Talk amongst yourselves
Can this game serve as one more piece of evidence for the obvious truth that running up the score is a virtue in the NFL. The Niners have a very good defense, they had a massive lead with ~25 minutes left. Then they stopped scoring and are in a very precarious position.
Not saying they intentionally took their foot off the gas or what have you. Just saying that they would have been better off continuing to score. Sportsmanship does not enter into this. It's just common sense.
Agree. These people are professionals. They are paid handsomely to accept responsibility for their own inability to stop the other team.
Absolutely gosh-darned right. I'm up 35 with five minutes to go in the third quarter, so I should stop scoring? Prove to me the other team won't get five more possessions in the game. We've seen too many crazy things happen.
Harbaugh goes into prevent offense with any kind of 2 score lead.
Note his play calling late in the 2nd Q with a 14-3 lead, settling for a FG.
Then they scored 14 in the 3rd off of turnovers (not bold... or even regular play calling).
Usually they can just run out the clock (even with 22 minutes) left with their defense... but Justin Smith got hurt.
I am definitely not an advocate of running up the score, but my definition of it is when you're 40-50 points up. At that point, if you're still going for the jugular, it's a little dickish and you're asking for some karmic blowback.
But I think there's also a much lower bar defining what's disrespectful for trick plays like fake punts. There's clearly a difference between that and being otherwise aggressive on offense.
running up the score more comes into play in the 4th quarter, especially if you're up 3+ scores with 6 minutes or less remaining. That's when people mention it. I don't think anyone considers it "running up the score" if it's early in the third quarter.
Nobody ever accused anybody of running up the score in the third quarter.
But running a fake punt in the fourth quarter when up by 30 points makes no sense ...
especially when you consider, that you are showing other teams one of your trick plays, allowing other opponents to prepare for it. In a situation when vanilla style would clearly get the job done.
Additionally: There have been two games in NFL history when a team erased a 28 point deficit and won ... do the math yourself. Keeping your foot on the pedal in the fourth quarter in such situations is stupid.
So if you're the Pats, would you rather be the 3 seed and play CIN/PIT, or the 4th and face Indy?
There's no obvious benefit either way, so play to win. And hope somebody beats Denver.
I suppose, but I would say hosting Indy and then going to Houston is MUCH preferable to hosting Pittsburgh and then going to Denver.
This Colts fan will be most unhappy if we have to play the Patriots in the wildcard round. Give us Baltimore, and we can win; give us Denver, and I won't be heartbroken to see Manning advance.
Give us the Patriots, and we'll lose horribly to the team I loathe.
Lots of Colt fans would be heartbroken to lose to Manning.
It would certainly be poignant, but it definitely feels like this turned out as well as could be expected for everyone involved. The Colts couldn't realistically expect to offer Peyton another shot at a Super Bowl any time soon; better that he get to beat the Chargers twice a year and have a shot at another title or two.
The fact that the Colts have turned duct tape and bailing wire into a winning record against an extraordinarily easy schedule doesn't change that fact.
The chances of the Patriots getting the number four seed is probably less than the number two seed.
Also, it's most likely that the number three seed will play Houston(I think that's right) which would be a slight advantage on the chance that the Broncos are beat in the second round, it would be a more likely win.
To get the 4 seed, the Pats would have to lose one and see Baltimore win both of their games. Baltimore looked awful today. They barely beat the Chargers, and only after the chargers whiffed on that Ray Rice YAC on 4th-and-29.
The irony is that the only AFC team that has beaten the Pats this season is the Ravens, and yet they are the playoff team that scares me the least. Of course, that was a relatively healthy Ravens' team, and the Broncos have had an entire season to get used to Peyton Manning at QB.
I could very easily have this wrong, although I think I don't. As I understand it, assuming the Texans hang on to the #1 seed, there is exactly 0% chance that the 3 seed out of the AFC would play the Texans in the divisional round. Once again, this is just how I think things are, but I think the way things go in the NFL is that (since it's not a true bracket-style playoff) the lowest remaining seed after wild-card weekend will always play the #1. So if #6 upsets #3, #6 will play #1. If #3 wins and #4 is upset by #5, #5 will play #1. If both division winners win in the wild-card round, #4 (as the lowest remaining seed) will play #1.
EDIT: I guess I hit reply on the wrong post. This is in reply to Hummingbird Cyborg's post about the 3 seed playing the Texans.
I am all for the Patriots having to get through a WC weekend game AND Houston before coming to Denver (assuming Denver can hold on to the #2 seed) but I don't really see it playing out that way. It seems much more likely that the Broncos and the Patriots will meet up in the divisional round. Mercifully it looks like it probably will wind up in Denver. The Patriots are one of three teams in the league that I am legitimately worried about the Broncos' prospects against... regardless of venue.
Has this been Lloyd's best game in a Patriots uniform?
I don't think so. He had at least three drops that I recall. Would have to look at catch percentages.
He had a helluva game, that's for sure.
If there was ever a time for a Schiano-style "blast the victory formation" play, that would have been it. What with all of SF's failed center-QB exchanges.
Most likely, I think that Seattle will be first in DVOA, though it's hard to say.
But also, now Denver has to be favored for the bye and I think will have the highest Super Bowl odds.
I would be shocked if Seattle isn't #1, even if NE has positive DVOA for this game, which they may well have.
Well, I was considering the possibility of Denver or San Francisco looking better than expected because of opponent adjustments.
Ah, I understand. I don't see the 49ers having a massively positive DVOA from this game, especially not with all those fumbles. And I don't think the Denver will have a huge DVOA either. One of their touchdowns was an interception return, and Baltimore's not that great.
The opponent adjustments from playing the Bills will hurt Seattle compared to who the other top teams had to play.
On the other hand, a three point lead in DVOA in week 14 means that the Broncos would have to have an individual game of 45 more to take the lead.
I mean, I don't think it makes sense to read too much into a small difference in ending DVOA anyhow.
Quite right. The main take-away from last week's ratings was that New England, Seattle, Denver and San Francisco in some order were the top four teams, and there was a significant gap between them and the rest of the league. I expect that to still be true this week.
Hot damn! Two pages of Open Discussion thread. It's been a while since I participated in one that went this deep... If I ever have. I'm suddenly unsure.
Yeah, but the unread posts highlight never works past the first page. They really need to find a better commenting system...
Unfortunate quirk, to be sure.
Anyone care to guess how much CJ gets fined by the uniform cops for writing the names of dead kids on his shoes?
Pretty sure they'll let it go.
“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”
Inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement of rules by the NFL? Surely you jest!
It seems wrong somehow to call someone "consistently boom-or-bust," but Chris Johnson has been perfectly himself today. 7-for-10, then busts one for 94.
Has there ever been a more fitting way for a football game to end than that? Your 2012 Jets offense, ladies and gentlemen.
I wondered whether Sanchez would have to get his own transportation back; has a starting quarterback ever been cut after a game?
Richard Todd got on a plane a day after the rest of the team after the 1982 mudbowl five interception debacle. He also started the next year.
Does being traded count? Charlie Frye was the Browns' opening day starter in 2007, was benched in the middle of that game, then was traded to the Seahawks for a sixth-round pick two days later.
The fastest I can remember a quarterback going from starter to waiver wire mid-season is about eight days: Trent Edwards was cut on the Monday of the week Ryan Fitzpatrick started ahead of him. I'm mildly surprised that none of the post-Warner Cardinals starting quarterbacks have yet been cut immediately after a game.
The Jags deserve an honourable mention for cutting their starter just -before- the season opener. Twice.
Yeah, the Jags have managed to make a mockery of futility. Their fans can't even figure out how to burn underwear in protest.
FO, is their anyway statistically to measure the decision making ability of the Read/Zone play that some QB's are now running? I know it can be charted against down and distance and opponent, etc. But there seems to be another element here. When RG3 sticks it in the gut of Alfred Morris he is making a decision in the same way that on a passing play he is making a decision (good or bad) as to which receiver to throw to. Of course the outcome of the play can be measured. But can measure the decision to keep or hand it off? Also too it's tough to quantify how much RG3 helps Alfred Morris' stats. That DT is just going to stare at him - not because its a read play but more significantly because RG3 could be coming his way if he doesn't stay at home. It's a huge advantage for Morris and the Redskin running game. Yet that player's unique capability to contribute to his team's running game will never show up on even advanced metrics right?
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // site design by B:COMPLEX Creative :: site architecture by Grossmont Designs // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties