by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 09/25/2011 - 1:30pm
Be sure to join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for another season of 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
4th and 14, rather than attempt a ~52 field goal, the Bills go for it, and Fitzpatrick tries to force a throw and gets picked off. Gutsy decision to go for it, though.
From Sports Pickle's Twitter: "Bills just got ridiculous penalties for hits on Woodhead and Welker. The NFL is now protecting midgets just like they do quarterbacks."
Well your regularly scheduled Vikings implosion is beginning right on time. (Let's go Lions!) Though as a Lions fan I'm pretty sure we're due for a beating after last week, so I'm assuming we won't manage the comeback until it actually happens. /years of losing.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
The Vikings have been outscored 14-0 in the 4th quarter each week. The Lions therefore waited until after the start of the 4th quarter to punch that drive in, thus setting them up nicely.
by Tepid Coffee (not verified) :: Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:46pm
During the Giants-Eagles halftime highlights, the studio guy called Tom Brady "Manning." Whatever your think of that confusion, it's hard to imagine two white guys who look less alike.
The vikings, not content with blowing a 17-0 lead last week, are poised to blow a 20-0 lead this week.
Once again after being efficient all first half they have suddenly failed to convert anything in the second half, starting with three consecutive 3-and-outs. THe last one a 3rd and 1 and they decide to throw it (incomplete).
sigh. and now, 4th and 1, in Lions territory in field goal range, Frazier lets Peterson talk him into going for it. So they hand it off.... to Gerheart, who isn't close. Just shoot this team now.
The Vikings manage one more 3-and out and punt again. Which means detroit needs maybe 15 yards to kick the game winner. And Frazier passed on an easy FG earlier.
Oh, on first play the Vikings get a personal foul to put them in easy FG range. Detroit is now just milking clock but will probably get a td.
I know they made it after the penalty but I don't like the giants going for two there. Surely you make it a five point lead so if the Eagles score a td you win with a FG not tie?
Oh, no doubt. That really is a tough call because Nelson clearly wasn't given a chance to come back to the ball (and that defender wasn't looking to play the ball but did impede Nelson), yet even if Nelson is allowed to come back toward the ball, the second NE defender, who intercepted, was clearly in better position to catch the ball.
I mean, I think you have to make the call, but it doesn't seem right.
AGREED! I am so happy that there is an NBA lockout. I do dorm duty at a private school, and after study hall, no having the TV on NBA junk in the common room.
What about the roughing the passer call that got the Bills out of the shadow of their own endzone a couple of plays prior to the PI call? I couldn't see anything at all questionable about the hit. The defender made contact milliseconds after the ball left Fitzpatrick's hand, he didn't lead with his helmet, he made a clean tackle around the waist, not high or low, and didn't drive the QB into the ground especially.
The other roughing the passer was a good call (clearly helmet-to-helmet), but I don't get this one...
You're right. The angle they showed didn't show diddly in terms of roughing. The ref said "blow to the head," but from the view they gave us, the only remote chance of a blow to the head was on the way to the ground, after they fell away from the camera. I didn't see it.
There's a difference between "not appealing" (which cheap FG OT wins in general are) and "not doing justice to regulation" - and somehow a cheap FG OT win really does seem like the appropriate ending to any game with a blown 20 point lead vs. a team with no running game.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
As a Lions fan, I think it did complete justice to (the second half of) regulation.
As one of those people who hate sudden death OT and much prefer the soccer rules (either no OT or play out the whole period), I'm never entirely satisfied with FG OT wins. A TD win is at least plausible even with sudden death rules, while FG wins feel a little cheap.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Wait, what? Soccer rules? Where they decide the winner with an arbitrary mini-game that is essentially a big match of rock paper scissors? That has to be the worst "overtime" setup in all of sports.
To be fair to him though, apart from that one and the one that was almost picked off in the end zone, he's been for the most part making decent decisions and has been fairly accurate. Unfortunately there have been quite a few drops.
I didn't want to jinx it until now, but I think they finally killed that hideous Fiat commercial. That's got to be the early favorite for worst commercial of the season. It was so bad, I got nostalgic for "This Is Our Country".
Wait a second there. The Austin Collie is clearly half a yard short, the ref signals fourth down, and somehow it ends up 1st and 10? The ball was even spotted half a yard short of the prior first down mark for the first down play.
It actually happened again early on the Colts' touch down drive, although in that case it was the more mundane variety of just giving an inordinately generous spot.
Washington looked good on that first drive, which has me mildly concerned. LEt's see how Dallas does with the ball. First play is a run. I'm guessing we'll see a lot of that...
Dallas looked OK on its first series, but lots of runs and lots of passes designed to get the ball off quickly so Romo doesn't become such a target.
Dallas also did better on Washington's second series, but I don't like giving them those third-and-short situations...
And on Dallas' next series there's a hold-- I expect these guys were told to do that if things get dire. Better risk the penalty than risk losing Romo.
I don't think that this challenge of the fumble will work. The Washington player slips and his foot clearly slides along the line, making him out of bounds. He touches the ball while in the air (but after his foot slipped out from under him). You don't suddenly become in bounds after that.
Tirico seems to disagree. Perhaps I'm missing what makes the first guy out of bounds, though.
Yikes. Dallas gets a nice pick, and runs two nice plays, but on third and short, even Gruden's calling the play. If Gruden can predict what's coming, you know that SOMEONE on the Washington defense is expecting it. Not a great third down, and now it's tied up 6-6 in a field goal fest.
At the half, it's been an odd game. I feel like Dallas is just playing not to lose here, which isn't a great football strategy. Their running game continues to suck. Ed Wener is claiming that Garret hasn't tailored his play-calling to Romo's injury, but I don't buy that at all.
And that drive was a series of incredible blunders. Romo made an incredible save with that botched snap-- truly incredible-- but then turns around and throws a pick. Of course, long picks on third down are effectively a punt with a good return, so it's not the end of the world. But you have to wonder about Romo's ability to hit the deep pass with his ribs.
The Romo-love by ESPN is baffling. On the play when he got a snap he didn't expect and nearly lost 20 yards because he's not on the same page as his center, they praise him for making a completion for 2 yards.
On the next play, facing a blitz, Romo makes a pass to a wide-open Redskins defender. Now I have to listen to Mike Tirico and Jon Gruden explain how it's the fault of the receiver for not being where Romo was going to throw the ball.
Um, HUH???
Isn't it the QB's job to make sure that the ball is within ten yards of the nearest receiver??
Clearly, the bad snap was the Center's fault, no Romo's. He turned a play that virtually every other QB would have sat on for a sack-- if they'd even gotten the ball-- and turned it into positive yardage.
On the following play, it's unclear if Romo just couldn't get the ball far enough or if the WR didn't run the right route, but the sort of discussion is hardly some sort of Romo-love; plenty of QBs get the credit when they throw picks because a WR didn't run the right route.
Isn't it the QB's job to make sure that the ball is within ten yards of the nearest receiver??
Given that most passes are thrown long before a WR is within 10 yards of the target destination, these situations are a bit more complex. If Romo expects a WR to be at a certain spot but the WR goes the wrong way, it's hard to blame it on the QB.
...and yet we usually blame the QB. It's not like the WR's route is some kind of mystery whose success or failure is only visible at the point in time when the ball is delivered. You can look at where the WR is running and have some idea of where he's going to be. It's not a situation where a WR was supposed to make a late cut in one direction and did something else instead.
The pass was nowhere near the receiver.
99 times out of 100, the QB takes the blame for that.
Well, Gruden just blamed Romo for not throwing away the pass 1 second before he was blindsided by a rusher he could not see.
...and yet we usually blame the QB. It's not like the WR's route is some kind of mystery whose success or failure is only visible at the point in time when the ball is delivered. You can look at where the WR is running and have some idea of where he's going to be. It's not a situation where a WR was supposed to make a late cut in one direction and did something else instead. Well, perhaps I'm recalling my football differently. As for the play in question, I'd have to watch it again, but it looks like Romo released it expecting the WR to make a cut at a certain angle, when in fact the WR took a few more steps and then angled in less sharply. So yes, it looked me me exactly like the WR was supposed to make one certain cut, and did something else instead.
That said, we have no idea what the ACTUAL play was, or of there was some sort of automatic hot-read route given that Washington was really blitzing hard.
As for "99 times out of 100, the QB takes the blame for the pass being "nowhere near the receiver", I seriously doubt it. While there are plenty of cases where a QB just doesn't put the ball where he's supposed to, I am quite sure that when there's a miss, it's not 99% of the time on the QB.
We often hear of WRs being poor route-runners. Indeed, we're watching Dallas' 3rd down play down for the touchdown where the WR just stopped on his route while Romo was expecting him to keep going. Odds are that this was the WR's fault, not Romo's.
But yes, I do agree that blaming Romo for not seeing the rusher is crazy. Yes, QBs should have that "internal clock" but Romo had just gotten set up; he has to assume that his OL is going to defend longer than that.
Well, let's see. Tony Romo's been running the same offense for about 6 years now. The Center is a 2nd year player who was a back-up last year. We've seen Romo stand in the shotgun and make protection calls and adjust the play at the line a dozen times a game for years. But now, we're to assume that Romo suddenly has forgotten what he's been doing and the Center is the one who is making the right calls.
Meanwhile, when we watch after the play and Romo is pantomiming to the Center that he should think, the Center isn't objecting, but stands like a scolded puppy. But still, it's Romo's fault? Come on.
I was asking "how you know?" I wasn't claiming definitively either way.
I saw a QB yelling at somebody. If I yell at somebody after I make a mistake, does that mean I didn't make a mistake? Have you never seen somebody make a mistake and try to pass the blame off on somebody else?
Sorry, I just don't see what you have to make a conclusion. "Romo's a 6th year player" Yep, and he's not a very good one, either. He's one who's notorious for making bad decisions.
Well, in general, the QB gives an indication that he's ready for the snap. This is basic high school stuff. The Center doesn't snap until the QB indicates that he's ready. You'd have to assume that Romo gives the "snap the ball signal" and then says "oh wait, I think I want to double-check the linebacker situation". Which is stupid.
You can say that Romo isn't a very good player, and that's fine. I seriously couldn't care less what you think of him. But to assert that the center is the one who is correct and the QB is somehow screwing up when the ball is snapped before he's ready suggests that you really are just looking to play up some "Romo sucks" meme. It's tired and old, but if it's your thing, then go for it.
I've edited out the snark, so let me start from the beginning:
I was asking "how you know?" I wasn't claiming definitively either way.
I should have addressed this more clearly; I apologize.
Here's how it works-- or at least, how it worked when I played football in high school, and how I've heard friends who played in college, and heard heard commentators, coaches, and media people on TV and radio talk about it in regards to college and the pros.
In virtually every instance, the QB is always the one who indicates that he's ready for the snap. Even in loud games when you're going on a silent count, a QB under center will give the C a little "goose" to indicate that he's ready for the snap.
In the shotgun (admittedly not so common back in the early 90's), the QB would indicate that he's ready with something like that leg-raise you see Manning do, or a hand gesture. The QB might then give some sort of cadence ("Hut hut!" or "Ready go!" or something), but he only does that after he's indicated that he's set. Given that the QB spends the first moments out of the huddle checking protections, reviewing the defense and in some cases making audibles, it doesn't make much sense for the C to determine when to make the snap. In fact, only the opposite makes sense: the QB goes through is pre-snap reads, etc., then he indicates to the C that he's ready, and then the C settles and makes the snap.
We can imagine some rare cases where the QB might indicate that he's ready, but become distracted by, say, a LB or SS rushing up to indicate a blitz, or an offensive player motioning/not motioning when he shouldn't/should. But, again, those aren't common.
Whatever you think of the above (though, I assure you that it's right), in regards to this game, I'm right as Costa admitsf to the errors: admittedly due to what sounds like some fairly devious/unsportsmanlike (and rule-breaking?) play by Washington.
If by unsportsmanlike you mean brilliant. Unless of course that's illegal. If it's illegal then trying to get away with it is unsportsmanlike. If there's no rule, then in my opinion it's right there with icing the kicker or lining up hoping to draw an offsides with no intention to snap the ball.
Then, yeah, it's pretty bad. It's not like it's a borderline thing "oh he hit him a fraction of a second too late." Either you did it or not. That makes it worse in my view since you are actively trying to gain a competitive advantage doing something that is outlawed.
Ugh. A blown TD and Dallas settles for yet another FG. They did get a nice run for once, and Romo looks to be accurate. They miss Miles Austin, though.
I'm not convinced that the defense is going to be able to keep up against Washington. They seemed to have found a way to generate these long 5- and 6-yard runs, and that's not good for Dallas...
This looks like the Dallas of early last year. Lots of mistakes, a lack of focus. Gutsy call, though: going for it on 4th and 6... but that's marked by another blunder, as they have to call a time-out because of confusion. Dallas' bye week can't come soon enough.
.... and they punt. Which figures. Now they'll let the Dallas defense play, but it's not clear to me that they're going to stop this Washington offense.
Ugh. Under 2 minutes to play, Dallas has a 1 point lead. After a good start, Washington has started marching and looks good. One time out left and 41 seconds...
I was completely off on the teams but not the circumstance... Vikings over Rams. Oddly the kicker was Rich Karlis, who I always associated with the Broncos, the brain works in weird ways.
No, Dallas once won a game about 15 years ago kicking 7 FGs, which I think is the NFL record (held by several players). But in that particular game (it was when Barry Switzer was coaching), those were Dallas' only points.
I don't know if anyone has done more (e.g. 7 FGs and a safety or whatever), though.
You guys are right. Using PFR Game Finder, 4 teams have topped it (scoring over 18 points with no touchdowns), led by the 1989 Vikings with 23 points in a 23-21 overtime win (that must be the one you were thinking of, Biebs) and including 21 from the 1996 Cowboys. 5 other teams have matched the Cowboys' 18. So the 2011 Cowboys become the 10th team ever to score 18+ points without a touchdown. How many of those 10 teams won the game?
All 10.
23-21, 1989 Vikings over Rams (with an overtime safety)
21-6, 1996 Cowboys over Packers
21-7, 2007 Bengals over Ravens
20-17, 1994 Bengals over Seahawks (with an overtime field goal)
18-17, 1972 Eagles over Oilers
18-17, 1972 Jets over Saints
18-12, 1993 Chargers over Seahawks
18-17, 1993 Chargers over Oilers (two weeks later)
18-10, 2006 Rams over Broncos
18-16, 2011 Cowboys over Redskins
Grossman fails to show that rear-view radar that Gruden thinks every QB should have. Fumbles instead of throwing the ball away. (Did he think he could scramble for meaningful yardage?)
The Redskin offense is starting to gel into something good, but they are still constrained by the fact that Grossman's ceiling just isn't very high.
Jon Gruden thinks "this is one of the great victories in Tony Romo's career as a quarterback!" Really? Wow. I'm not a huge Romo fan, but he's certainly had much bigger victories than this one.
Jon Gruden thinks "this is one of the great victories in Tony Romo's career as a quarterback!" Really? Wow. I'm not a huge Romo fan, but he's certainly had much bigger victories than this one.
Yeah, I agree (as a Romo fan). I think that his comments were more because of the broken rib situation, and how the Dallas offense seemed to have been filled out by a lot of people who had no idea what was going on. There were like 4 bad snaps (one saved incredibly by Romo) and a number of poor routes run by his WRs.
It was a nice win, but we'll see if it's all in vain. Dallas has a lot of problems that I'd hoped were gone with the Wade era; perhaps we all were too optimistic...
RSS Feed
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Watching NE/Buf. So far there have been 9 pass attempts, and 1 hit the ground.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Has that game been as fun so far as it sounds?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Depends on how you feel about defense. If you think it's overrated, this game is for you. I'm loving it.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Be sure to join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for another season of IRC football chat! Point your favorite IRC client to bendenweyr.dyndns.org, channel #fo
Or for a web-based solution, just use this mibbit link: http://chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23fo&server=bendenweyr.dyndns.org
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
4th and 14, rather than attempt a ~52 field goal, the Bills go for it, and Fitzpatrick tries to force a throw and gets picked off. Gutsy decision to go for it, though.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Did I understand the highlight correctly that Vick is out?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Brady's never had any targets? Doesn't look it today. Gronkowski and Welker get open every play.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
From Sports Pickle's Twitter: "Bills just got ridiculous penalties for hits on Woodhead and Welker. The NFL is now protecting midgets just like they do quarterbacks."
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Detroit punter just got called for a facemask. That has to be a rare event.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Can the Vikings blow a 20-point halftime lead this week?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Well your regularly scheduled Vikings implosion is beginning right on time. (Let's go Lions!) Though as a Lions fan I'm pretty sure we're due for a beating after last week, so I'm assuming we won't manage the comeback until it actually happens. /years of losing.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
They fumble, then punt, allowing a 20 yard return and a few huge passes resulting in a quick td for detroit. Im just guessing.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Vikings have been outscored 14-0 in the 4th quarter each week. The Lions therefore waited until after the start of the 4th quarter to punch that drive in, thus setting them up nicely.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yes. Yes, they can.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
At this point the Vikings are just putting on some kind of modern performance art right?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The announcers in the NE/Bills game got Woodhead and Welker mixed up. All white guys look alike?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
During the Giants-Eagles halftime highlights, the studio guy called Tom Brady "Manning." Whatever your think of that confusion, it's hard to imagine two white guys who look less alike.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Bill walton and vern troyer.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Michael Jackson and Andre the Giant.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Jackson doesn't count, he said "guys."
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Pats two biggest plays have been passes to Gronk, who I am pretty sure is the slowest receiver on their team.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
John Lynch has mentioned Mariano Rivera more than any of the players actually in the Det@Min game.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The vikings, not content with blowing a 17-0 lead last week, are poised to blow a 20-0 lead this week.
Once again after being efficient all first half they have suddenly failed to convert anything in the second half, starting with three consecutive 3-and-outs. THe last one a 3rd and 1 and they decide to throw it (incomplete).
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Didn't you predict this would happen?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
No, I predicted they would be up by 7 and lose by 17.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
sigh. and now, 4th and 1, in Lions territory in field goal range, Frazier lets Peterson talk him into going for it. So they hand it off.... to Gerheart, who isn't close. Just shoot this team now.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Vikings have successfully blown a 20 point lead as of now.
Of course, the game's currently tied, so we don't have a final winner yet, but the accomplishment's there.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Vikings manage one more 3-and out and punt again. Which means detroit needs maybe 15 yards to kick the game winner. And Frazier passed on an easy FG earlier.
Oh, on first play the Vikings get a personal foul to put them in easy FG range. Detroit is now just milking clock but will probably get a td.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Not objecting to getting the lead, but I'm worried the Vikes decide to just hand off to AP for the next 2 minutes for the win.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I know they made it after the penalty but I don't like the giants going for two there. Surely you make it a five point lead so if the Eagles score a td you win with a FG not tie?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Uh, oh. I can see the zebra discussion coming in the NE/Buffalo game recap, no matter who wins.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yeah, pretty much everyone other than morganja would agree that the PI in the endzone was really rather ticky-tack.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Oh, no doubt. That really is a tough call because Nelson clearly wasn't given a chance to come back to the ball (and that defender wasn't looking to play the ball but did impede Nelson), yet even if Nelson is allowed to come back toward the ball, the second NE defender, who intercepted, was clearly in better position to catch the ball.
I mean, I think you have to make the call, but it doesn't seem right.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
No way that gets called if it's a Hail Mary pass. They absolutely could have declined to call it.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
True, but it wasn't a Hail Mary in that the ref had only 3 guys to watch, not 8 or 10.
But, let's say the second NE defender wasn't there to intercept, is the play likely PI? I think so. So why do you not call it?
I think it's unfair, but the right call.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Each team had a drive that was basically half penalties, NE's just ended with an interception.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
And your point is? NFL officiating isn't designed to be socialist.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
They're just trying to be like NBA refs -- make up calls?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I wouldn't know - I don't watch professional wrestling.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
AGREED! I am so happy that there is an NBA lockout. I do dorm duty at a private school, and after study hall, no having the TV on NBA junk in the common room.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
What about the roughing the passer call that got the Bills out of the shadow of their own endzone a couple of plays prior to the PI call? I couldn't see anything at all questionable about the hit. The defender made contact milliseconds after the ball left Fitzpatrick's hand, he didn't lead with his helmet, he made a clean tackle around the waist, not high or low, and didn't drive the QB into the ground especially.
The other roughing the passer was a good call (clearly helmet-to-helmet), but I don't get this one...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
You're right. The angle they showed didn't show diddly in terms of roughing. The ref said "blow to the head," but from the view they gave us, the only remote chance of a blow to the head was on the way to the ground, after they fell away from the camera. I didn't see it.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
What is up with these Bills
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Still plenty of time to choke.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Uh oh, trouble in heaven (Ocho! On-No!)
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
More like Ocho-Stinko.
#rimshot
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Win Probability graph for the Buf-NE game is amazing: http://live.advancednflstats.com/index.php?gameid1=2011092502
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Rich Gannon: You got some options here, you can run it, or you can throw it. Well, that about covers it.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
This is a very un-BB/Brady drive here.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Better for the Pats if this is a TD now.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If no TD, let Buffalo just run it in here and keep your timeouts?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Classic! BB is arguing that the Bills scored. I would argue too!
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Well, congrats to the Bills.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yeah, it's hard not to like these Bills, even if they did just knock off my Pats to take the division lead.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
So, the Niners have demonstrated the ability to win a nondivision road game. Is it too early to declare them NFC West champs?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Aaaaand that's game! 3-0 for the Lions, but would it kill Detroit to find a running game one of these weeks?
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If there was any point in NFL history for a team to not have a running game, it's now. The NFL has started to look like the early 2000s WAC.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
And the Vikings complete the collapse.
So to recap, first half: Vikings 54, opponents 7. After halftime: Opponents 67, Vikings 6.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If the Vikings and Bills were to play a game we could see a 42 point comeback...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
very nice
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yet another overtime ending that doesn't do justice to regulation.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If you don't want to lose in OT, don't give up 40 and 17 yard pass plays. Defense counts in winning/losing games in OT, too.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Not my team. What you said doesn't change the fact that it was an unappealing ending (except for Detroit fans).
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
What exactly was unappealing about it?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Stop playing dumb. There's a reason the OT rules got changed for the playoffs.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Glad to know never to ask you to clarify anything.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
There's a difference between "not appealing" (which cheap FG OT wins in general are) and "not doing justice to regulation" - and somehow a cheap FG OT win really does seem like the appropriate ending to any game with a blown 20 point lead vs. a team with no running game.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
As a Lions fan, I think it did complete justice to (the second half of) regulation.
As one of those people who hate sudden death OT and much prefer the soccer rules (either no OT or play out the whole period), I'm never entirely satisfied with FG OT wins. A TD win is at least plausible even with sudden death rules, while FG wins feel a little cheap.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Wait, what? Soccer rules? Where they decide the winner with an arbitrary mini-game that is essentially a big match of rock paper scissors? That has to be the worst "overtime" setup in all of sports.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
A penalty shootout only occurs after a full period (30mins) of extra time. I assume that is what is being suggested not a field goal competition.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
(I say this as a Jets fan) Mark Sanchez, lowest football IQ since... jeez, what an awful decision.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
To be fair to him though, apart from that one and the one that was almost picked off in the end zone, he's been for the most part making decent decisions and has been fairly accurate. Unfortunately there have been quite a few drops.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
He's so frustrating. Looks great, then looks awful, the looks great again...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
He did play well today. D and ST let us down.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I didn't want to jinx it until now, but I think they finally killed that hideous Fiat commercial. That's got to be the early favorite for worst commercial of the season. It was so bad, I got nostalgic for "This Is Our Country".
Who is Torrey Smith?
All he does is catch TDs for the Ravens. 3 catches, 133 yds, 3 TD, 1 quarter of play.
Re: Who is Torrey Smith?
Rookie deep threat they took in the second round. Supposedly very fast with great burst but lots of questions about his hands.
Re: Who is Torrey Smith?
His hands have looked pretty good so far, the Rams coverage on the other hand.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
So,,,,is there any good reason the Chiefs just ran Thomas "Grandpa" Jones on 3rd and 11 inside the SD 20? How &%@#ing scared is the coaching staff?!
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Somewhere, FireOmarTomlin just burst a blood vessel.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Omar coming.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Woah, how nice it is to realize I had completely forgotten about the existence of FireOmarTomlin.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Wait a second there. The Austin Collie is clearly half a yard short, the ref signals fourth down, and somehow it ends up 1st and 10? The ball was even spotted half a yard short of the prior first down mark for the first down play.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
When was the last time you saw a chain measurement in the NFL?
I've seen a bunch of 9.5-yard conversions this year in both the NFL and NCAA, and wish I knew what was going on.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
It actually happened again early on the Colts' touch down drive, although in that case it was the more mundane variety of just giving an inordinately generous spot.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Not only are the Colts dominating the middle of the line of scrimmage on defense, but their pursuit in the run game has been superb.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If the Colts' defense had been this good over the last 5 years they would have at least 2 superbowls, maybe 3.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I think the up-front dominance has at least as much to do with terrible o-line play, but the rest was good.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
How did Legursky's injury look? I''m "watching" via play-by-play unfortuanately...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Washington looked good on that first drive, which has me mildly concerned. LEt's see how Dallas does with the ball. First play is a run. I'm guessing we'll see a lot of that...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Dallas looked OK on its first series, but lots of runs and lots of passes designed to get the ball off quickly so Romo doesn't become such a target.
Dallas also did better on Washington's second series, but I don't like giving them those third-and-short situations...
And on Dallas' next series there's a hold-- I expect these guys were told to do that if things get dire. Better risk the penalty than risk losing Romo.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I don't think that this challenge of the fumble will work. The Washington player slips and his foot clearly slides along the line, making him out of bounds. He touches the ball while in the air (but after his foot slipped out from under him). You don't suddenly become in bounds after that.
Tirico seems to disagree. Perhaps I'm missing what makes the first guy out of bounds, though.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yeah. Overruled. I don't like the call, but I'm not familiar with the rules enough, I guess.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Wow. Nice defensive series by Dallas-- and some uncreative play-calling by Washington. And a potential disaster turns into something slightly smaller.
It's been a fast first Q, and being down 3 points for Dallas isn't so bad, I don't think.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Yikes. Dallas gets a nice pick, and runs two nice plays, but on third and short, even Gruden's calling the play. If Gruden can predict what's coming, you know that SOMEONE on the Washington defense is expecting it. Not a great third down, and now it's tied up 6-6 in a field goal fest.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I see. So to avoid the leading-with-the-helmet rule, the DBs now just put their forearm up just before the spear.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Washington is getting the upper hand on offense, it seems.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
At the half, it's been an odd game. I feel like Dallas is just playing not to lose here, which isn't a great football strategy. Their running game continues to suck. Ed Wener is claiming that Garret hasn't tailored his play-calling to Romo's injury, but I don't buy that at all.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
And that drive was a series of incredible blunders. Romo made an incredible save with that botched snap-- truly incredible-- but then turns around and throws a pick. Of course, long picks on third down are effectively a punt with a good return, so it's not the end of the world. But you have to wonder about Romo's ability to hit the deep pass with his ribs.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
The Romo-love by ESPN is baffling. On the play when he got a snap he didn't expect and nearly lost 20 yards because he's not on the same page as his center, they praise him for making a completion for 2 yards.
On the next play, facing a blitz, Romo makes a pass to a wide-open Redskins defender. Now I have to listen to Mike Tirico and Jon Gruden explain how it's the fault of the receiver for not being where Romo was going to throw the ball.
Um, HUH???
Isn't it the QB's job to make sure that the ball is within ten yards of the nearest receiver??
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Clearly, the bad snap was the Center's fault, no Romo's. He turned a play that virtually every other QB would have sat on for a sack-- if they'd even gotten the ball-- and turned it into positive yardage.
On the following play, it's unclear if Romo just couldn't get the ball far enough or if the WR didn't run the right route, but the sort of discussion is hardly some sort of Romo-love; plenty of QBs get the credit when they throw picks because a WR didn't run the right route.
Isn't it the QB's job to make sure that the ball is within ten yards of the nearest receiver??
Given that most passes are thrown long before a WR is within 10 yards of the target destination, these situations are a bit more complex. If Romo expects a WR to be at a certain spot but the WR goes the wrong way, it's hard to blame it on the QB.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
...and yet we usually blame the QB. It's not like the WR's route is some kind of mystery whose success or failure is only visible at the point in time when the ball is delivered. You can look at where the WR is running and have some idea of where he's going to be. It's not a situation where a WR was supposed to make a late cut in one direction and did something else instead.
The pass was nowhere near the receiver.
99 times out of 100, the QB takes the blame for that.
Well, Gruden just blamed Romo for not throwing away the pass 1 second before he was blindsided by a rusher he could not see.
Basically, Gruden is an idiot.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
...and yet we usually blame the QB. It's not like the WR's route is some kind of mystery whose success or failure is only visible at the point in time when the ball is delivered. You can look at where the WR is running and have some idea of where he's going to be. It's not a situation where a WR was supposed to make a late cut in one direction and did something else instead. Well, perhaps I'm recalling my football differently. As for the play in question, I'd have to watch it again, but it looks like Romo released it expecting the WR to make a cut at a certain angle, when in fact the WR took a few more steps and then angled in less sharply. So yes, it looked me me exactly like the WR was supposed to make one certain cut, and did something else instead.
That said, we have no idea what the ACTUAL play was, or of there was some sort of automatic hot-read route given that Washington was really blitzing hard.
As for "99 times out of 100, the QB takes the blame for the pass being "nowhere near the receiver", I seriously doubt it. While there are plenty of cases where a QB just doesn't put the ball where he's supposed to, I am quite sure that when there's a miss, it's not 99% of the time on the QB.
We often hear of WRs being poor route-runners. Indeed, we're watching Dallas' 3rd down play down for the touchdown where the WR just stopped on his route while Romo was expecting him to keep going. Odds are that this was the WR's fault, not Romo's.
But yes, I do agree that blaming Romo for not seeing the rusher is crazy. Yes, QBs should have that "internal clock" but Romo had just gotten set up; he has to assume that his OL is going to defend longer than that.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
BTW, how do you know the bad snap was the center's fault? I would think the most we could say is that it was either his fault or the QBs.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Well, let's see. Tony Romo's been running the same offense for about 6 years now. The Center is a 2nd year player who was a back-up last year. We've seen Romo stand in the shotgun and make protection calls and adjust the play at the line a dozen times a game for years. But now, we're to assume that Romo suddenly has forgotten what he's been doing and the Center is the one who is making the right calls.
Meanwhile, when we watch after the play and Romo is pantomiming to the Center that he should think, the Center isn't objecting, but stands like a scolded puppy. But still, it's Romo's fault? Come on.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I was asking "how you know?" I wasn't claiming definitively either way.
I saw a QB yelling at somebody. If I yell at somebody after I make a mistake, does that mean I didn't make a mistake? Have you never seen somebody make a mistake and try to pass the blame off on somebody else?
Sorry, I just don't see what you have to make a conclusion. "Romo's a 6th year player" Yep, and he's not a very good one, either. He's one who's notorious for making bad decisions.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Well, in general, the QB gives an indication that he's ready for the snap. This is basic high school stuff. The Center doesn't snap until the QB indicates that he's ready. You'd have to assume that Romo gives the "snap the ball signal" and then says "oh wait, I think I want to double-check the linebacker situation". Which is stupid.
You can say that Romo isn't a very good player, and that's fine. I seriously couldn't care less what you think of him. But to assert that the center is the one who is correct and the QB is somehow screwing up when the ball is snapped before he's ready suggests that you really are just looking to play up some "Romo sucks" meme. It's tired and old, but if it's your thing, then go for it.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Still looking for the part where I assert something.
If I disagree with your conclusion about something, that doesn't automatically mean that I'm asserting the opposite.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I've edited out the snark, so let me start from the beginning:
I was asking "how you know?" I wasn't claiming definitively either way.
I should have addressed this more clearly; I apologize.
Here's how it works-- or at least, how it worked when I played football in high school, and how I've heard friends who played in college, and heard heard commentators, coaches, and media people on TV and radio talk about it in regards to college and the pros.
In virtually every instance, the QB is always the one who indicates that he's ready for the snap. Even in loud games when you're going on a silent count, a QB under center will give the C a little "goose" to indicate that he's ready for the snap.
In the shotgun (admittedly not so common back in the early 90's), the QB would indicate that he's ready with something like that leg-raise you see Manning do, or a hand gesture. The QB might then give some sort of cadence ("Hut hut!" or "Ready go!" or something), but he only does that after he's indicated that he's set. Given that the QB spends the first moments out of the huddle checking protections, reviewing the defense and in some cases making audibles, it doesn't make much sense for the C to determine when to make the snap. In fact, only the opposite makes sense: the QB goes through is pre-snap reads, etc., then he indicates to the C that he's ready, and then the C settles and makes the snap.
We can imagine some rare cases where the QB might indicate that he's ready, but become distracted by, say, a LB or SS rushing up to indicate a blitz, or an offensive player motioning/not motioning when he shouldn't/should. But, again, those aren't common.
Whatever you think of the above (though, I assure you that it's right), in regards to this game, I'm right as Costa admitsf to the errors: admittedly due to what sounds like some fairly devious/unsportsmanlike (and rule-breaking?) play by Washington.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
If by unsportsmanlike you mean brilliant. Unless of course that's illegal. If it's illegal then trying to get away with it is unsportsmanlike. If there's no rule, then in my opinion it's right there with icing the kicker or lining up hoping to draw an offsides with no intention to snap the ball.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
It's not permitted.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Then, yeah, it's pretty bad. It's not like it's a borderline thing "oh he hit him a fraction of a second too late." Either you did it or not. That makes it worse in my view since you are actively trying to gain a competitive advantage doing something that is outlawed.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Ugh. A blown TD and Dallas settles for yet another FG. They did get a nice run for once, and Romo looks to be accurate. They miss Miles Austin, though.
I'm not convinced that the defense is going to be able to keep up against Washington. They seemed to have found a way to generate these long 5- and 6-yard runs, and that's not good for Dallas...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
This looks like the Dallas of early last year. Lots of mistakes, a lack of focus. Gutsy call, though: going for it on 4th and 6... but that's marked by another blunder, as they have to call a time-out because of confusion. Dallas' bye week can't come soon enough.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
.... and they punt. Which figures. Now they'll let the Dallas defense play, but it's not clear to me that they're going to stop this Washington offense.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Skins blew this game on 3rd and 21. Gotta make the stop there.
...and then Hightower converts on 2nd and 17. Hmm...maybe it's not over yet.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Gaffney chooses the 1st down over the sideline.
Gruden thinks he's wrong. Does that mean Gaffney was right? No - he just thought he could get both and made a mistake.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Ugh. Under 2 minutes to play, Dallas has a 1 point lead. After a good start, Washington has started marching and looks good. One time out left and 41 seconds...
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Is this the most points ever by a team that didn't score a touchdown?
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I remember the Broncos winning a game 23-21 on 7 FG and a safety in the late 80s/early 90s
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
I was completely off on the teams but not the circumstance... Vikings over Rams. Oddly the kicker was Rich Karlis, who I always associated with the Broncos, the brain works in weird ways.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
No, Dallas once won a game about 15 years ago kicking 7 FGs, which I think is the NFL record (held by several players). But in that particular game (it was when Barry Switzer was coaching), those were Dallas' only points.
I don't know if anyone has done more (e.g. 7 FGs and a safety or whatever), though.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
You guys are right. Using PFR Game Finder, 4 teams have topped it (scoring over 18 points with no touchdowns), led by the 1989 Vikings with 23 points in a 23-21 overtime win (that must be the one you were thinking of, Biebs) and including 21 from the 1996 Cowboys. 5 other teams have matched the Cowboys' 18. So the 2011 Cowboys become the 10th team ever to score 18+ points without a touchdown. How many of those 10 teams won the game?
All 10.
23-21, 1989 Vikings over Rams (with an overtime safety)
21-6, 1996 Cowboys over Packers
21-7, 2007 Bengals over Ravens
20-17, 1994 Bengals over Seahawks (with an overtime field goal)
18-17, 1972 Eagles over Oilers
18-17, 1972 Jets over Saints
18-12, 1993 Chargers over Seahawks
18-17, 1993 Chargers over Oilers (two weeks later)
18-10, 2006 Rams over Broncos
18-16, 2011 Cowboys over Redskins
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Grossman fails to show that rear-view radar that Gruden thinks every QB should have. Fumbles instead of throwing the ball away. (Did he think he could scramble for meaningful yardage?)
The Redskin offense is starting to gel into something good, but they are still constrained by the fact that Grossman's ceiling just isn't very high.
Jon Gruden thinks "this is one of the great victories in Tony Romo's career as a quarterback!" Really? Wow. I'm not a huge Romo fan, but he's certainly had much bigger victories than this one.
Re: Week 3 Game Discussion Thread
Jon Gruden thinks "this is one of the great victories in Tony Romo's career as a quarterback!" Really? Wow. I'm not a huge Romo fan, but he's certainly had much bigger victories than this one.
Yeah, I agree (as a Romo fan). I think that his comments were more because of the broken rib situation, and how the Dallas offense seemed to have been filled out by a lot of people who had no idea what was going on. There were like 4 bad snaps (one saved incredibly by Romo) and a number of poor routes run by his WRs.
It was a nice win, but we'll see if it's all in vain. Dallas has a lot of problems that I'd hoped were gone with the Wade era; perhaps we all were too optimistic...
Post new comment