Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

30 Dec 2012

Week 17 Open Discussion Thread

Alright, let's get some teams into the playoffs!

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 30 Dec 2012

175 replies , Last at 31 Dec 2012, 2:34pm by Alternator

1
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Ender (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 1:12pm

Go Eagles!

So sick of hearing the talk about the Giants and flipping the switch. They didn't flip a switch last year. They beat a team that perennially chokes in the playoffs, one who had 8 unforced drops and played an all around awful game since they had rested for 3+ weeks and then got dominated by a 49ers team and then gifted the game on a couple late fumbles. There is no reason to think the Giants were going to be a great team this year and I for one am not surprised they might miss the playoffs.

143
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Kurt :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:52pm

Wait, the Giants got dominated by the 49ers? What?

2
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 1:14pm

Be sure join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for the final regular season day of football chat!
Instructions moved to pastebin due to overzealous spam filter: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Qjf3ZzvE

56
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:02pm

Please get lost. The Spam filter is there to keep you out!

59
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:08pm

joe_football's post is not spam.

66
sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:39pm

Really, it's not spam? It's a post that's not pertinent to the article and only tries to direct traffic to another site. That's the very definition of spam. Worse because the same comment is posted repeatedly at random points.

68
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:42pm

It's not spam because it's FO-approved. Two FO writers join in on the IRC discussion.

I'd also say it's not spam because it's not an automatic posting, but that's debatable.

71
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:50pm

If it's FO-approved, maybe they should note it and make it a verified account, or maybe give it a front page link, so it's not so confusing to the rest of us non- insiders.

73
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:53pm

Fair points, though there is a difference between FO-sponsored (a specific link) and FO-approved (a commenter posting a link and FO participating in the discussion).

You could just join the IRC channel if you want to be an "insider", too. It's posted here to keep it open to anyone who wants in.

81
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:08pm

Maybe you should stop worrying about things that don't have anything to do with you.

109
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:37pm

So you're saying you don't care if advertisers take over the comment boards.

139
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:09pm

1 post every week doesn't "take over" anything. It's not a slippery slope, either.

What major problem do you have with this guy anyway? He isn't hurting anybody, and he's offering something some people might find to be of value.

87
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:27pm

I wouldn't say it's FO approved, though it has had various FO staff on it at times. It is an FO tradition for more then half a decade(http://college.footballoutsiders.com/7th-day-adventure/2007/seventh-day-... is the earliest reference I can find in google), and more relevant then ever as open threads aren't as active as they once were, certainly compared to before the changeover to the messageboards

124
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:33pm

Its been around, but i don't know that I'd call it a tradition.

Its definitely spam in this article though.

126
Re: sitRe: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:34pm

I still don't see why. It's one poster inviting others to a realtime chat. Several of us are posting in both places, so it's not stifling discussion here. And FO is clearly OK with it, since they don't delete his post.

61
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:11pm

Really? I'm not trying to start a long debate, but I don't mind that post every week. I enjoyed the IRC a lot when I had no NFL-RedZone. And the moderators seem to be okay with it too - it's just an invitation.

67
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jebmak :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:40pm

Thank goodness he did it this week. I just got a new computer and couldn't remember where to go for the chat.

So, a big thanks from me for posting it.

3
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:18pm

Can someone explain to me why the NFL moved the Pats/Fins game to 4pm? That was very nice of them to do that. Its obviously a huge advantage for NE to see what the Ravens and Texans results will be.

10
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Lyford :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:35pm

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/12/28/nfl-explains-d...

"according to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson. He said the decision wasn’t about prioritizing the Patriots or Texans, and certainly not about giving one of them a small tactical advantage. It was to ensure that the Broncos-Chiefs game, also slated for 4:25 p.m. and not a candidate to be flexed because of its Mountain Time kickoff, matters as much as possible.

“The games are scheduled sequentially to have the most impact on the playoff race/seeding,’’ said Masonson via e-mail, noting that Texans-Colts is the national game at 1 p.m. “The Patriots are playing at 4:25 p.m. because that’s when the Broncos are playing. [Even if the Texans win], both teams are playing for the No. 2 seed and a first-round bye.”

In other words, the league is emphasizing the drama of having three teams scrambling to lock up the two first-round byes over everything else."

4
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:20pm

Colts march down the field for the first TD of Chuckstrong!'s return, taking advantage of Houston letting Luck dodge a sack and a really dumb PI in the end zone. From the past couple of weeks you'd never guess that Houston has a chance to be the top seed in the conference.

8
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:31pm

Yeah an AFC championship game at Reliant doesn't really scare me (following a sequence of if's of course). And I guess there's a real shot it will be at Mile High.

82
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:12pm

I'd say a Pats/Broncos matchup at Mile-High is positively likely, I'd be shocked at any other outcome.

I looked to link to a blog post where I talk about that in more detail, when I remembered I'm still writing it and haven't posted it yet! Duh.

97
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:51pm

I'd say that matchup is likely, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked at another outcome. The Ravens D will probably be healthier next week more so than any other time during the season, and the Bengals D-line is very deep and strong. Both teams can win in cold weather/windy games in NE and Denver.

9
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:35pm

The Colts sent a blitz on third and 13. It gets picked up and the Texans convert.

5
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Rikki (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:26pm

Stafford was very close to catching his tuck rule pass before it bounced... so he would have had a reception for about -7 yards, right?

6
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:26pm

Oh good.

The Giants are dominating the Eagles. Hopefully they win the title of highest variance of all DVOA time.

11
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by justanothersteve :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:36pm

I don't understand Variance very well, but wouldn't they need to be blown out by the Eagles to increase that stats since the Giants have a better record? I didn't think blowing out an inferior team made that much difference in Variance.

12
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:42pm

It depends on how big the blowout is.

Many of the highest DVOA games of the year have come against significantly inferior competition.

Either way, playing very well in one week and playing absolutely wretched the next week will make for a high variance.

13
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:42pm

Variance will increase both with a result "much worse than expected" or with a result much better than expected. Being up 21 points in the first quarter certainly qualifies as "much better than expected".

Now the Giants' variance may be so high, that even, say, a 41-7 win over the Eagles may not move the needle - you'd need the actual number to calculate this.

33
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by justanothersteve :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:33pm

Thanks to both of you for the clarification.

62
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:12pm

Almost clairvoyant.

7
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:30pm

And with 3 minutes left in the first quarter Kubiak tosses the challenge flag on a Schaub sack saying there were 12 Colts on the field. Whether there were or not is inconsequential as there is only one camera angle available. It didn't show the Colts' sideline and it showed 11 men.

26
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:59pm

Yes I am very confused about how they don't have the coaches tape available for that review?

83
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:14pm

I believe the team, rather than the network, films the all-22 angle.

85
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:22pm

If the NFL is going to use the TV cameras for their only source of replay, you'd think they could dictate that the networks provide coverage that allows multiple angles of likely areas where replay could occur. I'm not expecting there to be the perfect angle on every play, but "cameras looking towards both sidelines in the seconds prior to the snap" seems to be one of those things that could be accomplished with little impact. Heck the 1B storyline for this game was Pagnano's return. You'd think CBS would have a camera watching their sideline if only to follow the coach for some fluff.

14
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:43pm

The tuck rule is stupid, but as Broncos fan, I approve.

15
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:44pm

The Colts just got bailed out by the tuck rule. Although, the ball went backwards so I thought it would be ruled a lateral anyways.

18
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:46pm

Dalton got bailed out by the Tuck rule just a few minutes earlier. Most would agree its a dumb rule, but it still exists for some reason.

22
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:48pm

I always thought that was the whole crux of the tuck rule is that it's a forward pass if the hand is moving forward during the pass even if the ball goes backwards out of the hand.

27
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:59pm

Except that is not how the rest of the passing rules are, so it frankly makes no sense.

86
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:24pm

Exactly!

No wonder football is popular in America, where there are 5,280 feet in 1 mile and 2.54 cm in 1 inch, where our language is based on rules that have a dozen arbitrary and unpredictable exceptions to each. It fits in our worldview. And no wonder soccer and it's 17 laws is popular in the rest of the world, where 1,000 m = 1 km and 100 cm = 1 m.

16
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:45pm

Ravens put Tyrod Taylor at QB, have Bernard Pierce and Anthony Allen at RB, and shred the Bengals 1st string D on the ground for a TD. Bench Flacco!

17
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:46pm

And Houston gets completely and totally jobbed by the refs. Luck loses the ball on a Watt-Barwin sack and Houston recovers. Replay offical has the ref review it, and it's ruled an incomplete pass. Which went backwards. Luck's arm was "moving forward" because Barwin hit him in the arm from behind.

Just a horrible, horrible call by the refs.

20
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:47pm

I don't think its a horrible call, its just a horrible rule.

23
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:49pm

The rule might be horrible, but it was a horrible call because, even with the horrible rule in effect, it was backwards and should have been a failed lateral which Houston clearly recovered.

25
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:53pm

The whole point of why the rule is horrible is that the rule says that it doesn't matter if the ball goes backwards. That's the whole point of why people hate the tuck rule.

88
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:28pm

I don't understand why it wasn't intentional grounding. Since the rules insist it's a pass, and it didn't make it to the LOS or near a receiver. I've seen grounding called when the QB was getting hit as he threw, so I don't see why this situation is any different.

89
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:33pm

Simply, because it wasn't intentional. Intentional grounding is one of the few (only?) penalties that requires the referees to judge intent.

93
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:43pm

Good point. So when grounding is called on a QB who's getting hit during the act of throwing, it's just a bad call? Clearly, consistent enforcement of the rules is too much to ask for.

102
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:58pm

Yeah, that would be a bad call. Though I can't recall any penalties called when the QB was hit. I'm sure it's happened.

I do remember instances of grounding not being called due to it being unintentional and due to the QB not being under any pressure at the time. Another aspect of IG is that it's only a foul if the QB does it to avoid a sack. If he's standing in a clean pocket, and just throws it away, it's OK.

19
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:46pm

Is it even possible for a QB to fumble anymore? I have no idea what universe that Luck play is a fumble in. And if its not a fumble its intentional grounding.

I am generally pro replay, but sometimes it seems like it just opens the door for the refs to way way way over-think things.

To make it simpler for the refs they need to eliminate the tuck rule and and make it so basically the preference is towards fumbling. With all the rules changes against hitting and in favor of the offense you have to at least throw the defense some kind of bone.

90
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:37pm

Football parallels America, where we have 10,000 incomprehensible laws and nearly anything could be considered illegal. Instead, I would prefer a small number of clear-cut laws, where each one is a law for a good reason, and breaking any of them would carry an enormous penalty. Unfortunately I don't see an overhaul of the US legal system coming any sooner than one for the NFL rulebook.

21
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:47pm

That was a close tuck-rule call in the Texans game. I thought Lucks hand was moving towards his shoulder as much as forward. But what do I know?

Is forward - in the context of tuck rule - defined as "moving towards the opponents endzone" or "moving in the direction the QB is facing"?

24
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 2:51pm

I don't even think that the hand has to be moving forward as the ball is thrown, but that it was moving forward during the throwing motion, but I could be wrong.

29
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:09pm

If his hand is moving forward with the ball in it at any point during the throwing motion, it's an incomplete pass regardless of what direction the ball travels after leaving his hand.

91
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:39pm

Even if his hand began by moving forward, but then he changed his mind, and it was moving backward by the time the hit causing the fumble happened?

92
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:41pm

Yes. That's the tuck rule.

28
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:03pm

Houston just continues to kill themselves with penalties. They've picked up a 12 men on the field and and offsides on the same drive. Just not looking like a real quality team these past few games.

30
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:12pm

James Casey beats Vonte Davis on a PA roll out and Schaub underthrows Casey by about three yards giving Davis and easy pick.

31
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:19pm

The Colts exercise a lesson in knowing what they're doing. T.Y. Hilton is ruled down at the half yard line on a play where it's likely he scored. Rather than risk a challenge they simply line up quickly and get the half a yard.

At the rate the Texans are going it's almost time for me to start rotting for Miami or KC.

95
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:48pm

I disagreed with that call, I would have challenged it, because who knows what could happen? They could get stuffed twice then the defense returns a strip-sack to the house, all because the coach was too cheap or stingy with his challenges. It's great that it worked out for them, but the risk is too high to let the bad call slide.

32
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:26pm

And the Texans exercise a lesson in not knowing what you're doing. Facing 3rd and 1 from deep in their own territory Schaub tries a quick snap and a sneak. He falls short. But it wouldn't have mattered because there was a penalty on Houston. The Texans give the Colts back the ball with good field position, plenty of time, and three timeouts.

Wow... just... wow...

34
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:54pm

Ravens/Bengals has devolved into a Tyrod Taylor vs. Bruce Gradkowski battle. The announcer keep saying that both the coaches really want to win the game. Really? If I was trying to win the game, I'd play some of my first stringers. The Ravens benched theirs before the 2nd quarter.

35
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:57pm

Zach Brown with his second pick-six; it's almost like he thinks he plays for the Bears or something.

36
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:00pm

Tennessee have scored 7 points on offense today.

They're winning 35-14. Two punt return TDs, two Zach Brown pick sixes.

166
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by hrudey (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 9:15am

That doesn't do it justice. The Jaguars were at the Titans' 25 just inside the two minute warning, up 14-7. The next time the Titans offense came on the field, they were up 35-14 and were almost in the red zone. I can't imagine that this isn't the first time that a team has scored four touchdowns between offensive snaps.

37
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:10pm

Just awful special teams by Houston. I don't know if I've ever seen worse kickoff coverage than that.

38
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:12pm

Awful special teams has been their one true consistency this year. That was simply the worst example of it I've seen this year.

39
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:12pm

Texans ST stikes back!

40
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:16pm

As a christmas-present from his girlfriend my cousin got a once in a lifetime trip to Cincy to see his beloved Bengals in week 17. Poor guy is stuck watching a game noone, including players and coaches, cares about.

99
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:53pm

Is a trip to Cincinnati really "once in a lifetime?" It's not like flying to Paris or Buenos Aires.

157
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 2:32am

I'm guessing (based on his user name) that this trip started in Europe. I could easily be wrong. But if that's the case, a trip to Cincinnati would probably be much more once in a lifetime than one to Paris.

41
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:19pm

FGs are not the most exciting plays, but it does add a little suspence when you get the feeling the guy is kicking to keep his career alive. Olindo Mare hits a 28-yarder in Detroit.

42
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:29pm

Brad Smith with the BUF touchdown, proving that the Jets can't do anything without irony being involved.

43
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:34pm

Houston manages to cough up a chance at some points when the OL whiffs on a block and gets Schaub sacked, turning a makable FG into a 52 yarder. Since Shayne Graham is Houston's kicker it misses easily. They remain down 16-21 with about 12:00 left in the 4th.

44
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:35pm

Henry Hynoski with his first career TD, and rolls out the Rhino-celebration. I liked it a lot.

45
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:36pm

Stupendous throw on 3rd and 23 for Luck, touchdown to Hilton. Texans defense does not look good right now.

46
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:36pm

3rd-and-23 TD for the colts.

The road to SB may go through Colorado.

47
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:37pm

Houston gets lucky w/ a hold on Barwin turning a Colts 1st down into a 3rd and 23. Luck hits Hilton for a 70 yard TD.

49
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:40pm

For the record: I don't think they got lucky - that was an obvious hold on Barwin who looked like he'd have sacked Luck.

48
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:39pm

John Abraham injured. Dunta Robinson injured. Matt Ryan taking violent hit. Mike Smith playing starters in a meaningless game. I don't know what's right in his spot, but he's going to have to answer some questions.

50
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:42pm

Ugh - Vonta Davis picks off Schaub for the second time today. What an ugly egg the Texan are laying. They have NO momentum going into the playoffs. At all.

51
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:44pm

This could end with a visit from the Bengals in WC round - that looked like a cakewalk in week 9. Now though?

152
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:36am

I'm going to be rooting for the Texans next week.

52
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by SFC B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:46pm

Schaub tosses his second INT when he overthrows Johnson in the end zone. Stick a fork in them. This game is done. Time to wait for DEN and NE.

53
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:49pm

Lucks cadence in the silent Lucas Oil stadium is causing Houston D-line all kinds of trouble.

54
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:53pm

As a Broncos fan, assuming that the Colts win, I'm now terrified that Denver will lose to the Chiefs just because of how disheartening that would be.

55
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 4:56pm

Same here. The fear is inversely proportional to the quality of opponent.

Perhaps best team in the league against perhaps the worst team at home. The worst team may even tank to get the 1st pick as the best team is playing for HFA. I'm feeling sick already.

57
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anger...rising :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:06pm

You two jokers just had to put this thought in my head...

63
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:22pm

As a Pats fan, I would find that hilarious. Losing a home game to Romeo when the #1 seed is there for the taking?

But it won't happen. Peyton never loses games like this.

58
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Cro-Mags :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:06pm

How has Tyrod Taylor not signed an endorsement with an auto parts company?

101
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:57pm

Loving this and all the other posts that have made me laugh!

60
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:08pm

Ravens clearly want to lose the game. They're down 9 and had the ball with 6 minutes left, and are huddling up and running the playclock down to 5 or less seconds on every snap.

64
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:24pm

Yes but why? Baltimore is happier with Indy coming to town instead of Cincy? Because their players "need rest"? I don't get it.

69
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:44pm

Maybe because Cincy is a much better team than Indy.

74
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:54pm

Fair enough. How great would it be if Haraugh said he sat his starters because the Colts have a lower DVOA? Mitch Albom's head would explode.

72
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:51pm

They probably didn't want to risk injuries based solely on the hope that Miami would beat the Patriots.

78
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by DRohan :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:41pm

That's a fair point, but doesn't address the clock (mis)management.

153
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Ben :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 1:31am

It was Baltimore vs Indy no matter what happened today.

158
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 2:37am

Not positive, but if I remember correctly, if Baltimore had won and the Patriots had lost, Baltimore would have gotten the three seed by virtue of having beaten New England earlier in the season. Of course neither of those things was in any serious danger of happening, apparently.

65
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Mike Y :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:33pm

As a Bears fan I never thought I'd say this, but c'mon Packers!

70
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 5:46pm

I didn't just see Belichik punt from the opponent's 33, did I?

75
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:00pm

It was 4th and 7, and kicking a 50-yard FG against that wind was not a great option.

76
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:29pm

As Miami ably demonstrates.

77
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:32pm

Yes. Was actually thinking GFI not FGA.

79
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by BJR :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:48pm

Packers losing and Niners making heavy weather of Arizona at the half. Neither seemingly keen on a weekend off next week.

80
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RC (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 6:50pm

It doesn't look like Gronk is using his arm at all.

Which is really strange. Is it still so hurt that he can't use it, or is he just so good that even with 1 arm, hes one of the better blockers in the league?

Really strange watching a guy block with 1 hand.

84
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:20pm

Well I think we can go ahead and pencil in the AFC playoff matchups. The wild card games all look pretty compelling, I think each matchup (BAL/IND and CIN/HOU) could go either way. From my Ravens fan perspective, I'd like to avoid the Broncos, but that would mean that Cincy would have to beat Houston. Playing the Pats is obviously tough, but at least they've had some success against them recently.

94
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:46pm

Hmmm..., Mike McCarthy throws a challenge flag on a turnover. But the refs says that "Before the challenge flag was thrown, the play was being reviewed". Although there wasn't an announcement. Wonder what Jim Schwartz thinks about that.

100
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:53pm

I thought turnovers were automatically reviewed. And I thought that a coach who throws a flag in a situation where a play is already under automatic review cannot benefit from said review. Isn't that the explanation we were given earlier this season (twice)?

How do the Packers end up getting a TD? Did the league change their policy mid-season?

104
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:03pm

Right. Also it's a 15 yard penalty.

105
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:08pm

The officials didn't see McCarthy's red flag until *after* the booth signaled for review. Therefore, it triggered a fifteen-yard penalty instead of preventing the already-called-for review.

Schwartz's flag-throw on Thanksgiving came *before* the review was signaled for by the booth, so it prevented the play in question from being reviewed.

It's a dumb technicality, but Carey's crew did get it correct. I'm guessing the competition committee discusses this in the offseason.

118
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:54pm

What difference does it make whether the review was signaled or not? Should have been the same ruling.

119
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:57pm

It makes a difference because that's the way the rule is written. If the booth had already buzzed the referee, the red challenge flag results in a fifteen-yard penalty, but it does not stop the review.

136
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:57pm

It's the same as the difference between an false start and an offsides penalty. A false start is a "dead ball" penalty, because the ball hadn't been snapped when the penalty was committed.

In this case, the game had been stopped already for the review, so any foul that's committed during the review will be treated differently than one when the ball is live. Imagine if the ref was already under the hood when McCarthy threw the flag. Should that prevent a review that's already happened from happening?

163
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RedDog (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 6:57am

Well, who knows for sure that the review had already been buzzed down before McCarthy threw the flag? And who knows exactly whether that had not been the case in Schwartz's case?

Even if I understand why it works this way (the [booth] ref not being influenced by the head coach), the penalty should be the same for both McCarthy and Schwartz. Because only then would the rule be clear, and easy to validate.

Personal rant: If these idiot hotheaded coached cannot get their temper and ego under control, they don't deserve the review in such cases. It's not that hard, 29 other head coaches seem to be able to control their temper, they have people in the booth telling them via radio when and when not to challenge ... sure they blatantly TRY to influence the refs, and that should be penalized. Penalizing 15 yards on a kickoff is not a penalty ... it never has been.

173
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by NYMike :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:14am

The bottom line is that this is the most ridiculous rule in the history of football. WHO CARES if the coach throws the challenge flag if you're going to review the play anyway? Butt waving on the offensive line is a pretty silly penalty, but at least you can see the reason for it. The only reason I can see for this rule is to lead to angry, irrational posts from half of the football-watching audience. Which fits, since the rule is irrational. And the little wrinkle uncovered in the Viking/Packer game just makes it worse.

Lost in all of this is how atrocious the call on the field was. Jones either had to been down by contact, or he had to have scored a touchdown, because the ball hit the goal line in his possession. It could not possibly have been a fumble recovered by the Vikings. Terrible call leading to a ridiculous hair-splitting dissection of a really dumb and pointless rule.

96
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Rikki (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:50pm

Best review ever. So many levels to dissect. So much leverage

98
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:52pm

Just change the rule about throwing red flags already then!

How's this going to be officiated in the playoffs?

103
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:58pm

Badly. Just as it was in the regular season.

106
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Cro-Mags :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:14pm

Pretty tight Vikes/Packers game, tied in the 4th. If it goes to OT I reckon AP has a good shot at the record.

107
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:24pm

Yeah I was going to bed but stayed to watch this one.

111
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:41pm

33rd carry.
he might not make it

108
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:26pm

Bail-out DPI on the Vikings.

110
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:41pm

Vikings seem content for a 55 yard FG. Wonder how wise that is...

112
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:46pm

AD wasn't aware that he was 9 yards from breaking the record.

113
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:46pm

Huge day for Peterson. Will it be enough for the MVP? Seems like the only candidates are him and Manning (with all due respect to Brady, Watt, Megatron).

114
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:48pm

How amazing is it that those two are competing for MVP and Comeback Player of the Year?

120
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Hummingbird Cyborg :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:58pm

They seem to be the consensus. As a Broncos fan, I'd love to see it go to Manning, but I really think that Brady has been better this year.

121
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:10pm

Brady and Manning have put up similar numbers, but Brady did it against better defenses. On the other hand, Peterson had the second most rushing yards ever, and neither Brady or Manning have had truly historic seasons. I think it should go to Peterson.

123
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by JIPanick :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:22pm

There are two valid definitions of MVP, as far as a I am concerned: The best player at the most valuable position (probably Peyton, maybe Brady), or the best overall player (probably J.J. Watt).

Bottom line, always a quarterback makes sense. All positions being de facto eligible for MVP makes sense. QB and RB only makes none, and am accordingly absolutely opposed to any running back winning the award, ever. I don't care how good he is.

I was rooting and rooting hard against Peterson breaking the record & for Green Bay to win because I was afraid that would have pushed the voters into robbing Manning/Brady (although the Bears being much more deserving than the Vikings factored in as well) - and alas, they still might.

162
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RedDog (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 6:47am

I am neither a fan of the Vikings nor Broncos ...

What Peterson has done this season is absolutely outstanding. Teams playing the Vikings knew they would run it down their throats, and he still put up ridiculous numbers. Peterson was a big reason the Vikings are going to the playoffs. They still played for the W last night, couldn't just hand it to Peterson for the record, the Pack was looking to take away/limit the run, and he still almost put up 200 yards. That is sick!

I don't want to take anything away from Peyton (well, I do), but the Broncos made the playoffs last season "without a qb". I know Peyton made them better, not only with his play but his attitude and preparation. But the Broncos are a fairly complete team with a very strong defense, and apparently - I think del Rio is an idiot - excellent coordinators. Put an good QB in there, they still make the playoffs.

164
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by thsunga (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 7:25am

Denver had a dvoa score of -11,0% last seaseon.
Denver has a dvoa score of +35,3% after week 16 (and possibly higher after week 17).

That's a difference of ~46 percentage points. Most of which could be called the Manning effect.

Incidentally, the Chiefs would be very much in the playoff hunt this season with the Manning effect.

Can you honestly say the same if you put Peterson on that team?

165
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Alternator :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 7:55am

I think that there are at least a dozen QBs that, if the Broncos were able to obtain them this offseason, would have ensured winning the division. I think that at least half of them would have kept the Broncos in contention for a bye, as well. Tebow is an atrocious quarterback; with all due respect to Peyton, he is replacing probably the second-worst starting QB from last year. The improvement is still impressive, but not quite as extreme as you make it out to be.

I also think that Adrian Peterson is having the most dominant season by a running back since AT LEAST O.J. Simpson at his peak. The Vikings passing game scares nobody, and while they do have a very good to outstanding run blocking offensive line, teams are still committing to trying to stop Peterson, and they are failing. Failing miserably.

Manning and Brady are both having excellent years, and I'm not going to fault anybody for supporting one or both ahead of Peterson, but I just can't agree. Both the Broncos and Patriots are probably winning their division with merely average QB play, but the Vikings are probably drafting in the top five with an average RB.

167
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RedDog (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 9:27am

Mmmh, can you guarantee that this is the Manning effect?

I don't have any numbers for that era, but it seems like 1997 and 1998 the Broncos did have a Terrell Davis effect ... the RB carried that team offensively. How can you preclude that putting AP on the Broncos plus a "game manager" QB would have made this season MUCH WORSE? I certainly cannot make that prediction.

170
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anonymouse (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 10:37am

Yeah, I remember those Denver teams from '97 and '98. T. Davis carried that team. Outside of him, you had a bunch of scrubs. Guys that wouldn't even be DRAFTED in a fantasy league today. Total losers with funny names like John Elway, Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe, Steve Atwater, Mark Sclereth, Bill Romanowski, Tom Nalen... Thank God for Davis!

174
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RedDog (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:19am

Well, look at the current Broncos team and you will realize that it is not just "godlike" QB plus a bunch of nobodies but a whole bunch of quality players on offense and defense plus - I don't like John Fox or Jack Del Rio, but what they have done speaks for itself, and I give them credit for it - a coaching stuff that knows how to use these players.

Manning chose the Broncos for a reason, and that reason wasn't dollars. He could have gotten more money elsewhere. They got some pretty good players everywhere. And I wouldn't even include Champ Bailey. Look at the Offensive line ... pretty darn good players. DL, LBs ... ? I think this looks like the most complete team going into the playoffs to me. Even though it again looks like team A could beat B, B could beat C, C would beat A.

And yup, the Broncos did ride TD that season.

171
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by nat :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 10:40am

1) Manning doesn't play defense. The offense's "Manning vs. Tebow/Orton effect" was 31.3%.
2) You're comparing Manning to a QB who couldn't break into the back up role behind Mark Sanchez and to one who was released to become a back up on a team that failed to make the playoffs. This year Tebow was a terrible -22% DVOA in plays designed especially for him. He was beaten out for the back up job by a QB whose DVOA is -43.0%.
3) Since the "Tebow/Orton effect" is that of playing a back up QB or a failed back up QB, and in the order of a 20% hit on offensive DVOA, the "Manning Effect" is around +10% to offensive DVOA. That is, Tebow/Orton is farther below an average starting QB than Manning is above one.
4) As it actually happened, switching out Tebow/Orton for Manning was worth no more than 5 wins. A large portion of that is the "switching out Tebow/Orton" part.
5) Denver's defense improved quite a bit since last year: -13.4% (4th) vs. 1.6% (30th). They deserve credit for much of the improved record.

Factors leading to Denver's success, in order of importance:
1) Get rid of Tebow and Orton.
2) Improve the defense.
3) Get Manning instead of an average starting QB.

Credit the removal of Tebow/Orton with 2 wins. Do the same for the improved defense. That leaves Manning with credit for +1 win.

172
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by dadadsad (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:01am

Well, Tebow was hired by management to light a fire under Sanchez' rear end, because in the past, Sanchez performed better under pressure (in the playoffs). They could habe gotten Chad Henne, but Sanchez probably would have said "Chad Who?" and then continued with the next GQ shooting.

Does not look like he was wanted by the coaches. So ... that does not tell anything whether Tebow's leadership skills (which apparently helped him in Denver) and some really good QB coach mentoring (McGenius thought he could do it) can turn him into a viable starter. It takes more than just a nice throwing motion (Philip Rivers, anyone) to succeed, and I wonder whether Sanchez ranks higher than Tebow when you include all metrics.

I mean, compare Tebow to Vick, who would you chose. It's not a great choice, but I would go with Tebow every time, as I think Vick is completely one-dimensional and even averge DCs will take much of what he brings to the table away. And then you have a turnover machine who can run and splits your locker room into followers and haters (looks like that happened in Philly). Give Tebow a chance and see how much of an upside he has. Don't treat him as a gimmick player, groom him. If you give a turd like Vick such a chance, Tebow deserves it.

I am still wondering why Tebow chose the Jets. He must have seen that one coming ... at least his agent, if Tebow himself isn't smart enough. Sanchez was the clear cut starter, and solely based on the contract extension Sanchez got, it was clear that they would ride him well beyond the acceptable range.

But honestly ... who do you hire as backup to light a fire under Sanchez' ass? Maybe they have to waste a 1st or 2nd round pick to do that.

175
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Alternator :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 2:34pm

As a short-term QB solution, I'd take Vick and make sure his contract lets me get rid of him in a year or two. As a long-term QB solution, I'd take Vick and fire my GM if he can't arrange a contract that lets me get rid of him in a year or two, and draft somebody to replace him.

Vick has had real success in the NFL; Tebow has not.

115
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anger...rising :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:49pm

They really need to go to the college replay rule, lest I be driven crazy by "Yeah, the call was wrong, but you're out of timeouts and can't challenge it; you should've had the foresight to take multiple delay penalties earlier in the half when the officials were slow to spot the ball" situations.

140
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Ender (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:34pm

Yeah it kind of stinks that the refs being terrible very well may have cost the Packers another game. The delay in spotting the ball combined with the horrible miss of the sack that made the Packers throw a challenge flag early was just killer. To be fair though that wasn't a TD on the goal line stretch for the Packers either, should have been 1st and goal on the 15 after the penalty. All around just another game where I think the NFL refs completely failed the integrity of the game.

151
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:29am

In a strange way I think the PI call on A.J. Jefferson actually helped the Vikings. The Packers were going to score on that drive, and the penalty made it happen faster, which left enough time on the clock for the Vikings to kick the winning FG as the clock ran out

116
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Other Dean (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:51pm

(In the who cares department) Apropos that a blocked punt should come at the end of Norv Turner's last game as the Charger's head coach. San Diego tried to give the game away and send Norv home with a loss but they just didn't have enough time to get the job done.

117
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Guest789 :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 8:52pm

Love the reporter desperately trying to get a soundbyte out of Peterson, who didn't even know how close he was. I was hoping for a Packers win and for him to break the record, so I'm 0/2.

-----

“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.”

122
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Mike Y :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:20pm

So Bears miss the playoffs at 10-6. Is Lovie Smith gone? I have mixed feelings on whether I want him gone or not.

125
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:33pm

If Emery has a few strong candidates in mind, I'm OK with Lovie getting fired. Firing him just because would be a terrible idea, in my opinion.

One thing's for sure: the offensive coaching and/or philosophy needs to be overhauled. At the very least, Emery - not Lovie - needs to hire a new offensive staff.

And if Emery waited until the end of the Packers-Vikings game to decide Lovie Smith's fate, then it doesn't matter if Lovie stays or goes: the Bears are screwed for the next several years anyway.

127
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Rikki (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 9:53pm

Michael Vick to Cowboys

128
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:00pm

Romo to Jets, Sanchez to Philly as a backup. Done, done and done.

129
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:19pm

It's much easier when you don't have to snap before the play clock reaches 0.

Seriously? How do the officials miss that? That snap was a full second late.

130
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:26pm

Smells a little like a "sure would be nice if the Cowboys made the playoffs" kind of non-call.

131
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:29pm

I'll never get this line of conspiracy thinking. The NFL is essentially matchup-proof.

And even if it did matter, it's not like the Cowboys are playing the Jaguars or Rams or another fairly unpopular team. This is the freaking Redskins!

132
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:37pm

OK the officials are just incompetent. Better now?

133
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:44pm

Yes.

134
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:44pm

It's baffling because watching the play clock is one of the simplest tasks any of the officials has.

135
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 10:54pm

Wouldn't it be funny if RGIII is only prtending to have "lost his burst" due to his injury, to bait the Cowboys into playing him a little loose, and he'll take advantage in the 2nd half with a huge TD run?

137
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:06pm

"Redskins have blitzed every 3rd down I can remember." Uh, Cris, your studio hosts spent 2 minutes discussing how they only sent 3 on the 3rd down TD play.

138
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:07pm

Wow Dallas' punter is SCRAWNY looking!

141
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:36pm

Zero penalties so far.

This is not a good idea.

142
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by jonnyblazin :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:50pm

Dear Jason Garrett, ever hear of a screen pass?

144
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Paul R :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:57pm

Holy smokes! Now that's a facemask penalty!

145
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Ninjalectual :: Sun, 12/30/2012 - 11:59pm

DeAngelo Hall is having his annual "nationally televised big game," to ensure every casual fan thinks he's awesome and to keep the Redskins from figuring out he stinks

146
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Biebs :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:10am

...And that's how you develop a reputation as "unclutch". Tricked or not, that was a hideous pass by Romo.

147
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Biebs :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:13am

Double Post

148
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by CJS at NYC :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:17am

These last few minutes have tested my ability to hate the Cowboys so much I can't feel sorry for them.

149
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Ender (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:22am

Pretty much sums up the seasons the NFL has had. One ref signaling Cowboys ball, one signaling TD. What a joke this has been.

154
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 1:38am

They had different tasks. The back judge is not tasked with knowing whether the ball carrier is in the end zone yet.

This was a case where all the officials did their jobs correctly, and the officiating crew got together and ultimately made the right call.

150
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Paul R :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:29am

Harris spends so much time going through the repertoire of fakes in the Kick-Returner's Handbook he forgets to run forward and gets creamed.

155
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Ender (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 1:52am

I'm going to be fully honest here even if it isn't popular. RG3 is the 3rd most impressive rookie QB of the season. He has loads of athletic talent but the scheme has made him look like a much passer than he actually is. I know the scheme is part of the package but if you want to talk about QB from a pure talent standpoint I've been more impressed by RW and AL than I have by RG3, especially from a passing standpoint.

I'm usually a stat guy but the fact AL has done it with such an awful team really impresses me. RG3 and RW were both on teams that were .500 or so even with a crappy QB.

156
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anonymouse (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 2:10am

AL was on a team that stunk for the simple reason that they didn't have a peyton manning backup plan.

168
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by udogg (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 9:50am

Andrew Luck is on a team that is fielding a rookie WR, a rookie RB, 2 rookie TE's, castoffs and nobody's on the oline with the exception of Castanzo, and Reggie Wayne. Any other QB in the NFL playing with that thin and/or unexperienced an offense?

He's got the worst D in the NFL on the other side (through 16 wks dvoa), a rookie HC out for 13 wks with cancer, a combo OC/HC who's never been a HC, and a rookie GM.

Stats hurt Andrew Luck, but no other rookie was more valuable to his team. 9 game turnaround and 6 comebacks.

169
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 10:33am

Reggie Wayne is really friggen good.

Santana Moss and whatever other crap the redskins play aren't.

Also, I think the rookie head coach getting cancer may have been a good thing for the colts as an organization and as a team.

159
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 2:55am

There probably is a fair amount of truth to what you're saying, and I have a tendency to kind of get lost in the stat forest sometimes, but I really feel like that even if you make the argument that the Redskins are noticeably better than the Colts, Griffin's ~11 point lead in completion percentage and ~1.25 ypa advantage are pretty noteworthy in that discussion. I feel like all three of them have strong cases that could be made for them.
I was about to dig more into it, then I saw that the stat page I was looking at wasn't updated to include today's numbers, so I'm not going to. But the INT and TD rates seem (at this point) pretty heavily stacked against Luck when compared to the other two as well.

160
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 3:01am

Of course, your point about the systems these qb's inhabit definitely influences all of the stats I mentioned above. I would be interested to see a comparison of the average air-yards of the passes thrown by these three.
I think my strategy regarding these three will be to continue to not have a strong opinion on who is the best out of them and just enjoy the fact that I get to watch all of them play.

161
Re: Week 17 Open Discussion Thread
by The Hypno-Toad :: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 3:47am

Thank you again to whoever linked to profootballmock's NFL QB's on Facebook a couple weeks ago. That has been a pretty fantastic source of entertainment. I laughed pretty damn hard at Dalton telling Cutler you beat a team QB'd by something called a "Brian Hoyer."

Login or register to post comments