the ball 35 yards or so in 30 seconds at the end of the game to set up a winning field goal...not luck to me...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Oops...should have said 3 Manning possessions and 3 field goals...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I agree. It was the Colts who were lucky. The Jet D was excellent but for one brilliant play, and the Colt D was in typical never-get-off-the-field mode, allowing too many makeable 3rd downs and giving up a couple of longer ones too. The only thing that kept them in the game at all was Sanchez's inaccuracy. Even on the throws he hit in the first half he was sailing them, and that mechanics article seems dead on. In the second, once they stopped throwing it as often, they took over. Sure, Manning figured a few things out and also led three scoring drives (though the give up runs on 2nd and 3rd down before the 14-13 FG were head-scratchers. The previous two third and long runs were into easy fronts... Not so on 3rd and 7 there.), but in the second, without Sanchez to bail them out, the Colt D was hopeless.
Sanchez was awful for two quarters. Simply awful. But it might be the injury... And they overcame it with excellent play. I was very impressed with Ryan's patience and discipline about staying mostly in coverage and not wasting time with the wild blitzes. It was the right call and the Jets executed well. I assumed he would be too stubborn and it would lead to some big plays, but he wasn't. Once they limited the damage their QB could do, they had a huge advantage. That isn't luck.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Did the Jets get a fourth timeout? The ESPN.com play by play lists four timeouts for them in the 4th qt, with two listed as "Timeout #3."
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
You read IND as NYJ. Indy took a timeout. They may have fixed it now though, maybe DID have it wrong.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
If that's accurate, why would the Colts take a timeout in this situation? Caldwell should be blasted over that decision. There's no hope of getting the ball back if you're the Colts.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Based on his reaction, it seemed that Peyton Manning agreed.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I notice now that the play by play lists the Colts as taking that timeout after the Tomlinson run on the last drive. I don't remember them calling one, but if they did, why would you take a timeout there if you're the Colts?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The commentators said Caldwell was trying to preserve some time... But that didn't make any sense. No one really knows, unless Caldwell said something in postgame.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Ryan calling a timeout during Manning's last drive was pretty darn smart. Jets might not have won if not for that. That was a bigger (positive) TO call than Caldwell's (negative) TO call.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
He should've called two, actually, IIRC.
He also sprinted up to the ref before the 50 harder as if to use the last one for icing, which faked me out. That would not have been smart.
Caldwell showed amazing faith in a D that did nothing to deserve it. It worked - luckily - at 14-13. It didn't at 16-14. even more puzzling than the timeout was the call o n the first play of that drive... Lacey gave them that 9.5 yarder. Just allowed it ... Ten yards off the line in a soft zone inviting that exact route. That was even more charitable than the timeout.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I agree - the Jets should have taken their first(?) timeout around thirty or forty seconds earlier than they did, on the previous play. Once the Colts were in field goal range, they were looking to run clock, and the Jets should have been looking to conserve it, which Ryan realised, but not as quickly as he should have. Either the Colts score, in which case you want as much time left as possible, or they don't, in which case you can kneel the game out regardless. The Colts running out of time on that drive was never a possibility.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
For exactly that same reason, I thought it was a mistake for the Colts to be hurrying so much at the beginning of their last drive. Particularly when they rushed to get that play off before the two-minute warning. At that point, there's virtually no scenario in which you will end up wishing that there was more time left, so it would have made much more sense to let the two-minute warning come and go.
There was a whole slew of dumb decisions at the end of that game: in addition to the Jets throwing deep on 3rd and 5, and the Caldwell TO, which people have already mentioned, I think he clearly should have had his players stay away from the punter entirely - why even take the chance of allowing something like that penalty to happen?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
You're right that there's almost no way the clock would have run out prior to a Colts' FG attempt, but there's a nontrivial chance that time would have become an issue had the Colts been more successful in advancing the ball, and wanted to try to score a TD. There's a big, big, big difference between asking Sanchez to move the ball ~60 yards in a very limited time, and asking him for the mere ~20 he needed to get into FG range. A TD would have been significantly more useful for the Cots, so I can't blame them for wanting to ensure that time constraints wouldn't overly limit their ability to score 7.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
OR, if you're already in FG range and trying to score a TD, and time becomes a concern, you just let time run out, and kick the FG as time expires, making how much Sanchez would need to drive moot.
There was absolutely no reason not to take that play after the two-minute warning.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The Colts' bottom-of-the=barrel special teams, this time their kickoff coverage, bites them in the ass once again.
Ya know, maybe instead of lashing out at Aaron Schatz & co, maybe he should start listening to them.
The way it's starting to look, the Colts are "only" going to have one title with arguably the greatest qb of all time.
Lol. That bites for Colts fans. But I'm a Pats fan, so it's all to the good.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Since this site asks me every time i visit it, no i dont care how to get hot girls or need to know what effing mistakes i make in bed. Why? because my team just beat the great peyton manning!
as for the game, i mean jets committed several errors. weatherford couldnt pin the colts deep early, and when you have that advantage in field position you shouldnt be able to win if you score zero points from it.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The Jets won this game fairly, and I would agree with the posters saying that they disagree with anyone who says that they "lucked" into the win.
That said, anyone who claims that the Jets won this game because Sanchez played well is smoking something. Sanchez was horrible all night. Every throw he made was high...sailing on him...and many of his decisions were poor. However, he was bailed out by some absolutely amazingly atheltic catches by his receivers, especially Holmes and Cotchery and Keller. The final pass that made the FG a short one is a great example...most recievers have only a 40% chance or worse of making that catch, I would say...but there were many others. Early in the game, Sanchez had one 20ish yard completion to a deep (and open) WR, but the ball was about two to three feet over the WR's head, and there were two Colts camping out just behind him. If the reciever doesn't make a perfectly timed athletic leap, it's an INT. Sanchez was making throws like that all game, and he's lucky it only cost him one INT.
And yet mainstream writers and announcers have it all wrong. An article on CNNSI right now talks about how Sanchez gets a B and his receivers get a C. Maybe the WR's were dropping so many balls because the throws were horribly off target?
The Jets defense versus the Pats offense will be an intriguing matchup. But if Sanchez plays like this next week, the Pats secondary is going to eat his throws for lunch. He can't expect his WR's to bail him out like this again.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Agreed. Jets good, Sanchez lousy. It's definitely too early to give up on him as a prospect, given how raw he still is, but as of right now he's a pretty awful NFL quarterback, and there's no guarantee that will change.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Agree in part, not completely...yes, Sanchez was bad in the first half, and the throw to Edwards on 3rd and 5 in the 4th quarter was overthrown...however, if I heard correctly, someone in postgame coverage stated that he was 9 for his last 11, including the Edwards overthrow and Holmes' drop (although that certainly wasn't a perfectly-placed ball, Holmes should have made that catch)...he led at least five late drives for wins in the regular season...and he is now 3 out of 4 in the playoffs (all on the road)...I don't agree that that all is remotely covered by the phrase "a pretty lousy NFL quarterback..." He learns from his mistakes, he's only in his second year...given that, he has a great record so far, and I'm very happy the Jets went up to take him in the draft...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
See, the problem with that reasoning is that HE isn't 3-1 in the play-offs. THE JETS are 3-1 in the play-offs. This game specially was won despite of him, not because of him.
Maybe it was the injury, maybe it's growing pains that will be outgrown. But right now, Sanchez is not playing like a good QB. At all.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Indeed. Manning played much better than Sanchez, but the Jets turned on the running game in the 2nd half and that made the difference.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I'm not denying that Sanchez could improve: as you say, he's a second year player (and one who played very little in college), and I don't get the impression that he's too lazy or egomaniacal to learn from his mistakes. I wasn't critical of the pick at the time - I viewed it as high risk, high reward. He fit the profile of late round successes like Brady and Bulger far better than that of any other high first round pick I could think of, hit or miss. He looked excellent in his very limited college playing time, but the limited body of work and the strength of his supporting cast made it difficult to be too confident of that evaluation. Since then, he's played some really quite good games, several very poor games, and a number that were somewhere in between. Yesterday, his accuracy was dire, and it's not the first time I've seen that problem from him. Even many of the completions were actually bad throws. If it really is a biomechanical issue stemming from an injury - which certainly seems plausible - then that is a positive sign for his future. I still think he played a bad game yesterday and is overall a substandard quarterback as of this time.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I agree. If his problem is biomechanics, which I would absolutely believe, I would be very excited about his future.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Sanchez is no worse a QB than Jim McMahon or Trent Dilfer, and those guys didn't prevent their teams from winning a Super Bowl.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
McMahon might not have been an elite QB, but he was definitely an integral part of that Bears offense. Just witness what happened in '86.
I don't think the Jets would decline nearly as much without Sanchez.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Jim McMahon's qb rating rating in 1985 was the best in the NFC and second best in the NFL behind NYJ's Ken O'Brien.
McMahon played 11 or 12 games in 1985. I think that was the most games he started when he was a Bear.
I think that the Bears won 20 or so consecutive games in which McMahon was able to start.
My point is that McMahon was an integral part of the 1985 Bears championship team. He was much better than 2000 Trent Dilfer and (so far) Mark Sanchez.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
*facepalm*
a) Sanchez is, in fact, worse than McMahon. In any case, nobody is confusing the '10 Jets for the '85 Bears.
b) Somebody's got to be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl. If that's Dilfer, so be it. But most QBs who are "not worse than" Trent Dilfer are not going to advance far in the playoffs. It's a simple matter of numbers. There are too many of them.
QB play does matter, and Sanchez was outplayed today in that department. But football is a team game, and in this case, the Jets got enough help from other people.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
How on earth did we get to the point where anyone thinks Jim McMahon is comparable to Trent Dilfer?
McMahon's base passing stats were pretty good, better than average, he ran well until he was 31, and he fumbled very, very rarely. Dilfer's passing stats are much, much worse, he wasn't worth much as a runner, and he fumbled quite a bit. They're just not comparable.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
My guess is that whoever made that statement never actually saw McMahhon play in the mid-80s. He's probably just going by having heard that Sweetness and the D carried that team. So that must be like the 2000 Ravesn, so McMahonn = Dilfer. Which is just, oh so wrong.
Again, not an elite QB by any means, but also not even the second worse QB to win a SB. I'd take him over Dilfer, Johnson, Williams and Rypien. Not sure about Eli.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I'd take him over Plunkett, Rypien, Johnson, Hostetler, Williams, and most definitely over Eli Manning's career to this point.
In fact, I'm not all that sure how much separation there is between McMahon and Phil Simms. Simms obviously lasted a lot longer, but I'm not exactly convinced he was significantly *better*. Their passing efficiency numbers are quite similar, and McMahon took fewer sacks, ran a lot better, and fumbled quite a bit less.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I made that statement, and I was living in Chicago in the 80s and watched every single Bears game during that time. McMahon was a great college QB who became an average pro QB who could have been above average if not for his injuries. He did have major intangibles, and he was light years above the regiment of suck the Bears had at QB prior to his arrival.
My guess is that most people who remember McMahon in a better light are remembering the magnitude of the upgrade, and not his actual abilities.
Dilfer, on the other hand, was an average QB who is remembered as being worse than he was because he had a poor statistical season the year he won a ring. His best years were with Tampa, and he suffered from not being able to will an average offense to above-average heights.
So, no, Alvaro, McMahon =/= Dilfer. However, they share the property that they won a Super Bowl without being their teams' MVP, which is how I'd imagine Sanchez may win one on this Jets team.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
While Trent Dilfer may have had a poor statistical season in 2000, it was poor in comparison to the league, not in comparison to other Trent Dilfer seasons. If he's remembered as being worse than he was, that's not the reason why.
In fact, I think he's often remembered as *better* than he was, because the phrase "game manager" seems to have become attached to him, I assume as a result of his having won while playing with a great defense. In fact, Dilfer is about as far from being a game manager as any QB could be, because he turned the ball over a lot, both with picks and fumbles.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
However, they share the property that they won a Super Bowl without being their teams' MVP, which is how I'd imagine Sanchez may win one on this Jets team.
So did Brett Favre, Ben Rothlisberger, and Bob Griese. What is your point again?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
mainstream writers and announcers usually have it all wrong. A few things of note:
it is entirely possibly Sanchez is playing with a bad throwing shoulder that needs to at best be cleaned out, and at worst surgically repaired. the Sanchez i've seen play doesnt miss balls like the one he missed to holmes late in the 4th. He also throws a better, crisper deep ball than the one he threw to Braylon. Last year he threw a beautiful 50 yard bomb into the wind, on a dime to Edwards against Atlanta. Something is not right physically right now.
Another media darling is Joe Flacco. Like Flacco, Sanchez is 3-1 in his first 4playoff starts, all on the road. However Sanchez has been significantly better in those starts than the Ravens qb, yet i dont hear anyone saying that Flacco might not be the answer in Baltimore.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Who's saying Sanchez is not the answer in NY? He might be, he might not be. If he's at his ceiling, then he's definitely not. If he can still grow into his potential, then he probably is. But it's too early to tell, and as he is right now, he is a liability more than an asset.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Agree, hes not very good at this point, and I honestly don't think he ever will, but hes too young and its too early to say anything definitive.
This is about what I'd expect if you drafted a kid who played ~15 college games.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Even better is that he gives Manning a C- and piles on.
I'd love to be shown one mistake Manning made. Avoided trouble against a D that played VERY well and took away his weapons and left with a lead. But yeah, they lost because Manning and the offense went to sleep. Cold hard facts!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I don't know what these figures (via PFR) mean, but they sure are upsetting:
http://www.18to88.com/2011-archives/january/same-old-song.html
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
At what point do we aknowledge that Caldwell is awfull?
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Bye bye!
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Even with the fumble, this is the best Flacco has looked in a playoff game..
They shouldn't have kicked.
Charles is good.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
So, I haven't watched a Chiefs game all year, nor do I watch TN in college football.
Eric Berry is awesome. That is all.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Eric Berry is better than Brandon Meriweather. How is BM going to the Pro Bowl???
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
You do realize that you can't see what the two players do on 85% of plays, right?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I've been to enough games in person and heard enough from people I respect to truly believe BM is not good.
I do realize it is difficult to evaluate football players without knowing what they were supposed to do and it is especially hard to evaluate DBs since they are often not in the TV shot, but who have you heard say he is even average? Or do you go to enough games to believe that from watching him in person?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
"but who have you heard say he is even average"
Well, for one, the coaches that voted him in to the probowl. For another, the coaching staff that continues to put him on the field more than Pat Chung, James Sanders, Jarrad Page, etc.
Merriweather's primary responsibility this year has been deep coverage. Its no coincidence that the Patriots gave up almost no long passing plays this year.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Extra slow motion: not pleasant to watch when fat men move.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Tamba Hali is a beast. Really, if Cassel is a genuine franchise QB, and with Hali, Berry and Charles, the Chiefs could be set for a while to come.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
You could add Bowe to your list of positives, but I'm afraid I really, really don't think Cassel is a franchise QB.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Do the chiefs ever run Jones anywhere but right up the middle?
It seems like most of the playcalls for Charles are off tackle, or strech plays, whereas Jones just gets to run into the center's back.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Saw them run a toss on 4th and 1 in the red zone early in the year. Got blown up for a loss.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Just so you know, the Chiefs use Charles perfectly. At least that's what Phil Simms told me.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Also, if a defender is close to a quarterback who starts a feet first slide, helmet to helmet hits are perfectly legal.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
after watching the Charles rushing TD replay like 5 times, he tried to describe the blocking. he completely butchered it even though it was zoomed in and main field/sky cam
--------------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
"that was a clean play! "
-----------------------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I haven't watched too much Jamaal Charles before this game, but holy hell is he fast. Everywhere he goes there's a defender flying just behind him because they misjudge his speed.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Do you get complete intentional grounding immunity when you throw out of bounds? There was one play when Flacco was falling to the ground from a hit and threw way out of bounds. He was in the pocket, so I thought it must be grounding. Does the out of bounds negate that?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Not sure what the rule says, but that seems to be the way its called.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Well, the referees just made it "clear" for us. The sideline isn't automatic protection. If you're Flacco and going to the ground when you throw away it's fine. When you're Cassel and only marginally pressured and you throw away that's intentional grounding.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I thought that only applied when the OOB was behind the end-zone.
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Well, guess that answers that. Several yards OOB. Correctly called as intentional grounding...
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Really, you don't have enough faith in your line to sneak 8 inches?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
The KC playcalling has been terrible so far.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Yeah. The only series where the calls seemed okay was when the only plays were Charles running to the outside.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Commentators decrying interference on Heap on 3rd down, also noted that Dorsey tipped the ball at the line of scrimmage.
And no mention of how that means there can be no interference once it is tipped...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Phil Simms is a cretin.
And Matt Cassel is just plain not very good. Having him in an MVP discussion is ridiculous even for Peter King.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Cassel tears up the bad defenses. Good defenses own him. He played a lot of bad defenses this year.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Yeah. And even with that his accuracy was poor.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
To be honest, even against the Texans (pass defenses don't come much worse) Cassel didn't look very impressive. Nice fantasy performance, but actually, when you can't even manage 7ypa against Houston, that's not very good. Several drives in that game stalled due to bad plays by Cassel. I don't rate him.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Wow, what a complete implosion by KC
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
That would imply that they ever had any momentum to begin with. The Ravens have looked poor on offense thus far, but the Chiefs appear to have no offense whatsoever.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
This ruling will be interesting. Seems quite tuck rule-y.
Oh, Nantz caught it too.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Should get reversed. Cassel also got smacked in the facemask, which is supposedly a penalty these days and a point of emphasis.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Regardless of the end result of whether it is ruled an incompletion of a fumble, im wondering what jamaal charles value is when he blocks. im guessing not too high
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
what's the deal with the Ratbirds never getting flagged for hitting QB's in the head?
pay attention you crappy refs.
--------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I think you're looking for the profootballtalk forums...
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
That punt by Koch that was wiped out by the penalty is a great example of just how much of a role luck can play in this game. Bounces like that can make a huge difference in tight games, and that had nothing to do with skill, coaching, or execution.
We know this, of course, but it'd be nice if an announcer would catch it sometimes.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
In what universe was this game tight?
- Alvaro
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
In what universe does it matter with regards to his statement?
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
These playoffs sure have their fill of breakaway TD runs.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I'd argue that Lynch never really broke away.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Hang onto the ball a little longer, Cassel. Jeez.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
As much as that NFL Playoffs commercial still stings, it muses me that it features Simms being proven dead wrong just seconds after making a declaration (re: blitzing).
Also, VW, my car did all that in the accident I had 12 years ago.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
This was the Ravens best game of the season. Looks like their defense will be healthy and well-rested going into Pittsburgh, should be able to stuff Mendenhall at least, but Ben still will be able to throw. Last game vs. Steelers Heap was injured on the first play, he looked great today and should help them quite a bit.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
Were you watching the same game I was? I saw the Ravens play one of their poorer games of the season on offense. Their defense played well as you would expect, but not great.
I agree with both of your points for the next game, though. The Ravens are too good to repeat a game like this, plus they tend to get up for their division rivals.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I think factoring the yardage disparity (390-160), turnovers (1-5, not including Nakamura's fumble), first downs (25-8), 3rd/4th down conversions (10/18 - 1/10), time of possession (42 - 18 minutes), it was easily the Ravens most dominating win of the season. Plus on the road against a pretty good (but not great) opponent.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I think if you look back for cause and effect, you'll find that the Ravens offensive numbers were all set up by the fact that the Chiefs offense was non-existent. Look at the time of possession. If you have the ball that long you had better accumulate some yardage. And why did they have that ToP? The Chiefs turned it over or punted quickly on just about every drive.
If you want to see a silver lining on offense, I think you've found it with the 3rd down conversion rate, which is what kept the couple of decent drives the Ravens did put together going. The defense played reasonably well, though, as KC never got anything going.
I also disagree with your characterization of the Chiefs as "pretty good." DVOA puts them at exactly average with 0.1%. And their weighted DVOA is -11.3% (25th) which is closer to being just south of "pretty bad." The Ravens played okay, but they were beating up on an inferior opponent.
Or maybe I'm way off base. I'm looking forward to seeing what DVOA tells us.
Re: 2010 AFC Wild Card Discussion Thread
I should add that the Chiefs appeared to me to be playing even more poorly than their weighted DVOA would suggest, especially with respect to Matt Cassel. Those interceptions were terrible passes and decisions against competent defending.
Post new comment