Talk amongst yourselves
13 Oct 2013
Please utilize this thread to discuss teams that are playing football this week. The Jaguars are slight underdogs, I hear.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 13 Oct 2013
141 replies , Last at
15 Oct 2013, 2:16am by
I hope the Bears don't try to take revenge for the game where Cutler got concussed. Please let Eli live, Mr. Peppers.
So was that interception just a bad throw by Manning, or was he expecting the receiver to cut that route short? I couldn't tell whether it was simply an off-target throw because he was falling over backwards expecting to be hit.
You have got to be kidding me.
Isn't it a penalty to go to the ground while celebrating if it isn't a religious act? Nice play by Jennings.
Eli's just having a special season.
It's a joke that ESPN's QBR had him ranked ahead of players such as RG3 before the game. RG3 hasn't been the dynamic player he was in 2012, but at least he currently leads an average Redskins passing offense; the Giants on the other hand are anemic on offense and Eli has been a turnover machine that would even make Blaine Gabbert blush. Jekyll and Hyde Eli is back at it.
That was a really ridiculous Unncessary Roughness penalty. In this case "roughness" meant a light tap on a quasi-sliding QB.
This is the nonsense the NFL has ended up with since they tried to take any kind of judgment calls out of the hands of the refs. So they said "if you touch the QB's helmet, it's a penalty." But really, do we want that to be true for all values of "touch"?
Some penalties should not exist, but since they do, they really shouldn't be committed.
Have you seen the play in question?
Yes. Cutler was sliding and that's a dumb rule, but JPP (I think) needs to know that he can;t touch Cutler then.
Oh, wait, nevermind, it was Hill. Point still stands.
Yes I'm a Giant fan but didn't have a problem with it. Especially this week is not the time to be casual about hitting people on the helmet, even slightly.
He tapped him on the helmet with his gloved hands. That's not roughness. _If_ Cutler was "giving himself up", he did so only at the last second. And it's usual to touch a sliding player with your hands anyway. But if he hadn't been "giving himself up" and had stood up again, he could have run.
The NFL isn't consistent about what constitutes "giving yourself up". A few weeks ago RG3 did a faceplant and fumbled. It was obvious that his intent was to give himself up, but the refs let the fumble stand. Tonight, we're supposed to believe (in a different play) that a WR who "thinks he's down" and puts the ball on the ground "has given himself up."
Basically, this should have been a classic "no harm, no foul" call.
And no, "even slightly" is not a reasonable caveat to have. This is NFL football. If Cutler doesn't want anybody to touch his helmet, he can stay in the pocket or throw the ball away. I had thought the rule was that a QB who tucks the ball and runs should be treated like any other running back. I've never seen a RB draw an "unnecessary roughness" penalty on a defender with that little contact.
It doesn't seem like, two days after the airing of That Documentary, letting a helmet touch on a nationally televised game go unflagged is a good idea. Any grey area is going to lead to yellow.
"two hand contact on a sliding quarterback".
Yeah, um, Cutler's slide was kind of half-assed. More like a sideways lean. And Hill literally just touched his helmet with two hands.
This is laughable. It's not even like Cutler was in the pocket. He was running downfield.
It's truly annoying: Any zero-tolerance policy will end up with idiotic over-enforcement of penalties (kids getting suspended for having aspirin in school, for example). Yet anything short of zero-tolerance will inevitably result in idiotic refusal to enforce in the face of egregious violations (which is how we GET zero tolerance policies in the first place). No matter which way they go, people get screwed.
That's why you have to give officials some level of discretion. It's delusional to think that rules-writers can write rules that are so perfectly written as to preclude the need for good judgment on the part of rules enforcers.
Hah, speaking of discretion... the NFL really needs an established way to give yourself up. Just make the rule for all players that they give themselves up by sliding or something. There's no way he meant to give himself up there -- he simply thought he was down.
In this case, it doesn't appear to matter, as despite slamming the ball to the ground, he still retained control of it until after he'd been touched.
Yes, I have no idea what Mayock was looking at. Randel's knees were clearly on the ground and a bear was touching him before the ball came free.
In this specific example, yep, I doubt they would have overturned it anyway. My point is that a player should signal his intention to give himself up by an established method, not be reliant on a referee reading his mind and deciding whether or not he intended to.
I think the officials were scared to take responsibility for the effects on Coughlin's brain of a turnover.
I know we all carp too much about commentators here but my goodness Mike Mayock is terrible. Just way too Joe NCAA for a weekly nationally televised NFL game.
I like how they had to return to the film of that last interception and grudgingly admit that maybe a pass that bounced off the receiver's fingertips at the top of his vertical leap might have been a hair too high.
Thanks for getting back to the game for the middle of the play, NFL Network.
I feel like all the good defensive plays the Bears made were lucky.
The offense played well though it turtled too much for how easily the Giants were driving.
The roughness penalty on the Cutler slide was ridiculous. You always put a couple hands on the slider to ensure he will be down. I don't think it made a difference to the outcome of the game, but yes, bad call.
That's absurd, at least in the first half the Bears were able to move the ball at will and executed quite well. Not so much in the second half but they still made some plays here and there and had a chance to put the game out of reach if Jeffery hadn't dropped in a well placed ball by Cutler late in the 4th.
The Bears weren't outstanding but much of the game their offense simply executed. Cutler made some excellent throws throughout the night.
Yeah, I feel about as pessimistic as I possibly could after a game in which the Bears won and did not turn the ball over, nor allow Cutler to get sacked once.
The offense: well, I'll give them credit for a clean and relatively mistake-free performance. I like seeing Cutler throw the ball away when a play isn't there rather than forcing it into double coverage. Still, this is not yet an offense that's capable of putting a team away. 7 second-half points in a relatively close game isn't good enough.
I'm also concerned about the playcalling. I don't see the wisdom of going for it on 4th and 2 at the beginning of the game, even if it had worked this time - especially after a turnover set you up in great field position. Take the near-guaranteed 3 points. (Tonight, that would have meant a comfortable lead as the Giants were driving down with 2 minutes to go, instead of the possibility of giving up a game-winner). I feel like Trestman is trying to be the anti-Lovie with these calls, and I like it to some extent but not this much.
The defense is just awful. Yes, they got the takeaways tonight, but Eli Manning is playing like Blaine Gabbert this season so that's not too impressive. What worries me is that the line can't stop the run (100 yards and 2 TDs to Brandon freaking Jacobs?), the secondary can't cover receivers, and nobody can tackle.
Hopefully the week and a half before the next game will help some guys get healthy and things will look better, but as it stands now, the Bears look to me like a team that will only have a chance at beating good teams if every single thing goes right...one mistake from Cutler, or a day where the defense doesn't take the ball away at crucial times, and forget it.
"I'm also concerned about the playcalling. I don't see the wisdom of going for it on 4th and 2 at the beginning of the game, even if it had worked this time - especially after a turnover set you up in great field position. Take the near-guaranteed 3 points. (Tonight, that would have meant a comfortable lead as the Giants were driving down with 2 minutes to go, instead of the possibility of giving up a game-winner)."
Probability-wise, it was almost certainly better idea to go for it. That is to say, the point differential that you would gain by going for it would be, on average, greater than by kicking a field goal.
Assuming that the game would go the same way if the Bears hadn't gone for it is utterly ridiculous, for obvious reasons.
"The defense is just awful. Yes, they got the takeaways tonight, but Eli Manning is playing like Blaine Gabbert this season so that's not too impressive. What worries me is that the line can't stop the run (100 yards and 2 TDs to Brandon freaking Jacobs?), the secondary can't cover receivers, and nobody can tackle."
The Bears' 3 best DTs were out (to be fair, 2 of them aren't coming back this season,) and I think that might be a reason why Brandon Jacobs was so successful. Peanut Tillman was out as well. Tackling is a correctable issue. Calm down.
I know Melton is out, but the pass-rush is virtually invisble. Peppers has hardly been sighted all year. McClellin has been poor (putting it mildly). Tucker needs to find a new trick apart from the Double-A gap blitz
The offense is far better than expected though. Bennett was great tonight and was probably the standout. Cutler's game was better than it looked at first glance. He had at least 3 scrambles that produced a solid gain or first down. The line is pass-blocking well, but the run-blocking is average. I would rather it be that way though
Special Teams (apart from Gould) have been terrible. DeCamillis is a huge downgrade on Toub. I don't feel comfortable at all with our kick coverage which was always a hallmark under Toub.
Has Jerry Richardson called Bill Cowher yet?
Lost in all the discussion of Randle "giving himself up" was a very weird call on a Bears' punt return. The Giants' gunner made a great play to dive under his block and submarine Hester, who came down hands-first. The ball came out, the Bears recovered it about 10 yards behind where Hester went down, then an extra 10 yards came off for an illegal block. What I don't understand is why it was ever ruled a fumble. The ball came out when Hester landed after being hit by an opposing player, so he should have been ruled down by contact. There was no possession change, so it's not a huge deal, but that drive did stall at the Giants' 44 (the first of three straight punts in Giants' territory), so the lost 10 yards certainly didn't help.
Perhaps some arcane passage in the rulebook allows the officials to bypass instant replay of a potential turnover if they call a penalty on the play.
If the ball came out before any body part other than his hands or feet hit the ground, he's not down whether touched by a defender or not.
Poor Adrian Peterson :(. Can't blame him if he doesn't want to play this week.
Hey guys, I wrote this 100% completely original blurb I want to submit as an extra point but I wanted some feedback first. Tell me what you think!
"Romo is the NFL’s best modern-day example of “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.” Nothing short of a Super Bowl MVP season would make detractors realize this is a really good quarterback on a not so good team. The problem is Romo can never be a Super Bowl MVP without a better team around him.We know Romo isn’t a caretaker. He has thrown for 300 yards a total of 40 times and has 48 games with a passer rating over 100.0 (minimum 15 attempts). His 7.94 yards per attempt is the seventh highest in NFL history.
Romo has seven straight seasons with a passer rating of at least 90.0 (minimum 200 attempts). Only Steve Young (1991-98) and Peyton Manning (2003-10) have ever done that. Romo’s 95.6 passer rating is fifth all time.In the one season Romo had a top 10 defense (2009), he won a playoff game. That’s probably not a coincidence. He’s historically productive, efficient, wins more than he loses and he has rare skills to buy time in the pocket and make big plays.
Tony Romo has the franchise record for most come from behind victories with 18. Yep, more than Aikman, Staubach and Meredith. Still not good enough, huh? How about this fact: Romo has the 2nd most 4th quarter comeback wins in the NFL since 2011 with 9! Only Eli Manning had more with 10. You want more? Romo has 9 game-winning drives (3rd behind Eli’s 11 and Matt Ryan’s 10) since 2011. This continues to be Romo’s problem. He’s good enough, often great even, to put Dallas in these positions to do something, but it just seems like the errors come when everyone’s watching."
Be sure join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for another season of real time football chat!
Instructions moved to a pastebin due to overzealous spam filter: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Qjf3ZzvE
Ravens trade for Eugene Monroe doesn't really help if their center Gradkowski is still a turnstile.
Bill Cowher in the Fox booth says NYJ "kicks it no brainer" fourth-and-one from the 2 yard line.
YES! Rivera goes for it on 4th down twice on the same drive in Minneapolis at it pays off! Good for him - maybe we're getting through to him.
Bills fail on 4th down at the goal line & Boomer goes off on not kicking. The word "momentum" is used. Then there's a detonation in Barnwell's house.
And then, of course, Cincy drives 98 yards for the TD. Thank God for Red Zone. Boomer will be on this all game. It'll be 45-17 & he'll still be on the momentum-shifting non-FG.
Don't forget he cherry picked a couple of failiures by ATL and CHI to "support" his point.
And now here's Red Zone guy (after BAL is stopped)--"We have two goal-line stands in the 1st half stopping teams on 4th down." But CAR scored on 4th down. And 7 points is more than 6. Unbelievable.
Tavon Austin is "quick as a hiccup" according to announcer. Hadn't heard that expression before.
Houston driving toward the end zone when Schaub throws complete to Hopkins, who then quickly fumbles the ball and the Rams return it to Houston's side of the field. First quarter ends with the Rams up 7-0 and driving towards a second score. Houston's inability to hold on to the ball, and force their own turnovers is killing them.
Do yourself a favor and go watch Gio Bernards TD to make it 17-7, Bengals. Fantastic bit of running after cathing a shovelpass.
Houston adds undisciplined play to their early season collapse. Tons of penalties and poor tackling just giving St. Louis more and more yards.
Ravens rushing offense is pathetic. A good stand by GB at the goal line. But the Ravens just can't run block. 4 runs from first and goal, turnover on downs. Horrible decision to go for it there. At least throw it if they want any chance to score.
Baltimore went for it on fourth and one on the one. They didn't get into the endzone partly because their O-line sucks at run blocking this year, but it was good to see them go for it.
To me, this is where you have to look past statistics and at the players on the field. At the very least, you could see that the Ravens had very little chance of getting the touchdown on the ground...Rice is averaging around 0.5 yard per carry in this game. If they were going to go for it, they should have called a play that had a prayer of working.
Which is not "looking past" statistics, but accounting for their context, which should always be done regardless of the situation.
Also when all you need is a yard a run always has "a prayer of working". An off tackle run may not be the perfect playcall, but it's almost never an unreasonable playcall.
I agree that considering statistics in context is a better way of putting it than looking past them. I just think that in the context of that particular decision, with the Ravens getting nothing done on offense but doing a good job of stopping the Packers, and with their running game being so pathetic today, it would have been better to kick the field goal and if they were to go for it, running the ball wasn't the way to do it.
Gee, I wonder if the Ravens could've used those 3 points later in the game? ;)
The 3 points they needed were the ones they gave away with 2 seconds left in the first half. A stupendously stupid play call by Brother John.
It is amazing how many people on ESPN, etc have talked about the Ravens bypassing the 3 and losing by 2. Yet they fail to mention how GB ended the game on the BAL 8 yard line. If playing the hypothetical Ravens kick the FG and get 3 more, then hypothetically GB kicks the game winning FG instead of kneeling on the ball
One can always argue about end-game situations, but giving up an easy three points to an opponent via a strip sack with 12 seconds left in the first half is about as idiotic as it gets.
Oops, duplicate post.
I mean, I agree that they may have considered other plays. Even with Baltimore sucking at running the football all year, I think that this is still one of those situations where going for it was still best. Once they failed, the Packers went three and out.
Really though, watching this game is interesting because Baltimore is the best defense that Denver has faced all season, so it's interesting to watch how well they're playing against the Packers.
There are times when I wonder if John Harbaugh knows anything about football.
This is the first time I've watched an entire half (well, almost) of Packers football, and is it just me or do they look like a thoroughly mediocre team on both sides of the ball? I realize they're plagued by injuries (and it's only gotten worse today), but this is not the team of the past few years.
I think the NFC North could go to any of GB/Chicago/Detroit this year. I don't see that any of them look particularly dominant.
They haven't looked that great on offense which is where we'd expect them to look good.
But, they've looked pretty good on defense to me, today.
I'm trying to figure out if the Ravens have been lucky or unlucky this game. Packers have recovered their 2 fumbles, and the Ravens lost their 1. Packers blocked a punt, and then touched the ball past the line of scrimmage and allowed the Ravens to recover. Each team has a dropped pick. Packers missed FG. Ravens turned it over on downs at the Packers 1, also punted into the endzone from the Packers 37. A weird mix of conservative and aggressive ineptitude.
And now the Ravens complete a 63 yard pass on fourth-and-21 after the covering safety falls down, with a TD on the following play.
Wauw the Rams - the RAMS! - are murdering the Texans 24-6. Is this season it for Kubiak?
31-6 after the Texans cough up a second fumble which the Rams take in for a TD.
31-6 now in Houston. ST turnover. Ugh.
*sigh* Vikings D makes every QB look good.
The Vikings pass protection and in particular its left tackle look horrible. 2 sacks now where the center left guard and left tackle are triple teaming the dt while the end and 1-2 linebackers get a free run at peterson and the qb.
I don't understand what is going on where the left tackle looks right when there are 3 or the 7 lineman/linebackers to his left. The line has been playing a lot of 4 on 4 on the right side and 1 on 3 on the left. Seems not smart.
Not that it matters the vikings are terrible regardless.
I was curious and looked at offensive DVOA by half, the Ravens are -31% in the first half and 1% in the second half. They looked every bit the 2nd worst offensive team in the league the first half.
So is Reggie Bush actually good or is it just a couple of higlights per game mixed with a lot of short runs and failed completions?
The overzealous and needless calls of hits to the QB head for incidental or non-existent contact is really ruining my enjoyment of the game. Have the same rules for all the players.
TJ Yates in for Schaub after Schaub is injured while being sacked. Yates' first two passes from 2nd and 16 are both just yards past the the line of scrimmage.
And then a 98-yard pick 6. He was the most popular man in Houston for about 4 minutes.
Ogletree 98 yard pick 6 in Houston. Ouch
A pick-6 in the Rams-Texans game. Yates gets picked and Ogletree takes it 98 yards.
5 games in a row with a pick-6 for the Texans.
T.J. Yates 98 yard pick six. (T.J) Yikes. 38-6, Beat the traffic-time for the fans at Reliant.
HOU with 395 yards & 13 points. Classic DVOA-friendly blowout loss.
4 turnovers and 5 sacks won't be very DVOA-friendly.
The Jags have really gotten a lot of pressure against Manning.
Denver's defense finally has Champ Bailey back and they still don't look that great considering how bad the Jags are on offense. Really, the Jags have moved the ball.
Still. The defense hasn't even really felt like it's slowed the Jags most of the time and the offense has been slowed more than usual as well.
As much as Champ has been phenomenal for most of his career, he has seriously declined over the last few years. It may be that he's still a high-caliber CB in the league and I have just been spoiled by his prior level of excellence. But I didn't expect his return to make a huge improvement. And that was before I saw that the Broncos' plan was to leave him alone against the Jaguars' most potent receiving threat. I think that may have been asking a bit too much of a guy his age who had missed as much time as he had.
If the Broncos' alarming pass defense deficiencies are still there after the bye week, after Champ and Von Miller each have a couple of games back, hopefully with Woodyard and to a lesser extent Ayers back in the swing of things, then I will be very concerned.
I tend to think that Denver's pass defense, when healthy, is more likely to be on the lower end of mediocre than this level of awful. But when your three best defensive players are suspended, injured, and recovering from a concussion (Miller, Woodyard and Harris, repsectively)in addition to other injuries (Ayers and probably others that I'm not thinking of right now) and rust concerns (Bailey) it would probably be weirder to not struggle. But that just might be homerism coming through.
It's worrisome to see Vickerson limp off the field and the announcers mentioned that DRC is injured. I believe that Woodyard and Ayers are out this game, but I was hoping that we were about to see the defense at full strength finally.
The Jags have put up a good game so far. They've forced a couple of three and outs. They've played pretty good defense and gave up a touchdown after going for it on fourth and failing on their own 26.
