Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round

Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round
Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

compiled by Andrew Potter

Each Sunday, the FO staff sends around e-mails about the games that each of us are watching. We share information about the games that the rest of the group might not be watching, ask questions, and keep everyone else informed about which games they might want to turn into (if they can).

On Monday, we compile a digest of those e-mails and produce this feature. By its nature, it can be disjointed and dissimilar to the other articles on the site.

While these e-mails are generally written with Audibles in mind, they do not represent a standard review of all the games each week. That means we aren't going to cover every game, or every important play. We watch the games that we, as fans, are interested in watching, so your favorite team's game might not be covered to your fullest desires or even at all. (If you are a Steelers or Patriots fan, you are probably in luck; if you are a Bills fan, not so much.) We have no intention of adding new authors to cover every game on a given Sunday, nor will we watch a different game from the ones that we're personally interested in watching, just to ensure that Audibles covers every game.

Baltimore Ravens 31 at New England Patriots 35

Cian Fahey: Simply an exceptional opening drive from the Ravens. Nice play-calling by Gary Kubiak mixing in the tight end screen and hard play action.

Aaron Schatz: Pats were playing their corners strictly by sides on the drive, which ended up meaning Darrelle Revis on Marlon Brown on most plays. That seems like a waste.

Ben Muth: Loved the tight end screen early from Kubiak and Baltimore after how much they kept their tight ends in to block last week. Great opening drive.

Aaron Schatz: Patriots are playing almost exclusively zone coverage here today, and they're getting killed in the first two drives. I think Ravens have had one unsuccessful play through their first dozen or so.

... and they finally go man in the red zone, and Steve Smith beats Revis on a slant. 14-0. Yikes.

Cian Fahey: The Patriots just look limp. Everywhere they are a step slow. The Ravens, as they seemingly always do under John Harbaugh, are executing at their peak in the playoffs.

Tom Gower: One of the things Gary Kubiak does early in the game is use motion and come out throwing to identify how you're defending him, then make adjustments off of that. Going zone early, then switching to man would be a good way to counteract that. Unless, of course, Baltimore rips apart your zone and goes up 14-0 after Steve Smith beats Darrelle Revis in what looked like man with a nasty move.

Aaron Schatz: Pats finally get a touchdown drive when the Ravens decide to leave the middle of the field wide-open on three straight plays. Pats almost blow the touchdown on first-and-goal from the 1-yard line when Ravens tackle Brandon Bolden for a 3-yard loss with INSANE push from Brandon Williams and Haloti Ngata. I mean, just destroyed the Patriots interior line. DESTROYED. But that big wide-open hole in the middle is back on third-and-goal and Brady goes 4 on a scramble for the touchdown.

Cian Fahey: On the big play to Rob Gronkowski before Tom Brady's rushing touchdown, the Patriots lined Gronk up as the inside tight end to the left with Tim Wright on the outside. Wright ran to the sideline and Gronkowski ran down the seam. Against the Ravens' Cover-3, it put the cornerback in an awful position. Essentially put Gronkowski wide-open.

Tom Gower: Key play on New England touchdown drive to make it 14-7 was the third-and-8 conversion where Rob Gronkowski ended up wide-open at the sticks. I'd love to know what happened in coverage there, as it appeared Baltimore may have been trying to do something creative in pressure and it cost them.

Andrew Healy: They had Pernell McPhee dropped into the short zone and Gronk ran past him into that huge void, I think. So I think that was a zone blitz that failed when Brady bought some time by stepping up and McPhee couldn't cover the space.

Cian Fahey: Went back to take a look at it, Pernell McPhee dropped into coverage over Gronkowski. Looked like man based on how the play developed. As he was working across to the tight end, Gronkowski knocked him over so he was on his back as Gronkowski continued in his route. Deep safety didn't have time to beat the football to him.

Aaron Schatz: Looked like the Pats finally were going. Ravens pass rush wasn't getting home... then they sacked Brady twice, including one he absolutely couldn't take on third-and-16 on the outskirts of field-goal range. Plus Bryan Stork got injured on that play... and the Pats tack on a 15-yard taunting penalty on the ensuing punt.

Cian Fahey: Sky Sports (TV broadcaster over here) just broke down Dan Connolly rugby tackling Timmy Jernigan on the Tom Brady touchdown run. Hadn't noticed it at the time, but it was blatant with the official standing right behind it.

Andrew Healy: The Patriots had a nice drive going, moving with all throws out of empty formations. Then the drive stalled shortly after they started going with a back. Brady has to throw that ball away, although I think Belichick should still try the field goal from the 34-yard line even with the temperature. As it is, they end up gaining 9 yards of field position after a delay of game and then an unsportsmanlike conduct on the ensuing punt.

Would like to see more Tim Wright and less Michael Hoomanawanui when they go five wide.

Vince Verhei: Just got caught up on DVR after that Patriots punt. Early general observation: Holy crap, the Ravens are blocking the SNOT out of everyone. Is it too late to vote for Gary Kubiak as top assistant?

Andrew Healy: Yes, they are getting a huge push on most of these Justin Forsett runs. He's averaging 8.6 yards per carry on eight carries so far and most of that is on the offensive line dominating. Vince Wilfork got pushed back 4 yards on the last one.

Danger alert: Josh Kline is on the field. Repeat, Josh Kline is on the field. Good offensive line play has not ensued when No. 67 has been involved.

Ben Muth: Fumble luck is real and is smiling on undersized receivers for New England today.

Andrew Healy: Julian Edelman fumbles and it comes back to him against all probability with four or five Ravens around the ball. They were very fortunate earlier on Danny Amendola's fumble, too. The Ravens' pass rush is getting home more now. Brady made a great play on a third-down conversion to Gronkowski with pressure up the middle.

I'm confused as to why the Patriots are trying to run as much as they are. Seven carries for 15 yards and little hope most of the time. The Ravens are great against the run, average against the pass. The Pats are the reverse on offense. Just throw.

Aaron Schatz: Not just runs for the Pats, but they're trying to run up the middle. Hey, did you guys notice how the Ravens' interior defensive linemen are kicking your ass? Don't run right into them.

Cian Fahey: I suspect running the ball anywhere is going to be tough unless the Ravens start playing Elvis Dumervil some more.

As much as Danny Amendola has struggled in New England, it should not be overlooked that he is a very talented receiver. His touchdown reception in the second quarter is the kind of play that he should be making with greater consistency.

Aaron Schatz: Ravens have been slicing through the Patriots defense easily with the zone running game. So on third-and-1, they go...with a tight end reverse? What is this, Sean Payton with Josh Hill? Loses yards. Punt to come. What is the point of that play call?

Cian Fahey: Gary Kubiak does a lot of good, but he always does just enough to remind me why I dislike him so much.

Andrew Healy: Wow, do I hate the reverse call on third-and-1 before the two-minute warning. The Patriots looked to be not overly loaded against the run to the right. The Ravens had been gashing the Patriots on the ground, dominating the line of scrimmage. No need for that play call. Kubiak did a lot of great play-calling early on, particularly on that beautiful first drive, rolling Joe Flacco to the right, but that is a head-scratcher.

Aaron Schatz: Oh, sorry. I thought that was a tight end, I guess it was a wide receiver coming from a tight position... anyway, still a wacko call.

Vince Verhei: Yes. I rescind my earlier vote for Kubiak. That was so too cute at so the wrong time.

I think the Patriots are running "so much" (is seven running back carries in a half really that much?) mostly to keep Brady alive. He took a thrashing on that second-quarter drive that ended in the punt/taunt.

Tom Gower: That was a terrible interception by Tom Brady in the two-minute drill at the end of the first half. I have no idea what he was doing. There maybe was something to Gronkowski on the deep post, but my guess is Brady just misread the coverage rather than badly underthrew the ball. Either way, huge chance for the Ravens to potentially go into the half leading, instead of trailing with New England getting the chance to go up two scores with the second-half opening kickoff.

Andrew Healy: The Patriots have a weapon in their defensive arsenal that they really need to pull out: the Jamie Collins blitz up the middle. They finally do as I write that. And a brutal pass interference call on Darrelle Revis, but Collins made the throw difficult.

Aaron Schatz: Steve Smith was holding onto Revis' arm the whole time. Was convinced that was going to be OPI. I don't get that call at all.

Scott Kacsmar: I guess that horrible end-around was offset by that horrible Brady throw. I think the last three times Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth have had New England, Brady has thrown a horrible interception right before halftime (Colts and Chargers games this year).

Going to be a fun second half. Patriots clearly look one-dimensional on offense, but the Ravens have given up some big plays to Gronkowski and haven't really adjusted yet to the short passes on the outside. Flacco played great and Forsett looks really good behind a superb line performance. Pretty important drive for New England to start the third quarter and do something productive.

Cian Fahey: I don't think Bryan Stork returned after his injury. It will be interesting to note if the Patriots feel comfortable going no-huddle without their starting center. That could prove to be decisive considering how the Ravens defense has reacted to it.

Ben Muth: I thought Baltimore dominated up front on both sides of the ball in the first half. Feel like the Pats are gonna need a big second half from Brady/Gronk to win this one.

Vince Verhei: Pats are getting fumble luck. They are not getting ref luck. The Smith/Revis PI call could have gone either way, and then Gronkowski gets mauled on the first third down of the second half and no flag.

Scott Kacsmar: Good case of "splits happen" to watch here. Patriots have allowed 12 points after halftime in their last six games combined. Since 1960, that has only been done by the 1976 Steelers and 1989 Redskins to end a season. So we'll have to see if there are excellent adjustments from Belichick with his defense that has come together, or if it's just "splits happen."

And I can't believe we live in a world where Joe Flacco can lay legitimate claim to being the best active postseason quarterback, at least since 2011.

Aaron Schatz: Now with the first drive in the second half, Pats have switched up their defense. Now they seem to be exclusively man with Revis on Steve Smith and Brandon Browner on Torrey Smith.

And fourth-and-6, the Ravens go deep, and take advantage of the man coverage. Browner is beat, no choice, has to get the DPI. Torrey Smith catches it anyway... and the Ravens taunt. Stupid, stupid, stupid. First-and-goal on the 16-yard line.

Cian Fahey: Jamie Collins is a really good player and he deserves much of the praise that he gets, but he's still somewhat inconsistent for my liking. Has looked lost on a couple of runs tonight and seemingly blew his assignment for the Forsett touchdown reception in the third quarter.

He's on his way to being a great linebacker, but I don't think he's there yet.

Tom Gower: Pretty sure it was first-and-10 at the 16-yard line, or at least it should've been. No matter either way, though, as Jamie Collins bites inside to help on the crosser, leaving Justin Forsett wide-open in the flat for an easy touchdown. If you had told me at the two-minute warning the score would be 28-14 midway through the third, I would not have been surprised, but I would have expected it to be New England ahead, not Baltimore. This is a significantly better game by Gary Kubiak than he had the last time he visited Foxborough in the postseason, when they didn't do much until they were down 25 in the fourth quarter.

Aaron Schatz: The Pats just sent off Josh Kline, the replacement for the injured Bryan Stork, and somehow used Shane Vereen as an offensive lineman on a play.

Then they did it with Hoomanuwanui. They announced him as ineligible and then put him out wide? What weirdness is this?

Ben Muth: If you get beat on a inside slant in man-to-man inside the 5-yard line you should be fined for conduct detrimental to the team. As soon as Baltimore showed that blitz, everyone in the stadium knew Brady was going to Gronk. Have to make them execute a fade, can't get beat inside like that.

Aaron Schatz: Next drive, Pats go back to zones. The defensive coverage just keeps changing.

Cian Fahey: Feels like the Patriots are getting the momentum here now.

Aaron Schatz: Cian, please be kidding. :)

Vince Verhei: As long as he's using "momentum" as a descriptive term for past events, I'm fine with it.

Cian Fahey: Belichick broke out a high school playbook to get back into this game. Vereen ineligible in the slot to throw to the left tackle, then the lateral to Edelman in the flat for the receiver-to-receiver touchdown pass. Ridiculous.

Andrew Healy: And I think that's Edelman's first career pass even though he played quarterback in college. Looked like a former quarterback, too. Right on the money.

Ben Muth: Great job by Patriots staff throwing everything they have at Baltimore. They're a little outmanned up front so they're getting creative on the play-calling with the sneaky ineligible receivers and now a double pass. This has been a wildly entertaining game through three quarters.

Aaron Schatz: Pats have also gone back to the no-huddle despite Ryan Wendell replacing Stork at center.

Despite the 28-28 score, Brady still underthrowing the ball. Just missed an open Gronk by throwing too low.

And Belichick's ridiculous conservative play-calling continues. Just punted on fourth-and-10 from the 37-yard line instead of trying a long field goal or what they should have done -- tried a draw on third-and-long to get a shorter field-goal try. Lousy punt by Ryan Allen went out of bounds at the 20, effectively a touchback. Completely wasted an interception by Devin McCourty.

Vince Verhei: At the end of the third quarter, it's tied at 28. Semi-random stat note: the Patriots have the edge in yards per completion, 13.3 to 10.5. That's surprising, because it feels like the Pats are throwing tons of quick hitches, but I guess those Gronkowski seam routes have made a big difference.

Andrew Healy: To echo Ben, this game has been wild. Jamie Collins came up with what looked like a huge play, forcing and recovering a fumble on the Ravens' 3-yard line. But a hold on Revis brings it back and the Ravens are driving as the third quarter ends.

Excellent offensive coaching on both sides. Kubiak with the deep throw on fourth-and-6 on the Ravens' first drive of the second half. And the truly original four-offensive linemen sets from the Patriots that led to repeated throws down the left seam. Great stuff all around.

The Ravens are dominating with the run as the fourth quarter begins. They have won at the line of scrimmage and it feels like the Patriots are the underdogs.

Cian Fahey: If the Ravens defensive backs could even play average football, this game probably wouldn't be close. The tackling in particularly has stood out as woeful.

Vince Verhei: Brady specifically telling Edelman when to "STOP!" and when to "GO!" in motion is my favorite thing he's done all day.

I take it back. Dropping that fade pass in the bucket for the Brandon LaFell touchdown, THAT was my favorite thing he's done all day. Made it look so easy and smooth.

Aaron Schatz: This game is nuts. Both teams have made amazing plays and horrible ones. Both teams have gotten away with penalties and gotten BS penalty calls. Both coaches have made great decisions and terrible ones, though the Patriots have only made terrible ones when it comes to fourth downs. 35-31 Patriots, five minutes to go. I have no clue how this ends.

Vince Verhei: Andrew noted, the Ravens have been running well all night. They need to remember they're only down by four, with more than five minutes left. No need to go one-dimensional now.

Andrew Healy: Agreed on that. Patriots' pass rush continues to be close to non-existent. No sacks and just three knockdowns of Flacco all game.

Scott Kacsmar: Dick LeBeau's "tackle the catch" philosophy would be fine today if Baltimore actually tackled well. Lot of credit to the effort of Amendola and Edelman in this one.

Vince Verhei: Ravens fans sing "Seven Nation Army" by the White Stripes.

Patriots fans sing "Your Love" by the Outfield.

If I had known that, I'd have been cheering for New England all night.

Aaron Schatz: Why the hell do the Patriots take a timeout when Ravens go for it on fourth-and-3 instead of throwing the red flag? That previous incomplete by Flacco was possibly a sack-fumble. Ravens recovered but would have lost yardage on the play, making it a longer fourth-down attempt. I understand trying to save the timeout, but if you decide to use the timeout, why not just throw the red flag? What do you have to lose?

Cian Fahey: Are they allowed to after the Ravens have taken a timeout?

Vince Verhei: Can they challenge in the last five minutes?

Aaron Schatz: Sure. They can't challenge in the final two minutes. As far as I know, the only question is whether they can challenge after Baltimore has taken a timeout, but I don't see why not.

I can't tell you the amount of anxiety that was in the air at Gillette. The Patriots ended up in the exact same situation as Super Bowl XLII and XLVI. Small lead, two minutes left, other team driving. The difference between this team and those teams was supposed to be the defense. This defense was supposed to hold that lead. And it actually did, as Duron Hurmon picked off Flacco deep to end the game.

Vince Verhei: Well that was wildly entertaining. Ravens' subpar secondary finally ended their season.

Somebody check on this -- I don't think any New England running back (and Lord knows there's enough of them) carried the ball in the second half.

Ben Muth: Really great game. I thought the Ravens had a damn good plan on both sides and executed well, they just didn't have the personnel in the secondary. If they get anything from the back end, I think they win comfortably. But between the bad tackling and playing way too soft because they were scared of getting beat deep, the secondary was just too much to overcome. But everyone knew that was their weakness all year, so I guess it's not surprising.

I was surprised how bad New England looked up front, particularly on defense. Baltimore dominated the Patriots' front seven in a way that has to be concerning. I'm going to write about this game this week, but I expect I'm going to have a lot of nice things to say about the Ravens offensive line.

Great job by New England's staff with adjustments as the game went along. No matter how bad the other team's secondary is, it's tough to win when you lose the battle up front on both offense and defense, but New England found a way. Opened up the playbook with some trick plays, and abandoned the run completely in the second half (something most coaches don't like to do) so they could attack where they had an advantage.

What a game!

Scott Kacsmar: No rushing plays for New England in the second half besides Brady kneeldowns. Fewest rushing yards (14) in playoff history by a winning team. Previous record was 29 by the 1999 Rams against the Titans.

Reflects poorly on Dean Pees for not going to tighter coverage on the outside. Look at the cushion they were even giving Vereen. Have to acknowledge the Patriots don't throw deep well, so make them make those throws. Totally one-dimensional offense and they let it beat them.

Horrific job by Flacco to force that bomb. Every week when I can, I write about how a team shouldn't force the low-percentage deep bomb for the touchdown in that situation. Play the clock and try to score as late as possible, because we know how quickly teams can answer. This was even more egregious since a touchdown only would have put Baltimore up three, and the Patriots still had Brady and Gostkowski with a good 90 seconds to answer. I don't think this evens up anything for Flacco, since the Sterling Moore play in 2011 kind of cancels out the 2012 Rahim Moore play, but this was just a really bad throw. And it was obvious earlier in the quarter when Baltimore's run-heavy, time-consuming drive ended with a field goal that it was in trouble. Field goals get you beat in Foxborough. Have to score touchdowns, which New England did.

Another team is gone after having their main weakness exposed. That's usually how it happens in the playoffs.

Tom Gower: Kudos to Baltimore's offense, particularly Gary Kubiak, the offensive line, and Joe Flacco. I didn't think they had the ball-handlers to seriously threaten New England's defense, and if the Patriots got to 21 or so New England was a lock to win. Instead they started out playing really well, had the great stretch before and after halftime, and really just kept the team in it the entire time. The last pick from Flacco was bad, but on the whole he did a nice job the rest of the time navigating what pressure there was, extending plays, and hitting tight windows. I could easily be missing some plays, but offhand I don't recall him really missing anything when he was in the pocket outside of getting too aggressive on the picks (the last one, it's second-and-5, don't try to force something if it's not there!).

Andrew Healy: After the game, I talked with guard Dan Connolly about the four-offensive lineman sets that the Patriots ran. He said that it was something that they had specifically in the game plan for this week. Note that I don't know that this means they saw something on the Ravens to exploit. I think it's more likely that they thought this would work against anybody, although it's possible that the Ravens' patchwork secondary would be more likely to respond with confusion.

Also, Connolly surprised me when he said the formation had been used before. He said not in the NFL, but in college. I don't know college well enough to know where that would have been.

One last thought on the four-lineman plays: I just watched the broadcast of that drive. They almost entirely missed what was going on, as far as I can tell. First, they don't really give you what the referee was announcing before the plays, which was that No. 34 as ineligible on two plays, No. 47 on the other. On the last two of the three plays, the referee also actually announced something close to "Don't cover that receiver." Second, they missed Hoomanawanui, then Gronkowski, and then Hoomanawanui lining up as the eligible left tackle on those three plays. Maybe they explain things later in the game, but I'm kind of surprised they missed this so completely. There was a reason Hoomanawanui was all alone on two of those plays and Edelman was uncovered on the other. The Patriots were doing something original and I would have expected Collinsworth to see it.

Andrew Potter: It's not exactly the same due to rules differences -- in college, your ineligible players must wear a number between 50 and 79 -- but here's Alabama doing basically the same thing against LSU.

Andrew Healy: Awesome! Makes a ton of sense that it was Saban.

Aaron Schatz: Notice also that the lineman in the slot steps backwards at the snap and waves his arms like he's going to get a screen pass. I believe Hoomanuwanui did this as well on at least one If the three plays.

Going back and reading, it's clear we were just as confused about what was going on at the time as the Ravens were. But what clever strategy. I love stuff like that. It was all I could talk about after the game.

Carolina Panthers 17 at Seattle Seahawks 31

Aaron Schatz: I wonder if Luke Kuechly asked Cam Newton to throw a pick to Richard Sherman so he would get a chance for more tackles. He's everywhere early.

Scott Kacsmar: Another taunting penalty involving a guy throwing a ball at an opponent. When will these guys learn? Just cost Seattle a field-goal attempt, though punting to Brenton Bursin is a decent turnover opportunity.

Vince Verhei: Early on, this game is nothing but a grand display of stupidity by everyone involved. A bunch of idiots trying to play a football game. Carolina has no first downs on their first three drives because -- even though they have worked hard to get third-and-1, third-and-2, and third-and-4, strong running downs -- they have passed ALL THREE TIMES, resulting in an interception and two punts.

Meanwhile, the Seahawks keep throwing those stupid wide receiver screens even though THEY HAVEN'T WORKED ALL YEAR. Then Ricardo Lockette takes away a field-goal try by flipping the ball into a defender's face right in front of the ref, moving Seattle back and forcing a punt. This after Jeremy Lane had a personal foul on a punt return, and Tharold Simon was warned about taunting after a tackle on Kelvin Benjamin.

Speaking of Benjamin, in not-necessarily-stupid but surprising news, he's lining up on the left, and Richard Sherman is not shadowing him. They are content to cover him with Simon. (No idea why Byron Maxwell is not in the game.)

Andrew Potter: If Carolina continues to be this careless with the ball, it won't matter how many stupid taunting penalties the Seahawks get. That's two fumbles, an interception, and a very fortunate non-interception in what, nine plays? Plus Brenton Bersin being Brenton Bersin.

Vince Verhei: Great throw by Russell Wilson on that touchdown to Baldwin. Recognized the blitz and threw to a spot in the end zone, trusting that Doug Baldwin would get behind the safety. He did.

I really liked Carolina's design on the run for a first down following Seattle's touchdown. It looked like a zone read with Jonathan Stewart taking the ball and heading left. In reality, it was the old Washington counter trey, with two linemen pulling left to right and Stewart cutting back and following them. Nice mix of deception, power, and execution.

Great throw by Wilson on that touchdown to Kearse, too. Also a great one-handed catch by Jermaine Kearse. I thought he got away with a push-off, though on replay there was a lot of mutual hand-fighting.

Cian Fahey: Wilson has played one of the best halves of his season to start this game. The Seahawks offense has had a few drops and dumb penalties to curtail their output, but the quarterback has been accurate and smart with his throws throughout.

Ben Muth: Just thinking the same thing. Between Andrew Luck's game last week and Wilson's this week I'm both incredibly excited to watch these guys play football for the next decade and depressed to listen to takez about which one you would rather have.

Cian Fahey: On the Cam Newton fumble in the second quarter that set up that fourth-and-1 play, the officials gave the Panthers 1.5 yards for no good reason. The ball is fumbled as soon as it is hit by the defender.

Scott Kacsmar: At halftime, FOX's Jimmy Johnson just said Cam Newton's early interception wasn't as good as a punt because stats show teams score more often after an interception than a punt. I'm sure in general he's right, but since he brought up the punt and field position angle, I doubt the numbers when adjusted for field position would show that. He's basically making a momentum argument where the team would be more likely to do something good because something really good and exciting (takeaway) just happened instead of something boring and mundane (a punt).

Vince Verhei: Seahawks lead 14-10 at halftime after dropped interceptions on both of Carolina's scoring drives. And then Kam Chancellor does some truly superhuman things and nearly blocks a field goal twice. I have no idea how he didn't get it on the "miss" that turned into a running into the kicker foul -- and if he did get it, that shouldn't have been a penalty, should it?

Panthers defense, even without Star Lotululei, is playing Seattle's run offense better than probably anyone has all year. They have so much depth on that line, and Luke Kuechly remains Luke Kuechly. Even though Wilson has hit some big plays, it may not have done much to loosen up the run game.

Tom Gower: Graham Gano completely shanked it from the get-go on the play where Chancellor was called for running into the kicker. Came off his foot wide, kept going wide the whole way. Bizarre that Chancellor missed getting the ball twice with two perfectly-timed leaps, but it happened.

Cian Fahey: I've watched it back a few times and I'm not sure. I think it hits his leg as it goes by. Obviously not a firm contact, but enough to alter the direction slightly. Irrelevant now of course.

Aaron Schatz: There's an essay in the book a couple years ago about the "momentum after turnovers" argument. I'll type in an excerpt when I get home.

Scott Kacsmar: All I can think of is teams like to call shot plays after a turnover with good field position. Guess they feel it's easier to take advantage of a "reeling team" off a takeaway versus a general punt. Of course the turnover wasn't the fault of the defenders coming onto the field, who as a counterpoint you could say know they have to play even better to not give up a touchdown on the short field.

Vince Verhei: Seattle ends the third quarter with a nice drive down the field. Last play of the quarter is a third-down sack and it looks like it will result in a field goal, but that was their best drive of the game, especially for running. Looks like they're wearing down their opponent again.

Aaron Schatz: I'm having trouble thinking of bright things to say about this game. It's basically everything we expected, but with a little extra Luke Willson.

Cian Fahey: Significance of this game has been Russell Wilson's display. While he has received more plaudits through this season as a whole, something that is inevitable for a quarterback who comes off a Super Bowl victory, he was a much sharper passer last season. Too often during this year's regular season he was playing hesitant and missing opportunities for big plays down the field.

[ad placeholder 3]

That wasn't the case today. As highlighted by his fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Luke Willson, the young quarterback is back to where he was during the first 12 weeks or so of the 2013 regular season.

If Wilson is playing like this, it's going to be very difficult for anyone to beat Seattle this season.

Scott Kacsmar: You could say Wilson was more impressive tonight than in any of last year's playoff games. What I liked was how he handled third downs and the way Lynch was basically shut down outside of one drive. This was Wilson driving the scoring tonight. I know Carolina's not that impressive of a defense, but some really great throws from Wilson.

Vince Verhei: Oh, I'd completely agree with that. Go back and read some of the Audibles from late in the year and the playoffs last season, we were all asking what was wrong with Wilson. He played better in the Super Bowl, but even then all his big plays came long after the game was decided. I'm convinced he had an injury that they kept hidden -- in the post-Super Bowl Gatorade dump, you can hear him saying he can only lift with one shoulder.

As for Aaron's comment that this is what we expected -- well, the final score, yes. But I'm surprised that Carolina's run D had, I'm sure, their best day today. I'm surprised (very, actually) that Sherman wasn't shadowing Benjamin all day, especially with Maxwell hurt. I'm surprised Jonathan Stewart only got 13 carries (and keep in mind, this was a one-score game for 50 minutes). I'm a little surprised Seattle had so many opportunities for big plays downfield -- I figured the Panthers would play a lot more deep zone and allow more short routes, but all those guys in the box to stuff the run left their cornerbacks overexposed.

That was one of Kam Chancellor's best games -- 11 tackles, 9 solo, big hits on Mike Tolbert and Benjamin, the near-blocks on field goals, and of course the pick-six.

Tom Gower: Story of Saturday? Teams' liabilities kept coming back to bite them. Baltimore had defensive back issues. This was known for a long time. New England forced guys like Matt Elam and Rashaan Melvin to play one-on-one in space and beat them. Carolina had offensive line issues, receiver issues, and safety issues, and Seattle took advantage of each of them -- the safeties with all the downfield passes, and, as we all pretty much expected, the receivers were mostly blanketed and Cam Newton, though he navigated the pressure very well for the most part, was under harassment regularly.

Vince Verhei: One other thing about this game, and the announcers mentioned this: Cam Newton was pretty good today. His big mistakes were BIG mistakes, but by and large, on the road, under lots of pressure, he made some big throws.

Cian Fahey: This was the best playoff performance of Russell Wilson's career and probably his best display of this season as a whole also. His three touchdown plays in particular stand out as each were a result of intelligent plays from the pocket, not to mention two precision passes that were delivered early to negate pressure.

Aaron Schatz: Finally, to respond to the Jimmy Johnson comment noted above, this is the paper from the Sloan conference that we ran in abridged form in Football Outsiders Almanac 2012:

Our results of offensive performance, as quantified by three different dependent variables, indicate that a big defensive play does not appear to improve the performance of the offense on the subsequent drive.

In other words, Jimmy Johnson's claim that offenses score more after an interception than they do after receiving a punt is nonsense.

Dallas Cowboys 21 at Green Bay Packers 26

Aaron Schatz: Not too surprised by all the success the Packers are having running the ball early. Their running game is just as effective as the Cowboys' running game; they just don't use it as much.

Cian Fahey: Early thoughts on Aaron Rodgers are that he is healthy enough to play, but clearly not where he typically is in terms of his movement. It's not handicapping the offense too much, but the Packers' offensive line is going to be under a lot more pressure than it usually is. Probably won't be a significant issue in this game because of the quality of the opponent, but hey, the little things can always have a big impact.

Aaron Schatz: Right. I don't think the Cowboys are getting too much pressure here... until a play where the snap came early and the Cowboys strip it as Rodgers attempts to get a handle on it.

Vince Verhei: Dez Bryant doesn't have a target in Dallas' first three drives. That's largely because Tony Romo has only thrown six passes, but those six passes have resulted in five completions for 71 yards and two scores. FOX is also doing a good job showing the coverage on Bryant, with guys double-chipping him, with a safety over the top. They're putting three or four guys on Bryant. It reminds of the 2005 Seahawks that beat the Panthers the NFC Championship Game by putting three or four guys on Steve Smith every play. The difference, obviously, is that Tony Romo is still dangerous throwing to Cole Beasley and Terrance Williams. Jake Delhomme to Keary Colbert and Ricky Proehl? Not so much.

Reason No. 1,535 I hate Joe Buck: he just called the Packers' offense "boring" because they're running a lot. God, he's terrible.

Scott Kacsmar: Joe Buck is also still on his one-man mission to blame the Dallas offense (but not the defense) for blowing the 26-3 lead against Green Bay last year.

I don't see how that Randall Cobb catch was upheld. Danny Amendola had one taken away yesterday that wasn't as obviously on the ground as this one.

Just a lot of bad mistakes in the last minute of this half. Very inaccurate spot by the refs on a Jason Witten catch. Dallas should have ran on third-and-1, and Romo fumbled the snap. Dan Bailey missed another field goal. Then the Dallas defense only had to defend the sideline and Cobb was wide-open for a big catch to set up a Mason Crosby field goal.

Huge difference between 17-7 and 14-10 at halftime, and now Green Bay gets the ball first.

Andrew Healy: Watching with the sound off here, but it sure looks like Rodgers is continuing from the Detroit game his inability to step into the throws by planting on the left leg. Hard to believe he can be as accurate as he has been without the ability to shift his weight onto the left leg, but his accuracy has also been below his norm.

On the Cowboys' last drive of the first half, a big reversal where Dallas has a first down on the Packers' 26-yard line, but then the bad spot is overturned on replay and they get a third-and-1 instead. The Cowboys called timeout, which both made it easier to review the play, and also meant that they would have rather had the clock run in the end. Garrett tried to get the timeout back, but it wasn't allowed. Then a bad play call caused the Cowboys to fail on the third down. No play action and a throw, even though DeMarco Murray had converted all three third-and-1 plays earlier in the half. I'm OK with the throw, but would have preferred play action.

And the timeout that the Cowboys only took because of the bad spot ends up costing them three points, perhaps. The Packers had enough time after Bailey's miss to drive into field goal range with a great throw and catch on a deep ball. Rodgers got it there, which was impressive enough, and then got a great toe-tap from Cobb.

Vince Verhei: The problems with the deep pass on third-and-1 after the replay review are two-fold. One, as noted, it's a much lower success rate than just letting DeMarco Murray run for the first down. Two, even if it had worked, they would have left plenty of time for Green Bay to answer with a score. As it turns out, they got no points AND left time for Green Bay to answer, which was pretty close to a worst-case scenario.

Aaron Schatz: I believe that was an audible. I think Romo yelled "kill," must have seen something that led him to try the deep throw. Not a coaching call.

I thought not just run, but also they could have run three stick routes there and found one of them open.

Andrew Healy: That's right, so I'm fine with the throw if Romo saw something. But any throw: A) should have been short, B) could have been play action.

Aaron Schatz: Huge turn of events as Julius Peppers strips DeMarco Murrray, who had nobody in front of him and would have easily gone for a touchdown. Instead, Packers get the ball at midfield. And they start running it down the Cowboys' throat. Nice 20-yard Eddie Lacy run with a big John Kuhn block.

Vince Verhei: That Green Bay drive stalls after a personal foul turns a red-zone third-and-1 into a third-and-16, and the Packers end up kicking a field goal to make it 14-13.

This is a weird, clunky game. Feels like the crowd is just now waking up, halfway through the third quarter.

And then I miss couple of plays when my local Fox affiliate starts randomly airing commercials during Dallas' next drive, and when they come back it's in standard definition. So that sucks.

[ad placeholder 4]

Scott Kacsmar: What a weekend for fumble luck.

Saturday: Eight fumbles, one lost.
Sunday: Six fumbles, two lost and we still have five-plus quarters to play today.

Nearly a disaster for the Packers with Cobb fumbling on the kick return, but Green Bay recovered. Rodgers finally left the pocket, but nearly threw an interception.

Aaron Schatz: Packers look like they're starting to move guys around a bit to get Randall Cobb away from Scandrick. And it works as he's up against Tyler Patmon and catches one for a 20-something-yard gain. A couple plays later they lined him up in the backfield and Dallas took a timeout.

Cian Fahey: The Cowboys run the ball a lot, but they go through these stretches where they seem to abandon the run even when the situation suggests they should be trying to run the ball. Up one in the fourth quarter is one of these situations. They're a balanced offense by the overall numbers, but not in terms of play-calling on a snap-by-snap basis.

Ben Muth: After Romo took back-to-back sacks I saw someone tweet something like "If Tannehill takes those two sacks like Romo, the Internet would have broken." I mean, this person was implying that Romo is not criticized as much as he should be on the Internet, and that Ryan Tannehill is the victim of an overly harsh media spotlight. This seems so wildly different from the world, as I've experienced it, that I had to bring it up. I'm not the crazy one here, right?

Aaron Schatz: Cowboys aren't bringing any pressure. They really need to consider some blitzing. Packers offensive line has them totally controlled.

Great decision by Jason Garrett to go for it on fourth-and-2 instead of trying a 50-yard field goal. I hate the play call there, once again, just like that third-and-1 earlier where Romo audibled. When you have to move the sticks, I want to move the sticks, not go deep. But holy crap what a leaping catch by Dez Bryant. Wow.

OK, I guess that was not a leaping catch by Dez Bryant. Overturned on replay.

Andrew Healy: Rodgers had time on that drive and he was also so accurate.

Ben, you are not crazy. Only Bizarro Romo would be loved on the Web. Real Romo has often been trashed unfairly.

The Cowboys correctly go for it on fourth-and-2, no matter what Troy Aikman thinks. Love these changes in Jason Garrett. Don't like the play call at all. Bryant almost bailed them out with an incredible catch, but lost the ball extending for the goal line. He really could have just secured the ball there rather than stretch for the touchdown.

Cian Fahey: I genuinely don't care about this game anymore. As soon as they overturned that Dez Bryant catch in the fourth quarter, even though I knew it was likely they would, I just can't feel good about watching this. The review process may as well be completely random because you can argue convincingly for either side of that play.

The NFL needs to fix this rule but we've all been calling for that for a long time so unless someone starts suing them...

Aaron Schatz: Oddly, the New York Times Fourth Down Bot thought the Cowboys should punt on that play. It had win expectancy at 22 percent with a field-goal try, 27 percent going for it, and 32 percent punting. I know Brian Burke has written in the past about how his model tends to like late-game punts when deep in opponent territory, but it seems awfully strange to me.

Andrew Healy: On the 32-yard line? That's pretty weird. That would mean presumably they'd want a punt on the 30-yard line, too. Wonder where the break-even point is. That seems like a call to tweak the model, although maybe I'm missing something.

Cian Fahey: New York Times Fourth Down Bot needs to be reminded who plays quarterback for the other team.

Scott Kacsmar: That's a catch, and hopefully this happening late in a playoff game will get the NFL to fix one of its biggest problems. How can they give Cobb that catch before halftime, but take this one away? There's no consistency and there isn't even logic in saying that a guy taking three steps and diving for the end zone didn't make a football move.

Aaron Schatz: Interestingly, Mike Pereira just tweeted that while he agrees with the reversal, the officials made a mistake by not resetting the clock to 4:32, so the Cowboys also lost 26 seconds towards coming back.

Vince Verhei: My takeaway here is that Dallas is losing because they threw deep incomplete passes on third-and-1 and fourth-and-2, with the best line in the league and the runner with more carries than anyone in years. Whether that's on Romo for calling audibles or Garrett for not having play-action plays ready to go is irrelevant. They called terrible plays at key times and left 6 to 14 points on the board.

And of course, their defense isn't good and can't pressure the quarterback and misses a lot of tackles. That was a big part of it too.

Tom Gower: The Dez play will take up a lot of oxygen, of course. Correct call by the rule, which has bothered me greatly ever since the Lance Moore two-point conversion in the Super Bowl.

The big story of the game should be just how incredibly well Aaron Rodgers played in the second half. He struggled at times in the first half, and was clearly never close to 100 percent at any point in the game. But he still made some absolutely incredible throws, most notably the strikes to Davante Adams and Richard Rodgers for touchdowns, and showed, as he did in the second half of the Week 17 game, even if he can't extend plays like he normally does, he's still a really damn good quarterback.

Andrew Healy: With all the deserved Rodgers love late in the broadcast, I hope Romo's performance doesn't get lost. 10.1 yards per attempt amid a Packers' pass rush that frequently got home (four sacks, eight knockdowns).

Aaron Schatz: Andrew, don't you remember Ben's post from earlier? Tony Romo is a player who simply does not take enough criticism on the Internets!

Tom Gower: Other points?

1. Dallas doesn't blitz much. They haven't blitzed much all year. I would have been surprised if they'd blitzed much today. Just not who they are. But they can't get pressure rushing four and with a hobbled quarterback, you'd think about blitzing a lot more than you usually do.

2. Like I mentioned last week, I thought the Cowboys getting plays in the pass game from someone outside of Dez Bryant would be crucial. Terrance Williams again delivered with a long touchdown catch-and-run. But in terms of minor receiving options who really stood out today, Davante Adams takes the cake. The Cowboys spent a lot of time matching up, and Adams had a talent edge on Sterling Moore. He had a quieter rookie season than I thought he might, but he really made a lot of plays today.

3. On both sides of the ball, like we saw yesterday with New England in particular, and we'll probably see Monday night in the college game, "defensive backs vs. tackling in space" is crucial.

Aaron Schatz: The best coaches change strategies to fit the weaknesses of their opponents. The Cowboys' defensive coaches did not.

Cian Fahey: Cowboys defensive coaches are also limited by having very little talent though.

Aaron Schatz: I asked Brian Burke if he had a link to what he had written in the past about his model suggesting punting late in games on the opponent's side of the field. Turns out it doesn't anymore. He has a newly refurbished model that unfortunately has not been plugged into the NY Times Fourth Down Bot yet. But this model comes out with 29 percent win expectancy for both the field goal and going for it -- again, not considering who is playing quarterback for the other team, which is of course important and would slant expectancy towards going for it -- and only 21 percent win expectancy for punting.

Indianapolis Colts 24 at Denver Broncos 13

Aaron Schatz: I never really thought of coverage as LaRon Landry's specialty. Having your strong safety beaten by the opposing tight end is one thing, though. I'm not sure why your strong safety is covering Demaryius Thomas in the end zone. 7-0, Broncos.

The Colts finally figure out how to get a pass rush: have the Broncos screw up a line call so nobody blocks your outside linebacker.

Interesting also that the Broncos have moved Aqib Talib off T.Y. Hilton early in the second quarter.

Vince Verhei: For a while there it looked like the Colts were actually going to use Scott's plan of abandoning the run entirely. Their first, what, 10 or 12 plays were all dropbacks? Turns out they were using the pass to set up the run and started mixing Dan Herron in. Which is probably smart, especially in the red zone, where Herron scored to put the Colts up 14-7.

Aaron Schatz: Broncos mostly back to using Talib on Hilton. And he is not having a good time of it.

Tom Gower: Well, he did give up the touchdown to Dwayne Allen...

The Broncos last year with their issues at safety at least had an excuse for keeping things relatively straightforward in the postseason. This year, not so much, which means it's all about Jack Del Rio.

Aaron Schatz: This whole weekend does so much to show why it makes sense for defensive backs to play tough, physical defense, with plenty of contact and holding. The refs are just going to flat-out miss it, probably more often than they actually call it. Broncos get away with one when T.J. Ward is clearly holding Coby Fleener. Then the Broncos get a break because the refs see Vontae Davis holding Emmanuel Sanders. Honestly, there was no difference between those plays except whether the officials saw it or not. You might as well just count on the human error, and play close.

Cian Fahey: This first half has been very weird. Peyton Manning is missing more receivers than he has in as long as I can remember, but conversely he's also throwing the ball down the field more than he has in as long as I can remember. The Colts have been very lucky to this point because Sanders and Demaryius in particular have been wide-open with regularity.

Vince Verhei: When did the Denver playbook become nothing but 9 routes?

Aaron Schatz: And on the other side of the ball, the Broncos pass rush just disappeared in the second quarter after being very strong on the Colts' first couple of drives.

Scott Kacsmar: Trying to hit these deep passes down the sideline is the same problem Denver had in Indianapolis last year. Not sure why that's like 50 percent of the offense today though.

Vince Verhei: For Pete's sake, Denver, even if you want to just throw deep, their are post routes and corners and slant-and-gos and out-and-ups. They're just throwing deep fades over and over. There was the deep completion to Julius Thomas that set up Denver's first touchdown. That one worked. But it hasn't worked since. And no, we're not the only ones who noticed.

Scott Kacsmar: The first series of the second half shows the drawback of having a pocket passer who never wants to scramble. Manning could have run for a first down but went for another downfield throw. Good throw, but good play by the corner to push Sanders out of bounds before he could get the second foot down. Quick three-and-out for the Broncos.

Cian Fahey: One of the worst decisions I've seen a quarterback make this year. Manning had 20 yards of space in front of him, his receiver was covered downfield on a difficult throw. You have to run there. Have to.

Aaron Schatz: What's interesting here is that the deep throws are open, but Manning is overthrowing them. But the short throws, the Colts seem to have covered and they're tackling guys without yards after the catch.

The entire game may be summarized by the fact that on a fourth-and-8 the Broncos had to have, Peyton Manning threw a 3-yard pass to C.J. Anderson in hopes he could get enough yards after the catch to get the conversion. Anderson's run earlier where he broke like 20 tackles was beautiful and Beast Mode-esque, but that drive was stunted by incomplete passes as well and the Broncos were stuck with a field goal.

Manning looked awful today. Chase Stuart put up on Twitter something about this being the first game where Manning is below 4.0 yards per pass since his rookie year. The Manning decline that people have been talking about on film the last few weeks, which never quite showed up in the numbers and wasn't really resulting in losses, well, today it showed up in the numbers big-time and resulted in a big, fat, season-ending L.

Cian Fahey: Have to credit the Colts for winning the game, but to me this said a lot more about the Broncos and Manning specifically.

The Colts are receiving a lot of credit for shutting down the offense and the coaching decisions, but how many big plays were open down the field that Manning simply missed? I wouldn't be optimistic about Indianapolis' chances going into Foxborough, but the Patriots aren't a juggernaut either.

At this stage, I still think the AFC is playing for the runner-up spot in the Super Bowl.

Scott Kacsmar: It's like the Broncos watched last year's game and picked out the things they did the worst, and tried to do exactly that in the first half. Very confusing game plan, and Manning missed too many throws. Wasn't a lack of arm strength since they were overthrows, but inaccuracy. Then the short stuff was defended very well, much like we have seen from teams that can play press coverage against Denver. I thought Sanders showed up today, but very disappointing game by Demaryius.

On the other side, Luck didn't have to be a one-man show. He wasn't even spectacular, just very good. The key was there being very little need to even say the names "Miller" and "Ware" today.

Aaron Schatz: Yes. I have no idea what happened to the Broncos pass rush today.

Vince Verhei: That was really sad to watch. Had to have been the worst game of Manning's career. There were some overthrows, there were some short-arms, there were balls thrown behind guys. There were bad decisions. There was a lack of pocket presence. Like, everything a quarterback can do badly, he did it. I would never, ever say that a guy "should" retire, and if I was a player I'd keep playing until they physically took away my helmet and barred me from the building. But if Manning plays like this in Week 1 of 2015, there are going to be calls for Brock Osweiler. And there should be.

And no, it wasn't just Manning. Demaryius Thomas couldn't catch anything. I had as many sacks as the Broncos did today. Etc., etc. It was a team-wide collapse.

Tom Gower: Concur with Vince. The Broncos lost as a team (that Colts drive that took up 8:14? Soul-crushing, and a terrible look for DVOA's No. 2 rush defense), with Peyton bearing at least his share of the blame. Kudos to Indianapolis, but like Cian said, I thought this was more about Denver's limitations than what the non-Luck Colts did well.

Aaron Schatz: The Broncos have a number of players heading to free agency, including both Demaryius Thomas and Julius Thomas, Wes Welker, Terrance Knighton, and Orlando Franklin. There are apparently reports that John Fox might be out and that Jack Del Rio and/or Adam Gase might get head-coaching jobs elsewhere. I don't expect Peyton to announce his retirement in the locker room but it's really set up here for him to call it a career. It's turnover time in Denver.

Scott Kacsmar: We've had 53 games of Manning in Denver, and this one looked much different than really any of them. Sure, they got their ass kicked in the Super Bowl against Seattle. The defense has had some big letdowns. The offense was shut down in St. Louis this year. But I'm not sure we ever seen a game with a performance so... bleak. Where there was just nothing working downfield or short. Not even 300 yards of offense. Only 13 points at home where they always scored at least 20. Most of Anderson's yards were his own effort and not due to the blocking. The pass rush favored Indianapolis, which you would never have expected given the talent involved. The rally never materialized. The eight-minute drive was a soul-crusher indeed, and from an offense that hasn't really been able to go on drives like that without Luck as the focus point. The Colts weren't even great in several areas (penalties, Pat McAfee's punts could have been better, Adam Vinatieri missed a makeable field goal, two questionable picks by Luck), but still won by 11.

That really looked like an "end of an era" game. I think John Fox will be gone after four years of having two 35-point playoff losses, the killer loss against Baltimore, and this "effort" today. The coordinators will probably bolt. They're going to have some big free agents. Is that a situation you want to start over with as a 39-year-old quarterback? Manning carried the Colts to a Super Bowl in 2009 with Jim Caldwell as a rookie coach, but he was 33 and in his prime. It's a long season and there's no guarantee he'll be healthy again down the stretch.

This might be it for Denver as we have known this team the last three years. And it's stunning to think that first year in 2012 was really the best shot this team had at a championship. I know, they didn't get past the second round, but that team was more likely to beat New England and then San Francisco than last year's team was to beat Seattle on any night, or this year's team in Foxborough next week and then maybe again with Seattle. That was the best defense they had, save for one play by a second-year safety that will live in infamy. That's why every opportunity is precious.

Aaron Schatz: Also, you know, when Seattle destroyed Manning, it was the best defense in football, bar none. Tonight it was... Greg Toler? Jonathan Newsome? Seattle whupped up on the Broncos' offense last year. Today it seemed more like the Broncos' offense just imploded on itself.

(No disrespect to the fact that there are good players on the Colts defense, of course: Vontae Davis and Cory Redding, to name two.)

Andrew Healy: That 41-0 loss to the Jets in 2002-03 would be tough to beat for Manning's worst game in the playoffs (14-of-31, 137 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT). And that was actually against the No. 20 pass defense and No. 27 defense overall. But this is more disappointing by quite a bit. Indy only had the No. 11 pass offense in 2002.

In 2014, the Broncos had the No. 3 passing offense and, as Aaron said, the Colts were good but not great on defense. It's one thing to get blown out by a historically good pass defense as the Broncos did last year, but to average 4.2 yards per play against this Colts defense? Wow.

Scott Kacsmar: I'm a huge believer in a team's weaknesses usually being their downfall in the playoffs.

Baltimore: the secondary did them in despite facing one of the most one-dimensional attacks a team has shown in a playoff game.

Carolina: general inferiority to Seattle too much to overcome.

Dallas: no stars at any level of the defense. Didn't tackle or rush the passer well. Didn't get the ball back at the end.

But Denver? I think they're the only team that lost in large part due to their strengths. Indy's special teams were supposed to be so much better, but Denver won that matchup if you ask me. Manning is always supposed to give you an advantage of figuring out the defense and getting into the best plays. That first half could not have been any more questionable in attacking the Colts where they're weak. He went right for their strengths, and even if the receivers were getting open, he wasn't making the deep throws he has made often this year, contrary to popular belief. And we have hit on the defense pretty hard already with Von Miller, DeMarcus Ware, and Aqib Talib all having very disappointing games despite their reputations. Same with Demaryius Thomas on that offense. Incredible talent after the catch, but couldn't even hang on to what may have been the only good screens the Broncos had set up all day.

I've studied them all thoroughly and I would probably say this is Manning's second-worst playoff game in between the 2003 AFC Championship Game (NE) and 2002 AFC Wild Card (NYJ). Always have to go with that Ty Law-dominated game (four picks) first, because that's the only time Manning wasted what wasn't a brutal performance by the rest of his team. Jets game, he had like seven drops and was down 17-0 in no time, but that was just a miserable game all around. Jets were a much better team going into that one. Manning didn't throw a pick until it was 34-0 in the fourth quarter.

Andrew Healy: That is the other one and on a bigger stage, but a legitimately awesome Patriots defense, too. No. 2 overall and No. 2 against the pass.

Rob Weintraub: Boy that Andy Dalton sure does stink in the playoffs, huh?

Oh, that was Peyton Manning? And all Denver's skill players were healthy? Interesting...

Let's not forget John Fox's health scare from last season -- all the more reason for him to look in the mirror and call it a very fine career.


339 comments, Last at 14 Jan 2015, 11:31pm

#339 by yentran422 // Jan 14, 2015 - 11:31pm

understand everyone wants to hype up how bad that Jets defense was, but they stunk the beginning of the year and got better later on

Points: 0

#336 by yentran422 // Jan 13, 2015 - 8:36pm

You can say the player was not up to standards, but you really can't be strongly confident with regard to how much, or how little, that performance aberration is simply random in nature.

Points: 0

#323 by Tim Wilson // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:52pm

Cowboys fan here. Just so bummed about the outcome of the game. Not the ref issue or the "was it or wasn't it a catch"...just the lost opportunity, and the sudden end of a season for a roster of guys I've really grown to like.

It felt like we left opportunities out there on the field (the Murray fumble when he was en route to a long TD; the Dez catch/drop; the barely-missed recovery of the Cobb fumble; the 3rd and 1 at the end of the first half which we turned into 0 points and then 3 points for GB; etc.), that we might have been the better team, and that we were SO CLOSE to dramatically changing the story of several guys' careers. Romo most prominently, of course. If you listened to his post-game press conference, he alluded to being most disappointed because he thought that this team could have had a real shot at winning a Super Bowl. And Dez, for whom that 4th and 2 catch could have been a career-defining play.

Instead, it's Monday and the season is over. Saddest I've been about a loss in quite a while.

Points: 0

#334 by chemical burn // Jan 13, 2015 - 12:58pm

But think of it this way: you're the saddest you've been about a loss in a long time because this is the most relevant Cowboys team that has gone the farthest in a long team. You don't get to feel that bad unless your team did a lot of things right...

Points: 0

#322 by Grendel13G // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:46pm

I think Scott Kacsmar's last post about Manning and the Broncos is spot-on. You can feel the end of an era coming (especially now since Scott's speculation about the coaching staff leaving has actually happened).

The game really did feel bleak throughout, and now even moreso after the fact. The precious opportunities seem to have faded with a whimper.

Points: 0

#316 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:06pm

I just want to add that I have no problem with what Belichick did, it's really smart coaching. I'm just defending Harbaugh's right to complain to the refs about the amount of time given to the defense to adjust the eligible and non-eligible receivers.

Points: 0

#315 by anotherpatsfan // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:04pm

In this instance the NFL has said that the Pats "tactic" was within the rules for both formation and reporting.

Don't pay enough attention to know whether Harbaugh is generally a whiner but he was certainly well within his rights to try to stop or delay what was going on(whether it was because he didn't know whether to shit or go blind or otherwise), as the tactic was clearly vexing him and his defense.

Points: 0

#313 by yentran422 // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:47pm

I think the Colts owner, I believe it was Irsay that actually said something about "wanting championships" instead of "statistics".

Points: 0

#279 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:29pm

FWIW, here's his justification:

"It went pretty much exactly the way we thought it would," Belichick said in his Monday afternoon conference call. "We knew they had one timeout. We expected to be punting the ball with about 15 seconds, which was pretty much what it was. We didn't want to go through any handoffs or take any chance on any exchanges and the penetration, like the play they had on the goal-line, anything like that. We felt like we would be able to secure the ball, punt it back to them in the neighborhood of 15 seconds, and then that would leave them probably at the most two, possible one play, depending on what happened on the punt -- whether the ball was returned or went out of bounds.

"In the end, we felt like defending the Hail Mary was better than taking any chances at all handing [off] the ball, which I'm not sure how much time that would have run off the clock anyway. Maybe a couple seconds, I don't know. A first down, throwing the ball, wasn't really part of our thinking at that point in that game."

Points: 0

#280 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:33pm

Fair as far as it goes, and I can understand not wanting to do any handoffs.

But why not (perhaps with an unbalanced line) have Brady take the snap under center and with both hands on the ball "sprint" to the strong side and slide once any defender is within a couple of yards of him. Do that three times and now maybe there's only 3-5 seconds left on 4th down which you can kill off with either the punter running around in the endzone before stepping out or the QB taking a shotgun snap and throwing it OOB to the sideline in the vicinity of the receiver you have running the 9 for just that reason.

Points: 0

#255 by Mugsy // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:45pm

Some guys just play better in the post season.. guys like Montana and Michael Jordan come to mind. Some guys just seem to play worse when they're in the post season...
Peyton has 1 SB... and he always seems to bring more to the fight than say -Tom Brady.. but he just doesn't seem to put it all together when it matters the most. See the 41-0 trouncing, the losses to Brady, and now another post season collapse making people wonder what's wrong with him. Maybe he plays best when there is little at stake, and maybe he plays the worst when there is a lot at stake.. history will be the judge. But so far the guy has 1 super bowl win, so the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, right? Elway gave him everything he thought was needed- a strong defense, added Ware and Talib, he has a great tight end and receivers, etc. He blew it, again. How he doesn't score a touchdown against that Jets team, during the play-offs, in his prime is beyond me... he stunk it up. Some guys play better in the play-offs -- maybe Brady is an example of this... some guys play poorly in the play-offs -perhaps Manning is an example of that. I'm just asking the question, that's all . . .

Points: 0

#262 by Ryan // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:51pm

Yeah, this is an interesting query. Has anyone looked comparatively at the postseason performances of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady? What a fascinating question.

Points: 0

#265 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:53pm

I won't argue anything you said about Manning, because in reality, what's the point arguing against someone who is so clouded?

But I ask you this, please try to prove empirically that Tom Brady plays better in the playoffs than he does in the regular season?

Points: 0

#266 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:54pm

Yeah, that Billy Martin was a much better hitter than Ted Williams, when it really mattered.

It is depressing that at this point in time, it remains necessary to talk about the utility of using a sample size of 25 games or so to make meaningful evaluations of "better" or "worse", in a one and done tournament format, when we have sample sizes in excess of a couple hundred games available to us.

Points: 0

#287 by blan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:55pm

While I agree with the spirit of your comment, I think 25 games is certainly a large enough sample size to come to some conclusions. That's over a season and a half worth of games. We say that players have a bad season right? Usually we attribute that to a player not playing up to his standards, rather than giving him the excuse of being unlucky over a small sample size.

Points: 0

#292 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:05pm

It is a sample, but what are the conclusions? The only real one is that he's been unnaturally unlucky.

His passer rating is just under 90, and that is dragged down by some truly awful performances early (he had a cumulative 96 rating in his last five losses as a Colt). His numbers get worse, but most QBs with large sample sizes in the playoffs do - certiainly, Brady's numbers get worse in the playoffs too.

He has put the Colts/Broncos in winning positions all the time, but has less luck winning close games in the playoffs. To recap, he's had the following:

1.) Twice had Vanderjagt miss a field goal that would have won or sent a game to OT
2.) Did not win a game because Raheem Moore essentially gave up a hail-mary.
3.) Lost a game because Gijon Robinson forgot the snap count on 3rd and 2, where a 1st down would win the game
4.) Did not win a game because Hank Baskett decided to recover an onside kick with his face

He's had numerous random, inexplicable things happen to him along the way as well, like throwing a pick at the 5-yard line on a screen that Kenton Keith batted into the air for no reason, or having Nick Harper not outrun Ben Roethlisberger because Harper's knee was slightly hurt by being knifed that week.

Peyton Manning is by far the unluckiest QB in the NFL Playoff History. Now, he's contributed to some of the losses. He was not good in the losses in '99, '02, '03, '13, '14. Those are on him (it likely wouldn't have mattered in '02 and '13). But he's also been felled by weird circumstances in a bunch of those games.

Points: 0

#300 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 5:08pm

You can say the player was not up to standards, but you really can't be strongly confident with regard to how much, or how little, that performance aberration is simply random in nature. If a guy had 25 great games, spread over 18 seasons, surrounded something a lot less great in 250 games, nobody would claim the guy was a great player, because you'd recognize that we may be just looking at a random outlier. It works the same way in the other direction. It's just ridiculous to claim confidence in the ultimate meaning of 25 games over 18 years, out of 275 games.

Points: 0

#301 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 5:42pm

Buuuut, at a certain point, a player can only be judged on what he did, not whether that performance is an unlikely outlier or too small a sample to be meaningful. Manning and his teams have come up short a surprising amount, both in terms of one-and-done performances as well as losing games where they were heavily favored. I don't think it diminishes his career or his greatness, but his ultimate accomplishments are well under expectations for a player that undeniably great. That's just the tale of sports: some great players repeatedly come up short when it really matters and some not nearly as good players make a great play that propels them to a championship. That's the fun and surprise of the game. The helmet catch or Mario Manningham's sideline snag will be celebrated while Welker's drops and Manning's flame-outs will be booed. That's the way it should be.

Points: 0

#302 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 5:49pm

The wise person avoids judgements when there is inadequate information with which to make confident judgements, and the wise person is not compelled to make a judgement. The unwise person is reluctant to say "I don't know" when faced with inadequate information with which to make confident judgements.

Points: 0

#303 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 5:55pm

Oh I have total information: Manning has more one-and-done playoff appearances than literally any player in the history of the NFL since they started playing the Superbowl. And he's been the QB in losing efforts in more playoff games where his team was heavily favored than any QB in history. So, there's no confusion whatsoever.

The judgment is: his teams have performed below expectations in the playoffs more than any in history. The mitigating factors absolving him of responsibility - i.e. your position in the debate - rely on incomplete information and small sample sizes.

Points: 0

#304 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 6:11pm

I don't have a position in the debate, other than it is silly to to have confidence as to the meaning of Manning's playoff performances, relative to other great qbs.

Yes, I know you think you have "total information", and that "total information" is a meaningful term. Got it.

Points: 0

#308 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:14pm

I do in fact have total information about the only thing I am asserting: Manning's teams underperformed in the playoffs. There is no debate about it.

Whether he deserves the blame or what it means for his legacy or any of that blah, blah, blah I'm not asserting. I'm asserting something very simple and that can't be disputed. There's a real set of accomplishments Manning has that isn't in dispute. The meaning of it might be in dispute, but what I'm asserting is not.

No QB's teams have underperformed as much in playoffs as Manning's. No QB has more one-and-done appearances in the playoffs. Your accomplishments are your accomplishments.

Points: 0

#311 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:40pm

You may as well be asserting that quarterback x had the best or worst 1st start of a career that lasted 12 starts. I have little idea as to why one would take the time to do that, but you go right ahead.

Points: 0

#318 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:53pm

No, you're right: Manning won 8 Superbowls, never was bounced in a one-and-done and never played a bad playoff game. Manning's teams are the winningest playoff teams of All-Time!

I'm literally not asserting anything but facts. You're projecting meaning into those facts that I'm not. At the end of the day, accomplishments are accomplishments. You can feel however you want about those accomplishments, but that doesn't alter what they are.

Points: 0

#325 by Will Allen // Jan 13, 2015 - 12:04am

Yes, Andy Dalton is the best qb in football when passing with red hair. It's an accomplishment So what? One of the Hall of Fame qbs has the best numbers in October of even numbered years. It's an accomplishment. So what? One of the HOF qbs has the best numbers on the third and second Sundays of the months in odd numbered years. It's an accomplishment. So what? You throw out 100 different categories which comprise 10% of a HOF qb's career, and I'll find the statistical leader, and you can call it an accomplishment. Why you think this is interesting is puzzling.

Points: 0

#332 by chemical burn // Jan 13, 2015 - 12:49pm

Well, here's the thing, which maybe as a Vikings fan you can't understand, but championships are the primary accomplishment in football. Not HOF jackets nor rushing titles nor being a great QB with red hair. Nah, I'm just joking, all accomplishments have the same value. Losing a playoff game is the same as winning one.

I know what you're trying to argue: Manning's statistical excellence and regular season success render his playoff loses irrelevant. That's not an incoherent position to take, but don't pull some moronic horseshit about "why would anyone think a QB's playoff success is interesting? Why would anyone be judged on the accomplishments?" It's just a beyond stupid position even for you to take.

Points: 0

#335 by Will Allen // Jan 13, 2015 - 1:23pm

No, that's not what I'm trying to argue. I'm arguing that it is pretty stupid to look at 25 games out of 250 as a useful way to examine accomplishments, good or bad, and it is inadvisable to be stupid.

Points: 0

#307 by Pen // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:05pm

No. Montana is considered great because he DID great things in the playoffs. I haven't looked yet before typing this but I'm going to look up his stats and I expect he's equal to, or better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Now, when one considers that in the playoffs, one is facing better teams, one must expect the QB's stats to decline slightly if given enough playoff games.

Looking now: Yep, he's slightly better in the playoffs when one should expect him to be slightly worse playing superior opponents. His completion % is a tad lower: 63.2% regular season compared to 62.7% playoffs, but his TD% is 6.1% in the playoffs compared to 5.1% regular. His AYA and his ANYA are both much better in the playoffs than in the regular season.

This matches what we saw on the field and is WHY Joe Montana is considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.

Peyton is across the board worse in all categories. Tom Brady across the board worse in all categories. Those two don't really separate themselves in the playoffs, but the slightly lower stats are what one would expect from playing against superior opponents post season.

Andrew Luck is worse in the playoffs about as much as Peyton and Brady are with the exception of Int%, which shoots way up.

Let's do another blind test. Brett Favre. Another QB considered to rise to the occasion in the playoffs. And again, the eye test matches the stat check. Only completion % seems to slightly dip, but his TD%, Int% AYA and ANYA all significantly improve.

One other QB has shown he's a winner and plays above and beyond in the playoffs. Putting my money where my mouth is on this one. Russell Wilson. I'd bet big that Wilson is better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Okay, this comes as a bit of a surprise. He's not better. He's ABSURDLY better. His completion % goes up (rare for elite QBs). His TD% is up but basically the same (5.9 to 5.8), his INT% drastically drops. Now that is something as he's played against some good defenses in the playoffs and that is the number that Manning, Luck and Brady had all get worse. (2.1% regular season, 0.7% playoffs), his AYA and ANYA all go up. An AYA of 8.2 shoots up to 9.9 and his ANYA of 6.93 shoots up to 8.39.

You can say small sample size all you want, but players either rise to the occasion or they don't and that's what defines them as the greatest QB's. Peyton didn't. Brady was average. Luck doesn't look special. Montana, Favre, Wilson, these are the guys who have risen.

Points: 0

#309 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:18pm

Ye-ouch. I never thought the numbers would be that brutal. I had always assumed that Manning was a bit Romo-ish in the playoffs where he got more blame than he deserved. That's uh... that's a small sample size. One that does not paint a pretty picture.

Also: holy shit, Russell Wilson is the man.

Points: 0

#319 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:54pm

I know literally nothing about baseball. Those names mean literally nothing to me. But if Billy Martin was great in the World Series, that's a hell of an accomplishment.

Points: 0

#324 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:54pm

Yep, it is. But if you were to make the statement, "Billy Martin was a better World Series hitter than Ted Williams", it would be a monumentally silly thing to assert (as a meaningful comparative statement between two players, as opposed to mildly interesting comment pertaining to a trivial statistical oddity) even if technically true.

Points: 0

#333 by chemical burn // Jan 13, 2015 - 12:52pm

Again, having no idea what you're talking about - is Ted Williams good and Billy Martin bad? Is this some kind of Timmy Smith versus Marshall Faulk argument? You should swing it back to football because I can't read what you wrote and parse your carefully selected words and I know how much that annoys you!

Just kidding, I know you'll write that at some point no matter what happens.

Points: 0

#312 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:45pm

Ted Williams hit better on one day of the week, compared to the other six. It doesn't mean anything. You really, really, want to believe you have established something, but you gravely underestimate what it means to really know something for a fact.

Points: 0

#326 by Duff Soviet Union // Jan 13, 2015 - 4:03am

The funny things is that even Saint Joe Clutch of the playoffs had a memorably bad postseason stretch. In the prime of his career aged 29-31 the following happened:

1) The 49ers lose 17-3 to the Giants as 3 point favourites.
2) The 49ers lose 49-3 (yes, you read that right) as Montana throws for 98 yards and 2 interceptions before being knocked out of the game.
3) The 49ers lose 36-24 to the Vikings as 11 point favourites. The best offense in the NFL totally craps itself as Montana throws for 109 yards on 26 passes and throws a pick 6 to boot. The 49ers offense doesn't score a touchdown with Montana on the field (they did have a pick six of their own though) before he is benched in the 3rd quarter. His backup would go 12 - 17 for 158 yards with a TD and an interception plus 6 carries for 72 yards.

That's three straight losses where arguably the best offense in football didn't score a touchdown with their starting QB on the field. That's 2 games they lost as favourites, one as a massive favourite.

I mean, can you imagine the drivel that would ensue if Peyton Manning did this in his prime?

Of course Montana would go on to have the best postseason run in NFL history over the next couple of years, which just goes to show that predicting future playoff performance off past playoff performance is stupid (see also: Joe Flacco 2008 - 2010 vs Joe Flacco 2011-14, plus probably dozens of other examples).

Points: 0

#327 by Will Allen // Jan 13, 2015 - 8:30am

Hell, if Lewis Billups catches a floater that hits him square in the hands, the legacy of Rising UP Joe! has a very good chance of being viewed significantly differently. I don't mean this as criticism of the guy;' he's a non-debatable first ballot HOFer. People are just so compelled to make comparisons, or make measurements, with obviously inadequate or trivial amounts of information.

Points: 0

#328 by Will Allen // Jan 13, 2015 - 8:30am

Hell, if Lewis Billups catches a floater that hits him square in the hands, the legacy of Rising UP Joe! has a very good chance of being viewed significantly differently. I don't mean this as criticism of the guy;' he's a non-debatable first ballot HOFer. People are just so compelled to make comparisons, or make measurements, with obviously inadequate or trivial amounts of information.

Points: 0

#337 by Duff Soviet Union // Jan 14, 2015 - 5:11am

Heh, I wonder how the famous John Candy story would be spun if Billups had caught that.

"The stupid idiot didn't even have his mind on the game!!!!1111!!!".

Points: 0

#284 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:44pm

Good God, the Irrational Brady-Manning Thread is infectious and now moving through the website. It's like 28 Days Later with less logic.

Points: 0

#219 by Mugsy // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:00pm

I think the Colts owner, I believe it was Irsay that actually said something about "wanting championships" instead of "statistics". (if I remember correctly).

The NFL came out and said that the call was correct in the cowboys-packers game.
The NFL came out and actually admitted blowing 2 calls in the cowboys-lions game- they admitted to screwing up the 4th down conversion and missing a holding call (I don't know how they missed it, seemed obvious) and they also admitted screwing up the do-over when they picked up a correctly thrown flag.

I think the admittedly blown calls are the ones that should evoke the ire of football fans, not the Dez Bryant drop.

Points: 0

#226 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:07pm

Having good statistics (provided they aren't beefed up during garbage time and aren't meaningless statistics like QBR) is probably the best way to win championships. But football is a team game, you can't win with just a single good player.

Points: 0

#227 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:09pm

Jim Irsay is a guy who drives around intoxicated on prescription drugs with $20,000-plus in a brief case. That would be the sort of mind-set consistent with that statement. People without that sort of mindset would take Peyton Manning's performance for their qb position for 15 year, no questions asked, because people who aren't drug addled potential money launderers understand how thin the chance is that you are going to improve on 15 years of Peyton Manning at qb. Good grief.

Points: 0

#234 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:20pm

I think Irsay's incredible PR campaign prior to their 2013 regular season game in Indy was the result of one thing:

Jim Irsay did not expect Peyton Manning to be an able QB in the NFL anymore.

He said back in 2011 that he would not cut a healthy Peyton Manning, he played the PR game with Manning at the Super Bowl. I truthfully think he either got bad information, or just believed that Peyton was done. When Peyton, it turned out, was far from done, he doubled up the rhetoric and started pulling down the Manning-era.

Irsay has shown himself to be outmatched and over-his-head in PR matters time and time again, and anything he says about Peyton while 18 is still active should be taken with many grains of salt.

Points: 0

#243 by Rick_and_Roll // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:28pm

Considering the fact that Peyton "built" Irsay a stadium that is a year long revenue machine and the amount of money Peyton made for him, it shows his class.

Points: 0

#247 by Ryan // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:31pm

Irsay can be a bozo, but I think a little bit of context is important here. He seemed to be alluding to building a complete team, instead of an offensively-top-heavy shootout squad. It's as much an indictment of Bill Polian as it is of Peyton Manning. Certainly not very artfully stated though.

Points: 0

#258 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:48pm

Jim Irsay is a stone cold moron, who happened to inherit an NFL team from his father, Robert, who obtained the team when you could buy 51% of an NFL team for the equivalent of about 40 or 50 million in today's dollars. Robert earned that money by getting a big account and some other assets from his father's (Jim's grandpa) sheet metal business, and then Robert participated in a widespread bid rigging criminal enterprise for many years, and got immunity when when he testified, after be bought the Colts, against his co-conspirators. Jim Irsay is a perfect example of a jackass who was born on third base, and is stupid enough to think he hit a triple, and then gets even more lucky, to the point that some people have the misconception that he has had some real accomplishments. Listening to anything he has to say on any topic is no better than doing so with the random drunk encountered in a sports bar.

Points: 0

#293 by mehllageman56 // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:11pm

Look, Irsay jr can put his foot in his mouth with the best of them, and yes, he inherited his money. But he's still a better owner than at least half the league. The Colts were building up before Peyton got there; in the mid-nineties they had two or three playoff runs, one ending in a failed hail mary in Pittsburgh. He's definitely a better owner than the Jets' Woody Johnson, who isn't as bad as people believe. Cleveland Browns fans would love to have Irsay as an owner. He has employed quality coaches in Mora sr and Dungy, kept Pollian for a long time, even though Polian is notorious for being cantankerous and hard to deal with. He doesn't handle some situations with class, which has gotten worse over the last five or so years (possibly due to his drug use). But man, he is so much better than his father at this.

Points: 0

#297 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:23pm

Being better than Robert Irsay, in so many areas, NFL owner, honest businessman, son or sibling, etc., is a bar set so low that a nanobot may have hard time doing a limbo below it. As to Jim, well, lemme just put it this way; reverse Peyton Manning birthday with Tim Couch's, and there's a decent chance Polian is out of there in a few years, and then who knows what happens. Give Peyton Manning to just about any NFL team, and that owner would look a lot better. Irsay. of course, followed that up with getting the number 1 when Luck was available, so we likely won't be able to see an alternative universe for another 15 years.

Points: 0

#199 by Mugsy // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:25pm

So Manning has a lousy game and now it must be a health problem, something wrong with his legs, or maybe he's getting too old.
So what was the injury a decade ago when a lousy Jets defense held him to zero points? ZERO -- not even a field goal? That was a long time ago that he was completely blown out.
So maybe, just maybe he lays an egg in the post season every now & again. After all, for all of his amazing statistics.. his brother still has more super bowl wins, doesn't he? Maybe there was a reason the Colts ditched him for Luck.
Statistics vs. championships, ya know.

And I really don't get the controversy about the Dez Bryant miss. Since when can you let a ball bounce off the ground and count it as a catch? Seems to me keeping an object from hitting the ground is a big piece of actually catching something whether it's a frisbie or a football! If it hits the ground --you didn't catch it!

Points: 0

#207 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:38pm

Good grief, yes, there was a reason why the Colts selected Luck over Manning. It has something to do with date of birth.

Points: 0

#288 by mehllageman56 // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:00pm

I understand everyone wants to hype up how bad that Jets defense was, but they stunk the beginning of the year and got better later on. Which is one reason they went from 2-5 to 9-7 and in the playoffs. That team blew out Brady, Farve and Peyton in consecutive weeks.

As far as statistics vs championships, well then, perhaps they should have drafted Wilson first.

Points: 0

#184 by commissionerleaf // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:04pm

I'm going to talk about the Broncos, and it's going to go on a bit. All season, and despite the fact that the Broncos had a very good offense throughout the year apart from the implosion against Saint Louis, watching the Broncos was painful. The Broncos offense made football look so HARD! Despite the fact that they supposedly have some of the most talented receivers in football and a decent offensive line, watching the 2014 Broncos looked to all appearances a lot like watching the 2010 Colts.

You know, the Jacob Tamme-Blair White Charles-Johnson-as-guest-star-at-left-tackle team. The pre-surgery Manning-with-no-arm season. Now, watching that team was amazing because getting that team into the playoffs was one of the most amazing individual performances I've ever seen by Peyton himself. But the 2014 Broncos and that Colts team had this in common: They were really happy to get 6 yard completions on first down and seemed satisfied with four.

I didn't see "levels" or seam routes, or even sideline comebacks, it was all the stupid pick/flat combinations that simply don't work against press, and 9 routes that Peyton winds up like Randy Johnson to throw. The receivers always seem to get tackled right after they catch the ball, and the passes have to be perfect to get caught. This wasn't the case for Indianapolis, despite Denver's more-touted defense; Hilton and Fleener seemed to be wide open fifteen yards downfield all day.

[Maybe because they actually made the Broncos defend the whole field rather than just the first eight yards plus a 9 route.]

Presumably, part of what was going on was the decline of Welker and the injury to J. Thomas, both of whom didn't really feature in the game plan. And Green and D. Thomas dropped a lot of passes.

This looked like a game where Denver just did not come in with a respectable plan for beating the Colts; they wanted to win "on class". And finesse teams don't get to do that in the playoffs. It didn't help that C.J. Anderson always gained one and one half yards on first down. The guy is great, but his blocking wasn't.

The blame for the loss is on either Adam Gase or Peyton Manning; someone walked into this game with the wrong idea about what this team is (and how good it is). Doesn't matter who it was now; the season's over.

Next year they need to put the midrange passing back in the playbook and find another TE and another slot receiver.

Points: 0

#130 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:49am

Does Romo check into a pass if the Cowboys have committed to a 4 down strategy on their last possession of the 1st half, at least until they get into much better field goal range? Yeah, he possibly screwed up that play twice, checking out of the run, and fumbling the snap. but I really thought it was big mistake, with that offensive line, to choose a 43 yard field goal attempt on a field that was a choppy mess, on fourth and one.

Also, I think there is chance that if Torrey Smith makes the same effort on his last target, that Dez Bryant made on his last target, the Ravens have a chance to win the game.

Points: 0

#135 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:54am

Yeah, well, Torrey Smith isn't Dez Bryant.

To be fair to Smith, Flacco overthrew him badly. That was safety help that made the pick, not the guy covering Smith.

Points: 0

#143 by Mash Wilson // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:03pm

A perfect throw would have been a touchdown there, as the safety help only just arrived in time to make the interception. Maybe Flacco fell for his own legend and believed he'd make the perfect throw, but boy howdy was that a terrible decision.

Baltimore was driving, there was plenty of time, and Flacco channeled all of Rex Grossman's ugliest F**K IT I'M GOIN DEEP mojo and bombed it into double coverage. The hell of it was that even if the throw was perfect and they got the touchdown, they'd have left Brady with more than adequate time to drive down the field for, at least, a field goal to force overtime.

It puts one in mind of Ken Whisenhunt pretending to be as happy as his players over Larry Fitzgerald's long touchdown in the Super Bowl, while quietly muttering to some nearby assistant "We left them too much time."

Points: 0

#160 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:30pm

Barnwell put a great shot of what Flacco was seeing when he let the ball go. The read was a good one, as Smith had a step on his man, and the Patriots appeared to be in a single high safety coverage. Most any quarterback will take that.

The mistake was that the throw was too far inside, allowing the safety to come into play. If the throw was more outside, it's either a touchdown or incomplete.

Points: 0

#163 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:33pm

yeh, should have led him to layout at the back pylon

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#206 by Ben // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:38pm

That is a great picture. I thought it was a terrible choice at the time, but there is a lot of empty field there. It was just poorly thrown.

Points: 0

#257 by Joshua Northey // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:47pm

You see a shot like that and suddenly any illusion that these guys are human when it comes to throwing a football evaporates. He is leading the WR by 30 yards?

Points: 0

#129 by turbohappy // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:46am

"The eight-minute drive was a soul-crusher indeed, and from an offense that hasn't really been able to go on drives like that without Luck as the focus point."

This is false, actually. The Colts have an insanely well conditioned OLine or something. They have been putting together soul crushing drives like that in the fourth quarter all season after not running the ball well all game.

They basically only run the ball well in the fourth quarter with a lead, and also in the red zone. Which makes no sense at all.

Points: 0

#107 by oaktoon // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:29am

Four teams won this weekend, and this is the cynics' view of each of them (NOTE: for the Packers I can just quote Skip Bayless verbatim... In fact, I can do it almost any week of the NFL year)

Patriots: Flacco torched a very mediocre defense. Only (like Romo) his last minute over-aggressiveness prevented game-winning TD. Belichick and Brady had to resort to "tom-foolery" to win this game with trick plays and formations.

Seahawks: A decidedly mediocre offense amassed more than 350 yards and stayed in the game against the supposedly greatest defense in the history of mankind until the 4th Quarter. What might a better one-- albeit with a QB on one leg-- do this Sunday? And just how good is the Seattle offense anyway?

Packers: Aside from the incredibly good fortune of what was obviously a Dean Blandino-induced makeup call for the Detroit fiasco, their run defense never stopped Murray, particularly in key short yardage situations (like Jordan vis-à-vis Dean Smith at UNC, only Garrett and Romo's decision-making stopped Murray)-- how might Beast Mode perform? And gimpy QB certainly won't be healthier this weekend against an infinitely better defense that can cover Quarless and Adams as well as Nelson and Cobb;

Colts: Sorry, Peyton Manning is going reverse Brad Pitt/Benjamin Button before our very eyes-- that was the reason for this outcome more than any great Indy skill. Luck can't keep throwing picks and expect to beat any of his three remaining potential opponents. There's a reason NE blew them out earlier. (NOTE TO AARON: Have the two championship games featured rematches of regular season games where both teams won by 20+ pts before?? and if so, what happened in the rerun?)

Nobody wins. Except the zebras, of course.

Points: 0

#111 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:33am

For your last point:

In 2007, both Title Games were rematches with 20+ point differences. Both of those games happened in Week 2.

In week 2, the Patriots beat the Chargers by 24 (the game after Spygate broke), and the Packers went to the Meadowlands and beat the Giants by 25.

In the Title Games, the Patriots beat the Chargers by 9, not covering against a one-legged Rivers, and the Giants beat Green Bay in OT.

Points: 0

#126 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:45am

Just to further, there were a few other recent title games which were rematches of games with 20+ margin of victory:

2013 NFC Championship: SEA beat SF 26-3 in Week 2, SEA won 23-17 in NFCCG
2008 NFC Championship: PHI beat ARZ 48-21 in Week 13, ARZ won 32-25 in NFCCG
2002 AFC Championship: OAK beat TEN 52-21 in Week 4, OAK won 41-24 in AFCCG

Those are the only other three since realignment. The 2013 game probably deserves an asterisk, as those teams played again in the regular season, which was a close SF win.

Points: 0

#321 by EnderCN // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:11pm

Skip Bayless has to be the worst person you can quote in the history of sports. He basically says his team is in the right no matter what happens on the field. The fact he thinks the Dez call is the worst in the history of sports but he is fine with what happened in the Lion's game is a complete joke.

Points: 0

#83 by Paul R // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:15am

What to do with Trent Richardson?

He did a great job keeping the bench warm, that may have been a factor in the Colts' victory, but the cold weather won't be around forever. What happens then? Here are two ideas.

1. Jim Irsay needs a driver.

2. What about making him a tight-end? He's about Welker's size, maybe a little bigger, he can block and catch pretty good. What's there to lose?

Points: 0

#96 by Hurt Bones // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:23am

2. Welker's a WR. 5'9" 225 lb TEs don't have a really good track record.

1. Irsay needs to stick with a #3 wood and stay way from the whole driver thing.

Points: 0

#157 by Paul R // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:27pm

LOL at the #3 wood. That's what I use. My slice is so bad with a driver, that I just gave up on it. With the #3 wood, the ball might wind up 50 yards from the green, but at least it's in the middle of the fairway.
Then I use a 6 iron to hit it into the bushes off to my right. I like the six iron because it doesn't go so far and you can find the ball easier.

Points: 0

#159 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:29pm

Ever consider getting fitted and buying a custom driver with measured closed face?

That said, most OEM off the rack drivers are 3-4* closed and if that isn't enough for you........

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#235 by Paul R // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:20pm

Nah. I don't play often enough to invest in it.
There's a crappy little par-3 course within biking distance of my house. You can play the whole course with a 9-iron and a putter. That's all I play anymore. It's basically miniature golf with no windmills.

Points: 0

#106 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:28am

1. Find out what the cap hit is for cutting Richardson.
2. Absorb said cap hit. ASAP.

But as a Pats' fan I'm obliged to say that they should use him for at least 25 carries next week. And if he starts out poorly, stick with it.

Points: 0

#224 by Ben // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:04pm

Unfortunately Richardson's 2015 salary is fully guaranteed. The Colts are paying him $3.5 Million (and taking the associated cap hit) for him if he's on the team or not.

The Colts can thank the Brown's front office for that one...

Points: 0

#228 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:10pm

Seems to me the Colts can pay Richardson $3.5 million to not help the team and take up a roster spot or pay him $3.5 million to not help the team and not take up a roster spot, so maybe go with the latter, guys.

Points: 0

#286 by mehllageman56 // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:52pm

I'm pretty sure the Colts can thank their front office for this. They didn't write the contract, but they traded for it.

Points: 0

#92 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:21am

What a great weekend. More evidence as to why the NFL Divisional Playoffs are the best sports weekend of the year.

Regarding the Dez Bryant play, anyone who's spent any amount of time knows that was a catch, but the NFL rulebook says it wasn't. As soon as I saw the ball move when it hit the ground, I knew the refs were going to overturn it. I was disappointed, because the Packers drive to potentially answer could have been one of the most dramatic moments this season. The play was correctly overturned, but it's a really dumb rule that needs to changed.

But at least the readers of can finally put to rest the idea that the NFL is running a conspiracy to favor the Cowboys.

Points: 0

#68 by Julio // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

Isn't anybody worried about how the Ravens cut right through the
supposedly great (Darelle Revis! Brandon Browner!) Pats D? They
did it with a lot of long passing by Flacco, and guess who's
visiting next week? Last time the Pats played Indy they were
able to crush them with a running game, but now Stork is out.
If Baltimore has figured out the Pats D for the rest of the league,
next week could be a big surprise.

When Weis was the OC, the Pats used to pull out some gadget play
almost every big game. They needed it to offset the lack of
a reliable running game. They need to keep doing it if they are
not going to run. I can't believe they won that game with 14 yards
rushing, 4 from the QB on the TD.

Points: 0

#101 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:25am

Flacco finished with less than 300 yards and 6.5 yards per attempt. So I think you're overreacting a bit. My issue was with the run defense, which was hideous early, esp. in the first quarter. For a while there the Ravens were averaging about eight yards per carry. It was down to 4.9 by the end of the game.

The defense in the first half was awful, esp. in the first quarter.

I'm worried less about the Colts because they don't have a significant rushing attack. Presumably they won't dream of using Richardson, but even so their replacement-level RB isn't as good as Forsett, nor is their O-line as good as the Ravens.

No matter how you slice it, the Colts should be an easier matchup than the Ravens. They're not as physical, don't rush well, and their QB is turnover-prone. Yes, the Colts can win, esp. if Luck has zero turnover, but this is ultimately the matchup the Pats wanted.

As for the rushing stat, the last time the Pats faced the Colts, Jonas Gray ran for 200 yards and made the cover of Sports Illustrated. Probably won't happen again, but it's something to keep in mind.

Points: 0

#109 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:30am

The Jonas Gray 200 yards came on a lot of 6-OL formations. The Pats may look for that again, but the Colts will probably be ready for it. The Colts inability to adjust to that look was baffling.

The Colts are not a good matchup, and the games have been blowouts, but in each of the past two games the Colts had it at one-score games in the 4th quarter. I believe they even had it to down 7 with the ball in the Divisional game last year. This years game was a true blowout, far more one-sided than last year's affair.

The Pats should win, and are deserving favorites, but given the offensive quality of the Colts, they wouldn't be the first team to go on an unexpected run. They remind me of Arizona in 2008, who's defense and run game really showed up for the playoffs. One difference is they now have to go on the road for the Title Game, while Arizona got it at home with PHI beating hte Giants. Colts almost got that too, had the Ravens taken care of business.

Points: 0

#131 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:50am

It's not just that the Pats ran over the Colts this season. They did the same thing in the playoffs last year. And in their meeting in 2012. In those three games the Colts have given up 59, 43, and 42 points. Yes, they could adjust to the 6-man line formation, but they've yet to prove that. And the game plan for this season's game really didn't differ significantly from last year's playoff romp.

Presumably there's some reason that the Broncos didn't simply run over the Colts' run defense. I'm baffled because the Pats showed that this is possible, and the Broncos' running game is supposed to be much stronger than the Pats' is.

The Colts would worry me more if Luck weren't turning the ball over so much. If he cleans that up, they've got a puncher's chance, certainly.

Points: 0

#137 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:54am

Luck's two picks were basically arm punts. Deep throws getting picked on 3rd and long aren't horrible outcomes.

As a Colts fan, what worries me is Brady won't miss that many guys deep (though his deep accuracy isn't the best, either), and as you mentioned the run game. With Nicks playing better, and Moncrief getting going, I think this is a good matchup against the Pats defense, or as good as it can be. I'll be surprised if this isn't a shootout, and more surprised if the Colts do win.

I do think it will be closer than any of the three previous meetings.

Points: 0

#151 by Ryan // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:15pm

I don't know the splits, or if there is truly a difference, but it seems like the Colts' run D is much more competent with Arthur Jones on the field. I think we'll be a bit better equipped to handle a 6OL strategy should it come to that.

Of course, NE is still getting exactly what they want going into this match-up: a lot of pontification and hand-wringing over whatever the hell it is they're going to do on offense in the next game.

Points: 0

#171 by Julio // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:42pm

That's interesting about Arthur Jones if true. I did notice looking at the Colt's
run D stats that their run D has been decent overall, even better if you leave out
the Jonas Gray Game.

For most of the season the Pats have been playing that way, looking like crap for
a half and then blowing them out. Not a great way to play against really good teams
though. In any case, I'm not counting on a blowout, or even a win for the Pats.

Points: 0

#183 by panthersnbraves // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:03pm

Maybe they can get JJ to argue with the Colts announcers, because they seemed pretty happy with the throws...

Points: 0

#215 by Rick_and_Roll // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:55pm

The Colts game plan is one that is specifically designed and can only be run against junk ball QBs like Peyton Manning or Chad Pennigton. There is no way the Colts play the Patriots the same way.

Points: 0

#222 by ChrisS // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:03pm

The problem with "Arm punts" is the large increase in probablity of a long return. Average punt return is about 9 yards. The average int return is about 15 yards and if you exclude ints with 0 return yards (ints in the end zone, at end of half/game) then the average is up to 17 yards. I can't easily find a list of all int return yards, but of players with 1 int about 40% of their returns are 20 yards or farther.

Points: 0

#232 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:18pm

True, they are definitely not equal, but that interception is far less costly than most types of interceptions (also, what are the int return yards average for long bombs like that?).

Points: 0

#253 by panthersnbraves // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:42pm

being a Panthers fan, I have seen waaay to many pick-6's, so I am pretty happy with a 40 yard pass on third down that gets intercepted with no return. Particularly in a no score/field position game - knowing the Panthers' ST issues.

Points: 0

#240 by Ben // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:27pm

As a Patriot's fan, your view of the Colts' defense is going to be a bit distorted. This year they've been generally competent against the run. Not outstanding, but good enough to not be dominated by a running offense. Of course, the one major exception is the Patriots game. That plus last years playoff game would certainly have Pat's fans rightfully thinking that the Colt's run D is among the worst in the league.

This year's Colts defense was much more similar to what was shown in this weekends game then what was seen in the Patriots game. The Colts try to keep the RB reasonably in check and do that by loading the box and having their CBs line up man-to-man and play press coverage. They then throw in a lot of blitzes to try and get a pass rush. This forces the game to be put on the opposing QBs shoulders. This has worked well against bad QBs (e.g. the rest of the AFC South) and, apparently, injured hall-of-famers with fading arm strength. It doesn't work so well against good QBs, which is why they got lit up by Roethlesburger, Romo, Brady, and Week 1 Peyton Manning.

Now, why the Pats have had so much more success running the ball against the Colts then other teams is a very good question, which I don't have an obvious answer for.

Points: 0

#269 by GrandVezir // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:00pm

Now, why the Pats have had so much more success running the ball against the Colts then other teams is a very good question, which I don't have an obvious answer for.

I have a theory: the Colts were playing to take away the Patriots' strength (Brady and the short-to-medium passing game), so the Patriots called/audibled to a lot of runs.

Obvious question: were the Colts in a lot of nickel or safeties-backed-off formations on defense?

Points: 0

#299 by Julio // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:58pm

Go to and the video section and search "Jonas Gray Highlights".
On all the running plays, whether goal line or middle of the field, it
looked like the Pats just pushed the defense out of the way.
It also looked like there was never any containment to the outside, all the
run defenders seemed to run to the middle while 3 or 4 other guys just
stood there on the perimeter watching.

Points: 0

#144 by Lyford // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:06pm

"Flacco finished with less than 300 yards and 6.5 yards per attempt. "

And much of that was in the first 10 minutes.

First 10 minutes - Baltimore 14-NE 0 - Flacco 9-11 (82%), 109 YDS, 2 TD, 0 INT - 147.53 rating

Last 50 minutes - NE 35, Baltimore 17 - Flacco 19-34 (56%), 183 YDs, 2 TD, 2 INT - 66.17 rating

The Pats started very poorly. After that, they played a pretty good game...

Points: 0

#290 by pablohoney // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:02pm

I wouldn't call Browner "great". He is a jujitsu master at jamming/grabbing/holding guys at the line of scrimmage and is good in run support, but if somebody gets behind him he has almost no catch up speed. A lot of Seahawks fans (including me) were kind of relieved he was gone.

Points: 0

#65 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:05am

Adam Schefter reporting (@AdamSchefter) that Manning had a torn right quad ever since the Chargers game, which explains a whole lot, given that he's a leg thrower.

I'm really hoping that explains most of the dropoff, as his performance before that was far more explainable (the Bills game, he did go 14-20, just that 2 of the six incompletions were picked off).

Points: 0

#88 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:17am

A torn right quad and he's playing NFL football? I'm impressed.

I'm impressed that he's even walking much less trying to throw the ball. I had a similar injury and couldn't run 400 meters.

Points: 0

#331 by Mr Shush // Jan 13, 2015 - 12:21pm

I tried to play an under-18s rugby match a week after a similar injury and had to be subbed after about 90 seconds, during which time I'd already made it enough worse that I was unsteady walking for weeks and couldn't practice for months. Colour me likewise impressed.

Points: 0

#209 by Rick_and_Roll // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:42pm

I wonder how much of his decline in the last month was the torn quad and how much is because he's 38. Other QBs that played and had success in their late 30s (Elway, Favre) had a much greater bank of physical talent (arm strength) to withstand a decline in raw physical ability.

Whats more concerning is that there were so many players for Denver that just didn't show up to play... The pass rush was non-existent (Ware, Miller), the DBs were awful (esp Talib), Demaryous Thomas who's usually clutch in big games played poorly, the OL, especially Clady, were inconsistent and the run defense (which has been great the last 3 years) was awful, especially on the back-breaking 8 minute drive in the 4th quarter.

Points: 0

#212 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:46pm

I think majority was torn quad, maybe 75/25. Leading up to the Chargers game, he had basically played 9 games through which he was the #1 QB in the NFL by basically all stats, then the Rams game, followed by three odd games where you can build a case but there's nothing serious:

vs. MIA: Played great, helped lead a comeback against the Dolphins with timely, sharp throws
@ KC: Threw two TDs early, spent the rest of the game handing off and missing on deep throws
vs. BUF: Threw it accurately (14-20), but had two bad interceptions on deep throws, one you can argue DT should have done more.

Then came SD, where he gets hurt, and then CIN where it all goes to hell.

I think he definitely had some drop off after the Rams game, but that was a normal low period, the last three games were due to injury.

Points: 0

#214 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:52pm

Favre and Elway were also guys who were famous for being able to be productive with really terrible technique - they didn't need to be able to plant and twist in very precise motion to play their game, so little injury and age-related tweaks didn't transform them as players. Manning yesterday is the contrast to that, a guy famous for his precise technique having it hampered.

Points: 0

#218 by Rick_and_Roll // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:00pm

Exactly my point. Peyton has already maxed out the improvements he can get from technically sound play, while Favre and Elway could essentially adopt more technically correct fundamentals to extend their careers.

Points: 0

#64 by Dave Bernreuther // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:04am

I don't think I've thought this even once in 12 years, but Aaron talking about the Revis DPI call seemed a bit biased.

From what I remember, Revis was very clearly impeding/holding Smith with his extended right arm (which, to be honest, shows AMAZING strength and shoulder stability for a DB, even considering Smith's lighter weight), and to the extent that there was contact from Smith, it was an attempt to remove the obstacle. Unlike the Flacco special where he underthrows the ball and the WR lets the DB run into him, that one was perfectly placed, and Smith would've gotten to it if not for Revis holding him back.

I'm fond of pointing out that every highlight package networks show of Revis Island has him with his hands all over the receivers on every single play, but the reason he always gets away with it is because he's so damn good at everything; he knows the routes, he's quick, he's strong, he's smart, he's sneaky about the hands, he moves so perfectly, etc... I mean, that's how you coach it (the hands part... not the gifts, which aren't coachable). But on that play I think it's obvious that he knew exactly where the ball was and was using his strength to slow Smith down.

Now, if you want to make the argument that if their positions were reversed - ie, Smith was the small DB trying to cover Revis the larger WR - that would've been more likely to have been called DPI than OPI... I won't disagree. But because they always call it that way and bigger receivers push off all the time, not because Smith was doing something more illegal.

Points: 0

#77 by Julio // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:11am

Revis had his head turned looking for the ball, the offensive
player cannot impede him. That kind of play is made all the time
by good corner backs with no penalty. And there should have been
one on Smith because he shoved Revis multiple times.


Points: 0

#86 by Dave Bernreuther // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:16am

He shoved post-contact, as I recall. (The specious "that kind of play is made all the time" argument applies to that statement as well.) "Looking for the ball" doesn't mean he didn't still hold him back. Even if you wanted to argue that he ran the route better and thus had "established position," (which does then enter into the kind of WR push-off that never gets called type of discussion).

Points: 0

#78 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:11am

Aaron may have made that comment before seeing the replay. My first impression was that Smith was grabbing and pushing off and that, if anything, it should have been OPI. With the replay I saw the arm bar by Revis, which was a bit earlier in the sequence, so I've come to accept that as DPI.

I still think that the later holding call was ticky-tacky. Lots of defenders were doing jersey grabs all weekend.

What annoys me most about these calls is not that they were illegitimate, but rather than legions of moron fans are now claiming that Revis had a bad game. Without Revis, the Ravens would have won that game easily. Ooh - Duron Harmon had a late INT on a bonehead throw by Flacco, so he had a good game! (facepalm)

Points: 0

#91 by Dave Bernreuther // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:20am

Yeah, that D holding (I can't actually picture it right now) is the kind of thing that happens every play. Not sure why they decided to call it then.

It's fun to root against Revis and point out the constant holding, but you're not kidding about his impact... the guy is amazing. I still can't get over how good a signing that was and would really love an explanation of why the Broncos decided to sign Talib instead. Everyone did this little happy dance about it weakening their chief rival, but as I recall it was only another day or two before Revis signed, thus greatly improving the Pats.

Points: 0

#178 by Dave Bernreuther // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:57pm

Ah, so that was the next day thing, not his signing.

That said, Revis being released wasn't a surprise. People expected him to be on the market.

Heck, the Broncos could've signed both if they really wanted to. You might be able to make the argument that he would've been more valuable than Ware (easier after yesterday, though that's unfair).

Points: 0

#48 by Ryan // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:48am

I would have to watch the all-22 to know, but I'm assuming Peyton threw all those 9s down the sideline simply because the defense dictated that those would be the available plays. I would guess the Colts played a robber over the middle pretty often. But P simply couldn't effectively make those throws.

If his issues are not related to a recent injury that can heal, I'm not sure how he comes back. I can't imagine his being able to reconcile seeing a play on the field and leaving it there because he can't make the throw.

Points: 0

#52 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:51am

The Colts defensive gameplan after the first quarter seemed pretty obvious. Let Denver throw deep.

They took a risk and it paid off in spades

Points: 0

#79 by Dave Bernreuther // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:12am

Wasn't he taking a bunch of shots before that too?

I'm a Colts fan and I still feel like I'm half in mourning today. I've never seen a game where Peyton didn't give his team a chance to win, but those 9s were open, and he wasn't just missing, but missing by A LOT.

If you oversimplify things you start to think a very similar game plan will work next week as well. With the main difference being that a healthy Gronk is much more likely to expose 52 and 30 than [whatever percentage of effectiveness] Julius Thomas ever did.

I wonder if there's a way to basically double press Gronk at the line, like have a weak corner on one side just to make sure Gronk can't release free inside, setting a pick, almost, while Landry proceeds to level Gronk (to the extent that that's possible). Do it with Brown or someone who can then delay blitz from the slot or something. I'm sure that leaves some pretty huge holes but it might be an effective tactic against the fade/slant combo at the goal line that is otherwise indefensible... (Besides, Landry can't move or cover anyway, so just using him as a single-purpose Gronk battering ram isn't exactly changing anything beyond 5 yards.)

Points: 0

#69 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

Even if it is a recent injury, he has to make an honest assessment as to whether he is ever likely to again be healthy in January, after 16 NFL games. The answer may only be "yes" if he is playing with great receivers (which may be changing), a great o-line (which is not the case currently), and at least a very good defense (which may be changing). In other words, you can't devote such a large percentage of your cap space to Peyton Manning anymore, and have Peyton Manning remain healthy.

I'd never tell a guy that he oughta' take a significant pay cut to still risk getting the snot kicked out of him. Probably time to find a different way to spend your Sundays in the fall.

Points: 0

#146 by Rick_and_Roll // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:10pm

It just came out he's had a torn quad the last few weeks, which confirms Adam Scheffler's tweet referencing an Ortho who saw film of Peyton in practice and said Peyton had more serious leg issues than Aaron Rodgers, which are more significant than DEN reported on their injury report (isn't that a violation). This probably explains him not running on third and 5 at the beginning of the 3rd quarter, which is the play he's getting roasted for on Denver radio.

Peyton has essentially become a junk ball pitcher that can still win, at least in the regular season, but as you stated needs a lot of support. If Peyton wants to stay and have a real chance to win, he should take a pay cut to allow them to retain some of their key free agents (DT, Knighton, Franklin, etc) and refortify their OL. Denver also has to look at some other high priced players playing below their contract value: Clady isn't the same as before the injury and Ware has looked old in the last half of the season.

Points: 0

#172 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:43pm

Gamblers are going to be very upset with the NFL if the Broncos aren't punished for failing to disclose the extent of Manning's injury. "Broncos with Manning playing through a torn quad" didn't deserve to be 7 point favorites over the Colts.
The Broncos had been listing the injury as "thigh" with little detail. That doesn't seem adequate.

Points: 0

#181 by Arkaein // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:03pm

All teams conceal the full extent of injuries as much as they can within the rules.

And since Manning played the full game, I can't see the problem. Manning was listed as probable with a thigh injury, which was perfectly accurate, as Manning not only played but played the entire game. The injury designations are intended to disclose likelihood of participation, not determine effectiveness.

It's not the teams' or the NFL's job to cater to gamblers.

Points: 0

#189 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:10pm

It empirically is the NFL's and teams' job to cater to gamblers -- that's the point of the injury list in the first place.

Points: 0

#202 by dmstorm22 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:31pm

And by that they did fine. The Broncos put him at likely to play, and Manning did play. They don't have to disclose whether he'll be effective if he plays. I'm pretty sure saying 'thigh' is fine for a quad injury.

Points: 0

#43 by djanyreason // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:44am

I absolutely love Scott's diagnosis of the particular loss-inducing weakness of the Carolina Panthers.

Points: 0

#39 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:42am

The only bright side from this weekends games is the Dez debacle.

You can bet your ass that after Jerrrrruh is done taking some people behind the woodshed that this stupid rule is changed.

What if he "stumbled" (I disagree, but let's have a thought experiment) 80 yards down the sideline (tightroping say 25 steps) and then dove and "lost it" as he did?
Incomplete? BS.

Almost as stupid as the logroll call against Polamalu a few years ago.
(What if he logrolled all 100 yards downfield?)

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#34 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:38am

The rule needs to be changed. Dez caught that ball (as did Calvin Johnson years ago). By rule I see why it was overturned, but it shouldn't have been, and I'm a huge Packers homer. I still think the Packers could have won even if Dallas gets a TD there, but we'll never know now if they could have scored at the end of the game instead of just chewing clock.

I also think the Cobb catch should have been overturned. He did keep his hands under the ball, but it did hit the ground. I guess since it never lost contact with his hands they didn't see enough evidence.

Matthews got away with a late hit too. With his head down the way it was I don't think he was being dirty, he really didn't have a way to know the ball had been thrown, but it was still a clearly late hit.

There is a lot of talk about the time out and the bad spot review. It's possible that would have been reviewed anyway, or GB would have called a time out. Both of those change the complexion of game some, but that situation seemed to get a lot more conversation than I think it should have.

Now all that being said, I think Vince nailed it. Dallas made some bad play calls that really cost them. Green Bay played really sloppy in the first half, and did some really dumb things that did get flagged and helped Dallas out too. But I think they adjusted well enough that they still could have won even if Dallas hadn't mucked up some of their chances.

It was good to see Adams win his match-ups again. It was needed, and it will be needed again. Maybe him dropping so many passes after the great game against New England helped keep him under the radar enough. I am looking forward to a healthy Abberdaris next year too. Though I didn't figure Boykin would disappear this year either so maybe it will be the Cobb - Nelson show again, and not a four receiver spectacular that I keep hoping for. Nelson did get the Packers single season receiving yard record this year without much notice.

Points: 0

#56 by Flounder // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:59am

The competition next year for the #4 spot between Boykin, Janis, and Abredaris will certainly be interesting.

Points: 0

#70 by Flounder // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

Yeah, all three players have big question marks.

Can Abredaris bounce back from injury/is he even a player in the first place?

Can Janis learn how to harness his athleticism (clearly the best of the three) into being an actual receiver/special teams player?

Can Boykin bounce back from a truly horrendous season?

And this assumes Cobb is coming back too.

Points: 0

#270 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:05pm

There are a lot of questions. I believe that Cobb is getting resigned though. It might be like with Shields and happen the day before he becomes a free agent, but I believe it will happen.

Abbrederis is a bigger question mark than I like to admit. Based on what he was doing prior to the injury I think he was a player, but that is hard to really tell until he gets into a game.

I keep wondering if Boykin had nagging injuries that no one knew about, but I also forget that much of his breakout season was with QB's other than Rodgers (65% of his receptions and 62% of his yardage where from non-Rodgers QB's) who would have had more practice time with him. Rodger's has shown that he takes some time to trust his receivers. Adams suffered some from that year too. The games Boykin had with Rodgers where he did well were also games where other receivers were hurt. I've seen Favre, Manning, Brees, and others make average receivers look good when the primary threat is double/triple covered and the only other option is an average player. That makes Boykin's year even harder to figure out. Did Rodgers just not have timing with him? Is he really only so-so but can look good in this offense?

Points: 0

#329 by oaktoon // Jan 13, 2015 - 11:12am

Rodgers has had oodles of time with Boykin in practice by now... I just don't think he's that good-- not that fast, doesn't run great routes... One of the others will become the #4 receiver next year, I'd bet....

Points: 0

#330 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 13, 2015 - 11:35am

Rodgers has had less time than you think. The #4 and lower receivers get most of their throws from the 2nd and 3rd string QB's. Practice time is very limited, especially with the new CBA rules and the starters spend the majority of it working on their game plans. Nelson, Cobb, and Adams probably get 5 times as many throws from Rodgers compared to Boykin and Janis this year.

But yes, it's like Boykin is just a guy. Maybe he's as good as James Jones was, but Jones isn't much more than a JAG either.

Points: 0

#67 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

The ball is allowed to hit the ground as long as the receiver already has control of it, and his control is maintained while the ball touches the ground. The Amendola non-catch was similar. I didn't see Cobb lose control and thought the officials made the right call there.

Points: 0

#261 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:51pm

I've watched the replays a few more times now, and I've changed my mind on this one. I think Cobb did have control the whole time even when the ball hit the ground.

Points: 0

#271 by Steve in WI // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:06pm

As I recall, the 2nd replay angle they showed (from behind) seemed pretty clear that the ball contacted the ground before he ever caught it. It wasn't an issue of losing control but of the ball hitting the ground first, which IMHO should be pretty easy for a ref to determine given a clear view.

Points: 0

#273 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:14pm

I agree that the replay likely showed what you're saying, but whatever it showed, it didn't show it clearly. If we could clearly see the ball hit the ground, there would be no argument. (Again, that's what makes it entirely different from the Bryant catch ruling - Bryant's is about trying to properly apply the rules to a situation where there is no visual confusion, Cobb's is about trying to interpret a visually confusing moment.)

Points: 0

#142 by NYMike // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:01pm

I've read several places that Matthews got a way with the late hit, but I don't think he did. I think they called it, but the resulting lay was a touchdown, so obviously it was declined. I thought I picked that up from the commentary, and that the yellow Flag box appeared on the screen, but since the Head Referee would be calling that, and it's obviously declined, all that would have taken place while they were showing the Cowboys celebrating and running replays. So I'm not sure, but I think it was called.

Points: 0

#264 by DisplacedPackerFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:52pm

I've also changed my mind a bit on the Dez no catch after watching the replay some more and paying attention to his feet and the ball. I thought Shields hit his arm and the ball, knocking it loose earlier in the play than he actually did. So I thought Dez actually had both feet down in the stumble with what looked like control. Watching again, he is still bobbling the ball during the first two steps. After it looks like he has control he gets one foot down, then it's his knee that hits the ground. I always thought the ball clearly popped out when it made contact with the ground, but the ground can't cause a fumble.

I get the whole point of do you call that control and a catch, when I thought it was three steps with control it seemed pretty clear that it was a catch and down by contact at the one. But control, if it was established, didn't happen until much later and as the long arguments above this post point out, that is tougher to determine than it seems.

So now I actually think it was a great play by Shields to make contact with the ball, so that Dez didn't have control, and stopping the catch.

Points: 0

#278 by billsfan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:27pm

Exactly. Really pissed me off that the paid professionals on TV kept going on about the "Calvin Johnson Rule" when Sheilds clearly got enough hand on the ball to make Bryant bobble it. Don't let what actually happened get in the way of a good narrative...

Points: 0

#27 by The Powers That Be // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:28am

The Dez catch reversal was very clearly wrong by the letter and the spirit of the rules, and the NFL's explanation makes it even clearer that it was wrong.

There are, by rule, three components to establishing possession. Control the ball, get body parts (in this case, two feet) down and make a "move common to the game." On review, they concluded that Dez did not make a "move common to the game." On replay, you can see Dez take a third step, pull the ball in, switch hands with it, extend his arm and his body out and reach for the end zone. I have no idea how anyone could conclude that not one of those things qualified as a "move common to the game", or at least how anyone could conclude that it was so irrefutably the case as to warrant reversal. Pereira agreed that he reached out but claimed that he didn't reach out "enough", which seems absurd.

It was only after they concluded that he didn't make a "move common to the game" that they fell back on the "going to the ground" rule (the CJ rule), which is for establishing possession when the above three things aren't already completed.

Yeah, I'm pissed.

Points: 0

#32 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:36am

Actually there is no longer (as of 2012, IIRC) any requirement to make "a move common to the game". That part of the rule was changed to "maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game". See Rule 2, Section 2, Article 7, Item 2. So you need to hold the ball long enough to do it, but don't actually have to do it.

Points: 0

#175 by MilkmanDanimal // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:48pm

Yeah, it seems that the rule is pretty simply "when you catch the ball while falling down, keep hold of it until you've stopped moving on the ground". Bryant didn't. If he lands on his arm, rolls over, the ball bounces out, and he catches it again, it's a catch. He didn't; it hit the ground. Not a catch.

The rule was reviewed after the Calvin Johnson catch, and they kept it. It's like the Tuck Rule, where a lot of people hate it, but the rules committee has had multiple chances to change it and have chosen not to.

tl;dr--Hang on to the @#$! ball.

Points: 0

#185 by Travis // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:06pm

It's like the Tuck Rule, where a lot of people hate it, but the rules committee has had multiple chances to change it and have chosen not to.

The NFL got rid of the Tuck Rule after the 2012 season. Perhaps they were waiting for Al Davis to die before they did so.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Andrew
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and Andrew Potter. Use promo code POTTER to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Andrew.