Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

14 Nov 2011

Week 10 Game Discussion Thread

Here's your space for discussing all the Week 10 games as they happen, starting with the Thursday night Raiders-Chargers game, then continuing into Sunday.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 14 Nov 2011

155 replies , Last at 16 Nov 2011, 10:30am by Nathan

1
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by stephenmcf :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 8:59pm

Is this the week Chargers finally play a solid 4 quarters and a blow a team out? I'm tempted to say yes. But I think the Raiders will be able to run the ball well (even with Bush instead of McFadden) and pass well enough to keep the game reasonably close

2
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:52pm

This was a rough time to break in a new QB for the Raiders. 3 games in 18 days.

3
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:34pm

Survey says....

No.

Chargers don't look good at all tonight. Raiders pushing them all over the place.

4
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:45pm

Palmer is starting to look more natural at QB.

Oakland has 11 first downs to 2 for Chargers. Have better than 2:1 ratio for time of possession.

If wish there were a stock market where I could sell Norv Turner short. This team has steadily degraded in terms of its command of fundamentals during his tenure.

5
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:14pm

Nice catch by Vincent Brown as Rivers gets away with throwing a long pass into double coverage.

6
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:44pm

Ooh - deja vu, but the second time it wasn't double coverage. However, Lito Shepard was right on the ball.

7
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:47pm

...and Shepard was out of bounds while they were fighting for the ball. No catch! Interesting call.

8
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:29am

NFL Network color guy is blaming Vincent Jackson for not "going and getting the football" when Rivers threw the ball five feet behind him into double coverage for a late-game pick.

Seriously? What does Rivers have to do to get blamed for a bad pass??

9
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 1:14am

Wow. Now the entire post-game crew is wondering why Vincent Jackson didn't turn around and go for a ball that was thrown 5 feet behind him.

Guys? Jackson was running a route to the corner of the end zone. The ball was badly underthrown.

15
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Blah (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 9:23am

Guy? The ball was in the air for 40 yards. Adjust to it.

19
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:17pm

Adjust to it? He's running a corner route. Rivers badly misthrew the ball.

Seriously, what does it take for Rivers to take the blame?

18
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 11:05am

It was a dangerous pass, but it was also a 6'5" receiver going against two DBs who had proven earlier they couldn't defend a taller receiver on a lob throw with double-coverage.

Considering Jackson had both DBs on his back on an under-thrown ball, that should at worst be an incompletion.

20
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:19pm

Jackson was largely dealing with single coverage. If Rivers had thrown the ball to lead him instead of throwing it behind him, it would have been an easy reception.

Instead, by underthrowing the ball, Rivers led the second defender, who was the only one of the three coming in at an angle that made catching the ball easy.

Against this...Jackson (if he sees the ball) is supposed to stop, whirl around, presumably cast aside one defender to prevent the second from taking the ball on his natural path.

Seriously, what does it take for Rivers to be blamed here?

24
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:04pm

Against this...Jackson (if he sees the ball) is supposed to stop, whirl around, presumably cast aside one defender to prevent the second from taking the ball on his natural path.

Considering that's exactly what the safety did... yes?

30
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:24pm

It was a poor throw, but how on earth can you excuse Jackson's complete lack of effort? Perhaps he lost sight of the ball, but he clearly gave up on the play, if he makes any effort at all to stay in the play it is most likely not an interception.

Rivers shouldn't be excused, but neither should Jackson.

137
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:54am

1. If Rivers had led him, he would have caught the ball five yards out of bounds.

2. Rivers should have thrown sooner, and probably without as much air, and absolutely definitely not behind the receiver.

3. Jackson seemed to look up for the ball, and then lose it and continue jogging into the pylon while the safety took the pick. Not good.

4. At a guess, Rivers was trying to throw to the corner and threw short and high, also lagging right a little bit; Jackson was expecting the ball on the pylon and never looked back.

Bad play all around.

140
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:05am

1. Jackson was not that close to either edge of the end zone. So no.

2. Agree.

3. I think Jackson just simply didn't look back early enough.

4. Sounds about right.

What really bothered me about NFL network's coverage is that put all of the blame on Jackson. Apparently the logic is: even if the QB screws up badly, it's the WR's job to bail him out.

10
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by dmstorm22 :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 1:44am

I learned three new NFL rules tonight. The really odd ones was that pass interference cannot be called on a fake punt (how about a muffed hold? SF-NYG 2002 playoffs, anyone?) because the men covering the gunner don't know if it is a fake or not. It sounds reasonable, but that was definitely a long time to "not know if it was a fake" and might have been the most textbook definition of what pass interference is if it was an ordinary play. The Sheppard thing was also kind of interesting. I understand the rule and it makes sense, but I didn't really see how Sheppard was contacting the ball. At least to me the contact was minimal, and it was like a forearm, not even his hand. The final one is that if holding occurs before the punt then it is an automatic first down? That sounds like the dumbest one. Unless it was going to be a fake punt, how is the holding impacting the Chargers ability to get a 1st down? Of course, if it was a fake punt, I guess it can't be called, as seen by the first rule.

11
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:36am

First one I've seen a few times in Bears games, I actually posted about in some thread on here within the last two weeks. Third one, no holding and pass interference are different penalties. You can never hold. Holding before the punt actually happens means the punting team hasn't given up possession yet. If you hold while the other team has possession they get 10 yards.

12
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by dmstorm22 :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:44am

5 yards, but I think it is a dumb rule. I get why holding a normal receiver is an automatic first down, but this seems a little odd.

You've really seen the fake punt no pass interference in Bears games?

13
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:51am

"You've really seen the fake punt no pass interference in Bears games?"

Yep. I think twice. I certainly knew the rule. You line up for a punt, you can be interfered with.

"I get why holding a normal receiver is an automatic first down, but this seems a little odd."

You can't hold anyone ever. Otherwise what is to prevent the return team from just tackling the gunners so the return man has a free shot? Hell just tackle everyone but the punter and expect the return man to beat him.

14
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by dmstorm22 :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:52am

Good point.

16
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Blah (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 9:31am

That's sound reasoning for it being a penalty, not for it being an automatic first down. The existence of automatic first downs is an outrage to begin with, but it's particularly egregious in cases like this.

22
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:32pm

Defensive holding is always an automatic first down. I guess the thinking is that, otherwise, it would be far to easy to stop a 20-yard gain by intentionally taking a 5-yard penalty.

As for the "before the punt/after the punt" divide, a penalty has to be defined at the point it's whistled. Until a punt actually happens, the punting team is on offense and the receiving team is on defense. You cannot define the nature of the penalty based on what happens after the penalty occurs.

25
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:05pm

Sure, but with that thinking, offensive holding should be a loss of down penalty.

41
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:44pm

I agree. It ought to be. Same with Offensive Pass Interference.

28
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:19pm

In my opinion, it ought to be a yardage foul. If the yards result in a first down, so be it. Otherwise choose to replay the down from the new spot or accept the results of the play.

32
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 4:16pm

If I was in charge of the NFL, only unnecessary roughness penalties would be automatic first downs.

However, I don't see what this has to do with this particular situation. The rules are written and the refs enforced them correctly.

23
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:38pm

Shepard had his arm on the ball while Brown was struggling with him for control. At that point, Shepard was already out of bounds. That meant that the ball was out of bounds. Brown eventually got control of the ball entirely to himself, but by then the ball was dead and the play was over.

17
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Keith(1) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 10:21am

I watched nearly ever Philip Rivers pass twice last night to see if I could see a difference. I noticed a few things, in no particular order of importance:

1) His receivers are awful. Crayton is the worst offender, but McMichael is also pretty bad. Vincent Jackson seems to not care for the most part, and Gates is playing decoy most of the time.

2) There are way too many dropped balls on short and intermediate passes. I can understand dropped balls on long passes, but the shorter stuff should be caught, especially against a defense selling out to a) get to the quarterback, and b) stop the long ball. There was so much space at 5-15 yards, and there were just a bunch of stone-hand receivers running those routes.

3) When Ryan Matthews was in, there was almost no running threat, so the Raiders could tee off against Rivers. Tolbert and Hester need(ed) to be in 90% of the time. At least they knew what to do with a football in their hands with space in front of them.

4) Rivers looks to be slightly injured or to have lost some power. His wind-up is huge, which is not altogther different; these days, he is putting his whole body into it on those long passes and they are either floating for a while (somebody just trying to throw it for hang-time), or the are underthrown. I only saw one overthrown ball, and it was only 40 or so yards downfield.

5) The playcalls for this offense are just awful. They kept forcing it 20+ yards down the field, and that was yielding what it was expected to -- low-percentage completion rate, missed cues, huge drops, and interceptions. It almost seems like the Chargers were playing for the DPI and just never got it.

6) Seriously, WTF Vincent Jackson? As somebody else noted, that ball was in the air forever, and the guy that caught it had only one grown man's body width between him and Jackson. Jackson literally stood in the endzone until the second defender jumped, and he finally tried to tackle that guy. He could have adjusted to this punt-pass and at least played defense against the defender. Wow.

21
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:28pm

1) Wow. Seriously, did you not watch Vincent Brown last night? He bailed out Rivers more than once.

4) Yes, Rivers has lost something. The deep pass to Jackson was badly underthrown.

6) It's like you were watching a completely different game.

"Jackson literally stood in the endzone until the second defender jumped."

Well, no, he wasn't "literally" standing anywhere. He was running a corner route. He didn't expect the pass to be thrown so badly behind him. Neither, as far as I can tell, did the primary defender. The secondary defender saw the path of the ball and took the best, direct path to it. By the time Jackson saw what was happening, the ball was heading for a point five feet behind him. He slowed down a bit, but he was out of position to get to it.

Now, you could argue that it's Jackson's responsibility, when running a corner route, to constantly look back to make sure the QB isn't badly underthrowing him. But, from my perspective, this is what we would call a New Rule in that it seems to have been conjured out of thin air solely for the purpose of criticizing Jackson. I would counter that Jackson was doing a route where he goes to the corner of the end zone and expects the ball to be there. And, indeed, if the ball had been there it would have been an easy TD.

I think the worst you can say here about Jackson is that he didn't bail out the Chargers from the effects of Rivers's terrible throw.

26
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:14pm

I would counter that Jackson was doing a route where he goes to the corner of the end zone and expects the ball to be there. And, indeed, if the ball had been there it would have been an easy TD.

He was running a route which involved a 55 yard sprint and out-route before he looked for the ball? And expected to just sprint to the corner of the end zone and get the ball, despite the CB playing on top of him? It never occurred to him to check for a shorter pass to exploit his position?

Even Mike Martz doesn't call many 6-second deep routes.

27
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Keith(1) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:17pm

http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2011/11/11/raiders-pass-philip-rivers-char...

That link shows how close Vincent Jackson was to the ball. It was clearly not five feet behind him.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823fe952/Rivers-th...

Pause that at 00:08. It is exactly what is in the picture above. Vincent Jackson ran beyond the point, stopped before even tracking the ball, and then turned around. So yes, his stop was not very long, but he watched the defender come down with the ball, tracked him to the ground, and then when he got up, he finally started moving around. Jackson did not even try.

You cannot place all of this on Jackson, sure, as it was a bad throw. But it was also a bad route, bad reaction, and bad follow-through for Jackson. He failed his team on that play.

Also, notice that I did not mention Brown. The other receivers were noted because they were the ones playing poorly.

29
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Keith(1) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:22pm

Also, it should be noted, Jackson did turn his head around on the 6- or 7-yard line, but made no adjustment then and continued running his route. It was a pretty bad play all around.

31
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:56pm

Is RickD trolling or is he actually serious? Maybe he is V. Jackson's brother? I have no other idea how his reaction to that game could be to come here and stick up for Jackson on that play.

Also McNeil's backup looked horrible. Dumbrosky?

33
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Keith(1) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/11/2011 - 4:36pm

He is serious. He gets his mind wrapped around some talking point and sticks to it, regardless of fact or what other people have to say. It is part of his, uh, allure...

34
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:15pm

Nice early slate today. Bill-Cowboys, Cincy-Steelers and NO-Atl. I wish we could've flexed those into the last two weeks.

35
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:25pm

The fact I didn't even mention the rivalry of Broncos-Chiefs illustrates how painfull it is for me to watch Broncos-games. (Last week a pleseant deviation from the norm)

37
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:33pm

Thus far Denver seems to be eschewing this newfangled "forward pass" invention...and it's working. @_@

39
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by TimK :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:40pm

The amount of run did get Decker open, but Tebow still misses the first pass...

Denver are also running out of backs with McGahee (hamstring) & Moreno (knee) both doubtful to return already.

42
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:51pm

Well, since they can't throw to them anyway, hand off to the wide receivers! Royal's already 2-for-17 back there...

36
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:01pm

In addition to keeping up with the revitalized, vibrant open thread, join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for IRC football chat! Point your favorite IRC client to bendenweyr.dyndns.org, channel #fo

Or for a web-based solution, just use this mibbit link: http://chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23fo&server=bendenweyr.dyndns.org

38
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:40pm

...I wish I had Jay Feely on my Loser League team...

40
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:40pm

A.J. Green made a great play on the ball - double coverage 45 yards down field. He landed akwardly but is on his feet.

145
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:59am

And that's an understatement.

43
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Emptyeye (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:19pm

So I'm "watching" the Denver/KC game via NFl Gamecast, and it's telling me that with about a minute and a half left in the first half, Tim Tebow is 0-for-2 for 0 yards. Whoops, 0-for-3 now.

That can't be right, can it? Is computer drunk? I know Tebow is Tebow, but THREE passing attempts in almost an entire half?

44
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:24pm

Four...three of which were in their "two-minute drill" (alleged). 0-for-4 for the half. And Denver is *winning* @_@ Which, given the quality of their defense, says very bad things about Kansas City. This isn't the Trent Dilfer Ravens, after all...

48
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Emptyeye (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:31pm

Yeah, he threw that fourth one while I was in the process of commenting. Still, I think the larger point stands.

This is making me think to a comment someone made...somewhere on this site awhile back. It might be a fun experiment to get an entire team of college superstars who (For whatever reason) would never work in a "traditional" NFL system and see what they can do. Whatever you think about him, 4 pass attempts in a half (3 in a "2-minute drill") is definitely "untraditional".

50
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Tim R :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:59pm

Shouldn't they just make Tebow a runningback at this point?

141
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:08pm

Look at his stats. What makes you think they haven't?

This is basically running a Wildcat all game.

45
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tornadot :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:25pm

Why pass when KC can't stop the run, when they know Denver is going to run it?

47
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by TimK :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:29pm

0-4... 2 bombs where he underthrew an open Eric Decker. Another one I forget, and a third-down shovel pass that Royal couldn't hold onto in the inter-line traffic.

I'm going by radio commentary - but they seemed pretty sure Decker was open deep twice.

46
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:25pm

Steelers have a drive that switches between sacks, QB hits with little results, and 3rd down conversions (even a called back touchdown) that ends up in a FG. Bengals D does well, but can't get 3 plays in a row to stop them until after the Offensive PI.

49
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by QQ (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:36pm

I wonder how many times Buff will have to get blown out now until the drop out of the Top 16

54
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:23pm

I have a big "they are who we thought they were" feeling coming up about them.
Bengals: same.

60
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by ScottyB (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:39pm

Funny- I said that last week, and was shouted down.

51
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by CoachDave :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:04pm

I couldnt have been more incorrect about Andy Dalton.

He is absolutely as impressive a rookie I've EVER seen in the NFL at the QB position.

Poise, good decision making, accuracy, touch, knows what audibles to call and when to call them...just a tremendous player.

53
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:15pm

He and Cam Newton are every bit as good as Ryan and Flacco.

4 weeks ago I was ready to ship the ROY-trophy to Newton... now I don't know.

146
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:01am

Don't forget Von Miller, who is having quite the season himself.

Also, don't forget Rivers and Roethlisberger in terms of recent QB draft pairs.

152
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:58pm

I'm a Broncos fan - I wont forget about Von Miller. He's been outstanding, but I'll be shocked if he get ROY in front of to very good rookie QB's. DROY, on the other hand... (Honestly, who else?)

I was comparing Newton and Dalton to other prolific QB's both in their rookie year. I don't think Roethlisberger was as good as these two, and Rivers sat for two seasons, I believe.

153
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:30pm

I didn't mean to imply you might actually forget about him. More of a generic "but also consider." I think Miller has been a lot better tha Newton, who has also been very good. But I suspect you're right. If it's close it goes to the "skill position" and if it's not really that close it still goes to the QB.

Oh, I misunderstood what you were going for. On the other hand, Roethlisberger had one of the best rookie seasons I've ever seen. Definitely better than Dalton, Newton (both of whom, to be fair, still have time to improve), and Flacco, and much closer but still better than Ryan. But yeah, neither Rivers nor Manning where there to provide that one-two rookie punch.

154
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:40am

I'd like to nominate Chris Conte for DPOY.

I really haven't watch much of the Broncos (outside of Tebow highlights/lowlights), so I can't comment on Von Miller, but I do know Conte is playing quite well at safety.

155
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Nathan :: Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:30am

I'd like to nominate Chris Canty for facemask of the year.

52
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by TimK :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:06pm

5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, and Tebow completes a pass (for a first down).

55
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:34pm

Tebow with a rainbow to Decker. That was pretty. Perfectly thrown.

God he's bipolar.

56
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:01pm

The 2 little steps the offensive linemen make on the game ending kneel down: must be the silliest things in football.

57
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by CoachDave :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:11pm

Wow...there are so many games down to the wire with heavy, heavy playoff/standing implications.

RedZone is about to blow a gasket. :)

58
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:31pm

Mike Smith just secured the Colbert/Martz double this week by going for it and failing on 4th and short from his own 30.

100
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by jw124164 :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:02pm

Grrrrrrr. I like that he went for it - hate the play that was called. A slow developing run with a runner who takes 5 years to get up to speed, with 9 guys in the box .... that play had no chance. I think Mularkey needs to go - he can be so predictable at times.

59
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by nibiyabi :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:31pm

Can someone please explain how the strip fumble by the 49ers in the beginning of the game (that was challenged by SF and still upheld) was not a fumble?

61
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by ScottyB (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:41pm

Agreed. But the offocial explanation was that forward progress had been stopped.

62
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by nibiyabi :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:46pm

So the correct application of a stupid rule, I guess. Thanks for the explanation. Had they actually blown the play dead before the fumble occurred?

135
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IAmJoe (not verified) :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:28am

To my understanding, they don't have to. Hockey seems this issue more often, given how much faster the puck moves (and how much harder it is to track) vs players, but, to my knowledge, pretty much every sport has an "intent to blow the whistle" rule. Essentially, there is a period of time in between when a ref sees something and recognizes it as the end of the play, and when the whistle blows, and when the players on the field actually hear and react to the whistle. "Intent to blow" is there for when a ref says "ok this play is down" mentally and is about to or in the act of blowing the whistle.

147
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:04am

Another way to think about it is that they play is over when the act happens, whether that's a knee touching the ground or forward progress stopped. The whistle itself is not the end of the play, it's just letting everyone know about something that's already happened.

63
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:46pm

Tebow wins a game having completed 2 (!) passes. Surprisingly that has happened all of 17 times since the merger.

69
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:12pm

And outscores Roethlisberger in my fantasy league while doing it.

Tebow has broken football.

76
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by nibiyabi :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:01pm

I picked him up as a free agent figuring that he would be a much better fantasy QB than NFL QB. The magnitude of the difference thus far has utterly outpaced even my wildest expectations -- though the difference is due to him sucking as an NFL QB rather than excelling as a fantasy QB. He seems like he would be solidly in the top 15 (at worst) in terms of fantasy given the unconditional starting job; the problem is that he could easily lose his job. If I were the Broncos, though, I'd ride him for the rest of the year. The year is shot anyway, so they might as well get him some experience and get higher draft picks.

97
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by asg (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:48pm

Why's the year shot? Aren't they one game out of first place in the division?

114
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Rhombus (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:10pm

The AFC West is a sad, strange place. Much like the NFCW of last year, although slightly better.

134
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tunesmith :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:04am

HIgher draft picks... do you believe Orton would be 3-1 or better over the last four games?

138
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:57am

Given how Tebow has played, they'd probably be 3-1 with John Fox in at QB.

64
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by ammek :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:50pm

When was the last time the NFC West went 4-0 in a week?

104
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:34pm

Twas a long time ago squire, back in the elder years, see. When a penny could buy you half a kingdom and the moon came down nightly to sup his mead. Good all days yessir indeed. Before Beezebellichick despoiled the game of thrones.

110
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by JIPanick :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:48pm

Myths. It's never happened.

Seriously, this was the first time since the realignment.

65
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Jerry :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:52pm

Odd note about the Steelers-Bengals broadcast: CBS broke in to show an out-of-town highlight three times. Two were Denver touchdowns (the other was a Dallas pick-6). Insofar as there were worthwhile plays in other games, I wonder why they focused on Denver.

148
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:06am

Methinks you've suspicions on said topic.

66
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:56pm

Lovie Smith with a challenge that, if he wins it, will result in an unsuccesfull play. (~7 yard gain on 2nd-and-15).

67
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:04pm

In the lighting timeouts on fire-department, the seattle defense calls a timeout while on their own one yard line. Probably better to just jump offsides intentionally to get the right play in. Not that egregious, but it's still trading a TO for half a yard of field.

72
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:28pm

Gotta say that I thought that was a worthwhile challenge. First, the replay showed it was a catch pretty clearly. Second, the 8 yard gain made it 3rd and 7 at the Lions 17 rather than 3rd and 15 from the 25. That is a big difference, especially when you consider the windy conditions at Soldier Field. After an incomplete pass, the field goal was 35 yards rather than 43 yards, which it would have been if they hadn't gotten those 8 yards.

68
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:11pm

Devin Hester strikes again with an 82 yard punt return TD. Everything has gone the Bears way so far as they lead 20-0.

70
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:13pm

I'm thinking the Lions will start kicking OB now, since he has 110 yards on 2 returns, 1 TD.

71
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:19pm

Would have had another 35 there, but for the holding. ^^; They really need to stop doing that, if they expect to win...

73
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:33pm

Corey Webster comes up with the classic "not the quarterback's fault" interception. A perfectly thrown Smith pass to an open Ted Ginn goes right through Ginn's hands, hits him in the facemask, and bounces up into Webster's hands.

75
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Passing Through (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:42pm

Equipment managers need to start angling those facemasks down on offense.

74
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Passing Through (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:41pm

Niners are playing aggressively! 18 pass plays, successful onside kick. Still, nobody can score touchdowns: 9-6.

77
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:16pm

True. 12-6.
And Cruz, the former Pre-Seaon All Pro, is having a good season.

78
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Flounder :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:25pm

Yikes. I think that pick-sx by Stafford was the worst throw I've seen all year.

80
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:26pm

True, though now he's trying to one-up himself with volume.

79
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Flounder :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:26pm

and I may have just spoken too soon. Wow.

81
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:27pm

Yeah... Probably shouldn't have left Bears DEF on the bench then, huh? I went with the Lions and their current 4 points instead.

83
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by DGL :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:39pm

Because of bye week fill-ins and lack of anyone else interesting to pick up from waivers, I have three defenses on my team this week - the Bears, the Titans, and the Redskins.

Of course, I started the Redskins.

The only comfort is that I'm getting blown out so badly, it doesn't really matter...

82
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:30pm

Matt Stafford, in trying to lead a Lions comeback from a 20-6 halftime deficit, has thrown 2 TD passes in the first 4 minutes of the 3rd quarter, 1 to Major Wright and 1 to Charles Tillman. However, since they play for the Bears, the Lions now trail 34-6. Stafford is wearing gloves even though the weather isn't that bad. The Bears now can tee off even more with their pass rush. It will be interesting to see if the Lions OL can hold off the Bears' pressure. Peppers has been moving around on the line (playing inside at DT on occasion) and dominating so far.

84
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RedZone :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:42pm

Vernon Davis leaps into the end zone, hitting Philips right in the face with his butt. Lovely.
9ers pick up the two point conversion on nice play to Crabtree.

I was wearing out my remote switching between DET@CHI and NYG@SF, but I think Chicago has things under control
now.

Rogers just picked off Eli too...

88
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RedZone :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:55pm

Well, the Giants are right back in it after Manning hits Nicks for a touchdown.

90
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RedZone :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:18pm

After the Giants convert 2 4th downs, they are finally stopped on the 3rd 4th down of the drive when Manning has
his pass knocked down. 9ers will win. I hope Harbaugh doesn't slap Tom Coughlin on the back.

85
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by kbukie :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:42pm

This is like the Rex-era Bears right now. Except with Jay Cutler instead of Rex Grossman, which is nice.

86
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:44pm

Well my Lions and my fantasy team are getting equally bombed at the moment, even though the only actual connection there is Calvin Johnson.

/Lions can has actual running back please?

On the bright side, I have Aaron Rodgers in fantasy, but it feels like I need him to put up about a hundred to win at this rate.

---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel

87
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:52pm

Well, at least you can be happy that the Falcons lost today and the Lions still are in good shape in the wild card race.

142
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:13pm

Although Dallas didn't get the memo that they suck.

149
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:08am

Don't be silly. The Cowboys can't read.

89
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:10pm

Bears and Lions just had a brawl that could have been avoided after another Stafford interception, this one by Tim Jennings. Jennings obviously was down by contact after the interception, but got up and ran about 50 or so yards before being shoved out of bounds. The melee started after a cheap shot by Stafford on D.J. Moore, who was blocking. Stafford tackled/threw down Moore by his helmet.

The officials then correctly overturned the runback, but it was obvious that Jennings was down when watching it live. D.J. Moore got an unnecessary roughness penalty and was ejected for retaliating, so, as usual, the guy who started it (Stafford) isn't penalized.

Expect lots of fines out of this incident.

91
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RedZone :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:22pm

Stafford gets picked for the 4th time...

96
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by kbukie :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:39pm

Got a feeling at the very least Stafford is going to get a fine for tossing Moore down by the helmet. Probably Fairley and Suh also. Heck, the entire Detroit team has been a league embarrassment today.

The Lions have completely fallen apart and lost their composure today, and a lot of that has to be on Schwartz.

92
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:23pm

Why is Forte still in the game? Surely the Bears have someone else Cutler/QB2 can hand off to for 1/2 a quarter.

93
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IAmJoe (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:25pm

Did no one notice Mike Pereira commenting on the Bears fumble near the end of the 1st half? I can't believe no one has said anything about this.

What happened: DET defender (I think it was Avril) gets to Cutler with a hand, just as Cutler is winding up the throw. He strips the ball, but Cutler propels it forward towards the flat with his elbow. Initial ruling on the field is incomplete pass, and everyone thought it was an incomplete pass, so the Lions didn't run to the ball and make an immediate recovery (which could've been granted to them upon the ensuing review). So the situation is a fumble by the offense, going forward, and no one pursues the fumble, call is made of incomplete pass, and the whistle blown. Upon review, we see that the play was in fact a fumble, but there is no one to award possession to after the fumble.

What Pereira says: Well, this is pretty complicated, because while it is clearly a fumble, no one bothers to chase the fumble and make an immediate recovery. So we can't give possession to the defense (DET), so they should just go with the original call on the field and rule it an incomplete pass. Now, that's not an exact quote (though "clearly a fumble" and "go with the call on the field" were), but that's a pretty damn accurate summation of it. Pereira literally says on national TV, that while a fumble clearly happened, because the result of the play is "complicated", that we should ignore the entire thing and call an incomplete pass.

What actually happens: Good on the refs for not listening to their former boss, and for making the correct call. The play was a fumble. No one immediately recovered the fumble, and the play was then blown dead. Because the offense can not fumble forwards, the ball will instead be spotted at the spot of the fumble. I was just explaining this to my wife, when they came out and made the correct call.

But really, how the hell does Mike Pereira get to come out and say that a play is too complicated to rule on, and that instead of making the correct ruling, the officials should make an incorrect call for simplicity's sake? How the hell was this man in charge of NFL officiating???

94
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IB (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:28pm

You need A (fumble) and B (recovery) to overturn. There was A but not B. Therefore, the call shouldn't have been overturned, even if erroneous.

He's right, and they got the call wrong. Potentially costed Chicago three points too. Won't matter however.

99
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:55pm

I think you're confusing the rules for winning a challenge with the rules for what the refs can chance during a review.

101
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IAmJoe (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:09pm

Why do you need a recovery in order to overturn the call of an incompleted pass? I have never heard of such a requirement. You treat it as if it were a fumble and an inadvertent whistle (which, essentially, it was, since the on-field call was incorrect), or even a fumble that landed out of bounds (and thus could not be recovered by anyone). It was fumbled, and then it was blown dead (for whatever reason you like) before anyone could establish possession of the fumble. Clearly, we have a fumble, and a fumble cannot go forwards, so it has to be dead at the spot of the fumble, so the offense doesn't get a gain from their fumbling forward.

119
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IB (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:32pm

There are lots of situations where a call is upheld despite clear visual evidence. Called and uncalled penalties, ball spots not in relation to a first down or touchdown, etc. This is just one of those. To overturn an incomplete pass and call a fumble, you need evidence of both the fumble and a clear recovery. The refs goofed.

136
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IAmJoe (not verified) :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:43am

I'm calling BS on that. You don't need evidence of a recovery - any more than if you have a fumble go out of bounds or a fumble cut short by an inadvertent whistle. The ball was clearly fumbled, and there is a procedure in place for what happens when you fumble forward - it's dead at the spot of the fumble, unless the defense picks it up. In this case, the defense didn't pick it up, so the ball is dead at the spot. You don't need a recovery to establish that it A) was a fumble, B) went forward. And that's all that was necessary to make the ruling on the field, since we know the defense didn't recover it.

Really, why do we need to know who recovered to make the ruling of a fumble? It doesn't stop us on other situations of a fumble out of bounds or an inadvertent whistle, when we don't have a recovery. What you're saying doesn't make sense. And the situations you list as issues where a call is upheld despite clear evidence are pretty clearly specified in the rulebook as beyond review - this is a situation that is pretty clearly specified as being eligible for review.

95
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by IB (not verified) :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:29pm

I predict DVOA says that the Lions were +60% or something very high.

98
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Alexander :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:54pm

The Briggs hit should not have been a penalty. The shoulder was initially chest high, then CJ slipped/slowed down and his head lowered by about 12 inches. That is what frustrates defensive players.

103
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:31pm

I thought it was an OK penalty. He *did* hit Johnson in the head.

In general, if the league really does want to cut down on head injuries (and, despited all their bluster, players *will* start hitting differently if the penalties and fines continue), they probably need to continue erring on the side of calling penalties for borderline hits.

107
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:39pm

The league needs to differentiate between hits where the helmet-to-helmet contact is where the impact is absorbed and other hits, where the helmets incidentally hit each other with little force.

It is very hard to avoiding hitting the head altogether. All you can really ask of defenders is that they don't target the head when they tackle.

121
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by CoachDave :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:48pm

Or defenders can just "see what they hit" and stop dropping their head when making tackles and 90% of this problem goes away.

124
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by MurphyZero :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:21pm

Except I have seen the hits where the defender had their head up and the ball carrier leaned forward and the helmets smacked together because that's physics (and been flagged). If you're not teaching the defender to fall back while making the tackle, his head HAS to be ahead of his body.

127
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by CoachDave :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:48pm

"Helmet to helmet" doesn't include "helmet to facemask", by rule.

I've seen it called incorrectly before...I'm sure we all have...but this the rare exception, not the rule.

Hence the use of the percentage "90%".

150
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Intropy :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:10am

That works right up until your facemask hits the other guy's helmet.

102
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:27pm

If anyone is watching the late game on channel 4 in the UK, why is the esteemed Mike Carlson wearing a fishing hat?

105
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:35pm

Pats featuring a no-name defense tonight because nobody knows who these guys are.

109
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:48pm

Here's a question for Pats fans and this is coming from someone who regards Bellichick as by far the best head coach in the game, why can't he fix the defense? Since drafting Seymour and using McGinest and Vrabel he hasn't found another pass rusher, excusing the Roosevelt Colvin signing, which wasn't his fault. I may have forgotten Tully Banta-Cain, but that's OK I'm a 49ers fan. As Bill Walsh said, 'the most important factor in winning in the NFL is a 4th quarter pass rush.'

112
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:58pm

Andre Carter is OK. Just got a sack.

Really, a lot of people focus on the lack of pass rush, but the situation in the secondary is worse. They give up a lot of quick receptions before any pass rush could reach the QB.

And no, none of us know what's up with Belichick. The question you ask now has been asked literally thousands of times by Pats fans.

116
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:16pm

I've loved Carter since his rookie year, I can remember 3 or 4 seasons where Carter and Bryant Young were responsible for almost every good defensive play the 49ers made. Washington totally wasted him and he's a great fit for what the Pats ask him to do at this stage in his career.

He's still lost a step though.

113
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:05pm

I think it comes down to resource management and drafting. The Patriots have a lot of cap space dedicated to the offense, which means they couldn't hold onto players like Ashante Samuels, and they haven't been able to replace those players through the draft.

106
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:36pm

Well, that was some fine coverage by the Pats. Always good to see an impromptu pick play.

Actual real coverage in the red zone though.

108
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:47pm

Two consecutive underthrown passes by Brady.

I wonder what's wrong with him.

143
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:53pm

He's been like that for 4 or 5 weeks now.

As bad as the defense can be, the offense has been just as bad for huge chunks of time lately, and its almost all because of Brady.

111
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:54pm

You can move the ball on the 49ers but you have to execute to a very high standard to do so. They play a conservative scheme but there's so much speed that the windows to throw in are really small. And you can't run at them.

It was interesing to see the niners throw a lot, the Giants stacked the box and so they flung it about to good effect.

Ted F******g Ginn!

115
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:11pm

I keep having the same thought when I watch the Pats, they are outstanding at 'eating free grass'. If you give them a cushion or screw up your assignments. or alignments, then they are able to take advantage to greater effect than pretty much every other team. I do wonder whether this is why they have been so good in the regular season but struggle more against the better caoched teams they see in the playoffs. (Please don't interpret this as an attack on their offensive scheme, I used it extensively on Madden as the 49ers have been pathetic and it's a lot easier to draft a 3 WR offense than traditional personnel in the expansion draft. I think BB is amongst the top tier of coaches all-time. I don't really like the move away from two back offense but I have to admit that if I was an offensive coordinator I'd run a lot of the Pats stuff.)

123
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:52pm

Well, the Pats lit up the Jets 45-3 in Foxboro before losing in the playoffs.

It's hard to draw any kind of conclusions from that sequence of events.

117
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:19pm

More free grass gained by the Pats. This isn't me having a go at them, they ask so many questions from almost every personnel group but do they have the players to create match-ups?

118
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by JetFanMike :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:23pm

Looks to me like three passes which should have been picks so far by Brady and one by Sanchez.

120
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:44pm

Danny Woodhead on pass protection in the end zone?

Really?

122
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:48pm

...and now McCourty is out.

(sigh)

The Jets should be embarrassed if they don't get at least 300 yards passing in the second half.

125
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:28pm

NBC shows stat saying that, in their last two games at the Meadowlands (vs. the Giants and the Jets), the Patriots were outscored 31-0 in the second half.

What they don't mention is that the game against the Giants was a pre-season game.

Really, NBC? So now we're combining stats from regular season and pre-season games?

126
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:35pm

Another terrible pass by Brady :(

128
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:51pm

Wow, that interception was not Sanchez' fault. The Jets should scrap all pass plays to Greene.

129
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:57pm

This does not feel like a game where the Pats should be leading by 14 points. Just goes to underscore the importance of turnovers.

I still have no idea how people named Molden and Adams are supposed to cover guys named Burress and Holmes.

130
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:08am

And now Ihedigbo looks like he's out.

The Jets should just put out 4 WRs every play. The Pats have nobody left in the secondary.

131
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:33am

Well, that should put a rest to the "Is Belichick losing his fastball?" columns for a few weeks.

Easily the best performance of the season for the Patriots.

132
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:50am

If DVOA doesn't give the Pats a huge bounce from this win, I'll be very surprised.

I hope the system understands that the game basically was over after Ninkovich's pick six.

133
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Nathan :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:58am

call me a homer i don't care, in BB i trust

139
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by kbukie :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:24am

I propose the subject for this week's AGS: The entire NFC West

144
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by Moridin :: Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:45pm

Well, a possible holding/PI missed, and going straight to a punt return for a TD. Good start Vikes... *sigh* I'm still kinda hopeful we can at least keep this game interesting.

151
Re: Week 10 Game Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:43am

and as bad as it was, it was probably worse for the vikings, Antoine Winfield fractured his clavicle and is done for the season.

Login or register to post comments