Even Denver's long 95 yard drive was aided by a personal foul penalty. We'd see three Denver punts if it weren't for that penalty.
Ah. The classic Patriots interference call.
Ok, at this point, I have to say that the Jags are now actually outplaying the Broncos.
Was about to go to bed. May have to stay awake for this one...
Wow. That defense is for real terrible. Denver has big problems there.
It's degenerated to the point over these past two weeks to the place where if Manning makes two mistakes in the same game, then it's going to be a Denver loss.
(The fact that we're talking like this about a game where the defense has actually only given up 12 points--since one touchdown was a pick-six--says worlds about the Jacksonville offense...)
I love going for it on fourth and short, but it's still astounding how well Jacksonville has played on defense against Denver to bring up this situation. Oh, and the drops have continued. Though, I sometimes wonder if that's partly a product of the focus on YAC.
That was an absolutely horrible unnecessary roughness call on the Saints. The defender put his shoulder onto the ball to break up the pass. The defender purposely lead with his shoulder, not the helmet. That's exactly how defense should be played.
Then a few plays later, a Saints defender leads with his helmet and hits Amedola on the side of his helmet. It looks like Amedola blacks out, he drops the ball and doesn't try and break his fall. I'll be shocked if he's not concussed. Of course, no flag.
That was a vicious hit, but if I remember the play correctly, by the time of contact Amedola had been running after the catch for at least 10 yards, and so the defenseless receiver rules do not apply. He's just like any other runner at that point. I may be wrong with my memory, though. Anyone?
Think the problem was helmet-to-helmet, not defenseless receiver.
Ah, that makes more sense.
The defender didn't make contact with the helmet, did he? I seem to recall it was shoulder, and Amendola ducked into the hit.
Yeah the handoff to the DB option may not be the right play for a 2-point conversion, ARZ
Still a couple of minutes left in Q3 in SF while they're walking off the field in SEA
Pats have 1st down inside the 10. Three rushing plays and a FG. Who's the QB again?
It's weird to think that after opponent adjustments, I can't help but wonder if a 16 point Broncos win might have a negative DVOA.
Crosby with 4 FG's, Stills with a big TD, Vince Young with a cheeky tweet. Is Zach Nash still in the league?
How does DVOA feel about a field goal attempt that goes back for a TD the other way? I'm a little concerned that the Seahawks are making a habit out of that one.
I think that missed field goals are fairly likely to be returned for a TD if they're fielded based on the nature of the play without gunners or anything like that that a punt would normally have. But, I also doubt that DVOA tracks them.
I know the receivers are crap, but really, Brady, that was a horrible decision and a horrible pass on 1st down. You have over two minutes left in the game. Forcing a pass downfield into tight coverage? Terrible idea.
And even that understates it.
The Pats' game-winning drive is a huge, huge, huge step forward for this offense.
How so? I agree it was a good drive, but it followed two drives that were terrible (4 and out; 1st down interception). It's great that they succeeded on the 3rd attempt, but I would argue that the game-winning drive is a huge statement by the NE defense that offered them a third crack at it, not a step forward for an offense who hit .333 (great for baseball, not so great for a 4th quarter drive percentage).
And Belichick shows why you should take your timeouts before the two minute warning.
OK, Thompkins has earned his paycheck for the week. But I have to wonder how Aaron Dobson will make the team next season. I've never seen a receiver have so much problem holding onto the ball.
Maybe he should switch to playing in the secondary?
I remember some guy named Jerry Rice's rookie year when dropped a lot of balls. The 49ers cut him the the next season and nobody heard from him again.
I don't remember Jerry Rice's rookie year.
I do remember Randy Moss's rookie year.
And I don't remember either of them looking half as bad as Dobson has this season.
Most people who drop a bunch of passes don't turn out to be Jerry Rice. And most patent clerks don't turn out to be Albert Einstein.
For the month of October, my home team should refer to itself as the Carolina Pink Panthers.
I don't understand the Saints' decision to return the last kickoff. (Surprised New England kicked it into the end zone.)
With 5 seconds left, your two options are 1) 80-yard pass play, and 2) 100-yard kickoff return. I'd take the touchback and give it to Brees every time.
Really? How many 80 yards Hail Marys have their ever been? A return TD seems more likely to me. I'm sure someone knows the actual numbers…
I'm not a good stats hunter, but I do know that Brees is pretty good at throwing the long ones.
I haven't found a list of his TD passes and their length but, in 2012, 6.4% of his passes were touchdowns. In 2012, the Saints returned 0 of 51 kickoffs for touchdowns.
(In 2012, the entire NFL returned 13 of 1254 kickoffs for touchdowns. Around 1%)
I don't think that anybody would suggest that a kickoff return is that particularly likely.
80 yard hail marys are also incredibly rare.
Personally, I think that the odds are lower than 1% and I think that who throws the hail mary isn't all that relevant. That Jimmy Graham would have been in the endzone to try to catch the ball is more relevant, but either way, I think that the chances are so low that it doesn't matter much which decision they made. It's certainly something that I wouldn't criticize them for.
Since 1999? 5.
The only one that occurred in true Hail Mary circumstances (last 30 seconds of a half), was this one:
So teams are 1 for 1 when they bounce a 30-yard out of two DBs, to a wide open Brandon Stokley.
There's no easy way to track attempts on this sort of thing, but I can sort of approximate it.
Since 1999, there have been 365 attempts for a team trailing, in an end-of-half situation, with a drive starting with 30 seconds left of less. The net result is 0 TDs and 3 FGs.
Run it out.
Thanks for the links. I'd still take the touchback, though. I'm pretty dumb.
Granted, both options are desperation plays, but I'm seeing it more as a yards-after-catch scenario.
With a kickoff return from the end zone you have, obviously, 100 yards to go after your man has the ball.
With a scrimmage play from the 20, you have fewer yards (duh) but also, it seems, a better chance to coordinate the play.
There's no requirement that the ball has to travel all 80 yards in the air. One scenario would be the defense having one or two down linemen and putting everybody else way back to guard the goal line. In that case, Brees and the receivers have lots of time. Throw the ball thirty or so yards and set up a screen from there. Now, your man only has to travel half the distance the kickoff return requires.
Perhaps your opponent's coach is an idiot and calls up an eight-man blitz. In this game, the opponent was Belichick, but maybe he gets hit on the head...
The odds are you're going to lose the game. It just seems that you have more control and better options with a play from scrimmage.
It's not the punt return TD. It's the amateurish illegal motion penalty that negates the first punt.
I mean, you're in the NFL. Don't commit a pre-snap penalty on a punt. Chrissakes.
Why did Redskins just let the clock run for fifteen seconds instead of using one of their two time outs?
Now they have two time outs left with 9 seconds left in the half.
Not enough reps in pre-season?
The play before that one, where they let the entire play clock run out trying to get back to the line before calling their first time out, was even more egregious. Horrible clock management there.
Also RGIII's accuracy looked off for the entire game, has anyone watched enough Washington football this year to tell if that's been typical?
Brett Favre would like to report that he's healthier than he's ever been but that doesn't mean he's coming back, and thank you so much NFL.com for putting that in your website newsfeed. Since there's not any, you know, game reporting to do on Sunday.
NFL fandom doth collectively say: ugh.
Headline on nfl.com after the SNF game:
"No Apologies Necessary: Romo rebounded from widespread criticism to lead the Cowboys to a crucial win on Sunday night."
So let me get this straight. Romo goes 18/30 for 170 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT against the 24th ranked pass defense by yards (25th by DVOA). And he is hailed for "rebounding" following one of the greatest quarterback performances ever seen.
What is wrong with America.
Obviously you don't understand that success in football is determined almost entirely (about 99.45% to be precise) by how much a quarterback is "clutch".
