If you're a Football Outsider you're a TRUE player and true players don't stick to one passion only, so here's something else to excite you while you're waiting for the game to start. How about a free $30 chip to play slot machine games for as long as you want?
I couldn't really see since I'm watching on a really compressed online feed but at this point you basically can't hit a receiver who has left the ground...
by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2011 - 10:21pm
Pretty solid statement there by Rexy that (a) he thinks his defense can eat Denver's lunch and probably also (b) he doesn't trust his offense farther than he can throw it, so grab the sure (unless you're Cleveland) points while you've got them.
by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2011 - 11:21pm
I'm thinking a little of both. The Denver D was only really awful against Detroit (and they got a lot of help being awful from the O in that game), and DVOA puts them at 19th. And you only have to look back three weeks to the Buffalo game to see a Jets first half that seemed pretty much the same.
No Greene or Tomlinson can't do much for the Jets' running game, either.
by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2011 - 11:48pm
But...but...the defense's improved play is clearly Inspired by the Holy Tebow! Only his majestic leadership and overwhelming intangibles could have given them the power to resist the mighty juggernaut that is the New York Jets offense!
Seriously, we're going to have to break down that Broncos drive. After being essentially shut out all game long (their only TD was a pick six), the Denver Tebows drive the length of the field with an empty backfield. Against the mighty Jets defense! Truly mind-boggling.
by DEW (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 12:35am
...It's the Dolphins game all over again. Another week of half the sportswriters talking about how Tebow can't be a real QB (9-20/104, bleah) and the other half talking about how he showed "great leadership" for leading the final comeback (in the only time other than the opening drive the Broncos played any offense at all).
Why, oh, why can't this guy just be either good or bad? Instead we get, week after week, "awful, but in a way that reads off a Hollywood script about the Plucky Underdog Hero who Rallies the Troops and Wind the Game). I mean, I'd be fine with him either washing out of the league or morphing into Tom Brady (or hell, 2010 Michael Vick would be fine; Tebow's never murdered a dog so far as I know). I'm just so frickin' sick of his career reading like somebody's writing the thing for a TV series.
I think it just takes some real analysis that goes deeper than what the mass media is giving you. It's been shown over and over again that there isn't any such thing as "clutch" or hot-and-cold. Tebow is simply both as good and as bad as he looks, and there's some way to reconcile the two - maybe it's about formation, or play-calling, or something else that would actually make sense after it were explained.
I think a lot of it is remembering that "dramatic" plays aren't necessarily the same as "risky" plays. There's a lot of drama to end-of-game heroics, and also the option, but, option plays are still keeping the ball on the ground, and despite Tebow's inaccuracy, he's not forcing throws. Overall, Tebow is an extremely conservative player - he hands off to the inside zone more often than he probably should, and he'll throw the ball (deliberately) into the dirt rather than risk an interception. It might just be that at the end of the game, he lets himself take a few more risks than he otherwise would - and even then, he's not doing anything stupid.
One thing the announcers were talking about was that he suddenly looked a lot better when they went to a 5-wide and he was rushing from the backfield.
I'm not sure why that was a surprise or took so long to appear. He won a Heisman and finished in the top-5 two other times running that exact look at Florida. Unlike his pocket uneasiness, he suddenly gets comfortable with the reads, simplifies the defense, and can exploit the casual racism of NFL players with White Speed like he's some kind of 50-ft Wes Welker.
He still can't pass well, but he throws well enough to make it dangerous to neglect pass defense and is capable of hitting the hole in the zone, and is fast and crafty enough as a runner to make you pay for either over-blitzing it or turning your back and playing man.
But the biggest thing is that he seems to avoid turnovers much better than Orton. I don't know how much that has to do with the defense's sudden reappearance, but there are worse things than punting, and the Denver D has played well defending long field lately.
Granted, it helps when the opposing offenses are Miami, KC, Oakland sans QB, and the D-V-O-A Jets Jets Jets.
by slomojoe (not verified) :: Sat, 11/19/2011 - 10:12am
Tebow avoids turnovers better than Orton because when Orton missed a throw, it still was close to the receiver and coverage. Tebow usually misses by throwing it wildly into no man's land, where no one can pick it.
by Rhombus (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 12:37am
The last play of the Broncos drive may have been the most embarrassing defensive scheme I've ever seen. Who rushes 7-8 men up the middle with NO plan for a Tebow bootleg, with the game on the line? Really?
In defense of Rex Ryan, there was a Jet assigned to contain Tebow. He just did a piss-poor job of doing that. I suspect a lot of people are still under-estimating Tebow's running ability.
Which is funny, it's not like he came out of nowhere. State champ in HS in the 100, 200, 400, and long jump. Quite possibly the 2nd fastest player on the Packers roster behind Cobb (who has recorded a 4.25, 4.30, and 4.33 though I don't think he ran at the combine)
NFL combine numbers.
Randy Moss 4.25
Calvin Johnson 4.35
Jordy Nelson 4.37
Andre Johnson 4.41
Greg Jennings 4.42
Randall Cobb 4.46
Larry Fitzgerald 4.53
So yeah Megatron's unprecedented size and speed that I hear about (which isn't because Moss was faster and taller) is only slightly better than Nelson who is 6-4.
Of course the color thing was beat to death on ESPN this week. But I'm not sure that any of the quantitative data was ever present on anything I saw.
Tebow isn't super-fast over distances, but he has elite burst and acceleration. From what I remember, his shuttle-cone-drill times were among the fastest in the combine.
Oh come on, you can't imagine all of his teammates lining up in front of Fox and laying down their jerseys in protest of not allowing Tebow to play?
Fox: "Champ, he can't pass, he's piss poor in practice, and no one is allowed to swear when he's around. Why don't you act like the leader of this team?"
A)46 in-game comments on an almost meaningless and incredibly bad football game.
B)That the Jets lost that game
C)the Legend continues
Any team that loses to Denver is hopelessly inept, and Tim Tebow is a really bad quarterback. You are about to be inundated with sentences that combine "Tebow" and "winner". Do not be fooled.
Rex Ryan just set football back 70 years. Seriously? You can't game-plan for the most limited starting quarterback of the past 30 years? You go cover-zero on a run-first quarterback in field goal range? Why would you not insist on making the worst thrower in the NFL beat you in the air? And no shadow on Tebow. Brilliant.
Wasn't it Greg Cosell that was saying that if he were the Jets, he'd run the cover-zero to "force Tebow to throw"? Now it's the cover-zero that encourages Tebow to run? What you don't expect is for someone to *run* against nine, and beat them. Blame the bad play call or the lack of contain, but that was still a hell of a read, some good football IQ, and a great burst around the edge. Tebow didn't wait to run around the edge, he read it from before the snap.
It sure seems like teams are getting in line to become the most inept team in the league just in time to lose to the Broncos.
Tim Tebow is a really poor passer. He's a middling QB.
(By way of comparison, Michael Vick was a middling passer and an above-average QB early in his career)
Defenses, by and large, are underestimating Tebow's running IQ. This seems to happen a lot with rookie QBs for some reason. Vince Young exploited his running ability to inflate below-average passing skills and achieved a great record as a starter as well. There's something about a guy who looks like a normal QB but tends to take off and run that seems to break the mind of defensive players (or coaches). It's a weird effect.
Tim Tebow is a bad QB and an excellent RB. If you can't contain him--and he's unbelievably good at instantly reaching full acceleration, so maintaining containment isn't easy--he'll tear your defense apart with his legs, offering just enough of a passing threat that you can't simply stack the box with ten guys.
His passing mechanics are horrible, but he's conservative enough to play within his limitations rather than force throws, so you can plan around those weaknesses. If the Broncos can find a way to harness his abilities properly, like they did at the end of the Jets game, Tebow will morph into a better-running, worse-passing version of Vick or Young.
IF he can stay healthy and Fox is willing to actually build a proper option offense, it might work--but that's a huge pair of ifs.
by NHPats (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:17am
(AP) Philadelphia police today are struggling to identify an unknown man who died in horrifying fashion this evening outside a local sports bar.
One officer, who wished to remain anonymous said, "His head, it just exploded like an overripe cassava melon. Blood everywhere, it's awful."
Investigators at the scene believe that the man may be a teacher of some kind as there were a large stack of ungraded math papers in his satchel. However, they are struggling to understand why the last word typed on the man's laptop were "Tebowscum, why won't you DIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"
Anyone with knowledge of this incident is asked to please contact the Philadelphia police.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 1:26pm
Without getting into the innards of DVOA-- thank you, Aaron for showing us some of the sausage-- can we start to have a serious discussion about who in each conference might be likeliest to beat Green Bay?
First, if we assume Lambeau-- and the 49ers don't yet, and given their schedule, they shouldn't-- is it the Giants? the Bears? the Niners? the Saints? or perhaps the Cowboys GB should be most worried about? Assuming at least one late game-- meaning cold and dark-- I maintain that the greater threat will not be the one certifiably excellent offensive team-- New Orleans (though if they reach a 3 seed, they could only play GB in the NFC title game)-- but one of the defensive-oriented squads. The Bears know the Packers inside and out, though they have lost 3 times to them in the past 11 months with another probable loss coming at Lambeau on Xmas Day. The Giants seemingly have the formula and they have the historic track record, and a la 2007 they get the first chance in the regular season in two weeks time. The Niners have perhaps an even better formula with run offense and tough defense. But maybe the Cowboys will be closest in actual talent both sides of ball/momentum level by the time January rolls around, and they can score points. Plus they are likely to play the Packers in the 2nd round, after the bye for GB, when I think the Pack may be more susceptible to an upset. I'm going to rank it Cowboys, Bears, Niners.
Second-- if we assume another dome Super Bowl should GB win the NFC, then I think it's a track meet, and then I believe it comes down to either NE or Pitt. Baltimore's defense is no longer good enough to dominate a game like that, and Flacco is Flacco. Fact is Packers could, and probably should have beaten NE in Foxborough without Rodgers last December-- whereas they have had two games vs Steelers, one each of the last two years, where the game came down to the last possession with the ball in Big Ben's hands. Once he beat them, and once he didn't. I think Pittsburgh is the bigger threat. I don't see the Patriots stopping or even slowing Rodgers and Co. down, and without deep threats I think the much-maligned and currently underrated Packer pass defense will stop Brady enough to win.
I agree with all of your points here; I'd find a NE/GB Super Bowl to be a fascinating track meet, personally. Plus it would have a similar story line to last year's game in that GB gets to face an opponent that they lost to late in the previous season.
"Second-- if we assume another dome Super Bowl should GB win the NFC"
I'm pretty sure it's going to be a dome Super Bowl regardless of whether GB wins the NFC, unless they have secretly replaced the roof at Lucas Oil Stadium with the former roof from the Metrodome.
I reading posts that contain "the Bears have lost to the Packers the last 3 times that they've played." Which is true, but isn't insightful at all. One loss was 10-3, basically a toss up, and playoff loss was a single possession game late in the 4th quarter when Cutler didn't play in the 2nd half.
If you think the Packers will beat the Bears, that's fine, but please use more nuanced evidence.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:25pm
Not sure how nuances are applicable when 3 of the past 15 Packer victories have come against the Bears, all within the past 11 months, two of which at Soldier Field. I can tell you that Cutler and the offense played poorly in Game One; poorly until Cutler went out with an injury in Game Two; and pretty mediocre in Game Three. I can also tell you that the Packers offense was effective in the first half in two of the three games, but didn't close well in any of them. I can also tell you that Urlacher has two legit INTs of Rodgers-- in a period of 15 games where there have been only three others, two of which were receiver tips.
Those are nunaces-- but I don't think they add anything to the fundamental point-- Bears on paper are a tough matchup, but they're 0 for 3 against the Packer team that either won the Super Bowl or is currently unbeaten.
by Paul M (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:29pm
I don't think McCarthy was particularly concerned about losing any of the three games by the time the Packers got to the 4th Quarter-- which in part is reflected in the conservative offensive decisions late in all those games. In the NFC title game the Bears clearly benefitted from Cutler's injury, once they yanked him-- he was godawful from the beginning and only Caleb whats-his-name gave them any chance.
Which is maybe a way of saying that the Packers may be pretty confident of beating the Bears from all the experience they've gained.
Firstly, in the last game the Packers dominated the Bears. You'll get no argument from me
However, in the other two games they were extremely close, if McCarty was comfortable with a 7 point lead, I think that is a bad idea for any head coach. The week 17 game last came after the week 3 victory by the Bears where they took the lead in the 4th quarter. Was McCarthy also comfortable in that game?
Last year the Packers and Bears played 3 very competitive close games where a small bit of luck could have changed any of the results.
This year the Packers crushed the Bears once, we'll see what happens when they play again.
I don't see the Patriots stopping or even slowing Rodgers and Co. down, and without deep threats I think the much-maligned and currently underrated Packer pass defense will stop Brady enough to win.
Except that it's the TE's and running backs catching the ball that kills the Packers D. The wide receivers get a play here and there but the Packers are still a bit above average vs the WR. It's TE and RB receptions that keep drives alive and that is exactly what the NE offense is good at.
It's pretty clear that Green Bay can beat anyone, but they aren't unbeatable. I would not be surprised if CHI, DET, NYG, SF, NO, NE, or PIT beat them even though I think GB is better than all of them. I would be surprised if any other team beat them though, HOU if Schaub was still healthy would have worried me to. I just have a hard time worrying about BAL with the losses they had.
I was worried about getting surprised today though.
Most people think NYG is the biggest threat to GB but I think GB is a terrible matchup for the Giants. The Giants lack speed in the secondary and have gotten torched by some pretty underwhelming QBs so far this year. Also, while having a good year so far, Manning is pretty Turnover Prone which is not good against GB's Defense. Not surprisingly, both of these elements were quite noticeable last year when GB annihilated NYG in Week 16.
I think the biggest threats to GB in the NFC are NO, DAL, DET
Ignore the secondary. For the same reasons that having a good secondary wouldn't stop the 2007 Pats (too many options, too much time).
You have two options against the Packers.
1. You need to rattle (or injure) Aaron Rodgers. And you need to be able to do it with four rushers.
2. You need to gamble and force turnovers.
I see 4 teams who are threats.
Camp 1: Detroit and NYG
Camp 2: NO and Dallas
Chicago has an outside chance, too, but can't seem to put the package together. NO actually largely outplayed GB, but was let down by short-yardage and special teams breakdowns.
Awful officiating so far in the vikings raiders game so far. dubious helmet to helmet, dubious holding, not getting the downs right, forcing the Vikings to take a timeout to get them to recognize the right down.
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 2:37pm
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
Raiders just made the coolest defensive play on a field goal attempt that I've
ever seen. Branch ran into the backfield, Longwell hesitated and Branch tackled
the holder.
Cowboys outplaying the Redskins but losing anyway - drives keep ending on Romo not connecting with wide open receivers. Robinson is looking like he's been reading an entirely different playbook from his QB.
Dear Cincinnati Bengals,
you're a pretty good football team now. Great job of putting the Carson Palmer era behind, some teams take longer to get this far. You're doing it in the AFC North, that's pretty good too.
I hope that Dalton guy keeps improving from his very good rookie year.
As a Steelers fan, sincerely,
Theo
ps. You'll never make it to a super bowl with Reggie Nelson at safety. Never.
Make sure you watch the Panthers TD with five minutes left. I've never seen a play like that. It's not a QB draw. Not a QB keep. Not a sneak. Mezmerizing.
Wow.
It's a center and 2 tackles ignoring their guys, going second level, the guards pull and block someone outside and the rest of the team orders a pizza.
by CraigoMc (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 5:20pm
Flashback to the Calvin Johnson non-TD from last year in the Bengals-
Ravens game. A receiver catches the ball, establishes position, the ball crosses the plane, he gets a foot down in the end zone - but because the ball comes loose AFTER all this, it's called back.
I know there's a rule to the effect that a receiver must maintain possession through the catch, but the rule is also that a touchdown is scored the instant a legally possessed ball breaks the plane. Which rule is enforced seems to be at the discretion of the referee.
by CraigoMc (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:14pm
Doesn't matter. A legally possessed ball in or over the end zone is a touchdown, regardless of the receiver's body position (excluding going out of bounds before either of the necessary conditions occurs).
by CraigoMc (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:12pm
That's a literal non sequitur. Once more, in sequence. He established possession, broke the plane, put a foot down in the end zone, and then lost possession out of bounds.
Bengals have first down at the Raven 7, with plenty of time, having scored all of their redzone tries by rushing...and line up in shotgun, allowing BAL to snuff out the drive. Bad coaching triumphs again.
In defense of Haslett, the Skins had Bryant bracketed by two defenders. DeAngelo should have had the outside. He not only positioned himself poorly, he fell down.
I'll put most of the blame on Hall there. No coordinator can devise a game plan accounting for a defender who cannot stay on his feet.
WAUW! Romo is the holder for a potential game winner. He jumps up, and calls timeout. The Cowboys are out of timeouts - that's penalty, right? Wrong - Shanahans brilliant "I'm gonna ice him"-strategy saves Romo for another week in the headlines.
Bailey, despite the huuuuge handicap of being iced, makes it for the win.
Enjoying watching the mismatch that is the special teams of the Bears vs. the special teams of the Chargers. Every Chargers kick can be returned 40 yards or more!
That isn't even the most idiotic thing this crew has said today. Simms mistakenly said that Devin Hester (who was standing under the goal post) could legally bat down the 55 yard field goal attempt by the Chargers on the last play of the first half. Hester jumped but didn't touch the ball as it hit the crossbar and fell short. He did correct himself in the second half and say that would be illegal, but failed to note that years ago it used to be legal. I don't remember when that rule was changed, but it was a long time ago.
Even worse was in the first half when Nantz and Simms said that referee Jeff Triplette called a holding penalty on number 34 of the Bears on a long punt return by Devin Hester. I will admit when I first heard the referee say this, it did sound like he said 34. I immediately rewound the DVR before they went to commercial, as number 34 obviously was Walter Payton's number and is retired. He actually said 32, which was the correct number. Nantz and Simms made their comment about the penalty after the commercial and said that they were scrambling to find a media guide to find out who number 34 was. First, the production crew could have rewound the tape during the commercial to find out that the referee actually said 32, not 34. Second, they obviously should have known that there is no 34 on the roster now because the number is retired.
by John Courage (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 7:28pm
Here's a stat I've never seen before. CBS had a graphic that Chicago has "attempted 6 forced fumbles" today, actually forcing 2 and recovering 1. So I guess the Bears force a fumble every third time they try. Gee, they should try to force one every time.
Made-up statistics aside, Tillman has always been exceptional at punching the ball out. He punches this one out and recovers it himself. Williams and Knox actually make a couple nice catches and the Bears turn it into 7.
Norv Turner just burned the Chargers' last two timeouts by first using a timeout, then challenging the play (a possible fumble), and losing the challenge to cost the last timeout. He should have just challenged the play (it was close) rather than calling timeout first.
NFL should allow teams to convert a TO to a challenge with no further loss of timeout, just a guaranteed TO even if the challenge is successful as long as the challenge is made during the timeout.
by John Courage (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:32pm
Very satisfying game from the Bears.
For once the opponent was the one wasting timeouts. The Bears kept all their first half time outs for their last drive. Usually they'll waste one or two per game where they just couldn't get the play in on time. Norv pulled a bone-headed "let's call a time out to think about challenging" to waste their last 2 time outs. I guess he just wanted to stop the clock right away before he knew to challenge, but it was a Forte maybe fumble and the Chargers clearly recovered. If you're going to call a time out anyway, it's clearly worth a shot.
The offensive line played pretty well. When pressure did get through, I thought Cutler did an excellent job of escaping and moving around in the pocket to buy some time. No sacks! The offense put together several nice touchdown drives.
So often when they're up it seems like the offense just shuts down and they let the other team hang around. They did give up a pick when Johnny Knox fell down on a route that almost let the Chargers back in. But, they picked off Rivers and then put together a nice drive to eat up most of the clock. Interesting choice to fake punt at the end
by ghamilton (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:44pm
Almost as sick as the 'rule' itself is the knee-jerk player disparagement by the talking heads.
On the other hand, judging by the total lack of reaction by Philly players/coaches, I guess this must be a 'well-known' rule by the stuffed-shirts in-charge of the No-Fun_league..my bad..
The taunting was after the play. It should have been applied after the catch. The refs just get worse and worse. To not even know the rules--fire the refs. And if that is the rule, that rule is absolutely bad and I don't want to see another taunting called again. I'd rather see immature receivers instead of immature refs.
Taunting is a dead ball foul. Should be applied after the play. Refs just botched it. No idea why Reid didn't make a bigger stink. Still, the responsibility is on the refs. Even though the NFL tacitly eliminated that reality when they made replay challenges a coaching strategy instead of an extension of the ref's duties.
It would have been applied after the catch, if not for the penalty on the Giants. That made it offsetting penalties, which is why the play didn't stand. It's nothing to do specifically with the call being taunting.
by matskralc (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:22pm
Correct. Under NFL rules, a live-ball foul and a dead-ball foul (that occurs during the action immediately after a down ends) can create a double foul and therefore offset.
by ghamilton (not verified) :: Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:36pm
Huh?!? So the Giants, by committing a hands-to-face penalty, actually get rewarded by the refs negating the 50-yd catch? That's a hole that should be addressed - otherwise any celebratory/taunting after a play could easily be used to negate the result of the play.
Come to think of it, I do vaguely remember some back**sward situation like this happening a few years back... Can;t believe this loophole hasn't been fixed.
At this stage, it seems that Asomugha can't play zone. I know he wouldn't have seen that much of it in Oakland but the eagles clearly haven't been doing a good job of teaching him how to play in that defense.
Kiwanuka would be a very good 3-4 OLB but his skills are wasted in a 4-3, it's a bizzaro version of Manny Lawson playing the first six years of his career in a 3-4.
1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 12:06am
PFT is reporting that Cutler will miss 6-8 weeks with a broken thumb. They'll need to get at least 10 wins for the playoffs. The Bears have games against Oakland, Kansas City, Denver, Seattle and Minnesota. Discuss.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by JIPanick :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 12:19am
Their chances are still reasonable.
@Raiders: Probable loss.
vs Chiefs: KC is much worse, and also on their BU quarterback. Probable win.
@Broncos: Probably gonna be another of those 10-10 Tebow-has-a-chance-to-win-at-the-end games. I call it 50-50.
Seahawks: Probable win, Cutler or no.
@Packers: Very probable loss, although with Cutler they'd've had a decent shot.
@Vikings: Call it a toss up.
Looks like 10-6 is the most likely scenario to me. However, a WC trip to New York/Dallas without Cutler at the helm is probably the end of the line. They'd better hope it's *only* six weeks.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by JCutler6 :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 4:37am
Such a shame, Cutler has been lights out the last few weeks - easily the best form of his Bears' career.
Teams are going to load the box up even more now and Hanie won't be able to capitalize like Cutler. The O-Line has been exceptional the last month (as far as Chicago O-Lines go) but Cutler's ability to improvise has masked a few of the lingering deficiencies. I think we need a minimum of 4 wins with Dallas gaining momentum and Atlanta playing well (though we do have the tie-breaker on them).
Others may see it differently, but Lance Louis has been a standout since going to RT, played really well today, credit to Mike Tice there.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by Joe Cinocca :: Tue, 11/22/2011 - 3:36am
Hanie could either be the drizzling s&*#s or be serviceable and actually be able to feed Forte the ball. I'm hoping they can make the NFC North a 3-way race to the final week. It's definitely getting interesting.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by Thok :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 8:18am
They'll need to get at least 10 wins for the playoffs.
I keep seeing people saying that 10-6 is necessary for the playoffs this year, but I don't see it in either conference. Now Chicago might not have good tiebreaks if they are tied for people at 9-7, but that's a separate issue.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by Thok :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 7:01pm
The Cowboys and Giants (and Atlanta) are 6-4. It means I expect two of those teams to be exactly .500 (or 3-3) and finish at 9-7. The Giants can easily go 2-4 against their upcoming schedule, and I don't really trust Atlanta or Dallas to be particularly consistent.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
by Marko :: Mon, 11/21/2011 - 8:41pm
The Giants' remaining schedule is so brutal that I am not worried about them or the Cowboys at all for a wild card spot. The Giants still have to play the Saints (on MNF in New Orleans), the Packers, the Jets, and the Cowboys twice. As you said, they could easily go 2-4. I don't see them going 4-2 (which would get them to 10 wins). The Cowboys' schedule is much easier, and I think they will win the NFC East. I don't think the Giants will be better than 9-7, which won't be good enough for a wild card spot. The Giants are 3-4 in the NFC, so they aren't in good shape for a potential wild card tiebreaker.
Basically, I think the race for the 2 wild card spots comes down to the Bears, Lions and Falcons. The Lions have a very difficult schedule, and the Bears' is relatively soft. So even without Cutler, I think the Bears can win 3 or 4 of their remaining games, which gets them to 10 or 11 wins. That should be good enough for a wild card spot.
A potential problem is if the Bears, Lions and Falcons all end up with same record (perhaps 10-6) with no other teams in the wild card race having the same record. If the Lions win the division tiebreaker over the Bears to finish second in the North, then the Falcons would be the #5 seed (by virtue of a head to head win over the Lions) and the Lions would be the #6 seed, and the Bears would be out. But if the Bears and Falcons are tied, and the Lions don't have the same record, the Bears would beat out the Falcons by virtue of their week 1 win over Atlanta.
What kind of a pussy move was that from the Chiefs not going for it on 4th and inches from the Patriots 40? How do they think they are going to win this game? By punting it to Brady?
I love that onside kick, it didn't quite work out but sidefooting the ball along the ground like that removes the possibility of booting the ball out of bounds. It's a good approach and a nice innovation.
Well the kick rolled to the kicker's left, sending it into their legs, if it had been another two yards forwards then I think it would have worked. Maybe jumping over the ball should be a coaching point.
This happens all the time to the Pats. A team that cannot be bothered to put up a half-decent effort against the Broncos and Raiders of the world decides to suddenly start playing decently when they get to Foxboro. It gets annoying after a while.
Their enthusiasm might diminish with a few more drive-killing penalties like that. Tough call I thought. It might have looked like something illegal, but it was really just a backup wide receiver playing safety(!) being dominated by a tight end.
Watching the pass blocking just whiff and fail, all I can think of is how thankful I am that there's enough young (and presumably improving) guys around to make this a much different line next year.
I really don't think that was a terrible throw by Palko - he was hammered as he threw and whilst it was behind Breaston, he got both hands on the ball. He should make that catch.
I didn't catch a replay of whether the blocking scheme was supposed to account for that blindside rusher or not--if not, he needs to get the ball out faster than that.
Wouldn't the Pats welcome the 10 second run-off in order to give the Chiefs less time to come back when they score? The rule is supposed to penalize the offense so that they don't get to stop the clock with a penalty, but I don't see the 10 second run-off as a negative in the red zone.
Maybe. I just see a situation at the end of a game where if the offense is either down 1 or 2 or leading where they try to run off as much clock as possible before kicking a FG. In which case, I suppose the opposing coach would decline the penalty?
They would, yes, which is why the Chiefs should have called a timeout at the end of the previous play. Would have given them an extra ~20 seconds or so at the end of the half.
Gruden was hypothesising that Jones was playing well because he used to play for the Jets, therefore hates the Patriots. Doesn't explain why Dexter McCluster is averaging 6 yards a clip though.
There was a pretty clear block in the back by Welker (I think) on KC52. It wouldn't have affected the play much but it still should have been called, it's possible that the refs were unsighted by the crowd of players milling about trying to work out what Edelman was doing.
What actually happens is that Welker starts his block from Siler's left side, then Siler wheels to his right to pursue as Edelman is cutting from left to right. Even though it looks like it finishes as a block in the back, that's only because Siler turns his back to the play.
On the play where the Chiefs first ran the wildcat, it looks like Palko went under center and then ran out to a WR position as somebody else took the snap. I thought that was a penalty, I remember Manning getting flagged on it.
There were a few games back in 2007 when BB took out Brady. I think that, right now, he's more concerned about the need for the team to keep improving. I doubt he's thinking about the feelings of the Chiefs so much as the fact that the Pats' offense was unimpressive for the first 20 minutes.
If the Chiefs weren't fielding a weak backup QB who kept throwing to the defense, this would have been a much closer game.
I thought it was nice to let the rookie Vereen get his first TD.
by Jim H (not verified) :: Tue, 11/22/2011 - 12:58am
I may be overthinking this, but I think part of the reason they went the extra mile on that last drive (converting 4th and 1 at midfield, etc.) was that BB wanted to protect the defense from a late score. Now he gets to pump them up that they only gave up three points
RSS Feed
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Over/Under for Tebow completions at 7 (his avg for the season):
Under.
With a 50% rate, he'd need 14+ passes. He won't get 14 passes.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
He's beaten 7 in every career start except Kansas City, so easy over, IMO.
I'd put the over/under for completions at 14 - there's a good possibility they get clobbered and have to quit the running game.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I agree with you, I didn't expect them to include option shovels and didn't think of the swing passes.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Don't forget screens on 3rd and long after 2 failed runs.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Looks like Tebow got the over with 9/20.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME OPTION???
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Option shovel pass! Shenanigans!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Should have kicked the 3...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Option from the pistol! Shenanigans!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
End arounds! End around WR passes! This offense is fun to watch.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Broncos predict-a-play:
Option reverse.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The Denver offense looks like a Friday Night Lights offense. Like the first team the Dillon Panthers play... "watch out for them counters."
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Did Maycock just chalk up Shonn Greene's injury to "option football" or did I mishear?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Wasn't that on the shoulder?
Or is the rule now that 'defenseless' = not allowed to breath on.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I couldn't really see since I'm watching on a really compressed online feed but at this point you basically can't hit a receiver who has left the ground...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Bart Scott calls shenanigans and thinks it's disrespectful.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I swear to god, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says shenanigans.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Hey, whats that restaurant you like? The one with all the goofy s#!t on the walls?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Champ playing a billion yards off Holmes...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The only time you should EVER go for the 3 inside the 5-yard line is if you're losing by 3 or less in late in the 4th quarter. That's it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Pretty solid statement there by Rexy that (a) he thinks his defense can eat Denver's lunch and probably also (b) he doesn't trust his offense farther than he can throw it, so grab the sure (unless you're Cleveland) points while you've got them.
We'll see if he's right...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Mind you, being able to cover the kickoff return would be a good plan, too...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
What was even remotely challenge worthy about that catch? Seemed pretty clear to me.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I'm watching the VT game instead, so I have to ask: did Denver suddenly find a defense, or is the Jets' O just that bad tonight?
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I'm thinking a little of both. The Denver D was only really awful against Detroit (and they got a lot of help being awful from the O in that game), and DVOA puts them at 19th. And you only have to look back three weeks to the Buffalo game to see a Jets first half that seemed pretty much the same.
No Greene or Tomlinson can't do much for the Jets' running game, either.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Jets should win thid gamr. Up 10-3 3rd quartrr. Mcknight at rb. He could pip one big. Sanchez lool like turd tonight. Btoncos musf lose
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
And noe sanchez thwor horrible pick 6.10-10.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
And then a fumbled KO return.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Gross qb play in thus game
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Too bad Tebow can't do crap with 'momentum' on his side. Short punt to boot
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
But...but...the defense's improved play is clearly Inspired by the Holy Tebow! Only his majestic leadership and overwhelming intangibles could have given them the power to resist the mighty juggernaut that is the New York Jets offense!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Sadly, I've read several comments today from people who said exactly that...
-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Sanchez banged up on a late hit!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
If yhese QBs were woodland creatires sanchez would be virginia opossum and Tebow mole. Bkth ugly animald
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Not helping matters that both teams are down to their third string running backs
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I couldn't tell. Was that last Tebow throw because he was hit, or was that normal? :p
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Mangold nice hippie beardd.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Comr on jets. Svore 13-10 still. Tebow leasing drive down padt midfielf
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Te-Bow, Te-Bow, Te-Bow!
As a Pats fan, my rooting interests are the opposite of RaiderJoe's. :)
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That'll teach the Jets to blitz Tebow without proper containment!!!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
What on Earth were they thinking bringing that blitz?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Seriously, we're going to have to break down that Broncos drive. After being essentially shut out all game long (their only TD was a pick six), the Denver Tebows drive the length of the field with an empty backfield. Against the mighty Jets defense! Truly mind-boggling.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
...It's the Dolphins game all over again. Another week of half the sportswriters talking about how Tebow can't be a real QB (9-20/104, bleah) and the other half talking about how he showed "great leadership" for leading the final comeback (in the only time other than the opening drive the Broncos played any offense at all).
Why, oh, why can't this guy just be either good or bad? Instead we get, week after week, "awful, but in a way that reads off a Hollywood script about the Plucky Underdog Hero who Rallies the Troops and Wind the Game). I mean, I'd be fine with him either washing out of the league or morphing into Tom Brady (or hell, 2010 Michael Vick would be fine; Tebow's never murdered a dog so far as I know). I'm just so frickin' sick of his career reading like somebody's writing the thing for a TV series.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
A TV show with this script would be rejected for being too unrealistic.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I think it just takes some real analysis that goes deeper than what the mass media is giving you. It's been shown over and over again that there isn't any such thing as "clutch" or hot-and-cold. Tebow is simply both as good and as bad as he looks, and there's some way to reconcile the two - maybe it's about formation, or play-calling, or something else that would actually make sense after it were explained.
I think a lot of it is remembering that "dramatic" plays aren't necessarily the same as "risky" plays. There's a lot of drama to end-of-game heroics, and also the option, but, option plays are still keeping the ball on the ground, and despite Tebow's inaccuracy, he's not forcing throws. Overall, Tebow is an extremely conservative player - he hands off to the inside zone more often than he probably should, and he'll throw the ball (deliberately) into the dirt rather than risk an interception. It might just be that at the end of the game, he lets himself take a few more risks than he otherwise would - and even then, he's not doing anything stupid.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
One thing the announcers were talking about was that he suddenly looked a lot better when they went to a 5-wide and he was rushing from the backfield.
I'm not sure why that was a surprise or took so long to appear. He won a Heisman and finished in the top-5 two other times running that exact look at Florida. Unlike his pocket uneasiness, he suddenly gets comfortable with the reads, simplifies the defense, and can exploit the casual racism of NFL players with White Speed like he's some kind of 50-ft Wes Welker.
He still can't pass well, but he throws well enough to make it dangerous to neglect pass defense and is capable of hitting the hole in the zone, and is fast and crafty enough as a runner to make you pay for either over-blitzing it or turning your back and playing man.
But the biggest thing is that he seems to avoid turnovers much better than Orton. I don't know how much that has to do with the defense's sudden reappearance, but there are worse things than punting, and the Denver D has played well defending long field lately.
Granted, it helps when the opposing offenses are Miami, KC, Oakland sans QB, and the D-V-O-A Jets Jets Jets.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Tebow avoids turnovers better than Orton because when Orton missed a throw, it still was close to the receiver and coverage. Tebow usually misses by throwing it wildly into no man's land, where no one can pick it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Or terribly underthrowing AKA the Donovan McNabb school of turnover avoidance.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
So I guess you would argue that if Tebow starts throwing more picks, then it means he's improving as a quarterback?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
then it means he's becoming a quarterback.
Now, all he does is throw screens, flares, quick passes and shovels.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
And bombs.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The last play of the Broncos drive may have been the most embarrassing defensive scheme I've ever seen. Who rushes 7-8 men up the middle with NO plan for a Tebow bootleg, with the game on the line? Really?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
In defense of Rex Ryan, there was a Jet assigned to contain Tebow. He just did a piss-poor job of doing that. I suspect a lot of people are still under-estimating Tebow's running ability.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I'm assuming it's the pigment deficiency, just like Jordy Nelson...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Which is funny, it's not like he came out of nowhere. State champ in HS in the 100, 200, 400, and long jump. Quite possibly the 2nd fastest player on the Packers roster behind Cobb (who has recorded a 4.25, 4.30, and 4.33 though I don't think he ran at the combine)
NFL combine numbers.
Randy Moss 4.25
Calvin Johnson 4.35
Jordy Nelson 4.37
Andre Johnson 4.41
Greg Jennings 4.42
Randall Cobb 4.46
Larry Fitzgerald 4.53
So yeah Megatron's unprecedented size and speed that I hear about (which isn't because Moss was faster and taller) is only slightly better than Nelson who is 6-4.
Of course the color thing was beat to death on ESPN this week. But I'm not sure that any of the quantitative data was ever present on anything I saw.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Size is more than stature.
Moss was 6-4, 210lb.
Nelson is 6-3, 215lb.
Johnson is 6-5, 237lb. He's legitimately TE-sized.
Megatron is taller and heavier than Aaron Hernandez.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Also, I think CJ can out jump both Nelson and Hernadez, so he's a bigger target.
And being compared to Moss in terms of speed and size is a good thing.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Tebow isn't super-fast over distances, but he has elite burst and acceleration. From what I remember, his shuttle-cone-drill times were among the fastest in the combine.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I LIKE WATCHING AMERICAN FOOTBALL
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The man's 6'3", 240lb. Rudy he ain't.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Oh come on, you can't imagine all of his teammates lining up in front of Fox and laying down their jerseys in protest of not allowing Tebow to play?
Fox: "Champ, he can't pass, he's piss poor in practice, and no one is allowed to swear when he's around. Why don't you act like the leader of this team?"
Baily: "Coach, I believe I am..."
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Hopefully NYJ's Offense doesn't move into the top 10 of DVOA after another surprisingly strong effort that only looks bad to observers
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Their only TD was scored on a play when they fumbled. DVOA dislikes fumbles and doesn't care that the Jets recovered the fumble themselves.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Jets offense getting a high rating here.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I do not know what is most astonishing.
A)46 in-game comments on an almost meaningless and incredibly bad football game.
B)That the Jets lost that game
C)the Legend continues
Any team that loses to Denver is hopelessly inept, and Tim Tebow is a really bad quarterback. You are about to be inundated with sentences that combine "Tebow" and "winner". Do not be fooled.
Rex Ryan just set football back 70 years. Seriously? You can't game-plan for the most limited starting quarterback of the past 30 years? You go cover-zero on a run-first quarterback in field goal range? Why would you not insist on making the worst thrower in the NFL beat you in the air? And no shadow on Tebow. Brilliant.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Wasn't it Greg Cosell that was saying that if he were the Jets, he'd run the cover-zero to "force Tebow to throw"? Now it's the cover-zero that encourages Tebow to run? What you don't expect is for someone to *run* against nine, and beat them. Blame the bad play call or the lack of contain, but that was still a hell of a read, some good football IQ, and a great burst around the edge. Tebow didn't wait to run around the edge, he read it from before the snap.
It sure seems like teams are getting in line to become the most inept team in the league just in time to lose to the Broncos.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I'll make a simple correction:
Tim Tebow is a really poor passer. He's a middling QB.
(By way of comparison, Michael Vick was a middling passer and an above-average QB early in his career)
Defenses, by and large, are underestimating Tebow's running IQ. This seems to happen a lot with rookie QBs for some reason. Vince Young exploited his running ability to inflate below-average passing skills and achieved a great record as a starter as well. There's something about a guy who looks like a normal QB but tends to take off and run that seems to break the mind of defensive players (or coaches). It's a weird effect.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Tim Tebow is a bad QB and an excellent RB. If you can't contain him--and he's unbelievably good at instantly reaching full acceleration, so maintaining containment isn't easy--he'll tear your defense apart with his legs, offering just enough of a passing threat that you can't simply stack the box with ten guys.
His passing mechanics are horrible, but he's conservative enough to play within his limitations rather than force throws, so you can plan around those weaknesses. If the Broncos can find a way to harness his abilities properly, like they did at the end of the Jets game, Tebow will morph into a better-running, worse-passing version of Vick or Young.
IF he can stay healthy and Fox is willing to actually build a proper option offense, it might work--but that's a huge pair of ifs.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The rumor is that he likes to watch Tebow's footwork.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
It looks like WWE's writers are supplying the NFL with scripts for Tebow's games.
Did Vince McMahon buy a stake in the NFL without my knowing it?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
(AP) Philadelphia police today are struggling to identify an unknown man who died in horrifying fashion this evening outside a local sports bar.
One officer, who wished to remain anonymous said, "His head, it just exploded like an overripe cassava melon. Blood everywhere, it's awful."
Investigators at the scene believe that the man may be a teacher of some kind as there were a large stack of ungraded math papers in his satchel. However, they are struggling to understand why the last word typed on the man's laptop were "Tebowscum, why won't you DIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"
Anyone with knowledge of this incident is asked to please contact the Philadelphia police.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
(genuflection)
Jets and Texans/DVOA Casualties-- Next???
Without getting into the innards of DVOA-- thank you, Aaron for showing us some of the sausage-- can we start to have a serious discussion about who in each conference might be likeliest to beat Green Bay?
First, if we assume Lambeau-- and the 49ers don't yet, and given their schedule, they shouldn't-- is it the Giants? the Bears? the Niners? the Saints? or perhaps the Cowboys GB should be most worried about? Assuming at least one late game-- meaning cold and dark-- I maintain that the greater threat will not be the one certifiably excellent offensive team-- New Orleans (though if they reach a 3 seed, they could only play GB in the NFC title game)-- but one of the defensive-oriented squads. The Bears know the Packers inside and out, though they have lost 3 times to them in the past 11 months with another probable loss coming at Lambeau on Xmas Day. The Giants seemingly have the formula and they have the historic track record, and a la 2007 they get the first chance in the regular season in two weeks time. The Niners have perhaps an even better formula with run offense and tough defense. But maybe the Cowboys will be closest in actual talent both sides of ball/momentum level by the time January rolls around, and they can score points. Plus they are likely to play the Packers in the 2nd round, after the bye for GB, when I think the Pack may be more susceptible to an upset. I'm going to rank it Cowboys, Bears, Niners.
Second-- if we assume another dome Super Bowl should GB win the NFC, then I think it's a track meet, and then I believe it comes down to either NE or Pitt. Baltimore's defense is no longer good enough to dominate a game like that, and Flacco is Flacco. Fact is Packers could, and probably should have beaten NE in Foxborough without Rodgers last December-- whereas they have had two games vs Steelers, one each of the last two years, where the game came down to the last possession with the ball in Big Ben's hands. Once he beat them, and once he didn't. I think Pittsburgh is the bigger threat. I don't see the Patriots stopping or even slowing Rodgers and Co. down, and without deep threats I think the much-maligned and currently underrated Packer pass defense will stop Brady enough to win.
Re: Jets and Texans/DVOA Casualties-- Next???
I agree with all of your points here; I'd find a NE/GB Super Bowl to be a fascinating track meet, personally. Plus it would have a similar story line to last year's game in that GB gets to face an opponent that they lost to late in the previous season.
Re: Jets and Texans/DVOA Casualties-- Next???
"Second-- if we assume another dome Super Bowl should GB win the NFC"
I'm pretty sure it's going to be a dome Super Bowl regardless of whether GB wins the NFC, unless they have secretly replaced the roof at Lucas Oil Stadium with the former roof from the Metrodome.
Re: Jets and Texans/DVOA Casualties-- Next???
I reading posts that contain "the Bears have lost to the Packers the last 3 times that they've played." Which is true, but isn't insightful at all. One loss was 10-3, basically a toss up, and playoff loss was a single possession game late in the 4th quarter when Cutler didn't play in the 2nd half.
If you think the Packers will beat the Bears, that's fine, but please use more nuanced evidence.
hmmm
Not sure how nuances are applicable when 3 of the past 15 Packer victories have come against the Bears, all within the past 11 months, two of which at Soldier Field. I can tell you that Cutler and the offense played poorly in Game One; poorly until Cutler went out with an injury in Game Two; and pretty mediocre in Game Three. I can also tell you that the Packers offense was effective in the first half in two of the three games, but didn't close well in any of them. I can also tell you that Urlacher has two legit INTs of Rodgers-- in a period of 15 games where there have been only three others, two of which were receiver tips.
Those are nunaces-- but I don't think they add anything to the fundamental point-- Bears on paper are a tough matchup, but they're 0 for 3 against the Packer team that either won the Super Bowl or is currently unbeaten.
A Nuance
I don't think McCarthy was particularly concerned about losing any of the three games by the time the Packers got to the 4th Quarter-- which in part is reflected in the conservative offensive decisions late in all those games. In the NFC title game the Bears clearly benefitted from Cutler's injury, once they yanked him-- he was godawful from the beginning and only Caleb whats-his-name gave them any chance.
Which is maybe a way of saying that the Packers may be pretty confident of beating the Bears from all the experience they've gained.
Re: A Nuance
Firstly, in the last game the Packers dominated the Bears. You'll get no argument from me
However, in the other two games they were extremely close, if McCarty was comfortable with a 7 point lead, I think that is a bad idea for any head coach. The week 17 game last came after the week 3 victory by the Bears where they took the lead in the 4th quarter. Was McCarthy also comfortable in that game?
Last year the Packers and Bears played 3 very competitive close games where a small bit of luck could have changed any of the results.
This year the Packers crushed the Bears once, we'll see what happens when they play again.
Re: Jets and Texans/DVOA Casualties-- Next???
I don't see the Patriots stopping or even slowing Rodgers and Co. down, and without deep threats I think the much-maligned and currently underrated Packer pass defense will stop Brady enough to win.
Except that it's the TE's and running backs catching the ball that kills the Packers D. The wide receivers get a play here and there but the Packers are still a bit above average vs the WR. It's TE and RB receptions that keep drives alive and that is exactly what the NE offense is good at.
It's pretty clear that Green Bay can beat anyone, but they aren't unbeatable. I would not be surprised if CHI, DET, NYG, SF, NO, NE, or PIT beat them even though I think GB is better than all of them. I would be surprised if any other team beat them though, HOU if Schaub was still healthy would have worried me to. I just have a hard time worrying about BAL with the losses they had.
I was worried about getting surprised today though.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Most people think NYG is the biggest threat to GB but I think GB is a terrible matchup for the Giants. The Giants lack speed in the secondary and have gotten torched by some pretty underwhelming QBs so far this year. Also, while having a good year so far, Manning is pretty Turnover Prone which is not good against GB's Defense. Not surprisingly, both of these elements were quite noticeable last year when GB annihilated NYG in Week 16.
I think the biggest threats to GB in the NFC are NO, DAL, DET
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Ignore the secondary. For the same reasons that having a good secondary wouldn't stop the 2007 Pats (too many options, too much time).
You have two options against the Packers.
1. You need to rattle (or injure) Aaron Rodgers. And you need to be able to do it with four rushers.
2. You need to gamble and force turnovers.
I see 4 teams who are threats.
Camp 1: Detroit and NYG
Camp 2: NO and Dallas
Chicago has an outside chance, too, but can't seem to put the package together. NO actually largely outplayed GB, but was let down by short-yardage and special teams breakdowns.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Honestly points one and two make me think of SF more then the others.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Uh, Niners? They get two field goals blocked, drop two touchdowns, and still dominate.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Awful officiating so far in the vikings raiders game so far. dubious helmet to helmet, dubious holding, not getting the downs right, forcing the Vikings to take a timeout to get them to recognize the right down.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Never mind, they gave the timeout back.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
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
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Ponder was looking pretty decent with a good run and a nice play to Harvin.
Raider D just picked him, though.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
LaGarret Blount unlocks beast mode for Tampa, with a 50 yard TD breaking tackles from just about every GB defender. Now they're only down 7.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Raiders just made the coolest defensive play on a field goal attempt that I've
ever seen. Branch ran into the backfield, Longwell hesitated and Branch tackled
the holder.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Cowboys outplaying the Redskins but losing anyway - drives keep ending on Romo not connecting with wide open receivers. Robinson is looking like he's been reading an entirely different playbook from his QB.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Anyone left on the Buffalo bandwagon?
*Miami fan laughs quietly to himself and wishes he could see the game*
Phil Simms is a Cretin.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Andy Dalton shouldn't run the option. Horrible execution. Dalton having a rough day overall, but has also been victim on some good grabs from DBs
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Dear Cincinnati Bengals,
you're a pretty good football team now. Great job of putting the Carson Palmer era behind, some teams take longer to get this far. You're doing it in the AFC North, that's pretty good too.
I hope that Dalton guy keeps improving from his very good rookie year.
As a Steelers fan, sincerely,
Theo
ps. You'll never make it to a super bowl with Reggie Nelson at safety. Never.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Make sure you watch the Panthers TD with five minutes left. I've never seen a play like that. It's not a QB draw. Not a QB keep. Not a sneak. Mezmerizing.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Thanks for the pointer, that was nice. A year ago, who would've pegged Panthers/Lions as a must-see, important game?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Planned. As wide as the Lion DL sets, more should do the same.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Oh yeah, it was absolutely planned. Nice play design, phenomenal execution.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Wow.
It's a center and 2 tackles ignoring their guys, going second level, the guards pull and block someone outside and the rest of the team orders a pizza.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Precisely - it's basically three players beating the entire defense.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Goodness. All but one game is one-score.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
was this before or after the Bengals got back withing one score?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Flashback to the Calvin Johnson non-TD from last year in the Bengals-
Ravens game. A receiver catches the ball, establishes position, the ball crosses the plane, he gets a foot down in the end zone - but because the ball comes loose AFTER all this, it's called back.
I know there's a rule to the effect that a receiver must maintain possession through the catch, but the rule is also that a touchdown is scored the instant a legally possessed ball breaks the plane. Which rule is enforced seems to be at the discretion of the referee.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That's a little different. The Megatron play occurred entirely within the end zone.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Doesn't matter. A legally possessed ball in or over the end zone is a touchdown, regardless of the receiver's body position (excluding going out of bounds before either of the necessary conditions occurs).
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
In the Megatron play, he did not establish possession and then break the plane. The ball broke the plane prior to anyone possessing it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I don't see the conflict – because the ball later came loose, he didn't have possession when he broke the plane.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That's a literal non sequitur. Once more, in sequence. He established possession, broke the plane, put a foot down in the end zone, and then lost possession out of bounds.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Bengals have first down at the Raven 7, with plenty of time, having scored all of their redzone tries by rushing...and line up in shotgun, allowing BAL to snuff out the drive. Bad coaching triumphs again.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Gano with a 52 yard try to end it... Icing timeout....
Grosmann lost a yard on the previous play, on a roll-out. He was 1 yard from the sideline, and could've just flicked it out of bounds.
... misses it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
DeAngelo Hall on an island with Dez Bryant. Not the best idea Jim Haslett has had today.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
In defense of Haslett, the Skins had Bryant bracketed by two defenders. DeAngelo should have had the outside. He not only positioned himself poorly, he fell down.
I'll put most of the blame on Hall there. No coordinator can devise a game plan accounting for a defender who cannot stay on his feet.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
WAUW! Romo is the holder for a potential game winner. He jumps up, and calls timeout. The Cowboys are out of timeouts - that's penalty, right? Wrong - Shanahans brilliant "I'm gonna ice him"-strategy saves Romo for another week in the headlines.
Bailey, despite the huuuuge handicap of being iced, makes it for the win.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Yeah, Shanahan came under a lot of derision for that at this TV-watching location.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The Cards are good at forcing fumbles. John Skelton forces a fumble, on Skelton, and then his offensive lineman makes the tackle, on Skelton.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Enjoying watching the mismatch that is the special teams of the Bears vs. the special teams of the Chargers. Every Chargers kick can be returned 40 yards or more!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Phil Simms:
"Lance Briggs is the unsung hero of the NFL"
Because no-one ever talks about Lance Briggs.
I hate Simms
Phil Simms is a Cretin.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That isn't even the most idiotic thing this crew has said today. Simms mistakenly said that Devin Hester (who was standing under the goal post) could legally bat down the 55 yard field goal attempt by the Chargers on the last play of the first half. Hester jumped but didn't touch the ball as it hit the crossbar and fell short. He did correct himself in the second half and say that would be illegal, but failed to note that years ago it used to be legal. I don't remember when that rule was changed, but it was a long time ago.
Even worse was in the first half when Nantz and Simms said that referee Jeff Triplette called a holding penalty on number 34 of the Bears on a long punt return by Devin Hester. I will admit when I first heard the referee say this, it did sound like he said 34. I immediately rewound the DVR before they went to commercial, as number 34 obviously was Walter Payton's number and is retired. He actually said 32, which was the correct number. Nantz and Simms made their comment about the penalty after the commercial and said that they were scrambling to find a media guide to find out who number 34 was. First, the production crew could have rewound the tape during the commercial to find out that the referee actually said 32, not 34. Second, they obviously should have known that there is no 34 on the roster now because the number is retired.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Cutler is playing fantastic today.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Hasselbach out with elbow injury; Jake Locker in for Titans.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
And right away he puts the hurt on Atlanta. ba-dum chee... I'll show myself out.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Here's a stat I've never seen before. CBS had a graphic that Chicago has "attempted 6 forced fumbles" today, actually forcing 2 and recovering 1. So I guess the Bears force a fumble every third time they try. Gee, they should try to force one every time.
Made-up statistics aside, Tillman has always been exceptional at punching the ball out. He punches this one out and recovers it himself. Williams and Knox actually make a couple nice catches and the Bears turn it into 7.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Watching the Cardinals get clobbered by the 49ers...
"How did this Cardinals team beat the Eagles last week?"
"Maybe the Eagles aren't that good."
"Yeah, maybe their coaching sucks."
(pause)
"Nah, that couldn't possibly be true." /deadpan
Much hilarity.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Brian Billick thinks it's uncharacteristic for Alex Smith to throw a pick.
Does he follow football?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Yes. That's why he knows nothing about Alex Smith prior to this year.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Norv Turner just burned the Chargers' last two timeouts by first using a timeout, then challenging the play (a possible fumble), and losing the challenge to cost the last timeout. He should have just challenged the play (it was close) rather than calling timeout first.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
NFL should allow teams to convert a TO to a challenge with no further loss of timeout, just a guaranteed TO even if the challenge is successful as long as the challenge is made during the timeout.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Chris Owens = Toast
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Hah, San Diego just got NOOOOOOOOOOORV'd
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
WINNING SEASON FOR THE 49ERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Very satisfying game from the Bears.
For once the opponent was the one wasting timeouts. The Bears kept all their first half time outs for their last drive. Usually they'll waste one or two per game where they just couldn't get the play in on time. Norv pulled a bone-headed "let's call a time out to think about challenging" to waste their last 2 time outs. I guess he just wanted to stop the clock right away before he knew to challenge, but it was a Forte maybe fumble and the Chargers clearly recovered. If you're going to call a time out anyway, it's clearly worth a shot.
The offensive line played pretty well. When pressure did get through, I thought Cutler did an excellent job of escaping and moving around in the pocket to buy some time. No sacks! The offense put together several nice touchdown drives.
So often when they're up it seems like the offense just shuts down and they let the other team hang around. They did give up a pick when Johnny Knox fell down on a route that almost let the Chargers back in. But, they picked off Rivers and then put together a nice drive to eat up most of the clock. Interesting choice to fake punt at the end
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I'd like to see the stats on that choice.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Why is the reception cancelled by the taunting penalty?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That doesn't usually happen after you see taunting after a touchdown.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
WTF? Never heard of that rule... if true, its the worse rule in the book.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Almost as sick as the 'rule' itself is the knee-jerk player disparagement by the talking heads.
On the other hand, judging by the total lack of reaction by Philly players/coaches, I guess this must be a 'well-known' rule by the stuffed-shirts in-charge of the No-Fun_league..my bad..
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I was going to ask the same question.
Also, DeSean Jackson continues to reduce his value by his immature and selfish actions.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The taunting was after the play. It should have been applied after the catch. The refs just get worse and worse. To not even know the rules--fire the refs. And if that is the rule, that rule is absolutely bad and I don't want to see another taunting called again. I'd rather see immature receivers instead of immature refs.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Taunting is a dead ball foul. Should be applied after the play. Refs just botched it. No idea why Reid didn't make a bigger stink. Still, the responsibility is on the refs. Even though the NFL tacitly eliminated that reality when they made replay challenges a coaching strategy instead of an extension of the ref's duties.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
It would have been applied after the catch, if not for the penalty on the Giants. That made it offsetting penalties, which is why the play didn't stand. It's nothing to do specifically with the call being taunting.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Correct. Under NFL rules, a live-ball foul and a dead-ball foul (that occurs during the action immediately after a down ends) can create a double foul and therefore offset.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Huh?!? So the Giants, by committing a hands-to-face penalty, actually get rewarded by the refs negating the 50-yd catch? That's a hole that should be addressed - otherwise any celebratory/taunting after a play could easily be used to negate the result of the play.
Come to think of it, I do vaguely remember some back**sward situation like this happening a few years back... Can;t believe this loophole hasn't been fixed.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
umm, no. Philly got penalized hugely for commiting a taunting penalty.
Next time maybe Desean shouldn't taunt people when a penalty has already been commited.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
This was my understanding as well. And as a Giants fan, I was amused.
But wow is that stupid.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Why can't the offense decline the defensive foul that creates the offset?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
They kick it to Desean Jackson...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Sigh, robbing my eagles DST of their rightful score. I don't think he stepped out...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Why is Nnamdi having so much trouble in Philly?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
At this stage, it seems that Asomugha can't play zone. I know he wouldn't have seen that much of it in Oakland but the eagles clearly haven't been doing a good job of teaching him how to play in that defense.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Kiwanuka would be a very good 3-4 OLB but his skills are wasted in a 4-3, it's a bizzaro version of Manny Lawson playing the first six years of his career in a 3-4.
1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
PFT is reporting that Cutler will miss 6-8 weeks with a broken thumb. They'll need to get at least 10 wins for the playoffs. The Bears have games against Oakland, Kansas City, Denver, Seattle and Minnesota. Discuss.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
Their chances are still reasonable.
@Raiders: Probable loss.
vs Chiefs: KC is much worse, and also on their BU quarterback. Probable win.
@Broncos: Probably gonna be another of those 10-10 Tebow-has-a-chance-to-win-at-the-end games. I call it 50-50.
Seahawks: Probable win, Cutler or no.
@Packers: Very probable loss, although with Cutler they'd've had a decent shot.
@Vikings: Call it a toss up.
Looks like 10-6 is the most likely scenario to me. However, a WC trip to New York/Dallas without Cutler at the helm is probably the end of the line. They'd better hope it's *only* six weeks.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
Such a shame, Cutler has been lights out the last few weeks - easily the best form of his Bears' career.
Teams are going to load the box up even more now and Hanie won't be able to capitalize like Cutler. The O-Line has been exceptional the last month (as far as Chicago O-Lines go) but Cutler's ability to improvise has masked a few of the lingering deficiencies. I think we need a minimum of 4 wins with Dallas gaining momentum and Atlanta playing well (though we do have the tie-breaker on them).
Others may see it differently, but Lance Louis has been a standout since going to RT, played really well today, credit to Mike Tice there.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
Hanie could either be the drizzling s&*#s or be serviceable and actually be able to feed Forte the ball. I'm hoping they can make the NFC North a 3-way race to the final week. It's definitely getting interesting.
GO BEARS!
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
They'll need to get at least 10 wins for the playoffs.
I keep seeing people saying that 10-6 is necessary for the playoffs this year, but I don't see it in either conference. Now Chicago might not have good tiebreaks if they are tied for people at 9-7, but that's a separate issue.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
That means you expect the Lions and one of the Giants or Cowboys to be worse than .500 the rest of the season.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
The Cowboys and Giants (and Atlanta) are 6-4. It means I expect two of those teams to be exactly .500 (or 3-3) and finish at 9-7. The Giants can easily go 2-4 against their upcoming schedule, and I don't really trust Atlanta or Dallas to be particularly consistent.
Re: 1st can the Bears make the playoffs under Hanie Thread
The Giants' remaining schedule is so brutal that I am not worried about them or the Cowboys at all for a wild card spot. The Giants still have to play the Saints (on MNF in New Orleans), the Packers, the Jets, and the Cowboys twice. As you said, they could easily go 2-4. I don't see them going 4-2 (which would get them to 10 wins). The Cowboys' schedule is much easier, and I think they will win the NFC East. I don't think the Giants will be better than 9-7, which won't be good enough for a wild card spot. The Giants are 3-4 in the NFC, so they aren't in good shape for a potential wild card tiebreaker.
Basically, I think the race for the 2 wild card spots comes down to the Bears, Lions and Falcons. The Lions have a very difficult schedule, and the Bears' is relatively soft. So even without Cutler, I think the Bears can win 3 or 4 of their remaining games, which gets them to 10 or 11 wins. That should be good enough for a wild card spot.
A potential problem is if the Bears, Lions and Falcons all end up with same record (perhaps 10-6) with no other teams in the wild card race having the same record. If the Lions win the division tiebreaker over the Bears to finish second in the North, then the Falcons would be the #5 seed (by virtue of a head to head win over the Lions) and the Lions would be the #6 seed, and the Bears would be out. But if the Bears and Falcons are tied, and the Lions don't have the same record, the Bears would beat out the Falcons by virtue of their week 1 win over Atlanta.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Cris Carter thinks the Pats cannot run the ball.
DVOA thinks they have the 5th best running attack in the NFL.
I do tend to agree with the ESPN guys that the Pats' passing defense has to improve dramatically if they want to advance far in the playoffs.
Then again, I don't see any truly elite teams in the AFC this year. The NFC looks tougher.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That's Edelman in at DB. He and Ventrone were on the field playing defense (ostensibly) for the Pats on the same play.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
What kind of a pussy move was that from the Chiefs not going for it on 4th and inches from the Patriots 40? How do they think they are going to win this game? By punting it to Brady?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Where's the run defense?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Dear Coach Haley, penalties aren't reviewable.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I love that onside kick, it didn't quite work out but sidefooting the ball along the ground like that removes the possibility of booting the ball out of bounds. It's a good approach and a nice innovation.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Except that it has to get through a forest of legs to make it the required ten yards, hugely increasing the chances of it being touched illegally...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Well the kick rolled to the kicker's left, sending it into their legs, if it had been another two yards forwards then I think it would have worked. Maybe jumping over the ball should be a coaching point.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
dammit brady grow eyes in the back of your head
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
he's fumbling too much...better to go down and kick the fg
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Molden cannot cover Dwayne Bowe.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
That was a floaty pass, begging to be broken up or even picked. Difficult if you are facing the wrong way as Molden was, however.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Yes. Any half-decent CB would have stopped that.
BB's habit of purging the secondary of its veterans gets tiresome after a while.
Today's word is : tiresome.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Wows. Brady taken a couple of heavy hits early on here.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Hmm..where is the pass blocking? Whiff by Vollmer.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
This happens all the time to the Pats. A team that cannot be bothered to put up a half-decent effort against the Broncos and Raiders of the world decides to suddenly start playing decently when they get to Foxboro. It gets annoying after a while.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Their enthusiasm might diminish with a few more drive-killing penalties like that. Tough call I thought. It might have looked like something illegal, but it was really just a backup wide receiver playing safety(!) being dominated by a tight end.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I think the word you are looking for is "tiresome".
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Watching the pass blocking just whiff and fail, all I can think of is how thankful I am that there's enough young (and presumably improving) guys around to make this a much different line next year.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Would you believe Kyle Arrington leads the NFL in interceptions?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
No, I would not. It's true, but I still don't believe it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I really don't think that was a terrible throw by Palko - he was hammered as he threw and whilst it was behind Breaston, he got both hands on the ball. He should make that catch.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I would blame the pass blocking more than Palko or Breaston. Clearly the hit by Ninkovich affected the path of the ball.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I didn't catch a replay of whether the blocking scheme was supposed to account for that blindside rusher or not--if not, he needs to get the ball out faster than that.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Where was this offense the first 25 minutes of the game?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Wouldn't the Pats welcome the 10 second run-off in order to give the Chiefs less time to come back when they score? The rule is supposed to penalize the offense so that they don't get to stop the clock with a penalty, but I don't see the 10 second run-off as a negative in the red zone.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
It's hard to write rules so that they always have the desired effect.
Perhaps the 10-second runoff could be at the discretion of the other team's head coach?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Maybe. I just see a situation at the end of a game where if the offense is either down 1 or 2 or leading where they try to run off as much clock as possible before kicking a FG. In which case, I suppose the opposing coach would decline the penalty?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
They would, yes, which is why the Chiefs should have called a timeout at the end of the previous play. Would have given them an extra ~20 seconds or so at the end of the half.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Thomas Jones has 47 yards on 7 carries for a 6.7 YPC.
That's going to do some serious damage to the Pats' defensive DVOA.
I didn't think zombies coud average 6.7 YPC. He came into the game averaging a horrific 2.9 YPC.
Can't the Pats just tackle him by grabbing the giant fork sticking out of his back?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Gruden was hypothesising that Jones was playing well because he used to play for the Jets, therefore hates the Patriots. Doesn't explain why Dexter McCluster is averaging 6 yards a clip though.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Gruden is excruciating.
Oh, I'm sorry. He's tiresome. :)
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Pats fan quiz: If you are a real Pats fan, would you rather snog Brady or his wife?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Well, ever since he got his hair cut ...
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Bridget Moynahan
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Me, watching Edelman's punt return:
No, don't back track, what are you ...
Go, go, go!
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
There was a pretty clear block in the back by Welker (I think) on KC52. It wouldn't have affected the play much but it still should have been called, it's possible that the refs were unsighted by the crowd of players milling about trying to work out what Edelman was doing.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I don't think it's as "clear" as you make it out to be, see 0:28 here:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d8245ab8a/WK-11-Can...
What actually happens is that Welker starts his block from Siler's left side, then Siler wheels to his right to pursue as Edelman is cutting from left to right. Even though it looks like it finishes as a block in the back, that's only because Siler turns his back to the play.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Another pick for Arrington!
Well, clearly he's better than Revis.
(chuckles)
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
On the play where the Chiefs first ran the wildcat, it looks like Palko went under center and then ran out to a WR position as somebody else took the snap. I thought that was a penalty, I remember Manning getting flagged on it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Why is Brady still in the game throwing passes?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
Have you seen their defense? A 24 point lead isn't exactly safe.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
The defense thats held them to 3 points, and those 3 points were after a turnover by the offense? That one?
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
[redacted, double post]
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I suspect Belichick knows that the Chiefs don't care if Brady's still in throwing passes.
Mostly they seem to be doing running plays.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
When does BB ever take out Brady? The only time he does that is in the middle of a series to keep the backup quarterback alert.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
There were a few games back in 2007 when BB took out Brady. I think that, right now, he's more concerned about the need for the team to keep improving. I doubt he's thinking about the feelings of the Chiefs so much as the fact that the Pats' offense was unimpressive for the first 20 minutes.
If the Chiefs weren't fielding a weak backup QB who kept throwing to the defense, this would have been a much closer game.
I thought it was nice to let the rookie Vereen get his first TD.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I may be overthinking this, but I think part of the reason they went the extra mile on that last drive (converting 4th and 1 at midfield, etc.) was that BB wanted to protect the defense from a late score. Now he gets to pump them up that they only gave up three points
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
I don't think I've ever seen BB punt on a late drive with a big lead like that. He almost always runs all 4 downs. So I doubt it.
Re: Week 11 Open Discussion Thread
How often does the league-leader in interceptions not make the pro bowl?
Kyle Arrington may be bad enough to overcome the rediculous overestimation of INTs.
Post new comment