by FooBarFooFoo (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:45pm
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.
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 10:01am
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.
by sdlafjksdlf (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:00pm
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.
by FooBarFooFoo (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:16pm
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.
by FooBarFooFoo (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:37pm
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 ...
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.
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 10:06am
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.
by sdlafjksdlf (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:50pm
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.
by sdlafjksdlf (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:19pm
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.
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?
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.
by ndunning (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 7:31pm
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
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 12:36am
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.
by sdlafjksdlf (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:25pm
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.
by Stats are for losers (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 5:08pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
by joe football (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:53pm
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Yessir (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 8:00pm
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.
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.
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 10:16am
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.
by snik75 (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 8:45pm
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.
by snik75 (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:38pm
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.
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.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
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).
by Eggwasp (not verified) :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 4:14am
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?
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.
by Anon (not verified) :: Sun, 11/06/2011 - 10:52pm
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.
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....
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.
by G-Money (not verified) :: Mon, 11/07/2011 - 1:44pm
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.
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...
- Alvaro
Phil Simms is to analysts what Ryan Leaf is to NFL QBs
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 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.
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.
RSS Feed
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I predict the chargers will get destroyed today. Something like 38-13.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Really?
I think San Diego has an excellent chance to knock off the Packers.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Charley Casserly just had a beautiful Freudian slip, saying "Tony Homo" during the CBS pre-game show.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I expect this to become a Browns - Texans shoot out. Something like 46-32.
Also, Lagarret Blount (?) hurdle sighting.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Seattle's kicker hit a 45 yarder so hard it went in in spite of being partially blocked.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Gano 59yds in Fedex ...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Agree. You need to be a soccer fan to truly appriciate the value of instant replay.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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 ...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Well Maradonna comes to mind.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
You don't remember France advancing to the World Cup because of a missed hand ball (well two actually)?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I totally agree with you in point 22, it's such a simple solution.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
If they start doing that, I will find better sports to watch.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
How would that make the sport worse to watch?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Also, how much of the game can be rolled back after an offside? I can't think of any rule without some undesirable consequences.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Only when it's a goal, you check if the deciding pass was an offside pass.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Hockey rolls it all the way back.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
So bribe them. It's the usual method of getting your way with FIFA.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Imagine yourself back in 1930.
Hi, welcome to the world of the FIFA.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Hockey's offsides rule is zone-based, though, not man-to-man. Soccer's offsides is more like hockey's defunct two-line pass.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
In soccer it is also semi-line based. You cannot get an offsides on your half of the field.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Excuse me, but what game were you watching? The ball was very clearly on the ground and moving. A very easy call to overturn.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Gano hits a 59-yarder as time exspires in the first half. Franchise record.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Jets being held back by stupid mistakes today. If they could eliminate them this wouldn't be close.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
As a lifelong Jets fan, that's like saying if the Jets could grow gills they'd be able to stay underwater indefinitely.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Also as a lifelong Jets fan I typed that to keep my sanity, this game is killing me.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Bent? Is that you? :-)
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
:-) unfortunately no.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
And Lagarrett Blount gets a 15 yrd penalty for punching a Saint - stunned.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Any context?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
play was over, everyone is standing around talking - he pushes/punches the lineman in the facemask
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
why?
it was more a push than a punch btw
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
It's almost like he has a reputation for doing things like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_3299v-A1o
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
53 yard reception to Stevie Johnson over Revis.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
He'll give those up once or twice a year.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Agree, he looked good all game today until the Johnson reception, I only posted it because I was surprised.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Revis' QB Rating against when thrown at going into this game: two point nine.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Where are those numbers from?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/10/29/stories-of-the-season-th...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Plaxico Burress is playing spectacularly today.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Announcer mistakes a reverse for an end around.
Is that advanced reversed sarcasm?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Can someone explain me the difference? I missed the memo...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
You see the fake-less version on Wildcat plays.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Boggled that the Bills didn't try a hard count or QB sneak on 4th and inches. Happy, but still surprised.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Incredibly unexciting early slate. Multiple-score games all around.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Jets SPANKING the 3rd ranked Bills (by DVOA).
Whats the all-time record for single game team DVOA?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
1999 = Pittsburg over Cleveland 43-0 for 145.6% DVOA
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
If I remember correctly, that was the new Cleveland franchise's first game.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Yeah those last 5 minutes (after their TD) went fast for the Bucs.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
So Chris Johnson increases his rushing average on his fist carry of the game . . . a three yarder.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
"America's" game of the week...
What?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
GB decides to put emphasis on the short middle and cover it with 3 guys, Rivers throws deep to Jackson for 6 points.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
The Bills are who we thought they were. Without getting 4 interceptions, they can't beat any team with a good defense.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
The graphic showed that it was the 800th review.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
My God Tebow is horrible.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Sometimes taking a sack, is better than forcing it.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Best drive of Tebows pro career. Pretty, accurate, quickrelease deep passes with one nice scrable sprinkled in. Very nice.
(And I'm a hater)
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Back-to-back John Skelton safeties. Yikes.
Replacement level sure is a low bar.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Aaron Ross deserves a KCW nomination for that muffed punt.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I'd like to see the stats for the Green Bay D on third-and-long. Can't be good...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
This Giants-Patriots game should be sponsored by Pepperidge Farms. Every time I look there's another turnover.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Rodgers: Better now than anyone ever.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
If you took Rodgers off the Packers....
would they be a winless team?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
No Flynn is good enough to win a few games.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
@andrew
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
All it means is that Matt Flynn is a better QB than Curtis Painter.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.)
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Vincent Jackson seals my fantasy-fate.
If the Chargers actually make this comeback... I mean... baffling...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Still. Only one TD in.
Nice kick coverage - or Woodson should have just sprinted towards the sideline.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
You're forgetting it was only 3 and out because of Jennings' drop 15-20 yards downfield.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
What a terrible PI call on Woodson. Just awful.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Not that this one was, but what if it had been a comeback route and the receiver stopped for that?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Then Wood wouldn't have been looking at the ball over his head, Instead he would have played the ball on the comeback rout.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Tom Brady loves him some TQBR.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Tebow kneel-down to end the game brings his yards per carry below 11. Heartbreaking.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
---
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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...)
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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).
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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).
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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?
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I'm so tired of watching shitty QB get bailed out by pass interference calls.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
*shitty QB play
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I'm officially 100% worried about the Packers pass defense.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
It seems to me that I somewhat reluctantly understand you for 90% there, I think.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
I'm officially 100% worried about the Packers pass defense.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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....
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
Feels like Forte is trying to show up McCoy...
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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...
- Alvaro
Phil Simms is to analysts what Ryan Leaf is to NFL QBs
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Re: Week 9 Game Discussion Thread
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.
Post new comment