He lost, obviously he did badly, I mean he lost. LOST.
This week he won. Clearly he rebounded, I mean one is a loss, and the other a win. It's not any simpler then that.
I'm not serious, but false narrative creation is rampant. I keep thinking about last years AFC title game and what the story would be if you replaced the name "Peyton Manning" with "Tony Romo". The only thing that'd be brought up repeatedly wouldn't be the blown coverages or the huge Raven's pass plays, it'd be the terrible interception thrown at the end of the first overtime on his own side of the field that virtually handed the Ravens the game. I doubt we'd hear the end of it (or even the interception Manning threw in the Dallas game that allowed them to get closer in the first place).
I almost feel bad for Romo (as much as you can for an apparently healthy, well paid football player), and I'd prefer to not be put into the position to feel bad for a Cowboy (as a 49er fan).
Manning has a Super Bowl win, which, as we all know, invalidates any criticism. Prior to that, however, "Manning chokes in big games" was said many times.
Romo is an extreme case, but this certainly does happen to Manning. There were all kinds of morons calling Manning a choker only winning one Superbowl.
It's not that it doesn't happen to Manning (or really any great qb) it's that the talking point from that point forever forward would be the pick had it been Romo that had thrown it, and not the other story lines from the game.
Midway through the 4th qtr in KC, the Raiders had a 1st down at the 50. Two penalties & two bad sacks (-11 yds & -12 yds) later they faced 3rd and 48 at their own 12. Has anyone EVER faced 3rd and 48 before in NFL history?
Redskins had one last year.
OK, Colts vs. Chargers.
Coming into this game, I was starting to think that the Colts might be considered a top team in the AFC, perhaps better than the Broncos, Chiefs, and Patriots. Certainly their victories over the 49ers and Seahawks have been impressive.
And yet, there is a huge danger of them overlooking the Chargers in anticipation of their game against the Broncos. Are they falling into the trap?
Colts v Chargers much better with sound off. Gruden is intolerable.
Rivers looks sharp.
Yes! I can't stand Jon Gruden. In general, I find myself leaving most games at nearly-mute anymore. I don't know if the quality of announcing has dropped lately or it's always been this bad and it's only now starting to bug me, but I'm more often mad at the announcers than the refs!
In my book, Gruden is also joined by Troy Aikman, Dan Dierdorf (disliked for decades now), Phil Simms, and Joe "Yes, my voice is naturally this low, why do you ask?" Buck.
I think the networks are just married to the idea of giving booth analyst jobs to successful former players/coaches (why Mike %^&* Martz makes the cut is beyond me) when that's not really a natural transition. Being able to say something insightful (and not pedantic), repeatedly, throughout a game is very difficult. For every Chris Collinsworth-level success at the task there are three examples of Phil Simms-or-worse.
I wish they'd open up the draft list here and try to find people who are good at that job — not those who used to be good at other football jobs. Even those who had modest professional success (not even as much as Collinsworth) should be considered, as well as (the horror!) sports journalists who never made it past college as players. We don't tune in to hear the commentary and are instead generally suffering through it anyway. So why pay Aikman enough money to get his attention, only to have him stink up the booth?
Impressive game by the Chargers, esp. on defense.
Looks like the Colts did fall into the trap of looking one week ahead. The Chargers are a good enough team that they cannot be taken lightly.
Yeah. The Colts just didn't look sharp at all on either side of the ball. To San Diego's credit, they allowed the Colts to self destruct and didn't make any stupid mistakes that let them back into the game
Funny how the same media who gives Luck all the credit for his team's wins decide to blame his receivers instead in a team loss. Isn't winning or not winning in football only about what the quarterback does?
Jest aside, the Colts receivers *did* have their drops, but Luck wasn't always on-point with his passing touch and accuracy.
More information about formatting options
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // site design by B:COMPLEX Creative :: site architecture by Grossmont Designs // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties