Talk amongst yourselves
06 Nov 2011
Here's your place to discuss all the Week 9 NFL games.
Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 06 Nov 2011
152 replies , Last at
08 Nov 2011, 2:56am by
I predict the chargers will get destroyed today. Something like 38-13.
I think San Diego has an excellent chance to knock off the Packers.
I get nervous before every Packers game. And I can't even watch it this week as I live in St Louis and they have a late game in Arizona.
Charley Casserly just had a beautiful Freudian slip, saying "Tony Homo" during the CBS pre-game show.
I expect this to become a Browns - Texans shoot out. Something like 46-32.
Also, Lagarret Blount (?) hurdle sighting.
Is it just me, or are almost all kickers nailing 50 yards field goals these days? A couple of seasons ago 50+ yarders were a coin flip. Now it seems routine.
If they start HGH testing, one of these guys will get caught first.
Seattle's kicker hit a 45 yarder so hard it went in in spite of being partially blocked.
Gano 59yds in Fedex ...
In most positions, I'd be suspicious. However, there have been a couple of fundamental changes to the position in the last couple of decades.
Starting in the 70s, we saw the boom of soccer-style kickers, who were more accurate at the same distance than the old straight-ahead kickers. Thus, the likelihood of any field goal being made went up, just because trajectory became more reliable.
Those early soccer style kickers tended to be shrimps, like Garo Yepremian. Modern kickers tend to be bigger guys -- almost linebacker-sized (or larger!). Most kickers today go 6', 200lb or so, and Sebastian Janikowski is 6'2", 250lb (6 inches and 75 lb larger than Yepremian). Punters are even larger. Michael Koenen, at 5'11", 195 lb is the smallest starting punter in the league. Kickers are kicking farther because they're just bigger and stronger -- but it's not just weight they are putting on -- they are taller as well. But since the ball hasn't gotten heavier, they are delivering more momentum on a kick, and kicking with a style than is more accurate than before the rise of shrimpy, soccer-style Euro-kickers.
What happened to conclusive video evidence? Hochuli just overturned a pick in the Jets-Bills game, and none of the shots conclusively showed the ball hitting the ground.
They should completely get rid of instant replay.
It serves no purpose other than annoyingly slowing the game down. And each season they try to fix something which is a broken idea that will never work.
I am not only talking about this "indisputable visual evidence" thing for which each ref has a different interpretation. Or making some plays available for replay and others not.
I think the simple availability of the replay option influences the decision the refs make (which it shouldn't). So, if you know a play could be challenged you could make a different call on a play. I think this situation worsened this season with scoring plays, which all may be reviewed. Has anybody ever did some studies on this? Psychological aspect of replay on refs?
It gives the fans, players and coaches the idea/satisfaction that the call is the correct one. So if you lose, you can't blame it on the refs. There is no referee replay in soccer and it annoys the hell out of the fans, especially when the ref made a mistake.
I'm happy the NFL has replay. There will always be something to complain about, but I'm glad it's there because I know what the alternative is.
Agree. You need to be a soccer fan to truly appriciate the value of instant replay.
sorry, I live in Europe too, and in 30 years I have yet to see or remember an important game or championship in soccer decided on a crappy (well, Germans could start talking about the Wembley goal :D ... on which they couldn't get conclusive evidence for decades) referee call.
I do remember a ton of funny/spectacular/strange plays which decided games, but no blown calls have really persisted.
Honestly, it evens out, and - as in life - you gotta be able to deal with the fact that it will never be fair or simple.
And they have screwed up correct calls using replay ...
Well Maradonna comes to mind.
You don't remember France advancing to the World Cup because of a missed hand ball (well two actually)?
For a European to say that it evens out means that you must support a top class football (soccer) team. Many basic statistical studies have shown inequalities in almost all aspects of decisions going for/against top sides always in their favour. Video replay would enhance football (soccer) enormously. The way they should enforce it is to have one referee watching the action and them be able to contact the referee on his earpiece. No stops in the game, just if the guy in the box can see an error he speaks to the referee they call the play back.
In the last World Cup cycle alone, there was France's double-dribble (such an egregious touching foul it would have been illegal in the NBA!) in the qualifier against Ireland, England's non-goal against Germany, a rash of woefully incorrect off-sides calls on goals (usually benefiting USA's opponent), and a couple of incorrectly awarded/non-awarded corner kicks.
In a sport as low-scoring as FIFA soccer, the effect of incorrect calls is magnified, because there isn't the volume of scoring with which to wash out a bad call or two.
Ok, maybe for (non-)penalties, but I would argue from watching World Cups and the English Premier League that offside is a much bigger problem, and not one particularly amenable to instant replay.
Let the game play, if it's a goal you check for offside afterwards.
As they do it now, they whistle it dead if there's any sign of offside and many scoring chances are taken away by mistake. Replay would solve that.
I totally agree with you in point 22, it's such a simple solution.
If they start doing that, I will find better sports to watch.
How would that make the sport worse to watch?
I watch soccer to enjoy a sport in the moment. It doesn't hold the intellectual appeal for me that football does, but college football is pretty unwatchable at the moment.
Also, how much of the game can be rolled back after an offside? I can't think of any rule without some undesirable consequences.
Presumably as far as it needs to be. They show the tv replays about 5 seconds max after the incident occurs. I can't think of the undeisrable consequences this rule would create?
Only when it's a goal, you check if the deciding pass was an offside pass.
Hockey rolls it all the way back.
I also think soccer refs should have to explain their calls to the crowd like American Football refs. I would like to have heard what the Malian ref had to say about the foul called taking away the US's goal against Slovenia.
There are many reasons soccer referees ought to be mic'd up. This is one of them. So many time I've seen perfectly good tackles penalised as fouls (Rodwell vs. Liverpool) where as a player my question would have been "what was wrong with that?"
FIFA, of course, would never allow it. It's far too progressive.
So bribe them. It's the usual method of getting your way with FIFA.
Imagine yourself back in 1930.
Hi, welcome to the world of the FIFA.
Speaking of offsides, why is that a rule? As best I can tell, it's only purpose is to eliminate spectacular goals in a ticky-tack fashion. It's obviously to prevent some degenerate case, like the shot clock in basketball is to eliminate the 4 corners offense. But I've never been able to come up with anything that breaks the game of soccer badly enough to need the rule.
I can see the point of a rule that you can't go into either box before the ball does, so you can't camp out on top of the goalie. But other than that, the rule seems to just let the teams compact all the players, reducing free space and shutting the offenses down. Remove 2 players from each side who are staying deep, and the game opens up.
Here's the longest/most complete history I (meaning Google) can find. Or there's wikipedia.
If you want the short version: well, much to my surprise, the reason isn't that "the long ball game sucks". Apparently, soccer's offside rule is (surprise?) a relic of the days when the forward pass was banned. So, um, soccer's continued maintaining this rule makes about as much sense as football coaches who continue to insist on "3 yards and a cloud of dust" and "run the ball to win".
That said, modern antipathy (mentioned above) against cherry-picking and the long-ball game has created another excuse to keep it, in the name of preventing "cheap" goals from some guy hanging around the box.
(As a soccer ref, I think the rule is mainly kept to make it look like soccer refs actually have a difficult job to do: on the whole the rules are hugely straightforwards compared to any other sport I know of.)
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
The same reason they have icing/offsides in hockey. Without the rule the optimal strategy is to always leave at least one man deep in enemy territory and fire it down there every chance you get. It makes for an extremely boring game. All the subtly is gone.
Hockey's offsides rule is zone-based, though, not man-to-man. Soccer's offsides is more like hockey's defunct two-line pass.
In soccer it is also semi-line based. You cannot get an offsides on your half of the field.
I was in favor of replay when it came out, but now I think it's a bad idea. I really don't think it's worth getting all of the calls "right" in exchange for getting blue-balled as a fan almost every time a big play happens.
I find myself frustrated with the lack of instant replay in sports that don't have it (i.e. baseball) far more often than I find myself frustrated with slowdowns in football.
I'd much rather have the right call than have the game end two minutes earlier.
Excuse me, but what game were you watching? The ball was very clearly on the ground and moving. A very easy call to overturn.
Gano hits a 59-yarder as time exspires in the first half. Franchise record.
Jets being held back by stupid mistakes today. If they could eliminate them this wouldn't be close.
As a lifelong Jets fan, that's like saying if the Jets could grow gills they'd be able to stay underwater indefinitely.
Also as a lifelong Jets fan I typed that to keep my sanity, this game is killing me.
Bent? Is that you? :-)
:-) unfortunately no.
Any stupidity they may have committed on the field pales in comparison to the fact that they actually let Keller back on the field after that obvious first-half concussion.
And Lagarrett Blount gets a 15 yrd penalty for punching a Saint - stunned.
play was over, everyone is standing around talking - he pushes/punches the lineman in the facemask
I would imagine Saints players are used to being punched by opposing players without repercussion this season.
Or does that only extend to Charles Woodson?
it was more a push than a punch btw
It's almost like he has a reputation for doing things like that.
53 yard reception to Stevie Johnson over Revis.
He'll give those up once or twice a year.
It would be interesting to see some mid-season game chating. My impression has been that Revies is fully back t Revis island mode after being a little off last year due to the holdout and a hammy.
Agree, he looked good all game today until the Johnson reception, I only posted it because I was surprised.
Revis' QB Rating against when thrown at going into this game: two point nine.
Where are those numbers from?
That's amazing. It shows how good you are when it is a shock that someone makes a play against you, and that stat emphasises it better than I can.
Lions DEF on bye. Bears play the Eagles. Probably a good idea to pick up the defense that's playing the Dolphins, right? No: -1 points ATM.
Well I thought as the Giants were playing the Patriots I'd better play another Defense. Chose the Raiders as they were playing Tebow. Got rewarded with -4 points.
Plaxico Burress is playing spectacularly today.
Announcer mistakes a reverse for an end around.
Is that advanced reversed sarcasm?
Can someone explain me the difference? I missed the memo...
Reverse: runningback gets ball hands off to a receiver.
End around: fake to the running back (optional although I never see it without), QB hands off to a receiver.
You see the fake-less version on Wildcat plays.
Boggled that the Bills didn't try a hard count or QB sneak on 4th and inches. Happy, but still surprised.
Incredibly unexciting early slate. Multiple-score games all around.
In addition to keeping up with the revitalized, vibrant open thread, join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters for IRC football chat! Point your favorite IRC client to bendenweyr.dyndns.org, channel #fo
Or for a web-based solution, just use this mibbit link: http://chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23fo&server=bendenweyr.dyndns.org
Jets SPANKING the 3rd ranked Bills (by DVOA).
Whats the all-time record for single game team DVOA?
1999 = Pittsburg over Cleveland 43-0 for 145.6% DVOA
If I remember correctly, that was the new Cleveland franchise's first game.
Bucs kicking the ball to the Saints with around five minutes left, and somehow end up calling their first timeout 4 seconds after the two minute warning.
Yeah those last 5 minutes (after their TD) went fast for the Bucs.
So Chris Johnson increases his rushing average on his fist carry of the game . . . a three yarder.
"America's" game of the week...
GB decides to put emphasis on the short middle and cover it with 3 guys, Rivers throws deep to Jackson for 6 points.
The Bills are who we thought they were. Without getting 4 interceptions, they can't beat any team with a good defense.
The 4-INT game, of course was against the Patriots, who are sitting pretty at 28th in Defensive DVOA.
The Jets are who we thought they were. Without getting the ball spotted on the 1 by the refs, they can't score an offensive TD.
Hey now, they did have that ONE TD that wasn't set up by a PI call... Seriously though, they definitely didn't look bad on offense. Apart from some baffling miscues in the first half, they moved the ball at will up and down the field.
Giants/Patriots has turned into an unexpected defensive struggle. 5 punts, 3 first downs between the two teams. The Giants seem intent on beating the Patriots by running the ball, which doesn't seem like a great strategy.
Rivers has thrown 3 TDs already. 1 for his team, 2 for the Packers. 1:52 left in the first quarter.
Great coverage and great read by the packers.
Well, Rivers has now thrown 2 pick-6s. The first was just bad tip luck, the last one just now was just a bad decision and good db read. 21-7.
The graphic showed that it was the 800th review.
My God Tebow is horrible.
Even though the GB OL seems leaky enough to put the blame for sacks on them, can't really shake the feeling one or two of these sacks could/should have been avoided by Rodgers. On the other hand, when he ain't getting sacked he's getting it done... I'll take it.
Sometimes taking a sack, is better than forcing it.
Best drive of Tebows pro career. Pretty, accurate, quickrelease deep passes with one nice scrable sprinkled in. Very nice.
(And I'm a hater)
Chargers getting good pressure and consistently good coverage. Rodgers scoffs, puts on his cape and starts throwing guys open.
Bradys turnover festival in Foxboro makes it clear to everyone that there's only one choice for MVP.
Those two to Finley were just... he couldn't have been off by a degree. Had to be that angle, at that release point, with that strength behind the ball.
Back-to-back John Skelton safeties. Yikes.
Replacement level sure is a low bar.
That has to be the strangest possible way to get 13 points.
Well, maybe if you swapped two of the figgies for a no XP TD...
Aaron Ross deserves a KCW nomination for that muffed punt.
I'd like to see the stats for the Green Bay D on third-and-long. Can't be good...
This Giants-Patriots game should be sponsored by Pepperidge Farms. Every time I look there's another turnover.
Rodgers: Better now than anyone ever.
If you take Rodgers' last 12 games (going back to wild card round last year) he can match any 12-game streak of any QB ever.
And it's not even the stats. His WRs have just as much average YAC as anyone else on the Brady/Welker routes, he's going downfield more than anyone else ever and he doesn't have the Randy Moss double-covered 50 yard safety valve.
Rodgers is the best QB ever.
As the Danish announcer quite eloquently (sp?) put it: He's the best ever. To be the greatest ever he needs more volume.
My slightly nerdy way of thinking about it is that the slope of Rodgers' total-career-QB-value-function is steeper than we've ever seen before.
If you took Rodgers off the Packers....
would they be a winless team?
No Flynn is good enough to win a few games.
Which would be an argument for Peyton. The Colts sans Peyton are worse than the Packers sans Rodgers. Thus, what he does he does with less.
I would submit to you the correct conclusion is not that Rodgers is the best (qb) ever, but that this 2011 Packers have the best passing offense ever. Its not just him, its the combination of him and the players he has emerged with to run the offense like this.
Err, the point was Matt Flynn is good enough that the Packers wouldn't be winless. If Curtis Painter was the backup Packers QB, they would probably be just as bad as the Colts.
I think you're over-estimating the Colts. They are bad on a historic level.
They have a legitimate shot at not just worst total DVOA ever, but finishing dead last in DVOA in all three phases, something no team has even come close to. Even the 08 Lions and 05 49ers were average on ST.
The Colts are far worse than either of those teams defensively and on special teams; only their offense has held them up from worst ever. Don't expect today's effort to help.
All it means is that Matt Flynn is a better QB than Curtis Painter.
That works both ways, though; if you put Peyton in his prime on the 2011 Colts they would not be 9-0.
(Rodgers may be having a historically great season, but even as an unrepentant Packers fan, I'm not putting him in Canton just yet.)
In a non-era adjusted way. It's worth remembering he's spent his entire career in the most QB-friendly era in NFL history, much of it thanks to Statue Brady's glass knee and handsome contract.
Vincent Jackson seals my fantasy-fate.
If the Chargers actually make this comeback... I mean... baffling...
Still. Only one TD in.
Nice kick coverage - or Woodson should have just sprinted towards the sideline.
And right as we're hyping Rodgers GB goes three-and-out in a high-leverage spot.
If there is such a thing as momentum, SD has it.
You're forgetting it was only 3 and out because of Jennings' drop 15-20 yards downfield.
What a terrible PI call on Woodson. Just awful.
He's looking back for the ball, guy in front of him stops, and in doing so guarantees that he has no chance to catch it... I can see how it got called, but it was just plain wrong.
Not that this one was, but what if it had been a comeback route and the receiver stopped for that?
Then Wood wouldn't have been looking at the ball over his head, Instead he would have played the ball on the comeback rout.
All I'm saying it would be difficult to make a rule so that a stop by a receiver would make it a non-PI situation.
Might have been hard to see in real time, but on replay it seemed clear that Gates actually interfered with Woodson. I am sure the refs weren't watching the two of them the whole way, though, and if you only caught the aftermath of the collision and both guys falling down, it would seem likely that Woodson was to blame.
Tom Brady loves him some TQBR.
Tebow kneel-down to end the game brings his yards per carry below 11. Heartbreaking.
My Tebow-loving friends are already proclaiming that this win puts paid to the haters. I don't have the heart to point out that the Fearless Leader didn't even manage 250 yards of offense, so I'm complaining about irrationality on an internet message board instead.
To be fair, 35 plays for 230 yards (6.57 ypp), 2 TDs, and no turnovers isn't a bad day.
Moreover, given what research has shown about running QBs impact on their RBs, I think Tebow should get some credit for McGahee's 163 at 8.6 a pop rushing day.
There is no middle road in opinions on Tebow - he's Great or he Sucks.
There seems to be no "Meh, he's Matt Leinart now, but let's see at the end of the year after he had more than just a few games" camp.
Actually, Theo, I'd guess I'm in that camp. At least he made a couple of throws this week that looked like nice passes on the highlight reels. But he is no way good enough to start long term yet, and may very well never be. Being a European fan with no attachment to him for social or college reasons might help me be a bit more objective. Listening to games on internet radio, and not seeing much past the highlights makes it harder to judge completely for myself though.
Still, if I'm are going to support a team going through a low expectations season at least he makes it interesting and means there is plenty of articles for me to read about them :D (though excepting here at FO I'm avoiding comments threads...)
I've argued strenuously against the pronouncements of doom, but I also don't think "He's Great".
But I did think he showed improvement today, and what's more, I also believed before the game we had reason to expect improvement from him. Which for some reason put me in crazy cult land. I also think there's good reason to believe he'll improve further, simply because he's a young quarterback adjusting to the speed of the game.
Those zone-option-reads, whatever they're called, they were pretty to watch. I haven't seen him choose to keep the ball on any of those before this week.
This s a very measured response. While I think the hype over Tebow was very off-putting, he's not a total disaster. He certainly looked better today (from what I saw) than the previous two weeks. The Matt Leinart description is pretty good, in that they're both lefties and about the same level of overall quality at this point in their careers (though Leinart might have started a bit hotter, I don't remember). They get to that level of quality in different ways, of course; Leinart the more accurate passer, Tebow more of a runner. Both have relatively weak arms, and non-textbook mechanics, from what I've seen.
However, you certainly seemed over-the-top in your Tebow praise last week, tunesmith. I recall you saying he made more good plays than bad, which was far from the objective truth. He had a bad game last week, I don't see any way around that.
He certainly can get better. I'm not convinced he'll ever be a solid plus-QB, but I definitely can see him becoming a serviceable starter, albeit one who teams wouldn't hesitate to replace if a better opportunity came around (like Kyle Orton).
Well... for the record, I said I saw more good than bad in the first half, not the entire game. I didn't take notes on the second half because the game was basically over by then, but I did watch it later and yes, I think Tebow played a much worse second half than first half.
And for what it's worth, I saw a couple of other analysis/breakdowns on his first half, one of which blamed a couple of plays on Tebow rather than the WRs, so I'll admit it's a bit subjective when we don't have All-22 or pre-knowledge of the play calls. I did, however, believe that he improved from the Miami game and I know I'm not alone in that opinion (at least, John Fox also agreed with that even if Elway didn't).
Tebow was as bad as ever, he just made a couple of throws and some nice scrambles - I don't think anyone reckons he can't make ANY throws, and we all knew about the scrambles.
What I think happened was the Raiders D gameplan was far, far too naive - thinking they could just throw bodies at him left, right and centre and that Tebow would hand them the game. Well they blow a couple of coverages, overpursue and completely forget their running lane assignments, mix the usual quota of stupid penalties (I see Curry has already mastered that part of the defensive gameplan) and you've get smashed in the second half. Especially as the Raiders running game mysteriously disappeared - Bush showing he can't carry the load the whole game? Didn't help the run-D that McClain was out and I wondered if Huff was feeling the injury that had him questionable all week.
Very, very disappointing game for the silver & black. Thats two in a row they would mentally have chalked up as probable wins, that they've blown and right now they'll be lucky to finish 8-8, never mind mortgage their future for one shot at the playoffs.
And why was DHB on the sideline all game? Jackson says it was because the offensive packages didnt fit him as much - he's your leading WR - you're not exactly tearing it up on offense - WHY are you not calling the packages with him involved?
I'm so tired of watching shitty QB get bailed out by pass interference calls.
*shitty QB play
Agreed. When it becomes a valid desperation strategy to simply heave the ball in the direction of a guy who's (double) covered and hope the referees throw a flag, there's something wrong with the rule.
I don't know how to fix it, but there's definitely something wrong with it.
Also, OPI should be yards and loss of down. There's a huge imbalance in the penalties for what is basically the same foul.
This, a thousand times this. I still can't fathom why Arrington got called for it when the ball HIT HIM IN THE GODDAMNED HEAD while he and Cruz (?) were running downfield.
Refs also seem to be ignoring the 'catchable ball' portion of the rule - most egregious in the GB game though I forget who.
It only hit him in the head because he plowed into the receiver without looking back for the ball. That would have been PI in pee-wee football.
I'm officially 100% worried about the Packers pass defense.
It seems to me that I somewhat reluctantly understand you for 90% there, I think.
I sense your worry.
As a Vikings fan in 1998... which, while I admit had a great offense I don't think was quite as efficient as what we're seeing here....
After a time the offense was so good that it resulted in an almost lassitude in the defense. Why bother if the offense always bails you out? The defense lived on the other team being forced to take chances to keep up, which gave opportunities for turnovers... but all this masked the fact that they weren't playing very good.
And when it finally mattered... it came back to bite them.
I'm not sure if that is what we're seeing here.. but it seems similar....
I don't know who is directing this SNF game but they're zooming the cable cam into the QB most snaps and it's pissing me off. GTFO here.
When the Ravens started their last drive on their own 8, I said that I couldn't see Flacco going 92 yards against the Steeler defense. I was wrong, and I tip my cap to the Ravens.
They never showed the replay of the last touchdown on the big board at Heinz Field.
That was a mighty nice drive. Tactically speaking, it wouldn't have been a terrible idea for Tomlin to call timeout there with the clock stopped at 16 seconds (or earlier) and tell his corners to grab a handful of jersey if the receiver dekes him (it's not as if they hadn't employed this tactic on a number of other occasions). The 5 yards and the new set of downs weren't particularly relevant at that point.
Not happy with the incomplete pass - that would have been short for a first down anyway - just before the delay of game that happened before the not-field-goal-turned-into-a-punt by the Steelers.
Did I cover all of it over there? Yeah that's about it.
Feels like Forte is trying to show up McCoy...
There's just something about Vick and the Bears... I still remember the 06 match-up where Rex Grossman came back from injury to spell Orton and lead a Bears comeback which included the best/worst third-down convrsion ever: Sexy Rexy throws a pick right to a Falcon's numbers, who then procedes to get the ball stripped and give the Bears a new set of downs... all this at the goal line...
Phil Simms is to analysts what Ryan Leaf is to NFL QBs
That was in 2005, and it wasn't a Bears comeback - they led the whole way.
As for this game, I have never seen a final two minutes of a first half anything quite like this.
Can the Eagles afford to lose this game? They may be dropping so many games that no late-season streak will be able to save their season.
I have a theory on Roy Williams.
He can only catch passes when he can look back towards the QB and watch the ball coming to him.
Earl Bennett had a nice day. Five targets (six if you count an OPI against him), five catches, five first downs, 95 yards, and a TD. His lone run was a three-yard gain on second and 17, though.
Great game. Earl Bennett made a huge difference in his return from injury. The Bears are now in great shape in the wild card race, having already defeated 3 other competitors in the Falcons, Bucs and Eagles. If the Bears beat the Lions this Sunday to go to 6-3, they will have a clear path to one of the wild card spots and may even beat out the Lions for the #5 seed, as they will be tied (and will have split the season series). The Bears schedule is much easier than the Lions' schedule down the stretch. The Lions still play the Packers twice (the Bears play them once) and also have to play at New Orleans. It may come down to whether or not the Packers rest starters in Week 16 (at home against the Bears) and/or Week 17 (at home against the Lions).
I'm sure Giants fans also enjoyed this outcome.
I'm a little giddy right now, but one more thought. Outside of Cutler's accuracy totally leaving him at the end of the first half, for reasons unknown, he was incredible tonight.
Also, the Bear's offensive line probably had it's best game since about 2006. I think that Mike Tice guy might know what he is doing.
Here's a funny stat, if the announcers are to be believed, this is only Cutler's 2nd game as a Bear where he wasn't sacked.
Yikes. In his last year in Denver (2008), he had more than double that many sackless games. I don't know the exact count since I haven't looked at the game logs, but he was sacked 11 times in 16 games so there must have been at least 5 of them.
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // site design by B:COMPLEX Creative :: site architecture by Grossmont Designs // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties