Talk amongst yourselves
7/30: NYJ QB
7/26: CLE WR, DET WR, WAS IDP
7/25: GB TE, HOU WR, KC RB/WR
* * * * *
The 2016 KUBIAK fantasy football projection workbook updates all preseason for only $20 -- or get it absolutely free with a $10 first-time deposit at FanDuel.com. Purchase it here!
Target release date: August 1
Top 35 quarterbacks charted for 2015 with scouting notes. PDF only $9.99
Click here to buy PDF version
Need help on FanDuel or DraftKings? Purchase a subscription from the website that specializes in daily fantasy.
04 Dec 2011
Here's your thread for discussing all of the Week 13 games as they happen, starting with the Thursday Night Seahawks-Eagles game, and continuing into Sunday.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 04 Dec 2011
227 replies , Last at
08 Dec 2011, 2:32am by
This game is a "must-win" for the Eagles, apparently. Last week was a must-win game, as were previous games against the Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and more. Just how many Must-win games have the Eagles had?
Honestly, I think we're past "must-win" and into "doesn't-matter-if-they-win" territory.
At this stage I think the question becomes 'which performance is it that gets Andy Reid fired?'
Marshawn Lynch's, maybe?
At least, he's trying.
Doesn't Donovan McNabb's release deserve its own thread? Texans, Bears, any other contenders out there? Maybe the Colts will pick him up for the stretch run just to help them avoid 0-16.
Why would the Colts sign any QB at this point? They have Manning on the roster, and they're going to get Luck in the draft. As for McNabb, I think Chicago makes the most sense. He can sit on the bench and back up Hanie for a couple weeks, learn the system, and maybe take the reigns in time for the playoffs.
Apparently the Texans already said they're not interested.
Why do people think that a fat, lazy QB who couldn't pick up the Redskins offense in an entire season would just slide in to a team in week 13 and be useful? Even if I wasn't completely OK with going 0-16 as a Colts fan I wouldn't want him. I doubt he'd be any better than Painter at this point.
Completely agree. As a Bears fan, I think the notion that he would be a good fit with the Bears and can help them down the stretch is ludicrous. I think it would be a big mistake to claim him or sign him if he clears waivers. He looks completely done.
As for the comment above that "Maybe the Colts will pick him up for the stretch run just to help them avoid 0-16," I disagree completely. First, as suggested above, there's no reason for the Colts to sign him. Second, I think if the Colts do sign him and play him, all that does is make it more likely that they go 0-16. Of course, they probably already will do that.
I was just kidding about the Colts thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Texans work him out, though.
Wow that was pretty blatant OPI not called on Williams. Woah.
Wow, I was never on that Asomugha gets away with anything bandwagon, but he just absolutely mauled Williams without getting a flag.
What? You think the PI should have been called on Nnamdi? Seriously?
God the Eagles are terrible.
Forgot which team I was watching for a sec there. Glad to see Andy Reid call the team's second timeout for a punt return with 8 minutes left in the game. Ah yes, the Eagles.
Good lord, I know Lynch is having a great game, but getting handled by the Seahawks...
Well, that was certainly a nice catch and hurdle.
That pick six by Young was so bad that I actually feel a little bit bad for him. And I have always rooted very hard against him.
Oops. There's another pick. Number four on the night.
Re: garbage time and GB.
Through three quarters Packers have outscored opponents 299-145-- precisely 14 pts/game. So on average they have a 2 TD lead going into the 4th Quarter. In the 4th Quarter they have played to a draw-- outscoring their opponents 83-82. The offensive number is not that surprising-- many times McCarthy has gone into turtle shell or 4 minute drive mode: hardly any passes, run the ball. But it's not a dramatically different number than the average scoring in the previous three quarters (99.7 to 82) Remember one thing about GB-- they almost always get the ball to open the 3rd Quarter, since McCarthy routinely defers if they win the coin toss-- so their 3rd Quarter numbers should be better than other teams in terms of scoring.
It is the defensive number that creates all the noise around here and in terms of DVOA-- they have allowed 48 pts a quarter for the first three quarters-- and then 82 in the last. In the 3 certifiable blowouts: Denver (49-23), At Louis (24-3) and Minnesota (45-7), the Packers allowed only 6 pts in the final quarter. In the two games where they actually trailed in the 3rd quarter: Carolina (30-23) and Atlanta (25-14), they allowed 10 pts. It is the other 6 games that are relevant to this discussion: The Packers won them by 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 pts respectively. They have allowed 66 pts in these 6 games in the 4th Quarter. In 2 of the games the opposition had the ball with a chance to tie the game at the end-- (NO and SD) and the Saints almost did. In the other four, the Packers, for lack of a better word, coasted, allowing late touchdowns with the game in hand. So the basic fact about DVOA and garbage time is that in a handful of games where GB had roughly a two TD lead (or more, as was the case on Thanksgiving vs the Lions) they allowed a late score to narrow the gap. And a lot of yards.
And in the 3rd Quarter, GB is 103-27. Those are staggering numbers. Historically great if they were repeated for the entire game. OK, they haven't been. I get it. But in effect, the Packers-- on both sides of the ball-- win most of the games they play in the 3rd quarter with a devastating performance, particularly the defense. Then they play it out in the 4th Quarter. One gets the sense that like a great race horse they run as fast as they need to-- if they ever get an opponent that forces them to push to the end, they'll do it. They are Affirmed more than Secretariat. And this places the other fascinating statistic into proper context-- they are the only team of all the great "streak" teams (15 wins or more) who has stopped the opposition when it had the ball and a chance to tie or take the lead at the end of the game every single time-- 9 times total. It also points to the strength of Capers coaching-- the ability to adjust at halftime.
What on earth does that have to do with last night's game? You aren't going to insist on smothering every discussion thread with this, are you? Please say you aren't.
no, I'm done for the week. Simply adding some additional data that has escaped the notice of the folks who run this site, for whatever reason. We'll see where it all stands after NY. But so long as the streak persists, I'm gonna talk about it. Particularly since I believe DVOA is missing the boat. We're a month away from truly historic, record-setting territory. Which none of us may ever see again. And two months away from an incomprehensible winning streak. And if the Giants (or Raiders/Chiefs/Bears/Lions) win, I'll shut up and we can all get back to the more mundane subject of who might win the Super Bowl and why. (Packers, I think. Just kidding)
But so long as the streak persists, I'm gonna talk about it.
Man, now I know how insufferable I must have been in 2007.
Were Pats fans really that bad in 2007? I feel like we weren't... I hope we weren't. But, man, I am so sorry to everyone involved if we were.
I was really more annoyed by Pats fans in 2008 when a few of them kept telling me Matt Cassell was a good quarterback.
You . . . kinda were. Not you personally, I mean. Well, maybe - I've no idea. But Pats fans in general.
But it wasn't quite as infuriating, because at least the 2007 Patriots really were one of the greatest teams of all time, as opposed to just a great team.
See, that didn't mitigate it for me. The only thing more annoying than an insufferable braggart is an insufferable braggart who's right.
It's sustained belief in untruths that bothers me, not braggartry. If the Patriots had won the Superbowl, they would have been forever remembered (not just by Patriots fans) as one of the greatest teams of all time, as well they should have been.
If the Packers win the Superbowl while playing at roughly their current level, there is a real danger that received history will cast them as one of the greatest teams of all time, and that will bug the hell out of me. I don't know if you follow English soccer, but few things have ever made me so angry as Arsenal's unbeaten season, an astonishingly unlikely feat accomplished by a side that wasn't even Arsenal's best team of recent years, never mind comparable to the best United and Chelsea teams.
you are an idiot!!!!! Nuff said
Yup. This is the message which is going to make me root against the Packers. Go NY!
Shoot, I'm a Cowboys fan and I'm tempted to pull for the Giants on Sunday.
It wasn't so bad with the Pats - they were legitimately a historically great team. It wasn't so bad with the Colts - their fans realized they were only generic-best-in-the-league good and had just happened not to lose yet.
The Packers are the latter, but their fans think they are the former. That's a combination that gets old quick.
"One gets the sense that like a great race horse they run as fast as they need to-- if they ever get an opponent that forces them to push to the end, they'll do it."
So the Packers are the Milton Berle of the NFL.
Even Secretariat was more of an Affirmed than a Secretariat. What gets forgotten is that Sham was the Joe Frazier of race horses. Sham finished second in both races and broke his leg in the lead at the Belmont. All three races of the Triple Crown were two-horse races. Sham also broke the previous track record at the Kentucky Derby, and is the only non-Crown winner to close in under 24 seconds at the Derby. Sham still holds what may be the second fastest Derby time.
So basically, Secretariat was being paced by another horse that was almost his equal, and almost surely would have been a Triple Crown winner in any other year.
Who are these people you are arguing against who don't think the Packers are an excellent team? I haven't seen many people all year who don't think they are the favorite to win the Super Bowl.
They are 2:1 to repeat right now! What more do you want exactly, everyone to start wearing Packers jerseys? Do you want the other teams to just forfeit all remaining games against GB? For like 2 months now there has been a few people consistently arguing GB is better than they look, which is odd because they look extremely good.
What are you going to defend next Mother Theresa?
From my perspective, the parallels between these arguments and the apologies for the Pats' defenses in recent years are remarkable. We claimed that it didn't matter that the Pats were giving up points when they were ahead by several touchdowns. The implication was that the Pats could "turn it off" if they really wanted to.
That was fairly delusional thinking on our part.
It does, in fact, matter if your team's defense cannot shut the door with a big lead. Because truly elite teams don't only build big leads, but also hold onto them. They don't make Philip Rivers look like Dan Marino in the 4th quarter. It may not matter much in the big scheme of things, but it does matter.
I said I was done for the week, so I won't restate my case. But since you asked, I will state the objection. And it is, in a word, DVOA.
FO projected, at the beginning of the season, the Packers to win 9.4 games-- in a gaggle of teams between 5th and 10th best in the league, a projection I believe I accurately described as "borderline playoff".
As recently as two weeks ago, DVOA said the Jets were a better team than GB, and currently says the Texans are a better team.
As recently as a week ago, DVOA said the Packers only had a slightly-- barely-- better chance than SF to win the NFC.
DVOA thinks the Packers are a coin flip to beat the Giants, and only about 70% likely-- or worse-- to win each of the other remaining games on their schedule. As a result DVOA projects the Packers as having only about a 10% chance of finishing the regular season 16-0. In fact it believes the likeliest GB final record is 14-2, and that 6 other teams have a projected better record in the remaining 5 games than GB.
All of this stems from a rating of GB's defense that is in the bottom third or quarter of the league.
Since I promised not to continue the argument for the rest of the week, I'll simply say that i believe DVOA is fundamentally inaccurate when it comes to judging GB's defense.
In 48 hours we'll know more.
Please point to the place on the doll where the bad DVOA touched you.
Certainly looks like DVOA's "coin flip" was a fairly accurate description of the likely the Giants were to prevail.
I was starting to drink the Kool-Aid, too, but I have now spit it out. But maybe it is time to break out the Dan Patrick expression for Rodgers: "You can't stop him; you can only hope to contain him."
I think this guy's just trying to sell his Green Bay shares.
Bengals are shooting themselves in the foot with a gattling gun.
First a false start on a would be TD catch, then a delay of game for the FG resulting in a blocked FG.
While needless fouls are always bad, the fact that both non-plays were scores can't really be fairly "charged" against them.
Doesn't offsetting penalties mean you replay the down?
True, but these were after the play, so not in this instance.
Does anyone understand the un-challenge in Chiefs-Bears? Beras punt, it bounces off #30 of the Chiefs and is recovered by the Bears. Todd Haley throws the red flag, the refs announce KC is challenging the ruling...
About two minutes later they come back and announce something like "After consulting with the KC coaching staff, they have decided not to challenge the play. 1st down Chicago."
I would have thought once the flag is on the field, that's it, you're challenging. Can you really argue with the refs for 2 minutes to stall for time and then say "Just kidding, we're not challenging"?
I see that fairly often. I think usually it means the coach discovered he's not allowed to challenge whatever he thinks he's challenging.
Dunno about this specific case.
Good point, I agree that happens all the time. This was definitely challenge-able (whether or not a KC player touched the punt before Chicago recovered).
Live it looked questionable, and Haley threw the flag immediately. Then they showed some replays and it became clear it was touched. The announcers implied that the coordinators in the booth overruled Haley. It seems odd the coordinators could overrule the head coach or even talk to the refs from up in the booth.
It seemed to me like Haley just impulsively threw the flag, then someone talked some sense into him after they saw a few replays, and he was able to finagle a mulligan from the refs. Odd.
The only thing I can think that makes sense is that he wanted to challenge that the player who touched the ball was being pushed at the time by the coverage team and that the officials said that isn't reviewable/isn't a ground for being reversed because the action by the Bears player was legal. If he just changed his mind, I don't think he can withdraw the challenge.
I see that happen too often. I don't think it's too much to ask that the coach be responsible for knowing whether a play is reviewable. If they challenge something look at the reviewable aspects, if they had in mind some aspect of the play that's not reviewable, tough, you wasted a challenge. As it is now, a coach can challenge things that everyone knows aren't reviewable and get a free timeout. John Harbaugh is particularly fond of that tactic.
Score in Minnesota: Broncos -2, Vikings -7.
Tebow just wins, baby.
Broncos and Vikings in a defensive battle : 7-2 now, all points scored by defenses after punts downed deep inside the 20.
I don't understand the Yeats fumble ruling in Texans-Falcons. His arm's moving forward with the ball in his hand, his hand is hit as he throws, and the ball comes out forward landing about 15 yards down the field. Everybody stops but no whistle sounds, so a Falcon picks it up and returns it for a touchdown. Ruling? Fumble, recovered by Atlanta, Atlanta ball at the spot of the recovery. Er, what? Is there some kind of "my opponents all stopped so the return doesn't count" proviso in the rule? Bizarre.
(I'm watching Red Zone, so maybe it was just very poorly explained.)
A Falcon, thinking the play was over, came on the field during the return. Ball was placed at the spot of the foul, adjusted by whatever yards.
Somebody'll have a fun Monday morning...
The Texans avoid a fourth consecutive (both teams combined) possession ending with a turnover by false-starting on 4th and inches then kicking a field goal.
Did anyone else think the Yates fumble a couple drives back was a bad call, even after review?
I didn't know it was reviewed but yes, awful call. I can't fathom how they messed that up.
I actually saw the red flag come out of Kubiak's pocket then flipped to Cincy/Pitt. When I flipped back it was ATL ball, so I assumed "reviewed and upheld" although I guess it's possible Kubiak changed his mind about the challenge.
It was indeed reviewed - the decision was "stands", rather than "confirmed", but I thought it was a horrible call in real time and on review. Of course, I may not be entirely unbiased here, but still . . .
And now Forte is out for the game. He took a helmet to the knee. Here's hoping he recovers quickly.
I'm a Packer fan, and still I'm totally depressed that Matt Forte is injured. I hate it when good players get hurt.
What's being reviewed in Minnesota? I'm following that one by Game Center.
And now Julius Peppers is walking off the field. Not a good start for Chicago.
Well at least Peppers is alright. His first play back he absolutely blows up a screen pass.
Somebody in Houston (Sirguasa, I think) just stated that T.J. Yates considers any drive that ends with a kick a success.
Whenever the Broncos' D steps up it's "inspired."
More and more 'over the top' stupid you see in parodies is becoming just 'regular stupid'.
Johnson drops a ball that hits him in the hands on that bootleg play action the texans like to run. Would not have thought andre johnson would be the weak link in the Yates-Johnson duo.
And now Kyle Orton is hurt for the Chiefs after one play. He came in on 2nd and 10 on the first play of the second quarter. The Chiefs ran a flea flicker (handoff to RB and pitch back to Orton), who was drilled on a delayed blitz by Major Wright. Orton immediately started waving around his hand, indicating that he was injured. It looks like he dislocated his index finder on his throwing hand. Palko then came back in the game.
I missed the first few minutes and didn't see that one. That's a shame too. That finger did not look good.
Not looking good for Cincinnati. Fumbled kickoff, and the Steelers and in the RZ up 14.
Triple combo by the Pittsburgh receivers.
Fumble recovery by Sanders, reverse by Brown, TD by Wallace.
Brian Billick having a brutal first quarter, making a bad game even worse. Referred to "Gerald" Allen at least three separate occasions (including multiple times on the Allen safety), and then on DEN fumble that MIN recovered, says "his knee was clearly down before the ball came loose", after which they show the replay... which clearly shows otherwise.
At least this bad game makes it easy for me to make pancakes while watching the game.
Officiating isn't much better either - with 10 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, MIN has already challenged and won two calls (DEN fumble, DEN completion). At this rate, MIN will have to use their third challenge by halftime.
More ugliness -
With 1:14 left in the first half, and 5 seconds left on the play clock, coming out of a timeout, Christian Ponder... calls Timeout again. The crowd immediately and audibly groans, half the players look around confused, Ponder starts walking away, half the players go back to huddle, and the clock is stopped at 1:14. The ref comes on the loudspeaker, says you can't call consecutive timeouts, set the play clock to 10 seconds, and starts yelling at players to get back to the line of scrimmage.
How the hell is that not a penalty? The broadcast team starts saying something about "they took the runoff", but there was no runoff, I just watched it again on the DVR. Timeout called at 1:14, with play clock getting to 0:05, ref announces to put 0:10 on the playclock, ball is snapped and play happens with 1:14 still left in the quarter. There was no runoff, and in fact, MIN got an extra 5 seconds of play clock.
And then shortly afterwards on the Tebow fumble to give MIN a FG before halftime - looking at the first replay of the fumble, the first part of Tebow to touch the ground is the ball, in his outstretched hand. The play by play guy says to Billick that when he touches the ground with the football, he's down. He even compared it to being like a knee.
What a terrible, terrible game.
12 minutes left in the 4th, and Ryan Clady takes a penalty for illegal hands to the face, against Jared Allen. FOX shows 3 or 4 replays of the penalty, and the announcers are going on and on about the penalty... but no one, least of all the refs, seems to care that Allen came in hands high, pushing Clady's helmet up, and then Clady did exactly the same back. These guys are about three feet apart, both trying to push the others' helmet off of his head, and the refs only make the call on one of them?
And then later, the exact same play seems to happen, but with Denver on defense, and it's called against Denver again.
These announcers in the Bears-Chiefs game (Harlan and Wilcots) are just awful. Here is a quick list of things they have completely botched today: Called Caleb Hanie "Tyler Palko," got all excited over what they mistakenly thought was a possible muff because a punt by the Chiefs almost hit a Chief (the guy who earlier had a Bears punt hit him, resulting in a turnover), and called Tyler Clutts "Tyler Clutes."
The Vikings have already hit 3 3rd and longs on this drive.
How does even Pereira not know that when the ground forces the fumble it's not a fumble? Or am I totally wrong on this? I feel like the refs made a terrible mistake there. (Broncos/Vikings game)
Was the player touched by a defender when he fumbled? If not, then it's still a fumble. I didn't see the play.
Tebow had his feet wrapped up, was falling to the ground, and fell with his hands out in front of him (with the ball in one), it looked like the ball came loose simultaneously with his knee being down, or pretty close, it could've gone either way in terms of whether the ball was loose prior to being down. It seemed to me that the refs just stuck with the call on the field, of a fumble recovered by MIN.
The ground can't force a fumble, but if you leave the ball on the ground, it's a fumble.
Basically, the act of falling can't force the fumble, say, by jarring it lose from your hold. The act of being a dumbass and using the ball to support yourself and losing it like Tebow did, is a fumble.
Perfect example - Matt Ryan did it, credited to Julius Peppers, in the ATL v CHI game earlier this year. Matt Ryan spun from pressure with a hand on him, put his ball hand down on the ground to steady himself and turn away and keep moving, but putting the ball to the ground knocked it out of his hand.
That play was initially credited to Peppers as a sack, but it was later changed to a team sack because neither Peppers nor any other Bear touched Ryan before the fumble.
Sorry, I still don't see the difference. If you don't leave the ball on the ground, it's a recovery anyway. That's like saying, "the ground can't cause a fumble, unless the other team recovers", which just seems weird. What's really the distinction here?
I didn't see the play in question, but the rule is pretty simple. If you are already down by contact before the ball comes loose, then it's not a fumble because you are already down. If you are not down by contact (such as when you go down on your own or when you go down after accidentally being tripped or knocked down by a teammate), and the ball pops loose, that's a fumble. If the ball touches the ground first before you are down (e.g., before your knee, leg, arm, shoulder, butt, back, etc., touch the ground), then the ground "can" cause a fumble, because the ball is loose before you are down by contact. So basically, the key point is that the ball touching the ground does not make you down by contact.
Here's my understanding, based on the calls I've seen. (It would be nice to see explicit confirmation.)
If you're being knocked down (by a defender) and your impact on the ground jostles the ball loose, it is not a fumble because you are down by contact as you hit the ground. This is the rule even if the ball is tucked under your arm, the point of the ball hits first, and the ball is moving in your arm as your shoulder/elbow hit the ground.
It seems this does not apply if the ball is in one hand, because you can place a hand on the ground without being down by contact. A hand on the ground (or a ball in one hand) cannot count as being down by contact.
Regarding this particular Tebow fumble, I see it as a close call. The ball was sliding in his hand just before his knee hit the ground; and it seems any movement can be counted as loss of possession in today's NFL. However, the ball was still in his hand as his knee touched-- I would have been fine with a no fumble call.
Tyler Palko's first career TD pass on a Hail Mary. Urlacher bats it down, but it's right into McCluster's hands. Seems appropriate to this game.
Wilcotts praises Bears safeties Conte and Steltz. Then he compares them to Plank and Duerson? I know the game is boring (at least the offenses), but there's no need to make stuff up.
Actually, he compared them to Plank and Fencik. Maybe because all of them are white?
That's what I thought and let out an appropriate groan at the time.
CBS just switched games with over a quarter of play left.
If you're wondering where the 35 Steelers points come from, take a look at the Bengals safeties Reggie Nelson and Taylor Mays.
They are slow to react against the run game (Mays has no clue) and are lost against the passing game, covering waaaaaaaaay too deep.
The personal foul on Sanchez is a perfect example if a player drawing the foul by using his head as a shield. If that's a foul, Sanchez committed it.
A) the hit happened about 3 seconds after the play was whistled dead for an offside penalty
B) the defender led with his head- not his shoulder, not attempting to wrap up with his arms- but his head and then made contact up around Sanchez' head. A textbook example of a penalty according to the new rules.
You may think the rule stinks (and you'd probably be right), but the call is correct
A) Is true and would be pertinent if the call was for a late hit or dead ball foul or something like that. But since everyone was playing as if the whistle hadn't been blown, they're not and did not call that.
B) How the hell do you lead with your shoulder and not also with your helmet unless you want every tackler to come running in sideways? The defender bent forward as if to drive his right shoulder into the quarterback's chest and had his helmet off to the side. Sanchez lowered his helmet into the path. Yeah according to the rules that's helmet to helmet and a foul, but it's a textbook example of why the new rules are trash. I've mentioned before the perverse incentive to block an incoming defender with your helmet to draw the foul. Well, now we've seen it in action.
B) If you lead with the helmet, you hit the player with the top of your helmet. If you lead with shoulders, your face is pointed up, and you make contact with your chestal area and facemask. In 2011 NFL, if you are hitting someone anywhere near their head (esp a QB), you must do the latter or get flagged. We've seen it called enough for players to learn this.
Your facemask is part of your helmet. Your ideal tackle still gets flagged. You can't spear with the crown of your helmet irrespective of where you hit the other guy. That's not what happened here nor was it the call.
Clearly, you never played.
A proper form tackle will have some contact involving the tacklers' head, but it's going to be around the chest/waist, and is not the principal point of contact. When you're performing a proper form tackle, with your head up ("see what you hit"), you're not putting the force into your head, you're not leading with the head, because if you were, you'd be hurting your own neck, bending your head backwards. Seriously, go outside and find a tree and attempt to form tackle it, versus leading with your head.
The rules pretty clearly allow a proper form tackle, as you're taught when you're growing up. If you're form tackling properly, you should never hit be hitting a man high, or with the crown of the helmet (which is what the rules are trying to prevent). The only hard part is when the guy is moving quickly, usually with a WR catching a ball. Obviously, when approaching a guy, it's not a lot of room for error between your head and your shoulder, and when the guy is moving, it's easy to catch him on the wrong one. But in general, if you form tackle, you'll be ok with the rules.
Ah, the old you never played therefore are wrong argument. Seriously, go outside and find a tree and attempt to form tackle it, then lead with your head and spear it. Repeat a few dozen times. Record the number of times the tree moves its head into the path of your helmet at the last second.
You weren't complaining about offensive players moving and causing shoulder-led tackles to be helmet hits. In my response, I even mentioned that those incidents are still a problem, and not something that can be solved with proper form tackling.
You were complaining that you didn't understand how a player could lead with his shoulder, and that doing such would still involve some helmet contact. My response wasn't that you're automatically wrong because you never played, it was that your misunderstanding of what constitutes a proper form tackle with the shoulder pretty clearly says you never played, and if you try to form tackle a tree, you'll find out pretty quickly that your initial misconception of what a form tackle is are incorrect.
The defender bent forward as if to drive his right shoulder into the quarterback's chest and had his helmet off to the side. Sanchez lowered his helmet into the path.
What wasn't I arguing again?
Not...defender lowered & led with head...Sanchez lowered his head at last instant as a result of an attempt to move his chest away from the impending hit...defender's initiative & correctly ruled...
Okay, Pierre Garçon fantasy owner who isn't watching the game here so I'm getting a flawed, biased view. It seems from my point of view that Dan Orlovsky is an upgrade over Curtis Painter. Is that at all accurate?
Is anybody watching that game to find out?
That is true, in the sense that chopped liver is an upgrade over a kick in the nuts.
Orlovsky certainly seemed like an improvement in the last 20 minutes of this game.
oh sweet jesus Tebow poopcrap
Denver just scored on a Macgahee run and a Tebow run for 2 point conversion to make it 29-29. Maybe now we can stop saying it's the defense that has been the driving force in Denver's winning streak.
Tebow makes the running game around him better, I can see that.
Also he is throwing 8/11 150 2 0 so that's good.
Next thing we know, he might have played one of his better games of the season today, but if he loses some people on his bandwagon will doubt if he 'just wins'.
Interception return for a touchdown, interception for the game-icing field goal: if you are going to cherry-pick individual plays to say that the offense is the big turnaround, at least do so in circumstances where you can't cherry-pick more defensive plays to make a stronger argument in the other direction.
If you cherry-picked all of them, I bet Denver's offense still wins this round.
Or, conversely, Minnesota's defense loses. Again.
Tebow has proven he can pass alright against bad defenses when his receivers have no one within 5 yards of them. That's great. He's also proven to be a decent option QB. That still doesn't make him the driving force of a good offense.
The stats belie the game that was played. Tebow did just enough, once again, to get the win, but he still isn't that special. And the Broncos defense didn't do so great this game, especially against a lackluster Minnesota offense. This was just your typical game between two mediocre teams.
Tebow and the Broncos offense deserves more credit than that. When you respond to eight-point deficits with touchdowns three times in a game, that's pretty impressive no matter who you're playing. Especially when coming into this game the thought was forcing Tebow to throw would be bad news for the Broncos.
How much of the Broncos recent success has to do entirely with the crap sandwich schedule they've played? Have they played even a better than average team during the 6-1 stretch? And other than New England in Week 15 it's quite possible they win 3 of their last 4 and finish 10-6.
Actually the Pats could lose to Denver easily. They
have a history of losing in Denver, this defense
slacks off at the end of games and they will be
winded at that altitude. Even Tebow can pass on
them this year, looks like a setup for a classic
Tebow comeback game to me.
Roy Williams - still useless.
So is Lance Louis; he's been brutal. KC is about to wins this game. I wonder if Chicago should go Josh McCown for the rest of the season? Depending on Forte's injury it may not matter anyway.
Lance Louis has value in that he's not Frank Omiyale.
Worse than useless this week.
In addition to keeping up with the 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
Congratulations, Washington Redskins. That was one fantastically rapid implosion from a winning position.
That was wierd. Watching the end of the Min/Denver game, and after Denver kicks a game tying field goal, Fox switches to Houston/Atlanta, just in time to see Atlanta down seven driving for a touchdown with 30 seconds left. Completion by Ryan, now this is getting good! Advertisements, and now I get to watch Buck and Aikman talk about Green Bay/New York. Nice tease there, NFL!
For the love of God (ahem), this week we get Tebow-tastic drama in a shootout rather then a grind-'em-out struggle of offensive futility. It's getting to the point where I just wish Denver would *win* games by twenty points with him throwing 300 yards. Does EVERYTHING the man does have to be like I'm watching a Hollywood sports movie?
It's like one of those old-time radio serials, with a ridiculous cliffhanger every week, followed by Tebow asking you read the bible and drink ovaltine.
If ever a team should let the opponent score this is it for the vikings.
They should have. Of course, the reverse applies: Denver would have been better off taking a knee at the one.
Mike Pereira < Jeff Triplette
Triplette may not know the OT rules, but Pereira apparently doesn't know that a knee on the white line does not constitute possession in bounds. Nice.
KCW, Eli Manning. KCW.
I'm not able to watch the DAL-AZ game. How is this score 10-3? I know that Dallas has been "playing down" to its opponents of late, but I'm not seeing anything in the stats to suggest what's wrong-- no turnovers in the game, no huge kick returns... I don't get it.
I'm struggling to figure out how Dallas could have a reputation for playing down. Wouldn't they have to play a significantly worse team to have that opportunity?
Ah-- so the joke here is that Dallas is actually really bad. Well, that's fine if you think that. The site you're at right now, though, has Dallas sitting at 13th place in the league with a DVOA of 8.4%, while Arizona is sitting at 30th with a -26.4%. Other recent wins include a close one over Miami (18th), and OT win versus the Redskins (25th), and a somewhat close win against your 27th-ranked Seahawks. Among those wins was a huge blow-out against the 19th-ranked Bills.
So if we assume that Football Outsider's stats are somewhat reflective of how good a team is, then Arizona is "significantly worse" than Dallas.
So keep on struggling with how Dallas could have a reputation for "playing down" but the data are right there to see.
A average to moderately bad team losing in OT to a definitively bad one doesn't really require playing down, does it? I mean maybe if it was a blowout or if Dallas was good, but otherwise just file it under "sometimes you get beat."
Well, Lance used the metrics from this site to prove that Dallas is above average - not a crazy idea. Burke, P-F-R, and Sagarin rankings also have them above average.
That kind of depends on how wide a band you call average. 13th and 8.4% sounds pretty average to me.
They were playing in Arizona, which makes it closer to :
Thats what, a 3 point favorite? Losing in overtime to a team you're only a 3 point favorite over isn't a big deal.
So Clay Matthews has a tackle for loss on a running play, a pick 6, and a sack that forced a fumble in the first half. The burning question I have for dryheat is what Tully Banta-Cain could have accomplished in his place?
Forget Clay Matthews' on field play...did you all see him pouring water on his golden locks on the sideline? Wow.
I can't believe it's not butter.
Matthews should avoid roller coasters.
Just watching Red Zone. That Peterson defensive play on (I think) Bryant was great.
Greg Jennings just drew a DPI against a giants defender who arm barred him but Charles Woodson did the exact same thing against to a Giants' receiver earlier and no flag. This isn't a complaint against the Pack but I'm sick to death of officials giving established good players the benefit of the doubt, Revis gets away with murder too. The refs should be f***ing neutral in their approach, they either saw a penalty or not.
Refs called both illegal contact and roughing the passer on Woodson, and missed a called where Finley was mauled on 3rd down, as well as a leverage call that cost GB 3 points at the end of the half.
The refs haven't been great, but you can't say they've favored GB.
I've not been concentrating fully on the game, I was just mentioning two indentical calls I saw. However, I did see the Finley call you're talking about and Finley would have run into the defender anyway, if you're going to try and rub defenders off then there's going to be some contact. I could have understand if that had been called but I reckon that Rogers should have thrown it inside anyway.
Finley looks like he's trying to draw penalties. If I wanted to see that shit, I'd be watching soccer.
Yep. He did it again on the Giants' TD to put them at 24.
Coughlin has now blown both his challenges on plays that were never going to be overturned.
I haven't seen a lot of GB games this year, but if they keep getting contact-free DPI and control-free TD receptions it's no wonder they're undefeated.
Jeez... did you not read the rest of the thread? GB is undefeated because they are a one-in-a-millennium team and they are underrated by DVOA because of... something.
Anytime GB players have a call or non-call go against them it is because of a plot by the league, and any time GB players have a call or non-call go for them, it is just because of how awesome the Packers are.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. They also appear to be fairly talented. But they have gotten a little "help" in this one.
I see you guys are ignoring everything I (nd the announcers) have pointed out in post 113.
Finley got hit again 7 yards past the LOS with not call on another 3rd down.
I didn't ignore it. I was making a reference to the "DVOA can't account for GB's awesome defense" theory which has reared its ugly head on a couple of threads, including this one.
5 yards, 7 yards, those get missed.
They Aldo got lucky with Peprah going h2h on Nicks. Or maybe it was called right. I never know with that inconsistent rule anyway.
It's Jeff Triplette's crew. You expect quality officiating?
Did anyone see that illegal formation call agains the Giants at 8:28 left in the 3rd? David Diehl got called for not reporting as eligible. The thing is, he wasn't eligible on that play - he was just playing LT. There was no tackle eligible on that play - it was a standard rush up the middle. They converted the 1st down on the next play, so it didn't make any difference, but I was honestly bewildered by the call.
They call that sometimes when the LT is too far back. They just missed helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless (Giant) receiver on third down though.
And... Ahmad Bradshaw breaks a Charles Woodson tackle, and looks like he's going to break it for another 30 yards, then gets mauled by Chris Snee, who's trying to block for him.
I got a good laugh out of that one - he trucked Woodson (and apparently sent him to the locker room), and he even beat another guy, just to stumble off-balance into Snee trying to figure out if he should go back to the huddle or get downfield and block. They'll be a few facepalms in film study this week.
To me the best part was Joe Buck (or was it Aikman? - I forget now) complimenting Snee on "getting out there and helping".
I'd have to watch again, and I'm loath to defend Aikman, but I actually thought I Bradshaw did his own stumbling (over a defender) and Snee was making a failed effort to catch him before hitting the ground.
Great job by the refs in SF, they call the Rams for a hold on Aldon Smith that wasn't a hold and then call an offsetting penalty on Ahmad Brooks for a helmet to helmet hit on the qb when he didn't hit him with his helmet or in the helmet. To complete their incompetence they then announce that it's 4th down when it's 3rd. (Sigh)
Another questionable call by Triplette and crew, calling illegal contact on a third-down sack.
Gratz to Jason Garrett for icing his own kicker.
It wasn't even one of the 5 dumbest things he's done today. Merry Early Christmas Arizona, you ain't gonna get a coach to gift wrap a win like that very often.
49ERS IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Icing your own kicker is incredible.
And the Martz award goes to...
Maybe he saw the discussion here a little while ago questioning the efficacy of icing and took it too far.
Shouldn't GB go for 2 here, making it a 2 score game with the downside being a 7 point game?
I was wondering the same thing. Seemed like a no-brainer to me.
Better team's better off minimizing variance, worse team better off maximizing it. Green Bay needs to keep pressure on the Giants rather than take (even just a little) pressure off.
I think the league average is under 50%, and if GB uses that figure as the estimated conversion probability for both sides, the extra point is the right play (assuming NY always plays for a tie; I think the two may look even worse if NY plays for the win).
That ran through my head watching but I thought kicking was the right play, making it an 8-point game, which means you can't lose should the Giants score and get 2. If you leave it at 7 you open up the opportunity for the Giants to score, get a 2 point conversion, and win the game...if they would be bold enough to try.
bizzare double post
Now the Giants get a 16 yard KO return after the up man makes a fair catch signal. Unbelieveable.
Yeah, it makes a difference, but the Packers stopping the Giants defensively would make a bigger difference.
You must be joking. The Packers pass defense ALWAYS comes up with the stop when they need one.
It's horrible, but in a way I way I almost wanted the Packers to lose this one, because I'm tired of my fellow fans who don't see the obvious flaws on this teams defense. I'll take the win and all the additional evidence. But I've been saying all along that this site is pretty spot on about this team, maybe they under rate the offense a bit, but this defense can be beat, if Rodger's wasn't playing as well as he his say if he were only at a Brady or Brees level they would probably have lost 2 games already this year.
Doesn't mean I'm not loving this season and I do still think this is the best team in the NFL this year, but that defense needs to tighten up a lot in the last 4 games and they need to storm through the play offs if they want in the conversation of best team ever. They aren't even in that room right now. Best offense? Sure, but the defense is flawed.
Green Bay fan?
Thanks for sharing.
I'm with you now. Today was an eye-opener-- Peprah is a poor substitute for Collins; Woodson's loss was felt in the 2nd half; Hawk and Bishop's all game-- but the pass rush isn't there but for Matthews; the push from the D-Line isn't there (Mike Neal?? Hello??) and I don't understand some of the coverage schemes with Williams getting isolated.
They will go 16-0-- but against Brees or Brady or Big Ben, watch out. Rodgers ain't Superman-- he's close, mind you-- but they have to play better than this on D to win 3 consecutive games in the playoffs.
Trust me, there are plenty of your fellow GB fans concerned with this defense and its inability to get the big play under control.
It's really amazing how great the Packers receivers are at making diving catches along the sideline while keeping their feet in-bounds. The Driver touchdown just now, Jordy Nelson had a big one earlier, and it seems like every time Rodgers scrambles on 3rd down a receiver breaks off a deep route and comes back to make a 15 yard catch right on the edge of the field that the defender has no chance at. Really impressive.
Driver had one earlier, too, that Coughlin challenged. Poor challenge, but unbelievable catch.
Win or lose, it's nice to have the Giants back.
A 51% chance of a GB victory is looking pretty good right now.
Except the Giants can't stop Rodgers either.
GB's defense just allowed NY to tie the game at 35. But they're playing very well! It's not their fault that Rodgers makes them have to defend leads. No fair!
Don't you see? The GB defense is so good they let the Giants score with a minute left on the clock, so their offense would have enough time to drive down and score a game winning field goal. Pure genius.
Edit: Of course, had the Giants called a running play with 1st and goal at the 2.5 and a minute seven on the clock, they would have won.
I would rather try to score as quickly as possible than intentionally burn clock because I had so little faith in my defense to be able to hold the Packers with less than a minute left.
That was a true failure by the Giants on the last drive.
You're not kidding. Early on a defender tried to jump a route instead of just sticking with his man and gave up a big gain. Later another blew coverage deep, down the sideline (and of all the ways to blow coverage, that's the most facepalm against a hurry-up) for a big gain. Rodgers has been playing great, but the thing I really notice when I've watched the Packers is that their receivers have excelled at shaking off defenders and getting themselves several steps open.
Having spent pretty much my entire fan-lifetime being traumatised by Peyton Manning (and occasionally David Garrard and Mark Sanchez, come to that . . .) I was pretty much screaming at the TV at that point. You have 4 tries from the two, and a minute left on the clock. You have Brandon Jacobs. They have Aaron Rodgers. You have to call at least one run there. Any team that believes its defense can be relied on to keep the Packers out of field goal range with a minute left is delusional.
Giants were kind of in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you run the clock out there, and miss the 2 point conversion, you lose. On one side, you want to leave enough time so you can attempt an onside and get a FG if you miss, on the other, you want to kill time so that GB can't get a FG.
No real wrong or right there. The real problem was they let GB have a long kick return, followed by a pair of really long passes.
There was no kick return. It was a touchback. Cobb caught it one yard deep and immediately took a knee, it seemed pretty clear he was ordered to not take it out, let them start at the 20.
On the 24 yard pass to Finley, he claims he made the best move of his life to get open, of course Finley brags all the time, but I actually think he means it. This was the killer. They were only 20 yards out of FG range after one play and had taken very little time off the clock. Make that take 2 or 3 downs to get and things change a fair bit.
Game stories said the following:
1. Cobb absolutely was told to take a knee if the ball reached the end zone;
2. Rodgers half-expected a draw call from McCarthy on the first play, to be more conservative about the clock;
3. Finley knew the safety was shading the other way, so he'd have a LB covering him and would get the ball;
4. Thanks to Prince Amukamara begging out of the game for fatigue, former GB punt returner/CB Will Blackmon was in game and had Nelson on single coverage on the next pass. Never any doubt in Rodgers mind that's where he was going;
5. On the final pass to ennings, Jennings said he thought the Giants were a littl bit soft in coverage because of teh previous play and were worried that Jones-- who was lined up outside of Jennings on the left-- would try a double move to the end zone. Hence Jennings is open on the hitch and able to turn it into a big gainer to set up the chip shot FG;
Let's say for the sake of argument that the 2 point conversion is a 50-50 proposition. I happen to think the odds are probably a little better than that, but whatever.
Let's assume, too, that in such an even game the overtime win probability is about 50-50. Then running down the clock gives you about a 25% chance of winning the game.
If you don't run down the clock, and fail on the two point conversion, you have to make an expected onside kick. That's about a 20% shot. You then have to drive and kick a field goal. Let's say that's an 80% chance. That means (again, taking the two point attempt as 50-50) that you have about an 8% chance of winning the game that way. That means that for this to be a good strategy, you have to have a 35% or better chance of winning should you make the two pointer. That means the odds of the Packers scoring in those 58 seconds have to be 30% or less. Either my maths has gone screwy (entirely possible, and please point out where if so) or leaving time on the clock is the wrong call.
I'm starting to think DVOA might actually know something about the Packers that I don't.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Well, the FOMBC couldn't quite close the deal, but it did put in a damned good showing.
Well, credit to FO for predicting a close game. I think that in a rematch GB wins by more at least 70% of the time (Giants method for stopping GB's offense was essentially watch them drop the ball, which they did more this game than in any other this season), but GB definitely was a poor matchup the the Giants WRs defensively.
Still, GB won with a big INT for a TD, and have consistently overperformed FO's projections in these areas. Until FO can do a better job separating teams whose INT totals actually vary greatly from year to year, and teams like GB who post high totals repeatedly I don't think that FO will really have a bead on GB's defense.
I'd go out on a limb and suggest that a "ball-hawking" defense which can only pick Eli Manning once is a defense with a serious problems. FO's metrics show that GB's defense is their weakness.
I'm not looking forward to the comment thread on Tuesday when GB's defense's DVOA is adjusted after giving up 35 points.
INTs are too infrequent to be expected with any consistency within a single game. GB was close a few other times, and did force 2 Eli turnovers, so it's not like they did a bad job forcing turnovers in the game. For the season GB leads the NFL, so I hope you aren't suggesting that a sample size of one game outweighs a samples size of 12 games.
Overall it was not a great game by GB's defense, not even close. However, I maintain that FO seems to discount defensive turnovers with respect to GB based on trends that are likely more predictive league wide. They just seem to underestimate the consistency with which GB has forced turnovers over the past 3 years or so.
Uh... dude... FO's had GB's defense rated in the top third since 2009. So... were they capturing GB's interception special sauce in 2009 and 2010?
I think you're just desperate to try and gt the statistics to match up with your fandom-glasses. As I've suggested elsewhere, replace "Packers" with "Patriots" and this is a cut and paste from threads in 2007.
I'm a Texans fan. I know a thing or two about torchable defenses. GB has a torchable defense. They're fortunate to have an offense that can outscore their defense.
GB's defense was good in 2009 and 2010 for reason other than turnovers as much as for the turnovers. The defense is definitely not as good this year, and I have not argued that it is.
However, the article I have linked below, which is a guest column but is linked to in the "FO Basics" page (under the "About" tab), so I assume that the arguments in it are relevant to the calculations behind DVOA, indicates that forcing turnovers is not particularly predictive. It mainly talks about predictiveness between seasons, so I'm not sure about how DVOA treats consistency in producing turnovers within a season.
Regardless, it stands to reason that if DVOA is built on a model that does not give much predictive power to a defense's ability to produce turnovers, and IF GB can consistently exceed the models predictions in creating turnovers, then the model is underrating GB's defense. By how much, I can't say exactly, but note as well that FOA has underpredictied GB's win totals each of the past three seasons, and my guess is that underpredicting defenive turnovers is a large part of this.
One last thing: the comparisons to the Patriots' 2007 defense seem pretty non-sensical, unless you continue to ignore INTs. Maybe both teams give/gave up a bunch of yards, but NE only had 19 INTs in 2007. GB already has 23, which puts them on pace for about 31. Saying two defenses are basically the same when one gets 60% more INTs is absurd, and this difference is preceisely what I'm arguing makes GB different from your standard torchable defense. The Texans you mentioned only had 27 INTs over the past two seasons combined. Think they might have looked better if that number was doubled? I sure do.
The 2007 Patriots gave up 274 points in 16 games. They were 4th best in the NFL both in yardage and points allowed.
The 2011 Packers have given up 262 points in 12 games. They're in the bottom 10 in points allowed and the bottom 2 in yards allowed.
So yeah, the comparisons are absurd, but not in the direction that you think they are.
At some point you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Packers' defense isn't as good as you think it is. Or, at the very least, that nobody else thinks the Packers' defense is as good as you think it is.
DVOA's mostly retrodictive, and turnovers are weighed quite heavily. The pre-season projection system is a different story - turnover dependency may well account for failure to predict Green Bay's success this season, but I don't think it's a plausible culprit for any possible failure to recognise their excellence over the last 12 games. I think there's a lot more potential mileage in the "garbage time" theory.
edit-put rodgers on his back so much that he has trouble being accurate for parts of the game
fixed that for you
So when his receivers drop 6 passes it's because the defense puts Rodgers on his back, huh? Your skills at logical reason are staggering. And by staggering, I mean I think you were drunk when you watched the game.
Anybody see that last blocked kick? Seemed to me the Saints defender was moving long before anybody else was. I wish NBC had shown a relevant replay so we could whether he was as offsides as Matt Stafford and Jim Schwartz clearly thought he was.
Tebow and Ponder looked decent. Maybe Tebow is the 20th best QB in the league instead of 25th. It was so clutched how he willed Ponder into that horrible INT.
As for the GB fans and GB "Milton Berle" defense...well if you still believe in the defense after this week there is no helping you.
I am utterly astonished by the Lions. I've never seen three OPI calls in one game before, let alone three on the same receiver! Nate Burleson is setting a new standard for being unable to get separation. And then there's the truly idiotic things. Young reaching around an official to shove an opponent after the play? Logan throwing the ball at a Saint? Pettigrew forgetting the cardinal rule of "if the official shoves you, don't shove him back" (even if he half-blinds you and ends your season)? Staggering stupidity!
And it's that kind of nonsense that's lead to the penalty calls being so one-sided: like the DPI call against Eric Wright when Lance Moore arm-barred him. Basically, in one season the Lions have become the Oakland Raiders. The lack of a running game has helped hurt the Lions as well, but what's really killing them is the repeated attacks of institutional stupidity.
As a Raiders fan, it warms my heart to see a team with even worse self-control.
Is touching an official still an automatic ejection, or am I confused again?
I thought it was, but apparently that's wrong, because Pettigrew was not ejected for his unsportsmanlike conduct - contact with an official. Maybe they classified it different from another call, so as to not give him the ejection, but the bottom line was that he gave the ref a little push back when being separated in an altercation, and didn't get ejected.
That said, I'm all for such things being an automatic ejection. Bottom line, you don't ever touch the ref.
I've been engaged in an assault on DVOA the past couple of weeks for its too harsh (my view) assessment of GB's defense.
I am not quite in total retreat, but the campfires have been extinguished and the marching orders are going out. The Giants obviously had little trouble moving the ball, completing big passes, running to either side, etc, etc... Yes, Matthews had two big plays-- the Pick Six and then the forced fumble. Yes, they continued their streak (perhaps-- depends on how you treat NY's final drive when the lead was 8 pts) of allowing zero pts in the 4th Quarter when the opposition had the ball and the chance to take the lead. And yes their run defense in particular suffered from the injuries to Hawk and Bishop, and losing Woodson in the 3rd quarter didn't help matters, either.
But that was a porous defense tonight-- only an absolute fool or absolute homer couldn't notice. They got little in terms of pass rush from anyone other than Matthews and Walden from the other side or an occasional corner or safety blitz. Brees and Brady and Roethlisberger must be licking their lips.
I believe they will go 16-0 given Oakland's problems, KC's lack of offense, Forte's injury and Hanie's ineffectiveness: only the Lions would seem to pose a challenge, partic. if they are playing for the final playoff spot on New Year's That would break the Patriots' all-time streak record.
But playoffs? Playoffs?? They are going to be a very vulnerable favorite.
At least they are a favorite. Watching several games this weekend was excruciating. Was Bears/Chiefs even on the Red Zone Channel once this week?
The next two NFC teams are SF and NO. I'd say they're far less flawed then both of those teams.
Yes. But I only remember it when they showed Forte going out with an injury.
Their formula seems to be score a ton of points, and only give up 0.9 ton of points.
BTW, I still challenge the 51% DVOA odds of GB winning that game.
At what point in the 2nd half did they ever approach those odds??
At halftime they led by 4 and were getting the ball first. That's got to be upwards of 65-70% chance of winning.
WHen they took a 28-17 lead, I'd bet they were at least 80% favorites to win. Even when the Giants narrowed to 28-27, the Packers had the ball-- they had to be at least 65% to win at that point. They score to make it 35-27; I'd say they go back to 80%, at least. (The two brief points in the 2nd half where the odds may have dipped below 60% was when NY had the ball down 28-24 and certainly down 28-27. But that was one series.)
And even when the Giants tie, what are the odds of Rodgers getting them 45+ yards in 57 seconds for a successful FG try? Crosby will be about a 85-90% chance anywhere inside 45 (and 95%+ from where he actually kicked it), so I'd say it was at least 30%, if not higher. If it's 30%, Packers are 65% to win, assuming a 50-50 chance of the coin flip/OT.
So I don't think as a whole that the Packers were less than about 65% to win for that entire 2nd half-- and this was after arguably their worst 1st half performance since the Carolina or Atlanta games. So the 51% call was still bogus, as are the 70% odds DVOA has established for the rest of the Packer schedule.
Jacksonville's right tackle is named Guy Whimper. That is all.
GUY WHIMPER FOR MVP
The no-call on Rivers grounding the ball was absolutely horrific. It was even more obvious than the one they had just called on Gabbert.
Tirico seemed particularly horrified by it.
Gentlemen, please. Rivers is a good veteran QB, obviously he had a legitimate target in mind when he threw the pass.
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties