Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» 2017 Defensive Personnel Analysis

Defenses have taken a wide variety of responses to the rise of 11 personnel. Is any one system better than another? And how has the rise of the "moneybacker" changed defensive philosophy?

12 Jan 2015

Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round

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.

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.

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.

Posted by: Andrew Potter on 12 Jan 2015

339 comments, Last at 15 Jan 2015, 12:31am by yentran422


by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:44am

I think there is a misunderstanding of the role of arm strength. Having true arm strength means you can both throw the ball some distance but also have the control to place the ball within a certain radius.

In these exchanges about Manning this point has been lost as people post past one another.

It is also a consideration that there are 'x' throws in a qb's arm in a given season once the qb gets older. Don't know if the facts bear it out but certainly every learned person I have heard on the topic believes this is the case.

And weather as always is a concern as a factor which did not seem to be an issue yesterday.

AS someone who watched Favre regularly fade later in the season and see his accuracy downfield all but vanish what I saw yesterday was a grim flashback

by Eddo :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:50am

Agreed. It was sad watching Manning struggle so badly with his downfield accuracy. Hopefully he had a worse injury than reported, so that a better version comes back next year.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:06am

That was the first game I really noticed him missing badly on the deep throws. The last few games he seemed to be okay on his accuracy when going deep.

To me it seems like the team overall was just badly prepared, the focus on the run through the end of the season and not practicing during the bye may have added some more rust. Obviously the plan of trying to build a team that can succeed when Peyton plays poorly didn't work out very well.

by Dired :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:57pm

Yeah, overthrowing players doesn't indicate arm strength by itself. It can even mean the opposite; just heaved-up prayers with no control or accuracy that a stronger arm could aim precisely. And then the last two minutes; they didn't even pretend to do the usual quick-outs and medium sideline passes. Like a pitcher who's in too long, his arm was spent and by the end of the game there was just nothing left. But those overthrows early were symptoms, not aberrations.

You're down two scores, have no time outs and two minutes on the clock. Dinking-and-dunking between the hashmarks is just a more dramatic kneel-down. Manning knew that, but what were they going to do? Put in Osweiller?

by Scott Kacsmar :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 8:47pm

Watched the first half throws again and I still don't see the lack of arm strength on those deep shots. He actually threw a few spirals too. Just kept overthrowing the ball, but he wasn't wildly off. Look how close this one was to Sanders


Most of the misses were on line, in bounds, but just overthrown (within 1-5 yards). He only missed out of bounds at the end of the half, but that was because he was out of timeouts on the first pass and the second was nearly picked by Vontae.

by Eddo :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:48am

"He really could have just secured the ball there rather than stretch for the touchdown."


My interpretation is that it was correctly reversed. The ball hit the ground and bounced up in the air, and I think the leaping nature of the catch means that the "going to the ground" rules apply.

I can see why some people think that his two steps showed control, though. It's close.

What I don't buy is the "he reached out for the goal line, that's a 'football move'" argument; either the two steps meant he had control, or he had to go all the way to the ground. What he did with his arms was irrelevant (except in the sense that had he focused on securing the ball, it would have been a totally clean catch).

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:54am

These are basically my thoughts as well. A very tough call to have at that point in the game. Would have been nice to see GB need to drive for the FG for the win.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:12am

I can see why some people think that his two steps showed control, though. It's close.

The disagreement that I have here (with those people) is that I don't think those were steps. They were stumbles. He couldn't've just stopped there - it's not like anyone pushed him, or made him fall. He was falling the entire way, so this idea that those steps showed he had control just doesn't make sense to me. Just because your feet touch the ground like that doesn't mean that you're taking steps.

He caught the ball, while falling, and the ball hits the ground. The only way you can show that you have control of the ball in that case is if the ball doesn't move (because since you're both falling, you don't know if you're in control of the ball or you're both just falling together).

I don't get the "bad rule" part. If you want to change the rule, I don't think you'd make it so that this was a catch. That's just nuts - it would make a ton of plays that people think of as "obvious" incompletes complete passes.

I think you'd change it so that if a wide receiver catches a ball while falling, if the ball hits the ground, it's not a catch, period. I'd be fine with that, too. That would be more clear-cut to fans. I think the current rule is perfectly clear cut to players, too, and I think Bryant is fooling himself if he thinks he caught that ball. He knew he lost control of it. That's why the thing popped up, after all.

What he did with his arms was irrelevant (except in the sense that had he focused on securing the ball, it would have been a totally clean catch).

Completely agree. If he hadn't been clearly falling while doing that, then it would've mattered. But when they say "stretching for the goal line is a football move" they don't mean "stretching while falling."

by Steve in WI :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:19am

Setting aside the issue of whether the call was reversed correctly according to the current rules, I don't see how any football fan can argue that the rule should remain as it is. There are way, way too many aspects of the game in which fans can no longer guess what the officials are going to say - pass interference, unnecessary roughness, holding, roughing the passer, etc. But anyone who watches football would look at a play like that, or the Calvin Johnson catch in 2010, and say "yup, he caught the ball."

I'm really questioning whether I should continue to devote so much time to a game that so often comes down to the officials instead of the players on the field.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:43am

But anyone who watches football would look at a play like that, or the Calvin Johnson catch in 2010, and say "yup, he caught the ball."

The Calvin Johnson catch is way harder, in my opinion - to me, it was just a freaking stupid thing for Johnson to do, much like DeSean Jackson dropping the ball before crossing the goal line. If you're falling while catching the ball, secure the ball to your damn body, period, end of discussion.

But I really disagree on the Bryant play. I don't see the controversy. He catches the ball while falling, shifts it around to the point where he's barely holding it, and then when it hits the ground, it's obvious that he wasn't controlling it. That's an incomplete. Literally, as soon as I saw the ball pop up I thought "that doesn't look right." Then on the replay, you see the ball move when he hits the ground, and it's obvious he wasn't in control of the ball anymore, which is why the thing pops up in the first place.

edit: I should repeat though, I have no problem with changing the rule, either, but the obvious way to change it is that if the ball hits the ground while falling, it's incomplete, period, and then you'd have to define 'falling' as ending when the player comes to a stop on the ground. That's no longer controversial at all.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:54am

But it's not about "falling". Johnson had control of the ball, took two steps, was in the end zone already, was pushed, went to the ground, and placed the ball on the ground.

Usually all you have to do in the end zone is have control of the ball and cross the plane. But with the new rule, you have to "go through the process" of finishing the catch. Of course, when "the process" of finishing the catch is done is itself subject to interpretation. The NFL is big on trying to remove ambiguity from the rules interpretation process, but they didn't do themselves any favors here.

As for Dez Bryant, he consciously took his right hand off the ball to cushion himself when he hit the ground. Big mistake. He later claimed that he was doing so to extend the ball into the end zone. Regardless of his actual motivation, with the current rule set, he's got to keep that right hand on the ball. There's no doubt in mind that, had he done that, the ball would not have jostled when he hit the ground and it would have been a completion.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:08pm

I don't know what you mean by "Johnson was pushed."

He wasn't pushed. He didn't even take two steps. He was in the air when he caught the ball, and he landed off balance, pivoted on one leg, and fell to the ground. No one touched him (okay, #35 might've brushed his hip with his shoulder, but #35 was falling as well, so it's not like it was intentional), and yeah, he was clearly falling.

The video is still on NFL.com, if you'd like to check.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:41pm

No, I'm just misremembering. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:54pm

I don't understand your point, then. You said all you have to do is have control, and break the plane. But Johnson never had control. You can't gain control while falling - it happens when you hit the ground, and show that you had control the entire way.

The goofiness with the Calvin Johnson play is that he chose to make the ball hit the ground, but that's similar to a player stretching the ball out to try to gain more yardage - when you do that, you have to maintain control as the ball hits the ground, otherwise you lost it. Where fans disagree with the rule is that Johnson wasn't trying to gain an advantage, he was just being stupid.

by krugerindustria... :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:19pm

"you can't gain control while falling" seems rather arbitrary. and I don't know why both can't be true at the same time. Johnson had the ball in one hand and waved it around. If that is not control, then I have no idea.

I wonder though, how much attention receivers pay to their position specific rules. The Bryant play is pretty conclusive given the rule.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:33pm

Well, I should've probably said "you can't show that you have control of the ball while falling."

Regardless of the Lambeau is not a vacuum arguments below, there is physics involved. If I throw a football at a piece of paper, the piece of paper is probably going to stay in contact with the football all the way to the ground, at which point the football is going to move, and they separate. The piece of paper didn't control the football when the football hit the ground, but in the air, looking at it on film, it might look like the paper had control of the ball in flight.

So when someone catches the ball when falling, you can't tell how tightly they're holding it... until it hits the ground. If it moves then, it's an incomplete pass (except for some weird 'second act' crap that they added that honestly I think is garbage - that, in my opinion, makes it a ton more open to interpretation).

Remember that "when the football hits the ground" isn't arbitrary - that's what makes a pass incomplete. If you catch the ball in the air, try to tuck it in, and it slips out and hits the ground, everyone calls that incomplete. So "falling" in this case isn't arbitrary either, because that's what the ball is doing, too - falling to the ground.

by Andrew B :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:35pm

Johnson had control of the ball, took two steps, was in the end zone already, was pushed, went to the ground, and placed the ball on the ground

1) Johnson didn't have control of the ball (it was moving in his hands as he fell because the Packers defender contacted his left arm while he was in the air). Did you actually watch the slow motion replay?

2) He wasn't in the endzone (after being contacted in the air, his knee was on the ground at the one yardline, so had he possessed the ball, he would have been down at the 1). Again, did you watch the replay?

3) He didn't take two or three steps (having your feet touch the ground while flailing in the air falling to the ground under the impetus of gravity is not a step). Bryant never regained his balance after leaping, so everything that followed was him going to the ground.

Usually all you have to do in the end zone is have control of the ball and cross the plane.

4) You've always had to control the ball all the way to the ground if you are leaping to make a catch. Nothing new here. The only way around that is to establish control prior to entering the endzone and then to enter the endzone in the air ala Michael Vick, in which case you can land out of bounds, fumble the ball, etc. as long as you break the plane inside the pylons before losing the ball.


The Original Andrew

by TecmoBoso :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:29pm

I don't think Dez caught the ball. It clearly hits the ground. If the ground isn't there, he drops it. Thus Dez never had possession. This controversy is getting pretty crazy... it wasn't a catch even without invoking the Calvin Johnson non-catch rule. I think people are getting caught up on awesome of a play it almost was (jumping that high and nearly catching the ball). If it was a run of the mill play (ie no jump, just some arm extension), with him not being able to hold on, are we talking about this right now?

The Calvin TD is way more controversial. Johnson catches it, has position (plus two feet), and is across the goal line. TD right? No because he drops the ball to celebrate. Some how having position in the end zone doesn't count on that play (how many times does the ball cross the plane only for a defender to come and knock it out, but it's ruled a TD because the player has position as the ball crosses the plane; for some reason that didn't matter on the Cavlin TD).

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:09pm

I don't get the "bad rule" part. If you want to change the rule, I don't think you'd make it so that this was a catch. That's just nuts - it would make a ton of plays that people think of as "obvious" incompletes complete passes.

I think you'd change it so that if a wide receiver catches a ball while falling, if the ball hits the ground, it's not a catch, period. I'd be fine with that, too. That would be more clear-cut to fans. I think the current rule is perfectly clear cut to players, too, and I think Bryant is fooling himself if he thinks he caught that ball. He knew he lost control of it. That's why the thing popped up, after all.

The ball hitting the ground not being a catch regardless of anything else used to be the rule. It was overturned because of what most everyone thought of as a catch, but by rule wasn't a catch in a highly visible game. (I think it was a playoff game 14-15 years ago between the Rams and Bucs, with the Buc receiver falling back and the ball hitting the ground. But I'm getting old and the details are fuzzy.) Twenty years ago it wouldn't have been a catch - except there was no challenge and the call would have stood.

by tammer.raouf :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:37pm

What I don't understand, even in the context of the rule, is how a player has to secure the ball in the process of "going to the ground" even AFTER they player is technically "down." In both the CJ and Dez catches, the ball is secure in hand and a part of the player's body that would make them down by contact is on the ground - for CJ, his ass, and for Dez, his knees and elbow. So if those body parts determine a player's down-ness, how is it that they need to continue to hold onto the ball after those same parts have touched the ground? It implies that a player can't advance a ball after certain parts of their body have touched the ground because they are down AND YET they are still capable of losing possession! IMO, that's a necessarily unfair part of the interpretation of the rule, and therefore, incorrect.

tl;dr - If a player can't move the ball forward after their elbows, knees, hips, or back touch the ground, how is it they are still able to lose possession?

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:44pm

Dez didn't lose possession. The ground showed that he didn't have possession, because he didn't have control of the ball at the point when it hit the ground. So he never could've been declared down.

Same thing as if a player catches a ball while lying on the ground - they don't get any special advantage for lying on the ground. They still have to establish control of it, which is half the reason why fumble piles happen.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:28pm

That's like saying if a running back stumbles and then the ball gets knocked out when it hits the ground after his knee is down it would be a fumble because the ground shows he didn't have possession.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:48pm

How in the world are those two the same? A running back is down once he has possession of the ball (control + in the field of play) and the whole "body part hit the ground" thing is satisfied.

The running back gains possession of the ball when it's handed to him, and he establishes control (ball moves with him). A player who is falling in the act of catching the ball can't show that he establishes control except by preventing the ground from causing the ball to move (or by some weird 'second act' thing, or other obvious caveats like coming to rest with the ball never touching the ground).

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:12pm

If he's stumbling maybe he's already lost control of the ball because he wasn't holding it tightly enough when it made contact with the ground.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:23pm

But the running back already had possession. If he stumbles, downs himself, then loses the ball when it hits the ground (but it doesn't move until he hits the ground) there's no evidence that he lost possession prior to downing himself. So he's down.

If a wide receiver, falling while catching the ball, can't maintain control when the ball hits the ground, he never had control in the first place (again excepting goofy 'second act' crap).

The difference is the state the two of them begin in: one had possession (the RB), the other did not (the WR).

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:30pm

No. The difference is the amount of time you require to establish possession. What if the RB trips as soon as he receives the hand-off and the ball pops out after he's on the ground. Is that a fumble or is he down by contact?

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:45pm

That's a broad enough description of something happening that I don't think I could say either way. It depends. To be comparable to a WR catching the ball, he'd have to basically be falling when he got the ball (so he'd have to trip before), and bobble the ball as he received it (because that's what happens here), then it would move when he hits the ground. I think most people would call that a fumble.

That being said, again, it's not completely comparable, because RBs receive the handoff basically in their gut - so if they tuck it, it's a lot more obvious if they have control or not.

I mean, if a guy gets the handoff in his gut, stumbles, and the ball never moves from a tucked position as he's going down, and then moves when it hits the ground, I think that's down by contact. But if a WR gets a ball in midair, tucks it into his gut, and it moves when he hits the ground, that probably still would be 'down by contact' because of the weird "second act" thing. So maybe that 'second act' thing isn't so terrible...

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:51pm

Right. So I think we're approaching agreement in terms of how a receiver can potentially create possession in the air. We just seem to differ on whether what Dez did was actually a controlled 'second act'; it looks like one to me but I could see how you may disagree.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:15pm

That's the inherent subjectivity with how the rule is written; two people with perfect objectivity can have entirely different subjective views about whether a movement is a controlled second act. The only problem I have (and it isn't a big problem, given I don't think a perfect rulebook can be written) is whether that subjective opinion should be basis for overturning the original call.

I'd rather have replay review than not have it, but it can't be expected to solve all disputes. I think this falls under the category of Random Stuff that Makes the Losing Teams' Fans Wail and Gnash Their Teeth, While the Winning Teams Fans' Congratulate Themselves for Rooting for Such Obviously Fine Fellows.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:21pm

I agree that the nature of football means you can probably never remove the subjective opinion. It would probably also be difficult to create a better rule that wouldn't also involve the refs going to replay for every catch. If anything this should teach receivers that if you're going to ground you better make sure you're holding on to the ball and not trying to do any extra reaching.

by anotherpatsfan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:15pm

If the RB hitting the ground is not caused by contact with a defensive player and the ball pops out when he hits the ground, it is a fumble, and not down by contact. If he is contacted by a defensive played and the ball starts coming out before he hits the ground, that is a fumble too. If he stumbles, touches a defensive player and falls, getting a knee or an elbow or whatever down before the ball pops out, it is down by contact.

I think all that is apples and oranges with what happened with Bryant. They ruled he was going to the ground while making the catch. Ball pops out of his hand when it (the ball) hits the ground. The way the rule was written, end of story. No "football move" or any of that crap (Rich Eisen should know better) when going to the ground If you want to argue he was not going to the ground while making the catch that's one thing, but once they ruled from the replay he was going to the ground, the bobble caused by the ground dictates incomplete pass.

by ChrisS :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:23pm

I think is a good concise explanation of what wrong with this rule.

by Led :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:14am

The "football move" (if there was one -- it appears reasonable people can disagree) was taking two steps (albeit stumbling steps) and then diving for the goal line while switching the ball into one hand for maximum extension. That looked, to me, a lot like something a receiver does after catching a ball near the pylon. And it's something a receiver who has not controlled the ball cannot do. If Bryant just stumbled twice, hit the ground while trying to secure the ball, and the ball popped out then it would be a much easier call. So the diving and reaching out are key aspects of the so-called "football move" in my view.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:25am

I think holding the ball one-handed should count as control and that both this and the Calvin Johnson 'catch' should have been good. There are already a lot of grey areas with the rules and I don't think the Calvin Johnson rule really simplifies anything.

However, it's somehow fitting that the Cowboys lose this game based on a controversial rule based on a Lions receiver. Karmic balance is restored to the universe.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:26am

How can stumbling be a move? You can't choose whether or not you stumble or stand still. Gravity's forcing it on you. The only choice you're making is to move forward a little or crumple helplessly into the ground, and to be honest I don't even think you have that choice. I don't see how you can call that a "move," as opposed to a slightly more graceful "fall."

And shifting the ball around while falling can't be a move, either - I can play hackeysack with a ball that's falling all I want, but I don't control it. If Bryant really controlled the ball, it wouldn't've moved when it hit the ground.

The thing is, after the game, Bryant said "I was just reaching for the end zone." And that's the problem: stretching the ball out is risky, and he shouldn't be doing it while falling. You do that, and it's easy to lose control of the ball, and if you lose control while falling, you never had it in the first place.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:33am

Well the ball didn't move until it hit the ground so it seemed like he was in control of it. The problem with the rule is that it extends what's normally required for a catch, it would be like if a back lost the ball while reaching for the end zone with a knee down and it being ruled a fumble rather than down wherever the ball was when the knee touched because he didn't 'secure' it when going to the ground.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:40am

Well the ball didn't move

Yeah it did - it was falling. It didn't look like it was falling relative to his hands, but, y'know, physics. Everything falls at the same rate.

You have to keep the ball fixed when it hits the ground because if it does move, that means you weren't controlling it in the first place. It doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch - keeping the ball from moving when it hits the ground doesn't require you to do anything more. If you have control of the ball, it won't move. If you don't, it will.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:45am

"It doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch"

Funny, I see guys bobble/recatch catches all the time

The standard is the standard!

by jacobk :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:48am

And yet when they bobble the ball and bounce it off the ground it's ruled incomplete. Odd.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:48am

Not by bouncing the ball on the ground you don't.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:52am

That's not what I said. I'm saying that the rule of a caught possession is in fact extended or defined different on circumstance. Why is possession (upright) nearly immediate on a bobble/recatch? But not on a "stumbling dive" {or more specifically, See Calvin Johnson debacle}?

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:35pm

Because if you're falling, you're not in control of yourself, much less the ball. If you're upright, and you bobble it, and recatch it, as soon as the ball stops moving relative to you, you've got control of yourself, and control of the ball.

I think people have a weird memory of the CJ catch - if you rewatch it, the controversial part is the fact that CJ made the ball touch the ground by himself, which was stupid, mind you. He was definitely falling to the ground the entire way.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:42pm

See, I disagree. I see players make diving catches (intentional falling) all the time. They are in complete control of their body, to do so- they choose their leap point/time, their angle, their arm extension, etc based on years of practice.

I also players upright who are not in control of their body/self. If they were, for example, they wouldn't tear ACL, hamstring, etc without contact in the open field on a cut, etc. Hell, ignore injury, they wouldn't get tackled by the "turf monster".

It's a stupid rule that has some merit, but needs massive revision. It's patently stupid to say the ground can cause you to "not have (ever had) possession" , but on the other hand that it can't cause you to lose possession when you did have it.

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:11pm

A falling player's position is not in his control. We don't live in the land of Super Mario Bros. physics - once you leave your feet, the position of your center-of-mass is entirely (excluding minor aerodynamic effects) in the hands of Sir Isaac Newton.

An upright player's position is in their full control.

It's patently stupid to say the ground can cause you to "not have (ever had) possession"

The ground doesn't cause you to not ever have had possession. It shows that you didn't have it at the time the ball hit the ground. So no catch.

I think what most people want is that if the ball's not moving, relative to you, when your feet hit the ground, that's a catch. But really, there are a ton of examples of catches that would look like that, but no one would agree they are a catch.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:19pm

So since a diving/falling player is not in control of their body (your argument), all catches made are therefore purely the result of luck?

While many NFL players may not be able to solve a FBD or understand the derivation of Newton's equations of motion, do you really think that after years of practice, training, etc they don't understand how to control their leaps/dives under the EXPERIENCE of FEELING gravity?

Also, you ignored my point. So if an upright player is in control of their body (more than a "falling player") why do they slip? Get tackled by turf monster? Tear a muscle? THEY'RE IN CONTROL OF THEIR BODY, REMEMBER???

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:22pm

So since a diving/falling player is not in control of their body (your argument), all catches made are therefore purely the result of luck?

No, it means you can't establish completely control over the motion of the ball. You don't have complete control over the motion of your own body at that point, so showing that the ball has the same motion as your body doesn't establish that you have complete control over it.

Also, you ignored my point. So if an upright player is in control of their body (more than a "falling player") why do they slip? Get tackled by turf monster? Tear a muscle? THEY'RE IN CONTROL OF THEIR BODY, REMEMBER???

You're really taking this ideal of "control" too far. The point is that they need to show that the motion of the ball is completely due to them, and not out of their control. You can't do that while falling.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:30pm

How do astronauts ever hold and manipulate objects in the space shuttle while in orbit?

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:35pm

You can write the rulebook for Football in Zero-Gravity, OK? Would that make you happy?

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:40pm

Google translate result for the above comment returns:

"Point conceded"

The standard is the standard!

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:29pm

google translate: a guy lost an argument so badly he had to start coming up with absurd zero gravity scenarios to continue arguing.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:43pm

I see that you missed the point where it was argued that a person who is "falling" cannot control their body or an object.

But do go on with your e-whiteknighting.

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:24pm

I see you missed the point that you're the only person that thought you made any sense. :)

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:26pm

Yes or no:

Do you stand by your claim that falling people cannot control their bodies and/or objects?

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:35pm

I see you also missed the point that I'm not going to bother arguing a completely pointless distinction.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:37pm

Yes, whether your universal claim has obvious
exceptions that disprove it is.... pointless.... I see.

Hope you never go skydiving.

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:47pm

"You can write the rulebook for Football in Zero-Gravity, OK? Would that make you happy?"

actually translates to:

"prior statements were not intended to be universal statements, but only intended to apply to the game of football."

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:49pm

So million dollar athletes are less physically talented than say....... pretty much everyone else alive that isn't disabled. Fascinating.

The standard is the standard!

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:29pm

In most cases the receiver and the ball are not moving in the same direction prior to their contact. So a receiver going to the ground exerts a force on the ball to bring it into their control. It's then possible for the impact with the ground to exert another force that knocks it out. I understand that it's hard to judge when a player has 'control' which is part of the reason why this rule exists, however, there is a lot more to it than just the player and the ball falling to ground at the same rate.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:40pm

I understand that it's hard to judge when a player has 'control' which is part of the reason why this rule exists, however, there is a lot more to it than just the player and the ball falling to ground at the same rate.

Them falling at the same rate means that you can't tell how much force the player is exerting on the ball by the time it reaches the ground. So when the ground whacks the ball, and it moves, it's obvious that the player wasn't holding it that tightly.

It's the same thing as if a player is catching the ball, turns, and gets hit, knocking the ball free and hitting the ground. The impact from the other player shows that the player didn't have control of the ball, so it's an incomplete pass.

If the player catches the ball, turns, and is running upfield for a bit, then obviously they had control of the ball since they controlled its motion.

I definitely agree it's hard to judge, though. Which is part of the reason I find this "outrage" from some people hilarious. There's no way you can write a rule for catches such that everyone will be happy. And I *really* don't get the outrage here. The Calvin Johnson play is 100 times worse than the Bryant catch.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:54pm

I think that given the current rules the call was correct. I just think that the rule is dumb and I agree that the Calvin Johnson is a much worse example.

The falling at the same rate is a bad example because the player and the ball are initially moving at different rates and the player isn't a solid body. So it's possible to determine how much force the player has put on the ball, with Dez it looked like he brought the ball under his control and then had it knocked out by the ground (which is incomplete by the current rules). Though if there was a rule change they would have to be careful with what it was because it's difficult to define 'control'.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:06pm

The falling at the same rate is a bad example because the player and the ball are initially moving at different rates and the player isn't a solid body. So it's possible to determine how much force the player has put on the ball

It's possible to determine how much force the player put on the ball to move it to himself, but not after it's there. And it wouldn't take very much force to move the ball to himself at all. That amount of force is pathetic, since it's not like the ball weighs a lot.

Actually, a good question would be this: suppose it wasn't Bryant hitting the ground that made the ball move. Suppose another player had come in, and whacked at the ball as Bryant started to stretch it out, knocking it to the ground. Would that be incomplete? If so, the ground exerted much less force than that, and it caused the ball to move - so there's no way you could say Bryant had control.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:18pm

Well I think his one armed extension is an example of control because he start moving the ball forward faster then it was going to ground, assuming he wasn't down when it came out it would have been fumble.

The rule as it stands does bring some consistency between impacts with the ground and other players and prevents the refs from having to go to replay more often so it does have some merit. It's always going to be hard to judge control especially without replay so some controversy is inevitable.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:32pm

It's some control - I wouldn't call it complete control. I mean, I can bat a hackey-sack forward pretty easily. You don't need complete control to move a ball like that.

To give a good example of a decision I don't agree with, the Lance Moore 2 point conversion in the Super Bowl, in my mind, should have been incomplete. There, he catches the ball falling down, pulls it around (but he doesn't even really pull it towards him) tries to steady it, it starts bobbling in his hands, and then he gets hit by another player and it knocks out. That, I don't get - he obviously didn't have control of the ball if a player bumping into him knocks it out, and he didn't even have a chance to make a move or anything between him hitting the ground and the player hitting the ball.

It's always going to be hard to judge control especially without replay so some controversy is inevitable.

Yup. I do find it hilarious that so many people are saying "everyone looks at that and thinks it's a catch." No, they don't. They clearly don't. So pretending the rule is awful is just nuts.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:03pm

Watching the play again he stops the ball from going forward, pulls it into his body, transfers it to one hand, as he body hits the ground makes an effort to stretch forward (so the ball and his body aren't even falling at the same speed), then the ground knocks it out.

So yes he should have held on better, and yes under the current rules it seems like this was correctly rules incomplete. But everything about this particular plays 'feels' like a pass successfully controlled by the receiver prior to his impact with the ground.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:42pm

As you state yourself ball control is relative to the player. It doesn't matter if they are falling and not in control of their body relative to the ground as long as the ball is in control relative to their body.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:48am

Well the ball is allowed to move when it hits the ground provided that it still looks like you have control. Hitting the ground when falling is a big force; I think it's dumb to say that it's impossible to have control of the ball and then have the ground knock it out.

And sure everything falls at the same rate, but the ball wasn't moving in his hand in any direction after he transferred it to that hand. It's pretty unlikely that he just happened to match the rate his body was falling so that both his hands and the ball were falling together in a perfectly synchronous fashion.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:59am

The ball is allowed to move and it's allowed to hit the ground. It's just not allowed to do both.

My issue with the replay was that, even though common sense says that the ground caused the jostling, I don't see how that was visible in the replay. I thought replay was supposed to be reserved for obvious mistakes. But the de facto policy seems to be to err in one direction with the initial call (catches, turnovers) and then get the call right with the replay. Since you cannot use replay to declare a non-catch a catch, the initial call is made a catch and then the replay official is given the task of overturning it.

I'm also baffled at how an official standing five feet away, looking straight at the area where Bryant hit the ground, could make the initial call of a complete catch. He was right there!

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

There have been situations where the ball both moves and hits the ground and is considered a catch. Usually this is when someone gets two hands on the ball moves a bit but their hands never really come off the ball. In this case if the ball moved when hitting the ground but Dez's hands never came off of it I think it would be considered a catch, it was the bobble off the ground that was a problem.

And I do agree there are problems with replay, though I do think it's generally better than it used to be. The problem is that somethings still aren't reviewable and that the NFL doesn't have enough camera angles to really allow the 'let it play out and fix anything on replay' mentality of the refs.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:12pm

And sure everything falls at the same rate, but the ball wasn't moving in his hand in any direction after he transferred it to that hand.

Think of it like baseball - if the ball just lands in your glove while diving to make a catch, but you don't close your glove, the ball bounces right out, because you didn't control it.

It's pretty unlikely that he just happened to match the rate his body was falling so that both his hands and the ball were falling together in a perfectly synchronous fashion.

That's... actually the way that gravity works.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:19pm

If you drop things with no other forces being applied, like I said the ball wasn't moving in other direction relative to his hand either.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:53pm

Pat - you might want to watch this. As far as I know, and despite what Bears fans will tell you, Lambeau isn't a vacuum


by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:56pm

Yes, but you're not going to see any difference over a few feet.

Also, hilariously, there's a point in that video that accidentally still shows an in-air drop and presents it as if it was vacuum. See if you can find it.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:56pm

Is this debate going to involve a trip to Pisa?

by Bobman :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:11pm

I'll bring the grape, you bring the cannon ball.

by The Powers That Be :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:22pm

The rule doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch. It is only supposed to apply when the things that are normally required for a catch have not yet been achieved when the receiver hits the ground. In this case, the CJ rule should never have been applied, since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground. It was a misapplication of the rule, not a problem with the rule.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:26pm

If he had "fumbled it" before hitting the ground, would it have been ruled a fumble ?

I think so....

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:29pm

Definitely not. We've seen plenty of examples of that over the years. Catch the ball while falling, lose the ball while still falling - no fumble.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:28pm

since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground

Possession requires you establish control of the ball in the field of play. You obviously can't do that without touching the ground, since you can't establish your position in-bounds without touching the ground - and in order to show control of the ball while falling, you have to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:34pm

" since you can't establish your position in-bounds without touching the ground"

So people who run the ball in untouched and upright never have possession?

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:37pm

I have no idea what this statement was supposed to mean. Someone who catches the ball, and runs in to the endzone, upright, clearly have control of the ball (it's moving with them, and they're controlling their own movement) and are in bounds (both feet are in the field of play). What's the problem here?

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:44pm

You had replied to a commentthat Dez had possession prior to hitting the ground (this implies his body parts excluding his feet)

Your comment said that the body had to hit the ground to define possession. I gave an example whereby it doesn't.

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:13pm

Feet are part of your body.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:20pm

But the comment that he(she) made that you replied to were ignoring them.

See phrase "hit the ground"

The standard is the standard!

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:24pm

I replied to:

"since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground"

and like I said, it's impossible to achieve all of the criteria of establishing possession before you hit the ground.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:28pm

So if a receiver dives, catches it, gets pinballed by another player, lands on their feet, and runs it into the endzone?

The standard is the standard!

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:40pm

Well, his feet had touched the ground. In the past that was enough.

by Andrew B :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:41pm

The ball moved in the air when the Packers defender contacted first his arm and then the ball. The ball moving means no control. Bryant attempted to control the ball with one hand going to the ground to brace himself with his right hand for impact, so he further moved the ball by letting go of it with his right hand. The illusion that his left hand alone controlled it was shattered when it moved on hitting the ground. That's why every NFL officiating person former and current said it was incomplete.

Really, just watch the video.


The Original Andrew

by Led :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:21pm

"If Bryant really controlled the ball, it wouldn't've moved when it hit the ground."

Players that indisputably have possession and control (because, for example, they took a handoff and ran 30 yards!) lose control when they hit the ground all the time. What we're trying to determine is whether Bryant had control via possession and a football move before he hit the ground. The fact that the ball moved is not dispositive of (and perhaps not even relevant to) that question.

Also, Bryant didn't play hackey sack with the ball. He got two hands on it, bobbled it, secured it with two hands again, transferred it to one hand and then used the one hand to stretch the ball forward as far as possible. Similarly, he didn't just stumble. He stumbled and then dove forward to try to put the ball over the goal line. You can't decide to stumble, but you can decide whether to dive and reach out with the ball, and (in my view) you can't dive and reach out with the ball if you don't have control of the ball in your reaching hand.

For some reason, you keep referring to hypothetical facts that are materially different from what actually happened. But since you are talking about hypotheticals, suppose a receiver stumbles for 6 or 8 steps using his hand on the ground to avoid going down before finally stumble-diving into the endzone and losing the ball when he hits the ground. Catch? Can it never be a catch until the stumbling receiver fully regains his balance? Even if he stumbles for 20 steps, holding the ball tightly the whole time? If not (which I think is clearly the right answer) then you have to assess whether the stumbling and diving while holding the ball constitutes possession. Just saying he stumbled and the ball moved do not, in and of themselves, answer the question.

by JasonK :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:22pm

The "football move" (or "act common to the game") is irrelevant in a situation (as here) where the player was falling to the ground at the point when he secured control of the ball. In that situation, the "going to the ground" rules apply in place of the "football move" standard.

by bluereloaded :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:02pm

Part of the problem was that Dez was juggling the ball for 2 of the 3 steps, so he never really had time to gain control--much less possession--of the ball before reaching towards the goal line.

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:24pm

Yeah, I think if the ball doesn't bounce off his shoulder initially, there's some argument about having possession, but he juggles it after initial contact with the ball, has it knocked out by the ground and juggles it some more as he flips to his back. If he catches it solidly throughout, the argument becomes stronger - or rather, makes it less subjective. I'm not sure I even buy he's intentional trying to transfer it from hand to hand during those steps so much as contending with catching, falling, fighting the defender, staying in bounds and finding the endzone. The way the catch happens basically allows for maximum subjective interpretation of what's going on - the only way to believe it's a catch is if you view all of Bryant's actions in a split-second sequence favorably, which is to say you view them all as being intentional. I think people believing it to be a catch, are arguing for the most subjective view of what happened.

by MJK :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:14pm

I agree that, per the current rules, it wasn't a catch. He was "going to the ground"--there was no way he could have jumped up, caught that, and landed on his feet without falling. So he has to maintain control even if the ball hits the ground. Going to the ground + ball touches ground + lose control = no catch. The only thing about this that's even debatable is whether the ball touches the ground--I'm about 95% certain that it did based on the replays that I saw, but I never saw a 100% definitive version. If you want to gripe about the call, I think this is your only leg to stand on--whether it was "clear and conclusive" that the ball actually touched the ground (the ref said it was).

Interestingly, if it didn't touch the ground, then not only was the play a catch, but it was a TD, rather than a catch at the 1. Because Dez loses control upon hitting the ground, and regains it in the end zone, if the ball never touched the ground. That would have really made McCarthy regret challenging it!

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:08pm

I wasn't sure the ball hit the ground, either. The ball is dark, Bryant's skin is dark, and the field is dark; I couldn't see it on my older model HDTV. I heard Pereria say that for him what made it not a catch had something to do with not making some sort of football move while demonstrating control. I certainly see a lunge to the end zone, as opposed to simply falling to the ground. The rule are pretty byzantine, and I'm not an expert, but it certainly seems as if what constitutes a catch can be pretty subjective.

by EnderCN :: Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:09am

Dez may have meant to lunge for the end zone but he certainly did not manage to actually lunge for it. The ball never moved past his helmet. If he understands the rule and the game situation he secures the catch rather than trying to get a TD. Once he doesn't catch it cleanly up top he has to know that he has to be sure to secure the catch as he goes down.

by EricL :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:03pm

My interpretation is that it was correctly reversed. The ball hit the ground and bounced up in the air, and I think the leaping nature of the catch means that the "going to the ground" rules apply.

My take on it is this: For the "going to the ground" clauses to not apply, he must at some point have been deemed "upright" after initially controlling the ball. That never occurs, therefore the going to ground bit applies.

Also, that's not a catch in baseball, either. Not that that applies here, but there's precedent for a rule like this, and I've got no problem with the going to ground section of defining a catch.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:08pm

Baseball is a bit different in that it's unlikely the ball will touch the ground at all on a controlled catch and if it does it's probably on the edge of the glove with borderline control.

It seems to me like the baseball analogy would be the player catches the ball in the air, as he takes a stumbling step transfers it to his other hand and then the ball comes out as he hits the ground. I'm not sure exactly how that would be ruled but it feels like it should also be a catch.

by EricL :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:14pm

The baseball analogy here is an outfielder half-diving for a catch, gets the ball in his glove, but the ball comes out when the glove hits the ground.

Did he, at some point, have control of the ball by a layman's definition? Yes. Is it a catch? No.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:23pm

Well in this case Dez moves the ball to one and extends it so there is an additional movement.

Your baseball analogy would apply more to a receiver diving to catch the ball, gets it in his finger tips and then has the ground knock it out. That's easier to rule incomplete because he wasn't able to make any additional moves with the ball.

by ChrisS :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:34pm

I agree that in baseball if the ball comes out on a dive when the glove hits the ground it is not a catch. But this more like sprinting to the ball, getting it in your glove, closing your glove, taking two stumbling steps, falling to the ground and having the ball fall out. Which I would expect to be ruled a good catch.

by Mark S. :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:12pm

Totally agree. I think the rule is fine and the enforcement of it in this case was correct. To me, Dez never truly secured that ball before it hit the ground.

FWIW I thought the same thing about the Calvin Johnson catch.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:49am

Julius Peppers was incredible yesterday. And tied to that every sack save for the first one was a coverage sack so the secondary, whatever the penalties called, must have been really good much of the game.

Corey Linsley showed being a rookie early. Glad he got his sea legs.

Thrilled the special teams didn't cost Green Bay the game.

Adams had all but disappeared the last 4-5 weeks. His re-emergence was clearly tied to Rodgers/McCarthy recognizing that there was no tomorrow unless they took risks so Rodgers began to look for the guy despite his drops of late along with the team bagging the run and going all pass all the time.

McCarthy also won a challenge which is pretty incredible.

What a game

by Eddo :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:51am

Either Peppers or Adams was the Packers' true MVP yesterday. I didn't think Peppers could still play this well late in the year, given how he seemed to fade his last couple of years in Chicago.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:54am

Peppers had faded this season as well even with GB cutting back his snaps come December. The week off clearly helped

It will be telling how much he can bring next week

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:23am

Unless Rodgers as a huge recuperative week, it's gonna be ugly in Seattle, I think. That was one of the great one-legged performances ever, but a defense with great personnel, in their own very loud stadium, is a formula for a boring game, if the qb remains one-legged. Of course, Romo was about the same by game's end, so by the time the fourth quarter started, I was about 90% sure Seattle was going back to try to be the first repeat champ in a decade, and I also don't think either AFC team is beating them.

by Arkaein :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:33am

Unfortunately, I'm mostly in agreement with this.

When Romo got knocked down and looked like he might not be able to finish, after Rodgers had spent most of the game gimping around, I feel like the real winner of this game was Seattle.

by Sakic :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:44am


Rodgers at 75% is still better than all but a handful of QBs in the league but going into Seattle against that defense you need to be at your best. My best hope is that Rodgers plays like he did in the second half (moving in the pocket) and Seattle comes in overconfident and doesn't put forth their best effort.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:47am

The Green Bay offensive line is playing about as well as any line can be playing. The Packer fan in me uses that as the foundation of hope

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:25pm

They have made gigantic strides since the beginning of the season, and are very good, but they aren't like the Dallas line, which can decide to run against any defense, which is in any formation, and have confidence that they will be successful. The Packers mostly run very effectively because the o-line is very good, but also because most d-coordinators risk being committed to a mental institution if they try to play Rodgers with a single safety over the top.

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:38pm

It seems to me the way to attack Seattle is to pound them on the ground, which the Packers are capable of. Unfortunately, defending the run is also extremely important against them, and that is where the Packers are lacking.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:42pm

Yeah, I don't think they can pound Seattle on the ground if Rodgers isn't close to full effectiveness.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:59am

Any thoughts on Harbaugh's characterization of the Pats line setup as 'deception'?

I don't know if I should regard that as Harbaugh having a point or Harbaugh grousing because his team was 'outwitted'.

by collapsing pocket :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:12am

Well of course it was deception. That was exactly the point.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:00pm

Yeah, Harbaugh somehow made it sound like deception wasn't allowed.

I guess the Ravens don't run play-action. Or zone blitzes. Or any other calls that entail deception.

by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:16pm

Seriously. I live in the Baltimore area, so I have a bit of a soft corner for the Ravens, but Harbaugh needs to stop whining. Does he whine when the other team runs a fake punt or surprise onside kick, too?

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:21am

Harbaugh is a well-known crybaby. He wasn't whining to the refs because he was outwitted. He was whining to the refs because that's what he does.

And, no. He has no point here. This is a routine eligibility reporting situation, with the twist of using an unbalanced line. There is ample time to match personnel on the substitution. The ineligible receiver is reported and announced to the defense. Harbaugh failed to match personnel when the Patriots sent in an extra skilled receiver to replace a skilled blocker, and his team was not coached to handle unbalanced lines properly.

There is no requirement in the rules that an offensive formation be easy to defend. But in this case, it is. You have a number of choices. Substitute in another DB or LB, and in effect play ten-on-ten football. Play zone. Jam the TE instead of trying to get around him. Blitz (risky, but you get insanely great mismatches on the line).

Harbaugh blew it. And then he cried to momma. Boo hoo.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:57am

Harbaugh wanted more time for the defense to respond to newly identified eligible receiver. And after complaining and getting an unsportsmanlike penalty, Vinovich told him he would be granted more time. So Harbaugh's "whining" served a purpose, but the Pats never ran that formation again.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:14pm

If the refs promised a longer delay after announcing an ineligible receiver, then they were promising to cheat for the Ravens. The rules allow for such extra time after a substitution, but not again after an eligibility announcement. The only mandated delay in that case is enough time for the refs to get into position after the announcement.

This is what I hate about Harbaugh. He whines to get the refs to favor his team against the rules. That he succeeds in getting favorable treatment doesn't make it any better. In this game, he got extra notification and coverage advice ("Do not cover that receiver." I can't believe the refs said that!). And, if he was promised even more time after the announcement, he got a change of the rules, too.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:22pm

Or the refs realized that the Pats were not reporting who was eligible "immediately" (as mandated in the rule book), and allowed the Baltimore defense the proper amount of time adjust.

Can you name any other instances of Harbaugh convincing the refs to change the rules to favor his team? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

by SmoothLikeIce :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:45pm

Was on the 30 yard line 20 rows up, the three plays in question almost directly in front of me. Each play, the player who was ineligible (whether Vereen or Hooman) ran straight to Vinovich and told him that he was not eligible. Immediately, Vinovich reported it over the PA to the stadium. There were then (according to both Barnwell and King) between 7-10 seconds for each of the three plays for the Ravens to react accordingly. They could not. It's since been made clear that the play is completely legal.

There is no issue other than Harbaugh was mad about it. He should have called a timeout.

by Digit :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:54pm

Considering that they were giving them 7 to 10 seconds, and or close to between 1/5 to 1/4 of the play clock... yeah, that's plenty of time. More time than audibles at the line.

The PA announcer at the stadium announced things much earlier... the idiots on tv were babbling over it so they pretty much flatout missed the timing.

by Digit :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:21pm

Also, one other thing, I pointed this out before... the problem was that the Patriots were sending out enough eligible receivers that ONE had to declare ineligible.

This they did, and announced to the refs with at least seven seconds. (And stop whining about 'a couple seconds' or 'at the last second'- the TV announcers were talking over the PA at the stadium, which is why they -failed- to understand what was going on...)

The problem was that the Ravens did not identify, ON THEIR OWN, that the TE over there -remained- eligible. The ref really doesn't have to tell them who to cover. Hell, he went above the call of duty saying 'DO NOT COVER VEREEN'.

So the refs did their job. They identified the ineligible receiver, the same way they would have to identify the eligible receiver if there were too many ineligible receiver. The NFL has stated that the refs did what they were supposed to do, and that everything was legal.

It's on the defense to identify the formation.

So if the refs were promising to give him more time 'to identify the eligible player', then yeah, I would have said this would be exactly a perfect example of Harbaugh convincing the refs to change the rules.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:02pm

It's up to the ref's discretion to allow time for the defense to identify which players are eligible and adjust the defense accordingly. After Harbaugh pointed out what the Pats were doing, the refs agree that they were not giving the Ravens defense enough time.

It's a subjective call, and the refs agreed with Harbaugh. It's not changing the rules.

by CaffeineMan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:50pm

Actually, I've only ever heard this statement from Harbaugh in his press conference. Did the refs and/or league make any statements about this?

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:59pm

Ha - can you imagine? "We know there was some controversy with the Bryant catch yesterday, but we'd also like to point out that we admitted that the Patriots were cheating and did nothing to stop it. Just by the way."

by CaffeineMan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:40pm

Yeah, I know you're gonna ride that hobby-horse 'til it breaks but... :-)

If the refs told Harbaugh they would allow him more time, no reason not to confirm that afterwards. It was a judgement call on the refs part whether the Ravens were granted "enough" time.

I thought Kevin Seifert's Inside Slant (he's an NFC North guy, in case you're wondering about bias) had a good article on the judgement aspect of it on ESPN's website:


It was a high-school/college play and the Ravens got beat 3 times with it before they did something about it. And instead of calling a "safe" defense (guys on the field), or calling a timeout, Harbaugh loses his cool and runs on the field, getting a penalty. He had 8 seconds the first play and then 2 more plays to call a time out, including at least 8 seconds between plays.

(edited to add link to Seifert's article)

by SandyRiver :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:02pm

Almost every team in the NFL is willing to burn a TO to save 5 yd for delay of game. It seems mighty dumb to give away 15 rather than use the TO to harangue the refs AND set your D.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:05pm

The whiner only gave up 5 yards, since the pre-penalty spot was the BAL 10.

by SandyRiver :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 9:36pm

Was not watching at that point, so I didn't realize that Harbaugh watched all three of the odd-formation plays before blowing his stack. How observant (and not just him, but his entire staff failed to hear/see/react until then.)

by af16 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:55pm

When has he ever "whined to get the ref to favor his team"? Please, please give some examples.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:47pm

It's not like anyone could get replays of his insufferable whining. But Deadspin had this at the start of the season in their "Why Your Team Sucks" feature:

John Harbaugh, who is the worst Harbaugh. I can't believe any Harbaugh is worse than Jim Harbaugh, but at least Jim has some small, deeply cloaked understanding that he is a psycho who wears terrible pants. John lacks this final, molecular trace of self-awareness, and thus, he is the fucking worst. I hate him. I hate his face. I hate the way he bitches after every single goddamn play, like a scientifically formed hybrid of an NBA player and a World Cup player. Other young coaches are going to fall in line with John's "complain to the refs because the refs don't know what they're doing because the NFL changes the rules every week" model of behavior, and the NFL will become insufferable for it.

You don't get that specific write up without a long history of whining to the refs. Sure it's a joke. But it's a joke about a real character flaw, that is well-known to the reading audience.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:58pm

So working the refs is a character flaw? Do you find that pointing out plays in which a penalty could be called on the opposition is a moral failure? You have a bizarre ethical standard. Maybe Harbaugh should behave according to the "Patriot Way" instead...

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:38pm

Yeah, I think what makes Harbaugh's behavior totally NECESSARY is that it was the Patriots he was complaining about - Belichick's teams have a long, notorious tradition of pushing up against the borders of the rules and erring on the side of over-stepping them. They consciously make the refs put an end to their shenanigans as part of their gameplan (going all the way back to their approach to Marshall Faulk in the Superbowl.) It don't think it's necessarily objectionable on the part of the Pats to do that, by the way - it's the refs job to enforce the rules and define the grey areas, not Belichick's.

However, that means that Harbaugh absolutely has a responsibility to get on the refs and make sure the rules are being enforced in a coherent, fair way. If the refs aren't reacting, he absolutely has to point out what's happening and make sure they understand how skirting the border of the rules is creating an imbalance in the other team's favor. Only negligent, useless coaches like Jim Caldwell and Mike Smith wouldn't understand that working the refs is their responsibility in that case.

by Anon Ymous :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 8:21pm

I have to admit to being confused at this comment. Spygate kills any chance for NE to hold the moral high ground, but a legal formation that is legally disclosed and the opponent is given a legal amount of time... where is the grey area here? Was there deception? Of course, but no more than a zone blitz or a play action pass. Harbaugh making a fuss doesn't demonstrate that there was something wrong with the play, just that it took him by surprise. By that standard the league should review the double pass. And even if Harbaugh *thinks* there was something uncouth about it, that still doesn't mean anything when you realize that, again, NE didn't do a single thing illegally by the letter or the spirit of the rule.

If you want to talk about pushing up to the edge, the Ravens should really look in the mirror. They were given a great deal of leeway with contact in the secondary (Gronk having both arms pinned down on a 3rd down play, the defender literally grabbing LaFell's right arm and tugging on it, forcing a one handed catch on the go ahead TD) as well as QB contact (intentionally kneeing Brady in the head after a play, and picking him up and body slamming him even though the ball was already out). From the perspective of your complaint, Baltimore did the exact same thing; they pushed beyond the limits and forced the refs to pull the back in line. The only difference was that what NE did wasn't actually against the rules.

by anotherpatsfan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:04pm

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.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:06pm

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.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 10:36pm

It makes about as much sense as complaining to the refs that the other guy's OL is blocking your DL.

by JimZipCode :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:03pm

I'm shocked that there's a widespread perception of John Harbaugh as a crybaby and a whiner.
(outside of Deadspin "Why your team sucks" stories)

I'm serious. Ravens fan who lives just outside of Baltimore, I had no idea there was such a perception. I've been well aware for years about the perception of Tom Brady as a spoiled crybaby, but had no clue anyone regarded Harbaugh as a whiner.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:15pm

Both Harbaughs have that rep.

And Jim adds to it by also being regarded as insane

but in the nicest possible way

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:25am

When everybody in the stadium is told the guy is ineligible, I don't know what the hell the opposing head coach is griping about.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:27am

I guess he was looking for extra time to adjust?

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:43am

What's he want, 20 minutes to do a walk through to practice the situation?

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:02pm

He had ten seconds or more. It's not like the Pats were running a hurry-up offense.

What he really wanted was a minute or two to figure out what he should do. And it's the fault of the Pats or the refs for not giving him that time. Or something like that.

by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

The Ravens should have been given time enough to substitute personnel depending on who is eligible and who is not. 10 seconds isn't enough time to do that. The player reporting is supposed to report "immediately" according to the NFL rulebook, not 8 seconds before the snap.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:27pm


You get extra time to match subs when they come on the field, not eligibility when it is announced.

You are supposed to report yourself ineligible "immediately" after you line up ineligible, not when you come on the field. It's in the rulebook. The only mandated delay imposed then is enough time for the refs to announce the ineligible player to the defense and get back into position. Eight seconds is easily long enough for that. Two or three seconds would probably be enough.

The whole purpose of the rule is to help the refs interpret the lineup to see who is on the end of the line, who is in the backfield, and who is in the interior line. It is NOT to give the defense a second chance to substitute, nor is it even to give defenses a chance move players around or make complex alterations to their play call.

The Ravens opted to not cover the TE - who was in a TE's number and clearly uncovered at the end of the line. They guessed he was going to be used as a blocker. They guessed poorly. End of story.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:39pm

Correct. Here's the rule (Rule 5, Section 3, Article 1):

Article 1 An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.

He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.

And that's what happened. Vereen reported his change of status at or before the time he changed his eligible status (by lining up in an ineligible position). The ref literally pointed him out to the defense, made the announcement, then got into his position and signaled ready-for-snap.

by The Powers That Be :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:33am

I wasn't watching that game closely. Was an intercom announcement made that the guy was ineligible? And how much time elapsed between that announcement and the snap? My understanding is that Harbaugh's complaining that the snap was right on the heels of whatever announcement was made, giving the Ravens no time to adjust their defense. It seems to me that it ought to work like substitutions: the refs shouldn't let them snap until they have time to respond to the change in (in this case) personnel eligibility.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:38am

The ref announced it to the crowd each time. One time the ref even said something like "#34 is reporting as ineligible. Don't cover #34". And it was 6-8 seconds from the reporting to the snap.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:46am

I do think the ref who gave coverage advice to the Ravens should be reprimanded. That's a big no-no for refs.

Imagine a ref saying "That guy is really fast. Don't cover him with a linebacker." Or even "That tackle is eligible. Be sure to cover him."

They are supposed to announce who is eligible or ineligible when it is different from their numbering. That is all they are supposed to do.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:59am

It's stupid for the ref to say that for another reason -- while Vereen couldn't catch a forward pass he absolutely (like anyone else on the field) could catch a backwards pass. (I in fact wonder if that was a planned variant -- if BAL had sniffed out the trickeration and stopped covering Vereen, would NE have thrown a backward pass to him? We might have seen Harbaugh's brains ooze out of his ears...)

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:24pm

OK, that is a damn awesome variation.

There's a ton of trickery you can do there. Plus, Vereen can be moving backwards all he wants, so you can not declare him ineligible on a play, have him line up as an ineligible receiver (on the line, between a split-off RT and a WR on the line). If he's not covered (because they think it's another 'ineligible Vereen' play), you just have him back up before the snap, and he's eligible, and it's a screen.

You can also have him declared ineligible, like you said, and have him start his motion after the snap, get a backwards pass, and you've got 3 plays with the same formation, with ever so slightly different communication and confusion on the defense.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:44pm

Plus, Vereen can be moving backwards all he wants, so you can not declare him ineligible on a play, have him line up as an ineligible receiver (on the line, between a split-off RT and a WR on the line). If he's not covered (because they think it's another 'ineligible Vereen' play), you just have him back up before the snap, and he's eligible, and it's a screen.

Not quite. Once a player reports an eligibility status at odds with his number, the player is locked into that status until he comes out for a play or there's a stoppage in play (timeout, penalty, etc.). So in your scenario Vereen would have to step back before the snap whether or not he's covered, because if he didn't step back he'd be an eligible number in an ineligible position which would of course be a foul.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:34pm

I suspect a lateral to Vereen was the second read on that play. He hustled back very quickly, much more than needed as a decoy.

But to top it all off, they should do this with Edelman, and have it end with a WR pass to Brady "streaking" up the middle of the field.

The interwebs would explode.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:38pm

I don't think we have enough time for Brady to streak up the field. The man would lose a footrace to a glacier.

by nat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:21pm


The interwebs would e x p l o d e ...... s ... l ... o ... w ... l ... y.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:33pm
by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:04pm

The player reporting ineligible is supposed to report "immediately" (Rule 5, Section 3, Article 1), so 6-8 seconds before the snap may not be considered immediate.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:37pm

He did report immediately. And then the Pats huddled. And then the snapped. They didn't even do a Chip Kelly-hurry up!

Harbaugh is pissed because the Pats used a legal formation that he hadn't anticipated. So he literally didn't have a play call ready for that. He could have called a time out, but instead he drew a penalty in order to bitch at the referees and pretend that this is somehow poor sportsmanship by the Pats and/or bad officiating as opposed to a simple case of an opponent using the rules to his advantage.

I remember a game of chess when I took an opponent's pawn with an en passant capture. I had to spend five minutes explaining to him that, really, this is part of the rules and I'm not doing something sneaky or somehow cheating.

by Pat :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:00pm

Let me say clearly I don't think anything is wrong with what happened, but I think that things have to be changed here - I think it's too easy to abuse.

I mean, you could start off with a tight end and a receiver on the line, and then declare one of them ineligible - and if the crowd is too loud for the defense to hear, you could easily have confusion as to which one was ineligible. Then all the eligible one of them has to do is step back, and they don't even have to set before the ball is snapped. You can't really communicate something around to 11 guys spread over a huge area even in 6 to 8 seconds.

Players changing from eligible to ineligible is the same thing as a substitution, so the defense has to get a chance to respond, except with every other substitution, there's an obvious visual change (different player, different number, obviously). So I think you have to add some visual element to eligible/ineligible players, like a green armband (ineligible declared eligible) or a red armband (eligible declared ineligible).

The fact that Baltimore didn't call a timeout though was super-dumb.

by aces4me :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:14pm

I read and article by Catham a former Pats linebacker that was even more damning to the Baltimore defense. He claims every defense has a "safe" play to call when things are really confused that drops defenders into "default" zone coverage. In zone it matter very little who eligible receivers are because you are going to defend anyone in your zone. He claimed the fact the Raven didn't call their "safe" defense three plays running when obviously confused by an offense was football malpractice.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:16pm
by aces4me :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:17pm

Thanks I forgot where I read that.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:45pm


by jonnyblazin :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:24pm

It's unclear to me how audible the intercom system, which is placed in the crowd, is for players on the field who are calling plays, making presnap adjustments, etc, right before a play. The refs mic is always linked with the in-game audio for people watching on TV, and I didn't hear anything, so I don't know why that was.

If the information is communicated to a single player on the defense, then it would make sense for that player to have enough time to communicate to all his teammates (CB's in the corner of the field, D-lineman as well) what the new playcall is.

Anyhow, the competition committee will take a look at it, and determine what the appropriate length of time will be to make eligible/ineligible announcements. They are usually more interested in making sure that the game is determined by "traditional" football skills (running, blocking, throwing, tackling, etc.) than strategically manipulating receiver eligibility.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:12pm

I didn't hear anything, so I don't know why that was.

Three reasons for starters:
(1) You weren't paying attention (which relates to (2)).
(2) The announcers were babbling over the top of the PA feed.
(3) The announcers (and their spotters) weren't paying attention, either.

by blan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:53pm

I really don't understand Harbaugh's criticism. Even if the referee hadn't reported Vereen as ineligible, the offensive alignment dictated that he was. He was on the line of scrimmage, but not the last player on the line of scrimmage, therefore he was ineligible. I would think most people who played football at the high school level would know and understand this rule. Since the Ravens play football professionally they should know it.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:55pm

In his press conference today, Belichick says they got inspiration from something they saw another NFL team do this year.

ESPN did some digging and Field Yates come up with this from Detroit's week 6:


by ammek :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:00am

I disagree with Scott, I think the Cowboys' tackling was very good at least until the Davante Adams touchdown. The pass rush, too, was effective in the first half, with Mincey and Lawrence crashing inside to hem in an immobile Aaron Rodgers. Only after the Packers went to some unusual looks -- Cobb in the backfield, Quarless split wide -- and Rodgers began to leave the pocket did the intensity drop. The coverage was tight all game long, and the biggest negative was that, despite the coverage, the DBs weren't able to win more of the contested catches.

I wrote in the preview thread that the Packers' regular-season success on third-and-long looked unsustainable to me. Well, they more than sustained it, for one game at least.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:05am

To me, there are two possibilities to explain Manning's play since the Rams game:

1.) There is a reoccurrance of his neck/arm issue that will essentially end his career


2.) He has some other undisclosed injury that has cost him his ability this year, but can recover

I would lean towards #2, but I'm not sure. To me, this year for Manning is anologous to Favre's season with the Jets. That too started out quite well (7-3 record, good performance), but ended awfully as he got hurt (I believe it was a shoulder injury for Favre). He recovered in the offseason, came back at age 40, and played really well.

I think that can happen for Manning. He was one of the Top-2 QBs in teh NFL through 9 games, right there with Rodgers. A guy playing that well doesn't quickly turn into a mediocre player over night. I think there was some injury that he was trying to overcompensate for. What's odd is as the season went on he started actually throwing more spirals than he was earlier in the season. Just he had no control over where they were going.

That said, the rest of the Broncos gave no help. Thomas dropped two screens, one of which looked to be nicely set up. The o-line played below their talent level. And for the second time in three years, the Broncos famed pass rush absolutely failed to show up in the Divisional Round (Flacco too had eons of time in 2012). The coaching staff wasn't smart enough to realize that Harris was the far better match for Hilton. It was just terrible everywhere.

I hope this isn't Manning's last game, because I think he has another year in him, but if I'm right that this was a specific injury that ruined his season, the likelihood of such injuries occurring again increase.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:13am

I have not reviewed all qb history, but I think a study will show that the ability to perform does go quickly over just 1-2 seasons.

And one of the early indicators is late season fades

But that is purely anecdotal

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:21am

Sure, but this isn't 1-2 seasons, this is so incredibly quick. The first time I noticed anything with Manning was in the Chiefs SNF game, where he had 2 TDs and no INTs, but also missed on a ton of deep balls (a lot like last night, actually).

Even after the Rams game, he had some stretches of good play. He was great against Miami, was at least accurate against Buffalo, and prior to the downpour, led three great drives against the Bengals.

This was something totally different. I really hope this isn't it, but that was a startling performance, in terms of objective quality (missed passes), and almost as concerning, subjective (why the over-reliance on 9 routes).

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:33am

He didn't look right to me on deep throws in the 1st game of the season, against the same Colts. Then, the typical Manning run of spectacular occurred, so I thought it was just random, and then he went over the cliff more often late in the season.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:39am

He hasn't looked great on deep throws consistently for ages, dating back to his Colts days. What's different in the last 6 games was he wasn't as accurate in the intermediate throws (or guys weren't getting as open), and they were throwing more deep throws.

I still think he comes back, that this was an injury that caused his drop-off. What is more concerning, if you are a Broncos fan, is that the rest of the team failed to show up for the 2nd time off of a bye in three years. That's on the coaching to me. Del Rio's defense had no real answers at all.

by Andrew Potter :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:23am

He's been playing through unspecified minor injuries to both thighs. Lower body injuries often impair passing mechanics, which can sometimes be surmounted by a younger, laser-armed guy like Rodgers but less often by an older, more mechanically dependent passer like Manning.

I have no idea how much that's the issue versus general age-related decline, but it's been widely reported as a contributing factor. I wouldn't like to be the guy trying to figure out which it is for Denver, assuming Manning doesn't retire.

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

Phil Simms commented that Peyton Manning "throws with his legs more than any other quarterback," thus the thigh injuries would have hurt his passing ability.
I'm assuming that Simms meant that Manning's throwing motion comes from his legs and that Phil Simms--God help me--might know what he's talking about.

I don't know what it's like to play quarterback in the NFL, but I do know about getting old. Once you start getting close to 40, injuries don't go away as fast, and they tend to accumulate.

by rageon :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:40am

By the middle of the third quarter, I thought it was obvious that something was "not right" with Manning. I've never seen him look like that before, and he essentially gave up on throwing more than 5 yards down field by the end of the game. Very curious to see what was going on, if we ever do.

by Pottsville Maro... :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:33pm

Now there are reports that he has been playing through a torn right quad the past few games. That would certainly help to explain his ability to drive the ball.

by panthersnbraves :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:00pm

I saw the same article today - a torn quad would definitely go a long way towards explaining his issues.

by Dired :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:19pm

I also saw one that said the difference between a strain and a partial tear can be meaningless, and that this is just saying what we already knew with more dramatic, leading words. I'm no doctor though.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:27pm

A strain is by definition a partial tear.

by Steve in WI :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:22am

My biggest issue with the officiating, as usual, is consistency. The officials not only ruled the 2nd quarter "catch" by Cobb in which the ball hit the ground first a catch, but they reviewed it and despite a clear shot of the ball contacting the ground before Cobb got his hands around it, upheld the call. (The view from the front seemed like the ball hit the ground, but I could see that being inconclusive. The view from behind, however, very clearly showed the ball hitting the ground before his hands were on it).

Tell me in what reasonable universe that is a catch but the Bryant play is not.

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:41pm

I disagree that it was clear what was happening in the Cobb catch - it was murky by any standard. And I suspect very few people would have complained that it "ruined the game" (as is absurdly posted above) if a replay overturned it, especially if there was a visual on it as clear as the one on the Bryant catch (where nothing visually was in dispute, only the proper interpretation of the rules.)

You couldn't with any precision see what happened on the Cobb catch, but you could see every piece of the Bryant one. The refs were consistent insofar as they used the video evidence on-hand and made judgements accordingly. So... that's the reasonable universe.

Now, if you want to complain about the ref's insane inconsistency on PI, defensive holding and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, there's a real argument to be had there...

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:56pm

After the Cobb review, the referee never confirmed the catch. He stated something like the play stands as called, meaning the video was inconclusive. I pointed this out yesterday before the comment page blew up and a new page was needed for Indy/Denver.

by SandyRiver :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:28pm

After seeing both reply angles several times, I think "inconclusive" describes it best, and that tghe call on the field - whichever call was made - would be upheld. In both views it appears that Cobb's hands, especially his right, were on the ground as the ball arrived. The rear view shows the ball hitting half of his right hand and, possibly, also hitting the ground, then bouncing up and coming under his control. Deciding how much grass the ball hit along with skin would determine the call, but Cobb's right hand could not have gotten lower without digging a hole, and the front view appeared to rule out the short hop.

by Hurt Bones :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:23am

Little typo on the front page link:
The FO staff discusses a wild game in Baltimore, a great game by Russell Wilson, Dez Bryant's catch-that-wasn't, and a sad night in Denver. (Note: New York Bozo is reporting as ineligible for this Audibles.)

I'm sure it would have been just as wild in Baltimore.

by The Powers That Be :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:28am

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.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:36am

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.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:48pm

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.

by Travis :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:06pm

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.

by panthersnbraves :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:36pm

and then replaced it with the "Empty Hand Rule."

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:40am

I'd have no problem with ruling it a catch, or ruling it a drop. I think it is purely subjective opinion about the "common to the game" stuff, and who knows what was said to whom while the play was being reviewed. I'm not sure it is the sort of subjective opinion that should be reviewable, but I guess my bottom line is that it is impossible to write a perfect rule book, or to call a perfect game, and some element of randomness is always going to play a role. It sucks when the Randomness Demon strikes your favorite team down, however. I'm a Vikings fan; we've become experts with regard to that over the decades.

by patriotsgirl :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:10pm

My biggest issue is with the scope of review. If there is this much debate between reasonable people on the interpretation of vague definitions, it seems like "indisputable visual evidence" is really itself just "judgment on the part of the official," which makes the "indisputable" part meaningless.

by blan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:39pm

I think most people here are missing an important aspect of this discussion. The rule needs to be interpreted equivalently in all situations. If rule allows the Dez Bryant play to be a catch, then we are going to see a lot of fumbles on balls we expect to be incomplete catches.

For example, imagine Bryant had made the same play, but instead of stretching for the end zone, he was stretching for the first down marker at midfield. Now consider that instead of securing the ball on the ground, it had squirted out. If possession were awarded to Dez during the dive, this hypothetical play would be a fumble. I believe the point of the current rule is to make sure plays like this hypothetical one are incompletions, and I for one am in favor of keeping them incompletions.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:53pm

I don't think that is correct, in that the ruling would be down by contact, since the elbow makes contact with the ground at the same time the ball comes free.

by blan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:10pm

That's probably true in this case. The point I'm trying to make is that giving players possession on catches earlier in the play will lead to more fumbles. It's possible to imagine Dez having dropped the ball during his dive/fall after the point where many people here are saying he showed control of the ball, but before touching the ground.

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:46pm

This is obviously true - especially since in many instances the wr won't be touched on the way to the ground. I also think of this rule in terms of "imagine if he had been falling backwards out of bounds instead of towards the goal-line." Does it make sense to have it be a catch if a guy pops the ball up in the air and juggles it once he's on his back out of bounds?

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:12pm

before the ball comes free, actually


The standard is the standard!

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:38am

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.

by Flounder :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:59am

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

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:00pm

It was a lost season for Boykin. He contributes some on special teams but mostly he has taken a huge step back

by Flounder :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

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.

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:05pm

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?

by oaktoon :: Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:12pm

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....

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:35pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

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.

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:51pm

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.

by Steve in WI :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:06pm

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.

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:14pm

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.)

by NYMike :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:01pm

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.

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:52pm

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.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:27pm

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...

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:42am

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!

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:45am

That was the exact call I think of whenever the refs see things that are not in evidence.

by djanyreason :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:44am

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

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:48am

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.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 11:51am

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

by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:12pm

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.)

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

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.

by Rick_and_Roll :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:10pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:43pm

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.

by Arkaein :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:03pm

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.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:10pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:31pm

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.

by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:04pm

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.

by Julio :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:11pm

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.


by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:16pm

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).

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:24pm

Is there a reason you post every comment in seeming haiku format?

Just curious

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:11pm

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)

by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:20pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:26pm

I'm pretty sure Talib was signed prior to Revis's release by Tampa.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:30pm

Yes, Talib was signed on a Tuesday and Revis was released on the Wednesday one day later.

by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:57pm

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).

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:05pm

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).

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:09pm

Well if that does explain the drop-off and he is able to come back hopefully he won't be throwing blocks anymore.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:17pm

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.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:20pm

I guess that explains why he didn't just run for the 1st down too.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:24pm

HHH says that's nothing.

The standard is the standard!

by Mr Shush :: Tue, 01/13/2015 - 1:21pm

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.

by Rick_and_Roll :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:42pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:46pm

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.

by chemical burn :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:52pm

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.

by Rick_and_Roll :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:00pm

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.

by Julio :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:07pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:25pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:30pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:50pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:54pm

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.

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:15pm

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.

by Julio :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:42pm

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.

by panthersnbraves :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:03pm

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

by Rick_and_Roll :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:55pm

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.

by ChrisS :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:03pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:18pm

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?).

by panthersnbraves :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:42pm

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.

by Ben :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:27pm

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.

by GrandVezir :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:00pm

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?

by Julio :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:58pm

Go to nfl.com 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.

by Lyford :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:06pm

"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...

by tally :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:33pm

Splits happen

by pablohoney :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:02pm

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.

by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:21pm

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 ProFootballTalk.com can finally put to rest the idea that the NFL is running a conspiracy to favor the Cowboys.

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:15pm

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?

by Hurt Bones :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:23pm

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.

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:27pm

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.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:29pm

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!

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:20pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:28pm

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.

by Ben :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:04pm

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...

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:10pm

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.

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:16pm

Not to mention the competetive advantage you would get if another team actually hired him!

by Eddo :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:18pm


Also, $3.5 million isn't that bad of a cap hit. Eating it wouldn't be debilitating at all.

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:52pm

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

by oaktoon :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:29pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:33pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:45pm

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.

by EnderCN :: Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:11am

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.

by turbohappy :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:46pm

"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.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:49pm

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.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 12:54pm

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.

by Mash Wilson :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:03pm

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."

by JoeyHarringtonsPiano :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:30pm


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.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 1:33pm

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

The standard is the standard!

by Ben :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:38pm

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.

by JimZipCode :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:07pm

Great pic. But seeing it, I wish Joe had just taken off down the left side for 15 or 20 yards or so. :-)

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:47pm

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?

by Ben :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 4:50pm

Come on now, no need to exaggerate. Clearly he is only leading him by 25 yards...

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:04pm

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.

by Mugsy :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:25pm

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!

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 2:38pm

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

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:00pm

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.

by Mugsy :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:00pm

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.

by deus01 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:07pm

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.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:09pm

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.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:20pm

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.

by Rick_and_Roll :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:28pm

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.

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:31pm

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.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:48pm

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.

by mehllageman56 :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:11pm

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.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 5:23pm

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.

by Mugsy :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:45pm

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 . . .

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/12/2015 - 3:51pm

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