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?

18 Jan 2016

Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round

compiled by Andrew Potter

During each game of the NFL playoffs, the FO staff sends around emails about the action. We share information, ask questions, and keep everyone else informed about what we're watching. 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 emails are generally written with Audibles in mind, they do not represent a standard review of all the games. Though unlike the regular season we will cover every game, we may not cover every important play. We watch the games as fans rather than solely as analysts, so your favorite team 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 Vikings fan, not so much.) We have no intention of adding new authors to cover every team, nor will we focus on a different team from the ones that we're personally interested in watching, just to ensure that Audibles covers every team equally.

Kansas City Chiefs 20 at New England Patriots 27

Aaron Schatz: "Kansas City picks tails. The result is tails. New England, what's your choice?"

How hard is it to run the freakin' coin toss correctly?

Patriots march down the field easily on their first drive for a touchdown catch by Rob Gronkowski. Gronk and Julian Edelman both look healthy so far. Interestingly, Chiefs coverage is shifting around a lot. On three straight catches, Gronk was covered by Ron Parker, Eric Berry, and Sean Smith in turn, all man coverage. What surprised me most about the drive was Justin Houston was not on the field for the Chiefs. They really need him out there to help bring the pressure on Brady. What surprised me least was that the Patriots didn't even attempt to run the ball once.

Cian Fahey: No running plays on the opening drive but a few third-and-long situations that needed to be converted. Silver lining for Chiefs defense.

Scott Kacsmar: I know the NFL rulebook is thick, but is it illegal to double-team Rob Gronkowski in the red zone on third down? Because that should be an automatic call for every defense, but we don't see it. Make the other guys beat you there.

Ben Muth: The catch where Berry was covering him was at least a short gain. I think he has the best chance at slowing Gronk down. I don't know how you leave him one-on-one with a corner (even a corner as big as Sean Smith) inside the red zone.

Aaron Schatz: Ironically, on the pregame show, if I'm not mistaken, they had Tony Gonzalez showing footage of how the Patriots put two and three guys on him in the red zone when he was with Atlanta.

Scott Kacsmar: Right, that was the 2013 game. You know if Belichick had to coach against Gronk he would probably have something like that for him. It's just common sense.

Vince Verhei: Announcers were falling all over themselves to give health updates on Gronkowski, Edelman, and Jeremy Maclin. No mention of Houston.

Aaron Schatz: The Chiefs just converted third-and-4 with an honest-to-goodness triple option. I feel like in the Andy Reid Drinking Game, that's "buy yourself an entire liquor store."

Scott Kacsmar: Two long drives, a bunch of short passes and third-down conversions, and a 7-3 New England lead. That is just how Super Bowl XLII started, but with New England getting the ball first today.

Vince Verhei: First quarter ends with New England up 7-3. Biggest storylines so far: Pats have 16 passes, one run; and the Chiefs burned two timeouts to avoid delay of game penalties on their first drive. They converted both third downs, so bully for them, but they're probably going to miss those timeouts later.

Scott Kacsmar: Are you at the game, Aaron? These CBS camera angles are not good today. Looks too zoomed in.

Aaron Schatz: I'm at the game. But yeah, I've seen many complaints on the Twitter about the camera angles.

Ben Muth: Danny Amendola just made about the dirtiest play I've ever seen. On a punt that was landing inside the 10 he turned around (he was the returner) to spear the gunner. If the Pats advance, the league needs to suspend him. Unsafe and unnecessary. The exact type of play that needs to be cut out of football.

Aaron Schatz: OK. I wanted to see what the non-Patriots fan take was on that. I've never seen anything like that before, but apparently, it is legal for a punt returner to hit a punt coverage guy to try to keep him from downing a punt outside the end zone. I guess it happened earlier this year in an Eagles-Cowboys game.

But man, that looked so ridiculously dirty. I guess there's a question of whether Amendola made a helmet-to-helmet hit or just hit with his shoulder, but it just looked awful. I often complain that unnecessary roughness penalties are the NFL's attempt to overturn the laws of physics, but there was no inertia there. Amendola just launched himself at the guy.

Ben Muth: I know you're allowed to block the gunners (unless you signal fair catch I think) but that's helmet-to-helmet all the way in my opinion. Have to call that the same as you would a Hines Ward-esque crackback block.

Vince Verhei: There is still a rule against "unneccessary roughness," right? It's one thing to block a gunner and keep him away from downing the ball. It's another to go in crown-of-helmet-to-head like that trying to knock the guy out. Should be a simple rule, if your facemask is pointing at the ground, then it's an illegal hit, to protect both players. See what you hit, hit what you see.

Scott Kacsmar: It was 7-3, the Chiefs had fantastic field position, and they decided to throw two tight end screens, including one on third-and-12. All the sad ALEX moments of the season led to that, and the Patriots promptly went 98 yards down the field for a 14-3 lead. Still a lot of time left, but I get the sense we'll look at that as the turning point, or where the Chiefs lost control of this one.

Aaron Schatz: I think that third-down play for Kansas City, the middle screen to Travis Kelce, was meant to get them into reasonable field goal range. I think that's an acceptable decision to make. But the play didn't work, and it was negative ALEX even if the "expected" in ALEX is "expected to get field goal range" instead of "expected to convert."

Alex Smith overthrows his receivers on second and third down at the goal line to end the first half. Does he know how tall his receivers are?

Ben Muth: I know Tom is with me, but can we talk about how dumb it is to spike the ball inside the 15? Run a fade or fade/stop in the end zone. It takes, at most, 5 more seconds and you at least have a chance to score. Fouts was talking up the importance of the spike to get Kelce back in the game, but a quick end zone shot from that close hardly takes any time and you don't absolutely torch a down.

Vince Verhei: Patriots lead 14-6 at halftime. Feels like the Chiefs should probably be ahead or at least tied, but their game management is horrible and they are playing their worst at the wrong times. Two burned timeouts on the first drive, which led to a field goal instead of a touchdown. Two punts on New England's side of the field, one inside the 40. Then at the end of the half, they "have to" spike the ball on first down to stop the clock on first-and-goal ... to set up two more incompletes and a field goal with 16 seconds left. And even there, they lost 5 yards on a delay of game on third down. They look like they need another week of practice to get basic game operations down.

Hey, since the Titans announced this DURING A PLAYOFF GAME, anybody want to talk about Tennessee hiring Mike Mularkey? Beyond that they are so embarrassed about this they announced it DURING A PLAYOFF GAME so nobody would notice? Like, don't you want all the attention you can get when you announce a new coach, rather than sweeping it under the rug?

Andrew Potter: Is there much TO say, other than 2016 is once again likely to be a very good year to have the AFC South on your schedule? The most interesting thing about the hire is how uninteresting it is.

Aaron Schatz: Points to Tom, who predicted on Twitter before the game that the Titans would do this.

Mike Kurtz: Kansas City's biggest defensive problem that half was their complete inability to get interior pressure. Tom Brady is getting tons of time because there is always space for him to step up and deliver (usually over the middle) while the edge rushers just run around behind him. Great job by Bryan Stork and ... Josh Kline? ... in the middle.

Ben: The worst part of that Very Special Episode of the Andy Reid show is that they took a timeout right before the designed quarterback draw, so they had time to make sure absolutely everyone was on the same page.

As far as the hit, it's clear the NFL needs to start actually ejecting players for live-ball play. Amendola never launches into another player like that if there is any thought in his head that he could be out of a playoff game because of it. Ditto for Vontaze Burfict. I understand that they're terrified of a game's outcome being determined by an ejection, but the rules need some teeth or you end up with potentially deadly nonsense like Amendola's hit or Vontaze Burfict's hit last week.

Tom Gower: First-and-goal spikes late in the game aggravate the heck out of me. If you have more than :04 or so left, you have time for multiple plays. Running a fade route doesn't take long and is easy to have set up. Yes, Reid should have called two plays in the huddle, but perhaps he did and the second was one to convert fourth down in case the third-down option play did not (fine, he probably would have just trotted the field goal team out there to get the points).

14-6 at the half. Short game, in term of number of possessions, but New England has been better at executing and particularly better at executing in scoring territory. No real surprises this game. Rob Gronkowski and Julian Edelman are both healthy enough to be at least reasonably effective. I haven't noticed Justin Houston, but I haven't been keeping an eye on him specifically, just that Brady has had time to throw and been able to roll out and extend plays, something Houston in particular seemed to excel at (or maybe the "Terrelle Pryor rolls right and gets sacked, over and over" game is indelibly imprinted in my memory). Also, my team just hired Mike Mularkey and I may be insensate.

Ben Muth: Good call by me saying the Chiefs should put Berry on Gronk in the red zone. He was absolutely roasted on the hitch-and-go for Gronk's second touchdown.

Aaron Schatz: Patriots up 21-6 as Gronk completely breaks poor Eric Berry's ankles on a hitch-and-go. Berry totally sitting on the hitch, because that's mostly what Gronk was running in the first half.

I apologize if I already said this for Audibles, but to me the biggest issue in this game is that Tamba Hali and Justin Houston are both hurting for the Chiefs. Kansas City has yet to run a play with both those guys on the field, and neither of them has made much of an impact on his own. There's a lot to like about the Chiefs defense but the best part of it has been the pass rush, and that pass rush just is not there today.

Scott Kacsmar: It only took the greatest play of Alex Smith's career and a fourth-and-3 conversion for the Chiefs to finally get a touchdown. Given I expected nothing from Jeremy Maclin today, he's helped a little, but Jason Avant has been pretty reliable for Smith.

Vince Verhei: Chiefs have a third-and-3 deep in New England territory down 21-6 late in the third, an obvious four-down situation. They pass on third down, a dangerous flat route that is tipped away and nearly returned for a pick-six. They pass again on fourth down, and it converts (plus a New England penalty anyway), but man, the Patriots are really good at getting strong running teams to pass on short-yardage plays in the playoffs.

Cian Fahey: This game is another reminder that Alex Smith has changed this year. He's still not necessarily an aggressive quarterback, but he is more aggressive than he has been in recent times. Something I wrote about in Film Room a few weeks back.

Aaron Schatz: Smith was both more and less aggressive this year, oddly enough. He set a new record for lowest ALEX on third downs.

But the numbers do back up what your eyes saw, Cian, at least when it came to trying to stretch the field on first downs. Smith averaged 8.7 air yards on first-down passes, which matched the NFL average. But he averaged 5.8 air yards on passes on second down; only Matthew Stafford was lower among starting quarterbacks. Then 5.1 on third down, the lowest in the league.

In part, we're also talking about different definitions of "aggressive." You're more talking about Smith's taking chances throwing into tight coverage spots, not defining aggression as throwing downfield routes vs. screens and dumpoffs.

Tom Gower: Well, I think ALEX conflates two things -- teams that make strategic decisions like the Chiefs do to make conservative calls like screens in third-and-long situations versus quarterbacks who tend to throw short of the sticks, whether on passes short of the sticks or dumpoffs after not taking risks downfield. Smith has a long history of doing both, but while the Chiefs are doing less of (a) he's not doing quite as much of (b) as he used to, I don't think.

Aaron Schatz: Chiefs finally get a really good drive going, down 27-13, as the Patriots have a number of players off the field with injuries. No Chandler Jones, no Jamie Collins, no Jerod Mayo, and Dont'a Hightower also missed most of the drive. The only problem is that this... drive... is... taking... so... long... They let 25 seconds run down before the two-minute warning without calling a timeout! Do they realize they have to score twice?

This drive is so slow that there will be urban legends that Alex Smith threw up during it.

Mike Kurtz: The end of both halves is like a Reid masterclass.

Aaron Schatz: The Chiefs finally score with an option pitch. That drive started with 6:29 left and took 5:13.

Tom Gower: The Chiefs huddled. They literally came together with all 11 offensive players in a circle and huddled. With the clock running, inside the two minute warning. While trailing by 14 points. Flabbergasting, really.

Scott Kacsmar: Edelman and Gronk looked like themselves, Houston and Maclin were the serious injuries today, and the Chiefs offense is what it is. Smith made some good plays, but just not enough production on that side of the ball and the clock management was a joke at the end of each half. So the game was not really surprising.

Vince Verhei: Chiefs so badly deserved to lose that game. So completely unaware of the clock and the situation. Not just in the fourth quarter, throughout the game. At times looked almost intentional how they were trying to sabotage themselves. We need to go back and count the number of times they caught a pass at the sidelines and stayed in bounds to burn 20-plus seconds. Or called a quarterback draw to pick up a first down, but again, burn clock. They took a delay of game, with the clock running, down two scores in the fourth quarter ... ON A PUNT! They were actually pretty good, all in all, from snap-to-whistle today. But OH MY GOD, how terrible they were after and before plays. That inside-two-minute huddle might have been the low point of the 2015 season.

AND YET... they were a dropped interception away from tying the game. I'd be kind of uneasy about this game if I were a Patriots fan. I mean, a win is a win in the playoffs, but I wouldn't be happy about how they let Kansas City get back into this game.

Aaron Schatz: They let the Chiefs back into this game in large part because of injuries, and injuries are why Patriots fans should be uneasy going forward, but of course injuries are why the fans of all the AFC playoff teams should be uneasy going forward. The top AFC teams are totally wrecked right now compared to the NFC teams.

Vince Verhei: I'm going back over this game and I keep finding amazing ways Kansas City screwed up. They burned 2:20 on a fourth-quarter three-and-out.

Tom Gower: Was that the punt they took a delay of game on? It took them :40 to get the punt team on in the fourth quarter while trailing by two scores! That's just... I don't even know what to say. It's not like they were thinking of going for it.

Scott Kacsmar: Andy Reid seriously dropped a "time was of the essence" line during his post-game presser when talking about that super long touchdown drive. There was zero confidence coming out of those words. It felt like a Saturday Night Live skit and I was waiting for audience laughter at his deadpan delivery.

Vince Verhei: I saw clips of that presser. Reid claimed they were in the hurry-up, but also didn't understand why reporters asked about them huddling with the clock running. It was like, even in hindsight, he didn't understand how badly he and his team have screwed themselves. Like he didn't even realize the game was over. I mean, I don't expect him to be fired tomorrow, but if it happens, I won't ask why.

Andrew Healy: I think the Patriots actually can and do feel pretty good coming out of this, as long as Jamie Collins, Chandler Jones, and Dont'a Hightower are OK (Collins being the biggest concern with the plays he missed). Brady looked great most of the day and Edelman looked unfettered (ten catches on 16 targets). Maybe the best sign of the day was the offensive line looked pretty good against the Justin-Houston-less-but-still-scary Chiefs pass rush. Zero sacks and just one hit. Maybe that overstates the line's play a little, but it mostly held together really well.

For the future, let's never have any announcer say again that the Pats need to establish the run. And one game against the Eagles does not mean the Patriots have terrible special teams. And if it's so important to have Kelce in the game on the first down (it is), just keep him on the field for the third down rather than wasting first down with a spike.

The Patriots took advantage of the secondary's aggressiveness with double-moves that got both Sean Smith and Berry on the touchdown to Gronk. They also adjusted to spy Alex Smith after he scrambled to convert a third-and-long on the first drive, which helped neutralize that threat.

Thought Amendola should have been tossed for the spearing on the punt. As Ben said, no place for this stuff.

For the record, the Donovan McNabb regurgitation drive took about four minutes. So this drive was even worse.

Green Bay Packers 20 at Arizona Cardinals 26 (OT)

Aaron Schatz: Jeff Janis has a long career ahead of him being Dwayne Harris: a very good gunner who's also a good return man.

Sterling Xie: Patrick Peterson just picked up a taunting penalty on what would have been a pick-six. It technically didn't matter because a hands to the face on Frostee Rucker gave Green Bay a first down, but if the other penalty had been on the Packers, would the taunting have nullified the play? It technically occurred in the field of play, correct?

Vince Verhei: I don't think the NFL has gotten THAT dumb yet. Would have been enforced on kickoff.

Tom Gower: It's enforced as a dead ball foul, so Green Bay would have had the choice to apply it on the kickoff or the conversion attempt.

Aaron Schatz: The other reason Janis will have a long career as Dwayne Harris is that he's not a very good receiver. Ran the wrong route in the end zone, which ended up leading to the Packers having to kick a field goal.

Cian Fahey: Watch out Aaron, Jeff Janis has achieved Christine Michael status amongst metrics Twitter. They will be coming for you.

Scott Kacsmar: Randall Cobb dropped an easy pass, then came back with an amazing one-handed catch on a deep ball. Not only was it negated by penalty, though, but he suffered an injury that has knocked him out of the game. The top three wide receivers for the Packers coming into the season are all out now.

Aaron Schatz: Top four. Remember, before Jones was signed, the top four were Jordy Nelson, Cobb, Davante Adams, and Ty Montgomery.

The fact that Rodgers is now moving the ball against this secondary with Janis and Jared Abbrederis is just plain nuts.

Wow this game has gone fast. It feels like Arizona hasn't had the ball for an hour.

Vince Verhei: More on this: Based on the timestamps on the Cardinals Twitter account, they legit went 22 minutes between offensive snaps. Then they ran three plays, then the half ended. Now the Packers get the ball after halftime. So three snaps of football in a real-life hour doesn't seem impossible.

More importantly, when they have had the ball, they have mostly gotten their asses kicked:

It has mostly been a dominant performance by the front seven -- three sacks, less than 3 yards per carry, getting Arizona off the field on third downs, and getting so much pressure on Palmer he can't even try the deep balls Arizona thrives on. It's a high-risk scheme with boom-or-bust potential, but they are more than getting the job done.

Sterling Xie: Carson Palmer may have been great against the blitz this year, but Green Bay has been getting to him with delayed blitzes from the second level. After a Rodgers interception set Arizona up in plus territory, the Packers got to Palmer with extra rushers on both second- and third-and-long. And on the latter play, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix gets a pick on a floating duck to bail out Rodgers and the offense.

Aaron Schatz: Packers offensive line clearing some huge holes on the next drive. Holes so big Eddie Lacy could slip, get back up, and get a few more yards. I would ask if the Cards defense is just tired from playing so much but they did get halftime to rest ...

Tom Gower: Clinton-Dix's interception in particular was great disguise. The Packers brought the corner blitz, so Palmer would obviously read and react to what should have been an empty man. Clinton-Dix instead rotated over and picked it. But, yes, the macro-level point is true: Palmer has spent most of this season bailing Arizona out against pressures and opposing blitzes, and Green Bay's been affecting him tonight.

Vince Verhei: And on the other side, Aaron Rodgers is getting incredible time in the pocket, especially at the end of their touchdown drive that put them up 13-7. If everyone on the line can figure out who's coming on the blitz and pick up their man (which is a lot easier said than done), the Cardinals don't have a dominant pass rusher who can consistently win one-on-one matchups.

Aaron Schatz: People blaming Justin Bethel on Twitter for allowing the go-ahead touchdown to Janis, but how much can you expect a cornerback to cover a receiver through five and six and seven seconds of a quarterback scrambling around?

Is Palmer's finger to blame for the overthrown passes tonight?

Mike Kurtz: Considering how terribly underthrown that interception was, probably not?

Aaron Schatz: That was awful. You have to overthrow that to where your receiver is the only one who can get it or it goes past him.

Cian Fahey: Plays like that make me think it's the finger. He makes that throw repeatedly in first half of season.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Green Bay tight end Richard Rodgers clearly drops a pass. The play was ruled a catch on the field, but overturned on replay.)

Mike Kurtz: Just a note on that total WTF Rodgers play that was reversed on replay. Normally on a play like that the deep wing (the side judge on that play, I think) would be keying on the interior eligible receiver and then taking the deep route on that side, switching off with the short wing. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, since the "catch" occurred pretty close to when the short wing was handing off the deep route to the deep wing, that he just wasn't watching the play. Which of course is inexcusable, but it's an edge case where the usual mechanics, designed to triangulate officials so that two or three have eyes on catch/no-catch, just break down.

Tom Gower: How much does the fact the NFL uses hybrid crews in the postseason, and the deep wing and short wing aren't necessarily used to working with each other, affect calls like that one?

Mike Kurtz: It's hard for me to speculate because I'm not an NFL official, but I have always suspected that hybrid crews cause mechanical problems. Even at lower levels though, crews do a bunch of prep together before games, reviewing film and looking at whatever information and film they have on the upcoming teams. So it's not just coordinating on-field mechanics, there's also a level of unfamiliarity during weekly preparation. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen with a crew that works together every week (obviously it can), but it's definitely fair to say that a bunch of different officials with not-quite-identical mechanics can lead to miscommunications in a high-pressure situation.

Vince Verhei: Well, we're in overtime mostly due to Aaron Rodgers' heroics, but also because two of the most Bruce Arians decisions ever came back to bite him. The incomplete pass on the last drive when most coaches would have been happy to kill clock, and then they use a seven-man rush on a Hail Mary play, which I've never seen before. Live by the sword and all.

I sat down to type this. First time I've sat down in a half-hour. And now, back to my feet.

Aaron Schatz: I'm going to have to come back later with thoughts on that last Packers drive of regulation because 9,000 different insane things happened.

Scott Kacsmar: Well, I'll handle that ending on my own time for my article, so just stick this at the end.

Arizona fans are going to be nervous as hell next week regardless of the opponent. Palmer was very shaky tonight and I cannot tell if it's the finger injury or just general lack of big-game experience. At least Fitzgerald played like a man possessed in the second half. He was incredible. I think as we'll see on Sunday with Pittsburgh still having Martavis Bryant and Markus Wheaton, good quarterbacks can find a way to get the job done with accurate throws even if the top receivers are missing. You would think Arizona would have rolled in this one with Abbrederris and Janis playing such large roles, but those receivers made plays against this defense. Bruce Arians had some very questionable decisions down the stretch. Some of Arizona's third-down conversions were by centimeters. This walked the fine line of a playoff choke, but they got the win in the end. Things are going to have to be much sharper next week or they'll get their ass kicked by Carolina or Seattle.

Vince Verhei: Aaron's last post was made at 8:33 p.m. (Seattle time). Scott replied at 9:02 p.m. I point this out to let the readers know that this game was over for a half-hour before any of us were able to formulate a coherent response. One of the best games I've ever seen.

This got re-Tweeted a lot, so I'll put it here.

Scott made a great point of Arizona winning by inches. So many plays that were just barely a first down, or passes that were almost knocked away, Credit to them for getting the job done.

Really, I don't have a lot else to say, analysis-wise, but I am so happy for Larry Fitzgerald. I thought he was the best player in the game at any position the last time Arizona was in the Super Bowl, and then it seemed like his career was wasted by lousy quarterback play after that. And when Carson Palmer finally arrived and brought competence to the desert, it looked like his time as a special player was done -- he looked like a good wide receiver, but nothing more than that. We were even debating, before the season, about who Arizona's top wideout would be this season. And then he went out and set a career-high in receptions, with 1,215 yards and nine scores to boot. And then he got open on that pass in overtime, and as the Packers all overpursued and missed tackle after tackle, it was like, for that one catch, he was the best player in the game again. And I don't want to get too preachy about this, but players always get more press for doing bad things off the field then they do for doing good things off the field, and very few people in or out of the NFL do better things off the field than Larry Fitzgerald. Just good to see good things happen to a good person.

Andrew Healy: Well, that was boring. That was a full playoffs worth of amazing stuff happening in one quarter. It gets lost in the win, but Palmer came so close to playing Jake Delhomme in the second half. Sam Shields dropped a potential pick-six. Then another poor decision on the Damarious Randall-to-Michael Floyd tip drill touchdown to force it in to a blanketed Fitzgerald. That gift from the gods seemed like it could have been the kind of break that could have gotten him to settle in going forward. Nice for the Cardinals that it went to overtime just so Palmer could make that incredible effort on the first play of overtime. Maybe that builds some confidence for the NFC Championship Game.

If the Packers had won that game, we might have needed to start just assigning wins to the team with the better quarterback. There aren't words for his last three throws. The incompletion to Janis that was a borderline PI, then the completion to Janis on fourth-and-20 and finally maybe the least impressive of the bunch, the Hail Mary. The arm to throw it 65 yards with seemingly the flick of the wrist, the ability to throw it nearly as far on the move and right on the money, and finally the perfect moonball to exactly the right spot to make the touchdown catch possible, thrown under maximum duress.

On the coaching decisions, there's good aggression and there's bad aggression. I love the analogy to poker because the most common mistake in both games is to be too passive. And most aggression is good. There's carefully picking your spots (in poker, tight aggression) and calculated gambles that most people wouldn't think of but the math makes pretty clear are the right decision (loose aggression). Going for it on fourth down falls in the first category and kicking onsides when tied in the National Championship Game falls into the latter.

Throwing down the sidelines when the Cardinals could have run the clock down to 1:15 before giving the Packers the ball back falls into neither category. Same for rushing seven on a Hail Mary. Rush five if you want, but sending the house is being the poker player who just wants to gamble. Jeff Janis had to out-jump Patrick Peterson and then possibly have the ball land on him, so the rush is not exactly why the play worked. But it's dumb. I love the Cardinals' blitzes when ahead most of the time. I love their willingness to throw when ahead most of the time. But these decisions were taking a good idea (aggressiveness) and pushing them much too far. Even moreso the throw to Fitzgerald. Bruce Arians is such a great coach, but he almost choked on the bone by not being more careful in going for the jugular.

Vince Verhei: Yes, it took 18 weeks, but the Carson Palmer I wrote about in FOA15 finally showed up:

Really, though, the only exceptional facet of Palmer's game in 2014 was his ability to avoid interceptions. That's fluky, and not because of the dropped picks that were thrown by his teammates; Palmer only had five adjusted interceptions, compared to 13 for Drew Stanton and eight for Ryan Lindley. No, it's fluky because Palmer has not historically been particularly good at ball security. Last season was just the second time in Palmer's career (and first since 2006) that he has finished in the top ten for lowest interception rate. Meanwhile, he has ranked in the top ten for total interceptions five times. In 2013, he was second in the league with 22 picks. Put another way: Palmer threw three interceptions in the six games he played last year, but he threw three interceptions in one game nine times between 2010 and 2013. If Palmer's interception rate in 2015 returns to his historical norms, then he'll be close to the average starter he has always been for most of his career; his DVOA last season was his best since 2007. And though an average starting quarterback would be a lot better than what Arizona had for much of last year, it's not the caliber of play that tends to win championships.

Tom Gower: It's the next day, and I still need more time to process what happened (and the Mularkey hire, yeah, that Mularkey hire). The pass interference calls that weren't, on Abbrederis on third down before the field goal that made it 20-13 and on Janis on third down before fourth-and-20 and even Shields on Fitzgerald on the pass.

The pass -- normally trying to throw the ball is a good idea, since a first down wins the game. Except it wouldn't have there, because Fitzgerald was on the sideline and if he had gone out of bounds, the Packers would get the ball back if they get a stoppage. That's why I was thinking more along the lines of a play-action pass and a throw over the middle if they had chosen to throw the ball. But that was one of the situations where not throwing would have been fine, because the potential downside of a throw was so significant. Run, Packers take a timeout, run, clock goes from about 2:40 down to the two-minute warning, run, clock goes to about 1:15 for the field goal attempt. That's about as extreme as it gets, and obviously Green Bay would not have had time to do what they did had Arizona simply run-run-run.

Fitzgerald's long catch-and-run in overtime... at some point I'll watch the all-22 and see just how he got so open. The replay they showed indicated crossing routes, probably against zone, and some zone defenders carried their man and others might not have, thus Fitzgerald in a vacated area. Maybe that's the young defensive backs, maybe it's just one of those things, but leaving that guy that wide open was the best look. Then after they double him on first-and-goal and get the pass breakup and it's obvious Green Bay is keying on him (as Collinsworth pointed out), they pull out the inside shovel after showing and then motioning out of a bunch look that made me think they might be looking for him on another corner/fade route from a stack release.

The two throws by Aaron Rodgers on the Jeff Janis completions on the final drive. Those two throws. Those two throws. One was a laser that went 58 yards and didn't give the defenders time to close on Janis. The other might have been even better.

McCarthy's decision to kick instead of going for two. I wasn't that angry about it in real time, but viewed from the next morning it looks really bad. I know, overtime feels like a 50-50 proposition, but it's really not; the favored team wins more often than not. (I came up with 58 percent when I ran the numbers for the old overtime format a couple years ago, I think looking at 1994-2013 to try to account for the improvement in field goal kicking.) He should have gone for it (and I would have liked to have seen him go for it at 12-7, too, not I thought that had any chance of actually happening).

And I'm sure I'm leaving out three or five different things that had they happened in a different game -- one that went pretty much to form, like New England and Kansas City -- would be worthy topics of discussion the next day.

Aaron Schatz: Of course, I feel like an idiot writing negative things about Jeff Janis, and then he goes out and has a huge game with 7 catches for 145 yards. I don't think the uncalled DPI on Janis on third down was borderline, I thought it was egregious. Justin Bethel straight-out grabbed him and twisted his body. I was so shocked about the lack of a flag that I hit twitter with the all-caps.

I actually think my original point about Janis' route-running still stands. His big plays were almost entirely on crazy scramble plays where Rodgers had five or six seconds and the receivers just had to run around and somehow get open. I think it's crazy that we ended up with a second Hail Mary where the defense playing Green Bay was unable to get in front of a Packers receiver in the end zone. This time, there were also just not that many Cardinals defenders in the end zone because Arizona blitzed. If you're going to go down, at least go down playing your game, I guess.

Or don't go down... Fitzgerald on that big catch-and-run in overtime was phenomenal. It wasn't just getting open, but also breaking three or four tackles on the way downfield. As I wrote in the game preview, the Packers were near the top of the league in missed tackles on defense. We finally saw those issues on the Arizona overtime drive.

The thing about the Packers and the question of whether they should have gone for two to just win the game at the end of regulation is that it demonstrates how silly the obsession with "momentum" is. I can't think of a better example of a team that could argue they had "momentum" than the Packers after they came back to tie that game on the Hail Mary. Theoretically, by the concept of "momentum," Green Bay should have had a much better than 50-50 chance to convert for two points and the win. That's what momentum means, right? And yet, would any of the people in the momentum-obsessed crowd have chosen to go for two there? No, of course not, they all would have made the conservative choice and sent the game to overtime. In reality, the best argument against going for two is that the Packers moved the ball down the field with crazy scramble plays where guys were able to get open somehow downfield. You don't get to run a play like that from the 2-yard line. That drive did nothing to show that the Packers offense was suddenly going to be successful getting 2 yards in a confined area.

Mike Kurtz: Regarding the Janis non-interference, my best guess is that the hail mary DPI rules applied.

Seattle Seahawks 24 at Carolina Panthers 31

Ben Muth: K.J. Wright left too much space off the edge on the the first long power run by Jonathan Stewart. Let Mike Tolbert get inside and knock him out to create the hole. Wright also was slow to play his gap on the touchdown (I think he was worried about Cam Newton keeping it) and got swallowed up completely by the guard. Stewart ran right where Wright should've been. Nightmare start for him.

And as I'm typing this Russell Wilson throws a pick-six. That was quick.

Doug Farrar: Ben, the Seahawks are on Line 1. Still got your pads?

Mike Kurtz: I think on every single pass play, a rusher is on Russell Wilson or about to hit Wilson. Almost immediately. It's unreal how badly Carolina is beating Seattle on the edges. And now Russell Okung is hurt.

Scott Kacsmar: Seattle had a chance to recover a fumble in the red zone when it was 0-0, but it's been all downhill since then. I don't think we can forget that Carolina blew a 28-point lead against the Giants, or that leads of 17 and 23 were lost or shrunk in a small span of the fourth quarter against the Colts and Packers. However, with the way Wilson is getting pressured and now that Okung is out, it might not matter today. 24-0 might be enough.

Aaron Schatz: This is remarkable. Every single thing has gone against the Seahawks except for that fumble recovery. In particular, the offensive line has completely imploded. We knew it was bad, but this is really, really bad. If you think back to the games where Seattle has had problems, it is generally against teams with strong defensive lines, in particular defensive tackles. Cincinnati, St. Louis (twice), and Carolina. Kawann Short and Star Lotulelei are killing the Seahawks' interior line today.

Rob Weintraub: I think this game shows how amazing the Patriots run in the Belichick/Brady era has been. Every team, even one as good as the Wilson-led Seahawks, takes a beating from time to time (like Henry Hill) in the playoffs.

Except New England. There have been a couple of comfortable defeats I guess, but the lone out-and-out rout I can recall was when the Ravens crushed them in 2009, Brady's first year back after the knee injury (like this game, that featured a long run on the first play from scrimmage, by Ray Rice). Considering they've been in the playoffs for 15 years that's pretty amazing.

Aaron Schatz: Well, Seattle's run of not getting crushed, period, is pretty amazing. They have not lost a game by more than 10 points since October 30, 2011. And Robert, you may actually remember that game and who they lost to.

Rob Weintraub: Yes that was a nice afternoon...

Vince Verhei: Welp. Not much to analyze about 31-0. Among the myriad things going Carolina's way, the most aggravating are those that have been Seattle's biggest weaknesses on either side of the ball in the Wilson era: the interior line on offense, and the inability to cover tight ends on defense. I mean, obviously, those aren't the only reasons Carolina is winning, but they're the most annoying.

I know Seattle's defense has actually gotten some stops, but it feels like the Seahawks' best play all day was when they forced a fumble that Carolina recovered for a gain.

Scott Kacsmar: Yeah, Seattle is the gold standard in NFL history for not suffering a beatdown like this. 87 games being at least within one score in the fourth quarter. The next closest streak was 69 games by the Packers in 2008-2012. New England had a streak around 63 games that the Broncos ended in the 2013 AFC Championship Game. Then of course Seattle destroyed those Broncos two weeks later. I really did not see this coming today based on the previous matchups between these teams since 2012. I agree that a back-to-back early start after travel was bad news for Seattle, but we seem to only bring that up when this team struggles. No one mentions it when they destroy Minnesota 38-7 in a Week 13 game. Just a lot of poor play today and questionable decisions in that second quarter in scoring range. I'm sure Wilson would love to have those picked throws back, but that was all about pass pressure.

Aaron Schatz: Did Jimmy Johnson REALLY just ask Bruce Arians if he would rather play Carolina in Carolina or Seattle at home -- WITH CAROLINA WINNING BY 31 POINTS?

And why do we in the press ever ask that stupid question? They asked Bill Belichick last night too. And coaches aren't allowed to answer it because they're "giving bulletin board material." But the answer is "at home." It's always "at home." The answer is always "we want to play at home." It doesn't matter who the opponents are. You want to play at home. Why aren't coaches allowed to say this? Why do we ask when we know the answer? It's so stupid.

Mike Kurtz: Carolina's taken the foot off the gas on defense. Conventional rush, massive cushions. It's way too early to play soft against an offense like this.

Cian Fahey: This game was so shocking I forgot about Audibles. It's weirdly made for a more interesting game because we've got the Seahawks facing this potentially historic comeback.

Aaron Schatz: Which of us wants to point out how bad it is to take a timeout to avoid delay of game on third-and-24? I guess I picked the short straw.

Scott Kacsmar: So Seattle does a fake punt, Wilson then takes a horrific sack that leads to a timeout on third-and-24 that never should be taken. Did they make the timeout count? Of course not. Wilson throws another short pass to Marshawn Lynch and they end up punting. Just awful decisions there, but I've been very confused with a lot of Seattle decisions this postseason.

Vince Verhei: Craziest thing about Seattle's flurry of life in the third quarter is that Russell Wilson has been unable to hook up with Doug Baldwin all day. Had him for a 60-plus-yard touchdown and overthrew him (Tyler Lockett ended up scoring on the drive anyway), then had him open on third-and-2 and missed him (Seattle converted on a fake punt on the next play).

Cian Fahey: This Seahawks team is flawed, more flawed than in seasons past, but you can't help but appreciate how they approach adversity.

Rob Weintraub: OK, maybe the Wilson-led Seahawks won't ever get blown out, either.

Mike Kurtz: Need to go back and see how many series Carolina started with a run in the second half. I think it approaches 100 percent.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Carolina had three passes and seven runs on first down in the second half, not counting kneeldowns.)

Aaron Schatz: Seattle just made it 31-21 with six minutes left. It's remarkable they have come back despite a number of things going wrong in the second half: drops, Wilson missing open receivers, allowing Carolina to convert a number of third downs.

I may have missed one or two, but I haven't seen any read-option from Seattle today. Should they pull that out, or is the feeling that the Panthers' front seven is just too good and will sniff it out and react well?

Seattle finally found success in the second half targeting the weakness of Carolina -- the non-Josh Norman cornerbacks who had to take over because of injuries, Robert McClain and Cortland Finnegan. But Wilson keeps overthrowing guys... overthrew Luke Willson and Jermaine Kearse on consecutive plays in the end zone, so they kick the field goal to make it 31-24. I would also have to go back, because I admit not paying as much attention in the third quarter when it still looked like a blowout, but those defensive tackles didn't seem to be getting as much pressure on Wilson in the second half compared to the first. Some of that was just fewer blitzes, but Short and Lotulelei weren't just getting pressure in the first half because of blitzes. They were whipping the Seahawks' linemen.

Rob Weintraub: Tough to onside kick in the slop. No bounce.

Actually Steven Hauschka got a good hop on that one but it was not to be. Good effort by the Hawks but no Super Bowl rematch.

Scott Kacsmar: The streak continues to 88 games, but it's a little hollow (like the Week 16 loss to St. Louis) when you don't get possession with the one-score deficit. Still, great fight to turn it into a game. Most teams wouldn't in that situation, but again, Carolina has let this happen several times this season. Can Arizona do it? Probably with the talent of that team, but I think both NFC teams are going to need to play better next week.

Vince Verhei: Ugh. That was painful. I mean, in some ways that was worse than the Super Bowl loss to New England. There, I felt like the two teams were even, and Seattle just made the one big mistake at the end. Here, it felt like, in my eyes, Seattle was the better team for most of the game, but made so many dumb mistakes early they could not recover from.

  • Seattle's defense never gives up long runs -- unless Earl Thomas slips and hits the turf and opens a hole for Jonathan Stewart to rumble 59 yards, his longest carry of the year.
  • Russell Wilson is pressured a lot, but rarely panics under pressure. Today he panicked under early pressure and threw an easy pick-six to Luke Kuechly.
  • Seattle panics in field goal range late in the half and goes for it on fourth-and-5. Ignoring the announcers' nonsensical momentum discussion, a field goal helps you when you're down 31-0, and there was still a lot of football to go. Worse, Wilson then threw short of the sticks to a well-covered Baldwin on fourth down, a play that had very little chance to convert anyway.
  • The multiple timeouts on third-and-very long that just led to punts early. Another timeout at the end of the half, they might have had a chance to kick a shorter field goal instead of missing a 55-yarder. Another timeout at the end of the game, they might not have needed an onside kick. (I'm not sure about that, but I know it wouldn't have hurt.)

I'm sure that this kind of "Seattle beat themselves" commentary will piss off some Panthers fans. That's fine. If I was a Panthers fan it would make me mad. Feel free to roast me in the comments.

As for what's next for Seattle, obviously the offensive line needs a major overhaul. And I'd imagine Marshawn Lynch has finished his career in Seattle -- in fact, I expect him to retire -- but I have been premature predicting the demise of running backs before. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Kam Chancellor. The defense was terrible in the first two games when he was holding out, but they didn't seem to miss him when he was out at the end of the year. And it's not 100 percent his fault that they got burned so badly by tight ends all year and especially in the postseason, but he was part of the problem. Still, he's only 27, and you don't just toss aside good 27-year-olds unless you're certain you can upgrade at the position.

Andrew Healy: I liked so much of what the Seahawks did to try to get back into it. Great catches on the sideline from Lockett and Kearse. Couldn't believe what Lockett did on the sideline. Love the fake punt call. With Joe Buck even calling it, you might have thought the Panthers would be looking for that. I didn't like giving the ball up on fourth-and-13 down 31-14 at the end of the third quarter and did like going for it on fourth-and-5 before the two-minute warning in the first half, but that's all incredibly predictable.

Par for the course for Kuechly, but what an incredible job getting 25 or 30 yards deep in coverage on the sideline to bat that pass away from Baldwin on the last Seahawks drive.

And the Panthers offense did get extremely predictable in the second half. They maybe could have done a little less of that. As Mike said, they seemed to run on every first down. They threw on some second downs, so mixing the down for the occasional throw might have helped. But hard to fault them for shutting it down. When the Panthers threw, the Seahawks might have been a little too terrified of Cam Newton running. They actually held Newton to a career-low 3 rushing yards, but he often had eons back there. On many plays that was basically defensive indifference as the Seahawks seemed content to just close down escape routes.

Vince Verhei: Agree with Andrew on the Seahawks' muddle rush in the second half. They looked like they were terrified of Newton beating them on scrambles, but A) he didn't really scramble that much this year, and B) this isn't the Newton of years past who is going to beat you with big runs and big passes only. He's not Aaron Rodgers-precise or anything, but if you keep leaving the tight end open on the sideline on third-and-3, he'll keep finding that tight end for first downs. Especially if you're not getting pressure in his face.

Pittsburgh Steelers 16 at Denver Broncos 23

Aaron Schatz: I'm not a big fan of Ben Roethlisberger's decision to go deep on the fourth-and-1 from the Denver 32. Just move the chains, and you'll get an opportunity to go play-action deep on the first down. A replay after the commercial which showed that Heath Miller was open for the first down on a cross and it was Roethlisberger's decision to go deep, thinking the receiver had gotten past the defense. Two defenders caught up to him by the time the ball got there.

Andrew Healy: Totally agree on that. I know Roethlisberger is hurt, but with his size, the sneak seems like a good option, too. Not a handoff with eight guys up to stop that

Kayvon Webster's play to bat that punt back is so fantastic. Even hit it out of bounds keeping it inside the 5. Three important plays on special teams ten minutes into the game after the short punt gave Denver the ball on the Pittsburgh 31.

Aaron Schatz: All the talk going into this game and... it looks like a Broncos-Steelers game. Peyton Manning looks like the Peyton Manning of the last few weeks of last year, a little better than early 2015 and much better than the awful Kansas City game, but not the Peyton Manning of legend. The Kubiak offense looks a lot like the Kubiak offense, lots of stretch runs looking for a cutback. Broncos receivers have dropped a couple balls. (C.J. Anderson just had an awful drop, wide-open on an angle route on third-and-4.) The Steelers look like the Steelers, only not as good as usual because there's no Antonio Brown. We're seeing a lot of Darrius Heyward-Bey, as Scott predicted, and a little bit of Sammie Coates. I'm still blown away by Jim Nantz's comment that the Steelers people were saying all kinds of wonderful things about Coates this weekend. I'm not going to play "I know lots of people in the league" here but I actually have spoken to multiple people who have told me it was obvious to the Steelers by the time they got to the first preseason game that Coates would be a total bust who had no idea how NFL routes work.

Scott Kacsmar: Big Ben praises everyone no matter what. He'll make you think Chris Kemoeatu was a John Hannah-level guard. But before the season he actually did not compliment Coates, who needed work to see the field even with Bryant suspended. So yeah, one big play is already more than I expected out of him. The offense looks pretty good without Brown so far. Receivers are getting open, if not wide open and drops have hurt both quarterbacks. I think Denver needs to open things up a little more as Pittsburgh sure has on its side.

Andrew Healy: Nice throw by Manning on the failed fourth-and-3, as Sanders dropped when hit. Last year against the Colts, Manning was 2-for-12 for 49 yards on deep passes. This year, he's 0-for-2 late first half. At the two-minute warning, he has 4.6 YPA, exactly the same as last year.

Thought Martavis Bryant had the first down there on third-and-2 on the reverse if he didn't hesitate getting to the edge.

Scott Kacsmar: Wow, the wind on that Brandon McManus field goal was crazy at the end. I thought he missed it at first and you could see the one official wasn't sure. Big three points before halftime. 10-9 Steelers. I have to think Pittsburgh feels pretty good about its ability to move the ball in a variety of ways. Even without Brown this offense is a tough matchup for Denver, and the key is Roethlisberger looks healthier than expected. Manning missed a deep one to Demaryius (overthrown of course), but has been pretty sharp for the most part. Just too many drops today, including on the money downs that hurt the most. Pittsburgh's front seven is doing a good job against the run, though Anderson did break that long one before halftime. Figure this has to be a second half where the big turnover will decide this one.

Vince Verhei: I keep wanting to make jokes-that-aren't-jokes about benching Manning for Brock Osweiler, but honestly Peyton has been OK. It's the receivers who suddenly can't receive anything.

Jordan Berry's sixth punt, kicked from the Denver 39-yard line, goes deep into the end zone for a touchback. It's the fourth time today that he has netted 27 yards or less on a punt, in a game where field position has been everything.

Mike Kurtz: And IMMEDIATELY after I started thinking the Steelers might actually win this game, Fitzgerald Toussaint coughs it up and Denver marches down the field, taking most of the clock with it. Brutal.

Aaron Schatz: To go back, I know there are some heavy cross-winds but I'm still pretty surprised the Steelers punted from the 34 (moved back to 39 by delay of game) instead of trying a 52-yard field goal at altitude.

That Toussaint fumble ended up turning the game. Running back fumbles have played a big role in this year's playoffs: Adrian Peterson and Jeremy Hill last week, now Toussaint. Denver's offense probably had its best drive of the game immediately after the fumble. The cross to Bennie Fowler where Will Allen missed a tackle was huge, that was half the yardage of the drive. I still don't feel like the Denver offense looked that great today. I don't feel like things were better with Manning back. But this defense is so, so good.

Tom Gower: The Steelers got in obvious passing situations late in the game, and the Broncos corners locked down the receivers long enough for the pass rushers to get there. If Denver receivers can catch, though, we probably have our first multi-score margin of the weekend even if Denver's offense didn't look good.

Scott Kacsmar: I did not like that punt decision from Tomlin. Understand the field position issue if Chris Boswell misses, but the kid has been good and a four-point lead felt like a two-score lead in this game. Challenge Denver to score a touchdown. Then when they got a touchback on the punt, it just felt worse.

As expected, the only turnover of the game was a huge one. And my god, how good is Vegas? I went with the Broncos winning 23-16, inspired largely by the spread and Over/Under, but that's exactly what happened.

Might as well give my state of the union on the Steelers now that their season is over. You have to consider 2015 a success as the team won several games against some of the best in the league and won its first playoff game since the 2010 season. Expectations were initially high, but I think that tempered after a brutal preseason that saw Maurkice Pouncey go down as well as some draft picks and the impending suspensions for Le'veon Bell and Martavis Bryant. Then Roethlisberger managed to survive three cart rides after sacks that looked like serious injuries. They lost their left tackle around the sixth game. The team hung in there and while help was needed from Buffalo to make the playoffs, they got in and put up a fight on the road against teams that were frankly just a little better overall this season. So I don't think they can be too disappointed with this year, though certainly a winnable game getting away from them today will hurt all offseason.

The offense has potential to smash franchise records next season with better health. Imagine a 16-game season with Roethlisberger, Brown, Bryant, and Bell. Those four have barely played together so far due to various injuries and suspensions. The defense did improve in Keith Butler's first year as defensive coordinator. I never would have imagined that after how terrible they were at just lining up in New England in Week 1, but clearly there were communication problems and things only got better. They finally started creating takeaways again to compensate for the big plays allowed. They generally were able to keep scoring down, so you can live with that bend-but-don't-break style when you're an offensive-driven team.

I still think the return on investment from the linebackers in the draft hasn't been very good, and this team could be looking at losing James Harrison to retirement. He was great today and can still get it done, but he'll be 38 in May. I'm not sure Jarvis Jones is legit, but Ryan Shazier looked really good at times this season. Stephon Tuitt made major strides and gives the Steelers a nice defensive line core with Cam Heyward. The problem is still the secondary, where they just don't have any major threat to game-plan around. Antwon Blake should be a nickel or dime corner at best. He's a good tackler, but his coverage is terrible. I'm surprised Denver did not attack him more. William Gay is OK, but not your typical No. 1 corner. Brandon Boykin finally started getting playing time, though he's best as a slot corner. They need to use a high draft pick to get a playmaker here. They took Senquez Golson in the second round last year and he got hurt, so we're still waiting to see what they'll get out of the 5-foot-9 corner, but something has to change there. Mike Mitchell blamed injuries for 2014, but he still had a lot of blown tackles and coverages this season. The offense is so loaded they can afford to attack defense heavily in the draft, but I don't think the fan base could stomach another high linebacker pick.

Tomlin still drives me nuts with his inconsistent gambling, but for the most part I thought he did a good job in these playoffs. The team just needs some better health when they get to January. In 2011, Roethlisberger had a high ankle sprain, Pouncey and Rashard Mendenhall were out, and Ryan Clark couldn't play in Denver because of his sickle-cell trait. You know what happened that day. Last year, Bell went down in Week 17 and they didn't have a backup plan. DeAngelo Williams was an outstanding backup this year, but he went down in Week 16. Who knows how things play out if Williams was healthy now? Would he have fumbled like Toussaint did in the fourth quarter? We'll never know, but losing your leading receiver and top two leading rushers when they are some of the best players in the league is going to hurt any team. The Steelers fought well without those guys.

One thing I know for sure, Pouncey is still the most overrated player this team has had in a long time. I hated the new contract for him because he hasn't stayed healthy and has been so replaceable. They replaced him this year with Cody Wallace without a problem. Todd Haley's offense has been good for Ben, who has his four lowest sack rates of his career in the four years with Haley. He was the least-pressured quarterback in the league this year, and I think was third lowest in 2014. That's a major change from the old days. Of course, he still had the injuries in 2015 and went down on a fourth-down sack today, but that's part of his style and part of playing the best pressure defense in the league on the road. Get healthier, improve the defense and the Steelers can get back to vying for a first-round bye and home playoff games again.

Posted by: Andrew Potter on 18 Jan 2016

306 comments, Last at 21 Jan 2016, 3:17am by mbmxyz


by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:42am

This has nothing to do with who they are facing, but this was my instant reaction. Amendola should be fined and suspended. That was beyond dirty and he led with his helmet. It really reminded me of the greg foster cut block against willie anderson that was not even near the play itself. Just completely dirty.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:14am


Amendola: "I thought it was a clean hit... We're coached to do that"

Belichicks comments on it come across as tone-deaf at best:


by hscer :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:29pm

I'm not sure the Patriots under Belichick coach that, but I would bet good money the Rams under Fisher do!

by Karma Coma :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:42pm

People are putting way too much of the responsibility for this hit on Amendola.

Fleming has to know he is not considered "defenseless" in this situation, and balance the reward of pinning the Pats deep with the risk of flying around the field not looking at potential blockers

In the video, you see him change speed, direction, and pad level in the second (or less!) before the hit, all while not even looking at the only player in a position to block him. Amendola does his best to turn his head away and hit with his shoulder, but there's only so much you can do at that speed and distance, so the side of his helmet makes contact with Fleming's right shoulder pad. Fleming is the one who made the choice to sacrifice his awareness for a few yards of field position, lowering his head to shoulder level in the process. So, alright, maybe penalize Amendola, but a fine? A suspension? Because Fleming, disregarding his own safety, forced an impossible adjustment from Amendola? That's unreasonable.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:47pm

Amendola's eyes are facing the ground when he initiates a big collision. I think that should result in automatic ejection/suspension. That's not the case now, but I'd prefer that is was. The game is safer when guys keep their head up, and it is something very much in the player's control.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:58pm

If Amendola's head is up, there's a direct helmet-to-helmet collision instead of shoulder to shoulder/helmet-to-shoulder.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:06pm

There are reasons why you are supposed to tackle with your eyes up. One of them is that it is dangerous. It would be better if it was strictly prohibited, since it is a factor which the player controls.

by Karma Coma :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:04pm

Amendola's head IS up until the last few frames (of a slo-mo gif) before contact. Facing down down is the result of having to rotate and lower his body so he can still lead with his shoulder while compensating for Fleming changing direction and lowering his head. None of that happens if Fleming isn't playing with a ghost shirt.

by poplar cove :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:16pm

The lack of talk about the Edelman penalty is unreal. IMO it was way worse than Burfict. Told my buddy last week before the Amendola play that the worst helmet to helmets are always the punt return ones as you have one guy moving as fast he can and taking aim at a stationary target. This is much worse than a player playing defense doing this as the punt returner defender knows before the snap exactly where the ball is going.

Plus you have a guy whose head is in the worst and most vulnerable position, looking straight up in the air. Thankfully there was no serious injury on it but sadly it looks like because of that there wasn't nearly enough anger from the media on the play. That looked to be one of the most blatant targeting hits I've ever seen before as there's not excuse for what he did as the ball hadn't even arrived yet. Worst part of the whole thing is that Burfict gets multi-game suspension and Amendola gets a 2 yard penalty.

by anotherpatsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:32pm

Lack of talk about the [Amendola] penalty????? There's about 100 comments worth of talk for you right here, and boatloads on the internet...

by Karma Coma :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:51pm

Edelman wasn't penalized in this game, do you mean Amendola?

Also, the way you describe it makes it seem like Amendola was the gunner, not the return man. Did you watch the play? The only reason the play looks as bad as it did is exactly because Fleming is running around staring up instead of paying attention to the players around him. As a member of the punting team, he should be expecting a block, especially down near the goal line after Amendola doesn't give the fair catch signal. In that situation, the rules give him no reason to expect the same protections given to "defenseless" players.

by mbmxyz :: Thu, 01/21/2016 - 3:17am

At football camp, in middle school and high school, I was taught the same technique for tackling and blocking. (This is for a taking on a player running directly towards you.) 1) Aim at the numbers, so you don't get faked out. 2) Lower your shoulder and get your pads under the pads of the player you are engaging. 3) Drive through the player's number with your shoulder. 4) If tackling, wrap up the runner with your arms. There are a couple of corollaries. 1) Get your head down. If your head is up, the runner will put you on your back. 2) Don't get so low that you get a knee to your head. I can provide personal evidence supporting the two corollaries. Tackling a runner head on is actually technically difficult. A tackler has to get his shoulders under the shoulders of the runner while avoiding the runner's knees. (When a player is running directly at you, the knees look like hammers on two pistons. You really do not want to engage at the knee level.) For power, runners are taught to pick their knees up high and get their shoulders low when hitting a tackler, so there is not much room for executing a strong technical tackle. Amendola should have delivered his block lower, at the numbers instead of above the numbers of the KC player, but otherwise his form was good. He led with his shoulder and his head was down. The helmet also hit the opponent, because, well, the head is attached to the shoulders. But that was not leading with the crown of a helmet.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:48pm

Meh I am fine with the next time the Patriots are up and a game is out of reach one of the gunners does that to Amendola on a fair catch. Then we can see how he feels about it.

by blan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:51pm

I'm strongly against the idea, which appears to be a growing consensus around here over the last couple weeks, that a player should be ejected or suspended for an illegal football play that would be a legal football play if the player adjusted his body by two to six inches.

I know that NFL players have tremendous body control, but do they really have the control to be that precise when moving at full speed and when their target is also moving at full speed? I can understand wanting to fine the player as deterrent, but it seems silly to affect the whole game or next game on an illegal hit that could have been incidental rather than intentional.

Furthermore, I don't trust the officials to make a call of such consequence without making mistakes. If ejections or suspensions for illegal hits became common, then we'd likely eventually see a player ejected for a legal hit.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:45pm

It all comes down to whether you think the league should get serious about player safety re: head shots.

I do.

by blan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:08pm

Well that brings me to another point. The league has been changing rules for several years now to try to prevent "headshots" from occurring as often, but it's not clear to me there's been a significant improvement. I don't think making penalties even harsher will eliminate forceful contact to players' heads.

Football is a violent game, and I think it's likely impossible to eliminate concussions without changing it at a fundamental level.

I'm curious about the crowd around here that sees concussions as the top issue in the NFL (which appears to me to be most of the writers and commenters on this site). How do you feel about boxing and MMA? Do you boycott these sports?

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:29pm

Right now all they're doing is removing concussed players from the game, so there's actually a perverse incentive to headhunt--you just get a 15-yard slap on the wrist and maybe a fine. But you get to stay in the game.

Again, best analogy I have is NHL, where players both move faster and change direction more quickly. They routinely hand out 3-5 game suspensions for this stuff, which converts to ~1 NFL game at that upper limit. Fines won't work, given the money-management skills of NFLers. Only thing that makes sense would be more ejections and suspensions.

Not boycotting, really, I just don't find fighting exhibitions entertaining.

by blan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:04pm

Well the NFL instituted rules increasing protections on defenseless players in 1995, 2009-2013, and 2015 (http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/health-safety/3...). I can't remember a marked decrease in hits to players' heads over that time. That's not to say that's something I think I would be likely to perceive, but we can certainly try to measure whether there's been an improvement.

I do agree that the league has created a perverse incentive by forcing concussed players to leave the game.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:02pm

If a player is concussed by another player performing an illegal act, the player who caused the concussion should be ejected once the independent neurologist confirms a likely concussion. You could rachet it up further by allowing the concussed player's team force a member of the other team from the same position group to sit for as long as the concussed player is out of the game. So you concuss a team's TE via an illegal act and that team gets to make one of your TEs sit until the concussed player re-enters the game.

by poplar cove :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:18pm

total agreement with you.

by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:02am

Thoughts on ARI - GB - I thought three sides of that game were (mostly) well played till the 4th quarter turned into mayhem. The GB defense played well. The ARI receivers played well. The arizona defense played well and the packer receivers and o line played well. Sometimes, games are low scoring or high scoring because one side is sloppy - other times its great execution by both sides but one side just does a little bit more. Rodgers was great. Ari D was great.

I thought Palmer was skittish and off with accuracy and decision making for most of the night. I don't think this should be interpreted as a character flaw as I've seen great qbs also have off nights in the playoffs. That said, it was a great game and well played.

by Dan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:02am

One thing about the Amendola play is that it made tons of strategic sense. Going after the gunner had a good chance of creating a touchback. That was one of the rare situations where a big hit is much more useful than a solid form block, because Amendola wanted to take the Chief out of the play and then get out of the way himself so that the punt wouldn't hit him. And it was nearly legal - if the hit had been to the chest, instead of getting up into the neck/chin area, then it wouldn't have been against the rules.

So it's an extremely dangerous play with a high risk of injuring someone, but it was also was an attempt at something strategic and legal which only became a penalty because his aim was slightly off.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:38am

It's great strategy, like the goal-saving handball in soccer or the breakaway trip-from-behind in hockey, except, done right, it's not even illegal! Unethical, ungentlemanly, but undoubtedly The Right Play.

... until you send a complete idiot like Amendola out to execute it. Don't have the video handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if, true to form, he got up and started talking trash immediately after the hit.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:54am

"Don't have the video handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if, true to form, he got up and started talking trash immediately after the hit."

Feel free to substitute your own presumptions about the evil Patriots for any actual evidence. Oh, I see you've already done that!

What actually happened is Dezman Moses grabbed Amendola's face mask and started shaking it around. That's also usually called as a personal foul, but Moses was not in a Patriots' uniform, so that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:09pm

Oh, I like(d) many of the Pats. Gronk is probably my favorite player to watch right now--he still plays like a (huge, powerful) kid. The enthusiasm with which he plays is infectious, and he may very well be the Platonic Ideal Football Player. Wilfork played on the edge of dirty, but I loved (and, twice a year, hated) watching him in action. I was a huge Welker fan, too. Those hits he'd take coming across the middle, and springing right back up like nothing happened--shame they never managed to get him a ring.

I found Hernandez loathsome for that stupid "make it rain" celebration, even before the whole murder thing. The Ersatz Welkers (Edelman, Amendola) offend my sensibilities, having the inverse talent/trash talk ratio of the guy they replaced. And Brady still whines like a petulant child if a stiff breeze hits him in the pocket. I dream of the day when he makes his little flag gesture after getting hit and a ref finally snaps and hits him with 15 for unsportsmanlike conduct-whining. But I digress.

Anyway, feel free to troll everyone who disparages the Patriots in the slightest, as you have done, and as you will continue to do. Everything related to the Pats is a monochromatic binary.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:03pm

Hold on, you think Amendola and Edelman do too much trash talking, and you liked Welker?

Welker is the only player I can think of that the Patriots have ever suspended for trash talking. Welker was a stream-of-consciousness non-stop trashtalking mess.

Edelman not only talks less trash than Welker, hes a better WR.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:13pm

Well, "benched for a series in a playoff game", not suspended.

But otherwise, right on.

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:31pm

Amendola is hothead. Trsh talker a bit. Kinda douchy.

by morganja :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:33pm

Amendola did get up and ran around celebrating that hit long, long after the play was over. That was the most sickening part of it for me. It also showed that the hit was a deliberate attempt to hurt the other player.

I don't know if they would ever live up to the responsibility, but I would like to see the NFLPA have the authority to suspend players for dangerous hits. Perhaps its the players themselves that need to start policing their safety, since the NFL doesn't seem to care one way or the other for the (non-star QB) players safety.

by Karma Coma :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:53pm

"Amendola did get up and ran around celebrating that hit long, long after the play was over."

You are, of course, wrong.


The first GIF is real time. Amendola stands up in the endzone with his arms at his sides. In less than 2 seconds he is surrounded by 3 Chiefs, one of whom is grabbing his facemask. Where's the running around? Where's the celebrating?

Also, players from every team celebrate big hits every god damn week in this league. Are they all out to injure the guy they hit? How you come up with this garbage is beyond me.

by Alternator :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 1:03am

morganja believes that Patriots players spend their off-seasons desecrating graveyards, harvesting organs from orphans, and vivisecting puppies.

This is actually rather mild of him.

by Snack Flag :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:58pm

What makes Amendola an "idiot"? Does he have a long history of doing stuff like this? I thought he had a long history of being remarkably unremarkable.

Burfict was suspended because he's a repeat offender. Most players are fined for these kinds of hits. Shazier received no punishment (not even a penalty) for a hit that was at least as dirty and arguably more.

It's so bizarre to me that people are calling for a suspension. If someone can point me to another instance where Amendola hit an opponent in a questionable manner, I'll change my tune.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:12pm

He seems to have a higher propensity than most for jawing after plays, especially compared to the level of his talent. Anecdotal, I know, but I'm not going to spend the time googling around for a "greatest Amendola trash talk moments" video compilation.

by Snack Flag :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:23pm

I guess that's a weird criticism to me - he's a wide receiver. Outside of receiving, that's one of the things they're most famous for doing.

Is there any correlation between trash talking and being an idiot? Or being a dirty player?

by Subrata Sircar :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:29am

Amendola should be suspended but they won't, because it's the playoffs (and possibly because it's the Patriots and looks like they're picking on them). Both reasons are BS and should be on the exhibit list when the players argue the NFL isn't doing anything about player safety.

As far as Pittsburgh, I had no expectation they would win today given the state of their offense. Instead we get a game where, with Brown, Bell or Williams, I can see a path to victory. They definitely exceeded my expectations, and I have to be optimistic for next year IF they can stay healthy.

So often we argue about coaches making poor tactical choices with play calling, timeouts and go/no-go decisions, but even in football where that stuff matters most it's likely not the biggest part of their job. The biggest part of the job is getting the most out of everyone on the roster and Tomlin kept the team going through a significant slate of injuries. He also realized he has the support of ownership to try unconventional things and not get fired just because they didn't work, even if some were suboptimal. He's hardly infallible, but given the results on the field I'd have to say there aren't many coaches I'd rather have.

by Mike W :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:48pm

To be fair, the refs have been studiously ignoring violent play for several weeks now. See OBJ, Burfict, etc.

by Raiderfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:15am

Definitely not a Pats fan, but every replay of the Amandola hit I saw showed a)he led with, and made initial contact with, his shoulder; and b) there was no helmet to helmet contact. It may have been a personal foul, based on the arcana of what direction a return team member is facing when he makes contact, coupled with what was the angle between the two players when the hit occurred (arcana that the punt return guy, as opposed to the punt blocker guys, may not be familiar with), complemented by where the punt coverage guy was looking when he got hit. But to me, it does not even appear fineable, much less grounds for suspension.

by PackerPete :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 8:10am

The league's emphasis on eliminating head to head contact and striking unprotected receivers has to extend to kill shots anywhere on the field. In the Packer - Cardinal game, a Cardinal receiver was flagged for a crackback block on Morgan Burnett. Amandola could have accomplished the same goal of slowing the gunner by stepping in and cutting off the gunner, but Amandola chose instead to deliver a kill shot to a fellow player.

by Raiderfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 8:46am

"Kill shot"?

by Kulko :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:13am

*Warning * Pats Fan here
A) I agree with Raiderfan, that this was probably a fully legal play because I didnt find any H2H Contact in the reviews

B) I agree with Packerfan, that this was completely unnecessary, and a generic UR Penalty was completely fine.

That said I would not see the grounds for an ejection or suspension, unless its consistently called that way for the regular season too.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:35am

"The league's emphasis on eliminating head to head contact and striking unprotected receivers has to extend to kill shots anywhere on the field."

Of course - but that's not what happened here. Amendola puts his shoulder into the gunner's high chest, and gets a little bit of the facemask, but there's no helmet-to-helmet.

It's a legal play, and shouldn't have even been penalized.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:18am

You see this quite a bit in hockey (where players move faster and turn more quickly), which has made all hits to the head illegal, with the seemingly clear language like "main point of contact," and "avoidable". You'd think that would clear things up, and, of course, you'd be wrong. There's also the common law interpretation of head shots in the NHL that "leaving your feet" almost always results in a little supplemental discipline.

So the NHL helpfully puts out a video with each decision to fine/suspend an offender (or not, in this case: http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=853176). For all I know, the NFL may do this already (I'm only a casual fan).

From a CTE standpoint, a shoulder-to-head hit is indistinguishable from a helmet-to-helmet hit. And this isn't hockey, but hitting the head was clearly avoidable. It strains the imagination to interpret Amendola's hit as anything other than a deliberate attempt to injure. (as for the legality, the guy in the stripes disagrees with you)

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:40am

"From a CTE standpoint, a shoulder-to-head hit is indistinguishable from a helmet-to-helmet hit. And this isn't hockey, but hitting the head was clearly avoidable. "

But again, neither one of these things happens.

Amendola's helmet hits the gunner's right shoulder, and Amendola's right shoulder hits the gunners left shoulder.

The whiplash is still seriously dangerous, but its not a 'shoulder-to-head' hit in any sort of way - it's a really rough, but legal hit. Whether or not it SHOULD be legal is a totally different question here.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:51am
by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:01pm

That's not even helmet-to-helmet.

by roguerouge :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:39pm

Love the big red circle on that image. Like we'd otherwise be staring at the field?

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:48pm

You're showing me Amendola's right shoulder on the gunner's left shoulder. I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:13pm

Correction: it is a Rorschach test.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:07pm

Evidently that's supposed to be some evidence of something, but apparently only Bills fans can see it. And they're unwilling to explain their thinking.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:49pm

It reminds me of that roughing call where Ahmad Brooks was flagged for hitting Brees in the neck. Brooks didn't hit him in the neck, he hit the top of his pads under his neck but when, like Amendola, you have every opportunity to hit the opponent lower and instead you hit them so close to the illegal area then frankly I think that's your mistake.

Amendola could have hit him a foot lower and achieved the same objective and he should know that he's likely to get flagged for it because the league is trying to reduce the number of vicious hits like that. There's no replay so why get so close to helmet to helmet for no good reason when you know they'll throw the flag if it's close?

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:20pm

I think you're right on point here. I didn't have an issue with the play itself (trying to block the guy) but he just hit him too high.

by bubqr :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:56pm

I'm not as shocked by this hit as many seem to be(disagree with a potential suspension), but to me while he tried to lead with his shoulder, his head position was poor - he led with the crown of his helmet.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:00pm

"The league's emphasis on eliminating head to head contact and striking unprotected receivers has to extend to kill shots anywhere on the field."

It doesn't. It just doesn't. Not under the current rules. Gio Bernard was knocked out of the Bengals/Steelers by a helmet-to-helmet and not only was no foul called, the NFL later affirmed that no foul call would have been appropriate. And people are calling for Amendola to be suspended? Do rules and precedents matter? Is there any precedent for a suspension for one hit? The letter to Beckham cited the fact that it was his third unnecessary roughness penalty that day.

Oh right, it's the Patriots, so the appropriate thing is to make up the rules as you go. Scale the penalties upward and discard the need for evidence.

by PirateFreedom :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:53pm

I'm not sure that calling for unprecedented sanctions was a Patriot thing.
It might have just be a post Beckham-Norman, Cincinnati-Pittsburgh thing where isolated incidents will be conflated with repeated violations.

The willingness to demand that the wide gulf between penalty and ejection and the wide gulf between fine and suspension be crossed in unprecedented fashion during a playoff game certainly wasn't hurt by Amendola being a patriot, but that might not be all there is to it.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:36am

I thought live and during replays it was clear he led with his helmet and it was a text book case of spearing (which NFL refs never seem to call any more).

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:43am

I really do think that the easiest way to apply rules to this matter is to simply say that if your facemask is down, crown of helmet leading, on a play with a significant collision, it doesn't matter if the helmet or shoulder pad initiates contact, or where the contact is made, ejection follows, reviewable on replay. In other words, if you don't keep your eyes up, you can't play in the NFL.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:56pm

I've just been looking at slow-mo GIFs of that from three different angles.

It was definitely not helmet-to-helmet. Amendola's helmet only hit the gunner's right shoulder and nothing else.

However, Amendola's shoulder/upper arm did hit the gunner's neck and chin. And the whiplash effect from the force of the hit changing the gunner's velocity did snap the gunner's neck back.

And, IMHO, there's no reason Amendola couldn't have accomplished the block by throwing the shoulder in the gunner's upper chest.

My gut feel in live action was that it should have been a penalty so I have no complaints about the flag being thrown.

I see the NFL is saying it was an illegal blindside block, so that would seem to indicate it would have been a legal hit if the approach angles were different, but who knows.

Regardless, no reason for Amendola to not have hit the guy lower.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:09pm

This is my take too. When you hit a guy in that area and his head snaps back it's very likely to draw a flag. A professional should know this and know to hit him a bit lower.

by Alternator :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:04pm

Don't think anybody here is arguing that an Unnecessary Roughness call was undeserved; heck, this is a textbook example. Going from that to a suspension is just, "SCREW THE PATRIOTS!" hate.

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:17pm

Ugh. No, it's not. It might be in-the-moment overreaction to the violence of the hit, it might be a consequence of seeing so many dangerous hits in recent games and ineffectual league reaction to them, it might be any number of absolutely Pats-independent factors. The immediate assumption that someone's opinion is motivated by a giant pro- or anti-Pats conspiracy is, as I said below, incredibly tiresome.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:11pm

"The immediate assumption that someone's opinion is motivated by a giant pro- or anti-Pats conspiracy is, as I said below, incredibly tiresome."

Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? I said it's an example of "bias". Dismissing a charge of "bias" as a charge of a "conspiracy theory" is weak.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:37am

I was really surprised the Steelers did not copy the Colts game plan from last year by focusing on covering everything within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage and basically letting Bronco receivers run past them daring Manning to hit a pass of any distance.

And then the Steelers run defense failed them late in the game. Really surprised by that unit which had been so good all game finally getting pushed around.

I know the punt returner was a fill in for Pittsburgh but the punt game (kicking and receiving) really hurt the Steelers.

by Jerry :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 8:23am

I saw James Harrison quoted somewhere about how Peyton kept checking into the correct running play during Denver's winning drive, so give him some credit.

Ultimately, a good Bronco defense came up big when it had to, while a not-as-good Steeler defense cracked just enough.

by jonsilver :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:52am

Not too puzzling...the best home field advantage of them all (the mile high one) strikes again...

Jon Silverberg

by hscer :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:31pm

I'm not sure why, or if it matters, but Manning's miss to Thomas in this one seemed different to me. He came a lot closer to hitting on that one than any of the clanks against Indianapolis last year.

by BroncFan07 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:46pm

The problem, though, is that Manning has missed that throw too many times to count this year. The play to Thomas should have been a TD. But so many times Manning has had Thomas or Sanders streaking down the middle with defenders trailing and he misses the throw by a few yards. Somehow he's going to have to hit one or two against New England.

The dropped passes were interesting. Several of them, such as the ball Thomas dropped on the first drive or the one CJ Anderson batted down in the second quarter were right in the receiver's mitts. But it seemed to me that there were a lot of "Tebow Drops." If you remember the Tebow Year (and how could you forget), anytime that Tebow threw a ball that was actually in the vicinity of someone on his own team, if a receiver got his fingertips on the ball but didn't haul it in, the announcers/Twitter/Tebow fanatics would declare in unison that the receiver dropped the ball. Even though it wasn't really catchable and the guy had to strain just to touch it. There were some passes like that yesterday, whether wind-affected or Manning-affected, that hit the ground. One in particular I remember to Sanders on a 3rd down crossing pattern.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:50am

How many offensive holding calls were made this weekend across all four games? Five?

I ask because in both the second halves of the Carolina/Seattle game and Arizona/GB game the officials seemed to decide that holding did not exist and pass rushers who had previously been effective were completely neutralized.

by MarkV :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:37am

Den pit also seemed to have more than a few to me

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:44am

I recall being surprised at the one holding call in the second half after the long Denver run and thinking, "Why that one?"

Meaning that after seeing nothing called it just seemed really strange to all of the sudden drop a flag on a hold that was not nearly as egregious as several others. Though still obvious

by Dave Bernreuther :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:21pm

If that was the play where Manning saw the CB bail, audibled to the run to the right against the blitz, and the huge gain got negated, then I had the exact same reaction. So many missed holds both ways before and after that one, and yet that's the one they decided to throw.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:02pm

Exactly this is one of those hidden issues that does not seem to get mentioned enough.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:43pm

Yeah, there's a commonly expressed idea that 'too many flags ruin games' while very little attention is given to the idea that uncalled penalties also ruin games. I think the reason is obvious, most fans are much less likely to spot an uncalled penalty but everyone notices the flag with its resulting announcement.

In a perfect worl the NFL would emphasise calling all games to the same standard but then in such a paradise the officials wouldn't make any mistakes and the players wouldn't commit any penalties.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 8:44am

Like the Steelers the Packers punt units really hurt the cause. The Packer punter almos certainly lost his job with GB on Saturday

by Guest789 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:10am

Agreed. It got forgotten in all the end-game excitement, but Masthay was a huge liability in terms of the field position battle. It gives the defence no margin for error when you punt from the 20 and it only reaches the 50.

By the third one I was wondering if Crosby could punt.

by FireSnake :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:12am

Manning can't throw the ball farther than 15 yards. I wonder why Kubiak limits his playcalling like this. All these highly paid receivers, and a QB that can't throw to them. Almost comical.

by Kulko :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:21am

I am totally surprised with the negative description of the Pats performance.

We played the arguably best team in the AFC, and controlled the game to a level, where I never felt in doubt of the result after the 4th play of the 3rd Pats drive. The only reason this game was close at all was the fact that Edelman started a bit rusty and the other team was playoff caliber too.

Apart from the Panthers this was the best showing of the weekend and I am fully confident that it is repeatable unless all the new defensive Injuries proove to serious.

This is no 2007 Caliber team anymore (too many injuries), and they should probably be underdog in the Superbowl, but no more than last year.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:42am

Another guy likely looking for a new home is Casey Hayward. GB went to zone to compensate for Hayward and the guy still managed to give up play after play while Randall and Shields are holding their own. Sure Shields should have held onto that one interception possibility but Hayward continues to play passive at the oddest times.

by dank067 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:44am

Hayward has been a disappointment since his great rookie season, but I think he's still a useful slot corner. Got beat a few times Saturday, but it was against probably the deepest receiving corps in the league. If no one else wants to pay him serious money I think they will try to keep him around for another year as Rollins/Randall insurance.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:54am

Never meant to suggest otherwise. And I have no doubt Hayward will get paid because he does more good things than bad. Just frustrating that in several important games Hayward has not played well.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:46am

Regarding Janis granted he likely ran the wrong route, but I keep asking how you have a guy who is tall, fast, tough, strong with great body control and the coaching staff cannot find a role for him? Really??? You can only turn to him in absolute desperation?

I don't buy it. Janis is not Brent Fullwood brain dead. Sure maybe his learning curve is flatter than you want but a good coaching staff should focus on what this guy CAN do versus laser focused on what he CANNOT do.

Not saying the guy is the second coming. But he can clearly play wiht the big kids

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:18am

The reason why I'm always hesitant to criticize depth chart decisions is because I'm not watching practices. How frequently would a guy need to run the wrong route in practice, before you'd decide to restrict him to special teams? This is why Zimmer, with his decidedly mediocre receving corps, doesn't have the uber-athletic Patterson on the field with the offense. Patterson has had some incredible plays from time to time as well, but remains buried on the depth chart. If you can't trust him on a Wednesday or Thursday morning, with only the coaches watching, it's really hard to trust him in front of 70,000.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:09am

I hear all that and am not suggesting the coaches do not have some reason to be hesitant.

I just struggle with the notion taht you have a player with a series of positives and one significant negative and yet you still cannot leverage that within the offense.

I know it's baseball but Earl Weaver could take a guy who could only hit lefties without a good fastball and still find a place for him wihtin an offense. I think the Packer coaching staff is setting a bit of an uneven standard for play.

Especially when a guy like Davante Adams can play all season and bringing bad routes, bad hands, and uneven intensity.

by dank067 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:52am

I'm a Janis skeptic (I think we've talked about it before), but yeah, especially considering how little they were getting out of Adams, they really should have tried to fit him in somewhere.

That said, he did directly cost them 4 points, which won't show up on the stat sheet, and until that final drive the passing offense was as inefficient as ever, something like 38 dropbacks for 160 passing yards. They just never got things figured out in the passing game all the way to the end.

by Dan Slotman :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 4:43pm

The Packers have found a role for Janis. He's the best gunner they've had for a long time, and he also returns kickoffs. That's valuable. Knowing the system, running a route, and making the right adjustment against the defense are more important than raw talent on offense.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:56am

Lacy's run was embarrassing to watch. He kept looking around as if he wanted an excuse to fall down.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:10am

It's Arizona; he couldn't believe there wasn't a Dairy Queen drive through window to stop at, somewhere around the 30 yard line. Hell, he had specifically tucked a fiver in his sock just for that situation. The man is all about preparation.

by Duff Soviet Union :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:27pm

Every big run he makes should be called FeastMode.

by DGL :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:56am

On the game-tying drive, Jeff Janis had two catches for 101 yards.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:06am

Rushing 7 in a Hail Mary situation, against a mobile qb, is just pure idiocy, mathematically maximizing the odds of success for the offense. There isn't any way to rationalize this. For every time the pass rush is decisive, you'll give the offense a great chance to score, in what should be a decidedly low percentage play all the time. I can't believe people are defending this decision.

I think the quality of the Packers defense was overlooked all season long, lost amongst all the rhetoric directed at the Packers offensive problems. Once Shields got back on the field, I knew the Cards offense had a real battle on their hands.

I think the Cardinals have been overrated for a while now, due to Palmer's (perhaps injury related) issues, and more importantly, when you are playing good teams, not having pass rushers who can consistently win one on one matchups (outside of Freeney occasional trip to the way back machine) just greatly limits defensive performance.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:40am

It was a really botched rush too. If you're going to send 7 guys, you better make damn sure the QB can't roll his way out of the pocket.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:08pm

This, if you rush 7 you have to hold contain.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:29am

Has there ever been a greater dichotomy between the quality of coaching done 12 months of the year, outside the game stadium, and the quality of coaching done during games, than that exhibited by Reid? It presents quite the conumdrum, and I say that as one who thinks in game coaching is about the 4th or 5th most important thing an NFL head coach does.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:32am

I really think that the Eagles previously, and the Chiefs now, would be better off with Andy Reid sitting up in the coaching box, and having someone else actually managing the game.

It would be very non-traditional, but they'd be a much better team.

He's clearly fantastic at training players, getting schemes working, and all the things that happen Monday through Saturday, but he's an absolutely abysmal gameday coach.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:28pm

Actually, it's perfectly traditional; in most teams, the OC calls the plays, not the HC. Reid is the exception here, to their detriment.

At a certain point, the leader has to delegate. I don't think it's a matter of not knowing how to manage the game, as the fact that it's just one job too many for even the best of minds. I remember Holmgren having the same problem with clock management in Seattle.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:42pm

See, I disagree with it being too many things.

When they interviewed Reid post-game, he didn't seem to think there was any problem with the way they played that drive. He just doesn't understand.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:43pm

I think that's most likely a combination of (1) being immediately after the game, and (2) how many people do you know of who will say, "well, I totally crapped the bed there" when put on the spot like that?

I find it highly unlikely that Reid doesn't know he screwed up at the end. The question is whether that will translate to delegating the playcalling to somebody he trusts, or convincing himself he can get it right next time.

It's exactly like when good coaches decide they also want to be GM, and make a hash of both jobs in the process. That's the point where the owner has to step in and say, "You can't do this on your own. That is nothing to be ashamed of; it's too big a job for one man. I'm ordering you to find somebody to delegate to so that you can focus on being the HC."

by Athelas :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:27pm

"I find it highly unlikely that Reid doesn't know he screwed up at the end."

And yet on Sunday he still could not understand why anyone was asking him about clock management!
(see the Kansas City Star)

by Alternator :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:55pm


No there has not.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:10pm

Although this is what drives me nuts about criticism of him. You chuck him for an average coach and KC is 7-9. It is the same stupid thinking that got Marty fired.

They really desperately need a separate "game situation coach". Director of gameday operations or something.

by merlinofchaos :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:44pm

Here's the thing.

When you're in charge of an organization, your FIRST job is to evaluate the things you do well and the things you don't do well. Then you make sure you do the things you do well, and you get help doing the things you don't do well. You get people who do those things well and then you trust them.

So many football coaches fail on this one, and this is where Andy Reid continuously fails. Yeah, he does a LOT of things well, and that's why his teams are consistently winners.

But when the game is on the line, Andy Reid WILL fumble the clock. Seriously, you could make a Geico commercial out of it. "When you're Andy Reid, you mismanage the clock. It's what you do."

If he can't get past his own ego or shortsightedness and get someone in who can alleviate this problem for him, then we've seen his ceiling as a coach.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:49pm

The point is his ceiling/floor is well above what you need to keep your job. The NFL is a business, not a fantasy league. Real money is involved. You don't chuck someone who is well above average because you are frustrated he is not the best, unless you are sure you can get the best.

Did Belichick suddenly become available? Or maybe Pete Carroll? You mean those are not the coaching options you have if you fire Reid? And even Carroll gets occasionally savaged for his in game decision making. It is something the NFL coaches at a collective are terrible at.

by Duff Soviet Union :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:32pm

I've said it before, but I don't know why every team doesn't have a clock management / 4th down decision making specialist. Especially when pretty much any 19 year old Madden junkie would do the job for $20 bucks an hour.

by poplar cove :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:27pm

Because at the end of the day people will always find something that wasn't perfect and complain about how a better decision should have been made. Can you imagine a big game played in a sport that ends up with a close ending and the majority of the people after the game saying wow both coaches made all the right decisions? That won't ever happen.

The biggest problem is everyone who voices their opinion loves to complain and 2nd guess decisions. Over time this happens with everything starting 100 of years ago complaining about the weatherman to politics and now we NFL clock management can be added to the mix.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:32pm

Didn't Herm Edwards have somebody like that on staff?

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:34pm

Yes, had Suck curl on stagf with jets and chiefs. Cmae to Jets for 2003 season after Edwards heard soem pressure abotu clock problems first 2 yeats

by billprudden :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:38am

Raiders fan here, and one who grew up in Maryland when Cooke still owned the Redskins, so:

Are most owners so completely satisfied to make money and own teams that they don't care about winning? I mean they all say how much they want to win a SB, but then there is Andy Reid... How is he not fired and effectively blackballed from ever being a HC again? The clock management / in-game stuff is just awful. He kills playoff dreams.

I very much believe that Al and Jack would fire Reid this morning. Not just for what we saw on the field and sidelines yesterday, but for the clueless press conference. I also believe that today's 32 owners wouldn't.

(and I know about Norv and the last several years of Al's ownership, but I think we all agree that was a different Al)


by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:57am

Reid isn't blackballed because in-game coaching is about the 4th or 5th most important thing an NFL Head Coach does. Do you think it is just random chance that Reid teams have made the playoffs as frequently as they have? Given the randomness inherent in NFL coaching hires, and the difficulty inherent in getting to 10 wins, firing Reid would be an outstanding way to pursue missing the playoffs 8 years out of 10.

by billprudden :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:20am

Morning -

Yes, and 10 wins plus a post-season share seem to be enough for most, is my point...

My concern, and one I foolishly hope might be shared by ownership, is that with him, once you face another playoff-quality organization, he becomes a glaring in-game liability. Coach as obstacle. Not a good plan.


by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:28am

Is averaging 9 losses a season a better plan?

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:39am

This is getting to Eagles fan levels of pathology. That stupid Reid always getting to the playoffs and losing.

(I think more than the time management which was awful. Reid could be criticized for not spending more effort to find a better QB than Alex Smith though).

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:17pm

The problem there is that finding a good QB is about as hard as finding a good HC. Alex Smith was really the best option available at the time. Smith is not ideal, but he's better than Fitzpatrick, to say nothing of Bradford, Hoyer, or McCown.

Without a Top-5 pick, where do you pick up a starting QB in 2016? He needs to find either a sleeper prospect, or maybe take a flyer on a surgically rebuilt RG3; at this point, he can probably sign him as the emergency QB for some chewing gum and a piece of string. Really, though, that'd be a better situation for RG3 than it would be for the Chiefs.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:27pm

I'm not criticizing him for not finding one, but not even trying.

In 3 drafts, he picked one QB, in the 5th round, and they've signed Chase Daniel in free agency. That's it.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:36pm

Fair point.

I just think that once you've got Alex Smith - I'd call him a 60th percentile QB - filling out the rest of the roster was probably a higher priority than developing a prospect. They were 2-14 the year before Reid took over, and have won 11, 9, and 11 games since then. Smith is 31 this year, which means he's probably got 3-4 productive years left; now is probably a good time to start looking for QBs to develop.

by Alternator :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 1:10am

On the flip side, look at the Patriots: spent a third on Mallet, spend a second on Garoppolo, and neither one has proven needed. They're a top-flight organization so it hasn't really cost them much, and I'm quite certain Belichick valued a solid backup / potential permanent (injury) replacement enough that he has no regrets, but it's not a cost to shrug off lightly.

by Anon Ymous :: Wed, 01/20/2016 - 1:42pm

Considering how expensive even marginal QB talent is, I have no problem investing a 3rd every few years in a backup QB. Aside from having a higher possible ceiling, the loss of the 3rd rounder elsewhere is mitigated by the $3-5mm cap savings.

NE is also clearly protecting themselves against Brady finally aging, which makes this move even more sensible.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:50am

That's a false dichotomy though - the universe of possible results isn't "Go 10-6 with Andy Reid and get knocked out in the first round, or go 7-9".

Finding good NFL coaches is certainly hard, but Andy Reid is a liability against good teams. He builds talented, well trained, skilled squads, and is able to beat on the rifraf of the nfl on that alone, but when he faces other good teams, he invariably gives the game away.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:54am

OK, I overstated; "or go 8-8" would be more accurate. 38% of teams make the playoffs. If you fire Reid, you are more likely put yourself in the 62% you don't want to be in.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:36pm

No, I think you were right the first time with the 7-9. Most head coaches depart in 3 years with losing records; reaching .500 is hard.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:00pm

Of course it is.

I guess it depends on what your goals are as an owner - is your goal to be not terrible, and collect checks, or is your goal to win superbowls? Either is a reasonable goal.

The second goal is riskier, and more prone to failure - but by hiring Andy Reid (and allowing him full control of time management, etc) you're pretty much removing winning superbowls from the probable results set - because you're not going to have a big talent advantage anymore, and his problems get leveraged.

As a fan, I'd rather see my team be a legitimate superbowl contender sometimes, and not be one sometimes, than have them win 8-12 games every year and have to watch the team lose playoff games in a super frustrating manner every year.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:12pm

This view involves a belief that there is skill involved in hiring good head coaches. There is almost no reason at all to think this is true, much less any skill involved in hiring a coach who is good in the playoffs, relative to other coaches in the playoffs. There will never be an owner who hires enough head coaches to give us any confidence whatsoever that he is good at hiring head coaches. When you fire Andy Reid, the most likely result is that you miss the playoffs 6 or 7 of the next 10 years, which by definition reduces your chances of winning the Super Bowl.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:19pm

I think, from the ownership perspective, you make more money by being a contender every year. Extra home games, greater fan interest, etc.

From a probabilistic perspective (this is, after all, an analytics site!), you're much more likely to win a Superbowl by being in the conference championship 5 times in a decade than by not. I don't think, say, the Giants' performance over the same stretch is necessarily the outcome of "not having Andy Reid."

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:25pm

Exactly. If hiring head coaches is pretty much random, and there is a lot of reason to think it is more likely than not, then firing Andy Reid almost certainly reduces your odds of winning the Super Bowl.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:31pm

'From a probabilistic perspective (this is, after all, an analytics site!), you're much more likely to win a Superbowl by being in the conference championship 5 times in a decade than by not'

This is only true if your chance of winning any given game is either even, or random.

If your coach has a significant game-calling weakness that is leveraged in games where the talent level is similar, you're not maximizing chances of winning a superbowl anymore.

In a baseball analogy, it's a bit like talking about a 95 win team with a bad closer. The closer doesn't generally make a difference when you're playing a 60 win team - but when you hit the playoffs its suddenly a big issue.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:41pm

Again, you are assuming that that the owner has some skill in hiring a coach who will be as good as Reid at making the playoffs. This probably isn't true.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:48pm

Will, I am making no such assumption - so stop repeating yourself.
I have at no point argued that its easy to hire a coach better than Reid.

What I'm arguing is that I think that hiring Reid (and Marvin Lewis, etc) limits upside to exactly what we just saw - a pretty good team that washes out early in the playoffs because its coach has glaring flaws that are exacerbated in high leverage situations.

Its up to an individual owner on whether or not its worth accepting the probability of lower performance for a shot at a higher ceiling.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:56pm

What is the higher ceiling than winning the Super Bowl? Unless you are arguing that Andy Reid has a 0% chance of coaching a team that does so, which is certainly inaccurate, you aren't getting a "shot at a higher ceiling" by firing Reid.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:03pm

I don't get it. He just took a team QB'd by Alex Smith to within a TD of the best team in the AFC with arguably the best QB in the league and probably the best coach in the league.

Sometimes your team is just worse. Yeah the time management was awful, but it takes a boatload of coaching to get to the point where time management in the playoffs is even something you can mess up.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:13pm

It is the most visible part of coaching, so people hugely overestimate it's overall impact, in terms of its importance to the chances winning a championship . It's not trivial by any means, but people go overboard.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:44pm

Jesus Christ. You keep repeating things I've said almost word for word, and thinking it's a refutation of what I'm saying.

" but it takes a boatload of coaching to get to the point where time management in the playoffs is even something you can mess up"

YES. IT DOES. And Andy Reid is friggen fantastic at those things. I've said that - multiple times. Over and Over and Over.

The problem is that he ALWAYS screws things up when he gets to that point. This man SHOULD NOT BE CALLING PLAYS.

If you're going to argue with me, can you please stick to arguing about things I've actually said, instead of setting up 9 million strawmen?

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:53pm

I'm not really arguing with you. Just a fan who has seen bad, good, bad and good coaching in that order. I very much appreciate good coaching. The fact that a clearly good coach has one or two obvious weaknesses, just doesn't bother me.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:56pm

But we're all in agreement that Reid shouldn't be calling plays. The obvious best case scenario is for him to turn that over to his OC. The question is, though, if he's stubborn and insists on keeping that role, are you better off firing him? I would answer, "No".

The original post in this thread asked why Reid wasn't being blacklisted because of his playcalling. The answer is exactly what you're agreeing with us on - that in spite of his very obvious shortcomings, he's still one of the best HC's in the league.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:06pm

It is really interesting that this debate takes place in the wake of Reid's team losing a road playoff game where the opponent has a much, much, better qb, much, much better receivers, especially given Maclin's injury, and Reid's primary personnel advantage, pass rushers, was rendered moot by injury. Frankly, the game shouldn't have been close enough to have this debate taking place.

by jonsilver :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:21pm

I am not in agreement that Reid shouldn't be calling plays. I think he's very good at it. What I think is that his bosses should make him hire a specialist and delegate both practice and in game authority to him on preparing for and executing time management functions. That authority should include the ability to practice for and implement play-call time limits on Reid, with fail-safe audible procedures for Smith/other qbs.
Jon Silverberg

by Duff Soviet Union :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:38pm

"But we're all in agreement that Reid shouldn't be calling plays."

We are? KC ranked 6th in offensive DVOA this year, 3rd in weighted. Looking at the talent on hand, you'd have a pretty tough job convincing me they should be better than that.

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:56pm

That was tuluse's first reply to you. He hasn't kept doing anything and has certainly not set up 9 million of anything.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:30pm

Football is a game of small sample size, with outcomes often dictated by absurd, improbable, unpredictable, and irreproducible events. You can pretty easily pick a handful of plays that, had the outcome been different, the Patriots win 6 Super Bowls (helmet catch, etc.). You can just as easily do the same for Patriots to win 0 Super Bowls (Woodson hits Brady a split-second earlier, Kasay kicks off IN bounds, Seattle calls a goal-line running play, etc.).

I firmly believe that the chance of winning a game is either even or random, although if you have a plausible statistical model for your Tautological Winner Coach Theory, I'd love to see it ;)

The high DVOA for Reid teams, IMO, is indicative of their ability to, on any given play, do football things better more often than the guys lined up against them. That 9-6-1 '08 team, I think, is a great example, with a deep playoff run for a team that people who follow conventional stats, and even many here, thought had no business in the playoffs, much less in the NFCCG.

by billprudden :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:54am

No, but believing, with reasonable evidence to support, that if we get "this close" our HC will likely mismanage our chances, seems to me to accept only "this much" success. Which is my point about these owners.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:06pm

Go ahead and spend a billion dollars or so buy a team, then make the playoffs 3 times in 10 years,and then reflect on the behavior of the owners.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:18pm

...or 1 time in 10 years, that happens a lot too.

by BJR :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:47am

The game-management at the end was an embarrassment, but it probably only cost them a couple of % chance of victory compared to optimal strategy. Now that is not to be dismissed, but has to be taken in context with the rest of the coaching performance. As usual Reid's team was well prepared, executed well and were able to hang in with a mighty opponent, on the road, in spite of injuries to several of his best players.

Now if I was the Chiefs GM/owner I might be asking for an explanation from Reid, and then looking for assurances on how he might improve game management/strategy (delegation?). But firing him would be ludicrously short-sighted.

by jonsilver :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:09pm

+1 My thoughts exactly...Reid has proven to be excellent at many phases of management....one of the important ones being delegation...the owner should tell the GM to tell Reid (or tell Reid directly) that Reid hire a specialist for clock management and structure game preparation so everyone is clear on the lines of authority, in order to maximize that individual's impact on the game...
Jon Silverberg

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:14pm

The goal of the owner is to make money, not win Super Bowls. Being competitive and in the playoffs each year is A LOT more valuable than an 90% chance of a decade of 7-9 and a 10% chance you find the next Carroll/Belichick.

Andy Ried is easily a top 5 coach right now. Yes his weaknesses are frustrating, but he really make the most of the personnel.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:20pm

I think 10% greatly overstates the odds of hiring Belichik/Carroll.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:47pm

Also, there's a huge difference between the Mark I and Mark II versions of Belichick/Carroll. There's a pretty good chance you're just providing on-the-job training for when he establishes a dynasty for your division rival.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:54pm

I was trying to be generous, and factor in that some people might think I left some other great current coaches out.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:55pm

Somewhere between 20-25% of coaches are fired every single offseason. I would say 1% is still overstating the odds of hiring the next Belichik/Carroll.

by WeaponX :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:22am

Well said. Reid's a good coach and firing him would be pretty silly.
Sometimes I even trip myself out.

by jds :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:27pm

Marty Schottenheimer is a guy with the same reputation as Reid, both deserved, I think. Given Reid's history, is he not self-aware enough to seek assistance, or can someone in the organization not sit him down and point out certain game day "inefficiencies". He can keep doing everything he is doing, Monday to Saturday, just on Sunday, during games, the voice of X that he hears in his headset will override any independent thought he might want to exercise.

by Alternator :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:58pm

Would you rather consistently make the playoffs and hope for some breaks, or would you rather occasionally make the playoffs but be a stronger team when you make it?

Just in terms of winning the Super Bowl, an 80% chance of making it and a 5% chance of winning it all (giving Reid a stiff penalty for in-game blunders) matches a 20% chance of making it and a 20% chance of winning it all (and that's a pretty extreme win chance). Factor in fan excitement over, "We have a chance!" versus "Another lost season," and Reid makes total sense.

I'd still require him to hand off in-game play calling to an OC, but I'd love Reid as my coach.

by Rocco :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:49am

Denver should send a fruit basket to Vontaze Burfict.

by jpo287 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:04am

Surprised no one has commented on how the poor field conditions affected the Seahawks.

Stewarts long run came when Thomas slipped on a cut. Two more runs/slips and the Seahawks were down 7. Then their offensive line seemed to be playing on ice for the first couple of series as the Panthers were just manhandling them up front. The first possession was a pick 6 as Wilson was throwing with Short hanging on his back, the second position was a 10 yard loss on a sack and the third possession was another pick as Wilson was hit as he was throwing which led to a FG. So 15 minutes into the game and Wilson has 2 picks, 3 sacks and they are down 24 points.

I say this as a Panther's fan but I can't help but wonder how much credit the poor field conditions contributed to the Seattle's poor play. I know they typically start out a little slow but they were just being pushed around like crazy during the first quarter.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:12am

Gotta say I got tired of Buck meowing about the field conditions wihtin the first ten minutes. So there may be reason to consider it a factor but the announcer whined about it so incessantly it detracted from its validity as an issue

by Raiderjoe :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:15am

Seahags won a playoff agme possibly due to field condition at eginning of thsi run when played at Squirrels 2012. Pssoibly woudl ahve won anyway but tema greatly aided by field which helped cause r. Griffin iii injury. Very sour grapes if Seahwks or fans of Seahawks complain about field. Both teams played on ti. Personally, an very very agaiant whining about field. Hate even Raiders whining about 1975 afc tile game and Jets in 1982 one

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:55pm

The one time I think teams had a right to complain about field conditions was the snowplow game. I thought the snowplow qualified as an 'unfair act', and shouldn't have been allowed.

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:39pm

It remains an unforgettable moment watching Shula when that happened ...

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:51pm

I was at that game. It's not like it was "allowed" -- it happened in such a way that no one could stop it and there was nothing in the rules against it at the time.

The snowplow (really a golf cart with a front sweeper brush) was clearing the multiples-of-5 yard lines all day. On the play in question the cart went out along one of those yard lines until it got to the middle of the field where it suddenly veered off, cleared the hold site, then went back to the yardline and finished clearing it.

NE winning that game finished second to seeing later replays of Shula practically stroking out.

Though before that I was at the point of rooting for either team to just win the damned game. It was pretty cold and OT (which probably would have used the entire OT period and ended in a tie) would have sucked even more.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:00pm


On the one hand, my sense of honor and fair play says the plow was an unfair act on behalf of the home team.

On the other hand, we have have Shula going full Yosemite Sam on the sideline.

That's a really tough call.

by WeaponX :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:16pm

They changed cleats immediately, and continued to get bullied until Carolina was up 31. So even with their final form secret sauce ultimate cleats on it didn't matter. In the 2nd half Carolina was content with killing clock on O and trying to prevent too many big plays on D.

The field conditions are just another narrative spun by people that can't cope with a 15 win team winning again in the playoffs vs a magical unicorn. You could find just as many specific things that Seattle got away with to be fortunate enough to only lose by 7.

Wilson chucks a lot of floaters under duress, it was great to see just rewards served even if it was only for a half.

Sometimes I even trip myself out.

by NYMike :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:05am

I hope I'm wrong, but the way Ryan Shazier tackles (by leading with the crown of his helmet), he's going to have a career-threatening neck injury within the next two years.

by Duke :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:17pm

I get that notion, but Brandon Mirage Merriweather has yet to kill himself, so maybe it won't happen.

by Duke :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:19pm

"Mirage"? Where did that come from, autocorrect?

by Hurt Bones :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:01pm

Pretty sure as a replacement for the Mystère, IIRC.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:50am

"Danny Amendola just made about the dirtiest play I've ever seen."

How many weeks has it been since OBJ clocked Josh Norman with a helmet-to-helmet, spearing him by surprise from the side after the play was dead.

Just last week we saw Vontaze Burfict do a helmet-to-helmet on Antonio Brown which ended his season.

Can we have some perspective, or must any infraction by any Patriot rise to the level of "worst ever"?

It is entirely legal for Amendola to hit Fleming there. The problem was the location of the hit - too high. But that's not in the same category of the countless helmet-to-helmet hits of defenseless receivers we see all the time. Fleming is not a receiver. He doesn't get the rulebook protections that receivers get.

A suspension here would be completely inappropriate, unless the NFL wants to start adding a suspension to every personal foul.

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:54am

Does every discussion of an aspect of a Patriots game have to come down to "the Patriots are cheaters" or "the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against the Patriots"? It's incredibly tiresome. If you want to debate the hit, debate the hit, but please drop the "PatsHaterz" crap.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:08pm

Ben Muth just said a non-helmet to helmet hit was the "dirtiest hit he'd ever seen".

Sorry, but that comment just drips with bias. It's so far beyond objective analysis that bias has to be brought up.

Boo hoo if that bothers you. The Patriots still don't have a 1st round pick in the draft year, and all of the outside analysis indicates that there's no evidence of any football tampering. Anti-Patriots bias is not only a real thing, but it's been practiced and encouraged by the league office itself. So no, I'm not going to stop bringing it up. Not when Ben Muth thinks a shoulder-to-helmet hit during the course of a play is dirtier than what Odell Beckham Jr did to Josh Norman after a play.

Sorry that you find that "tiresome". I find the constant and evident bias to be tiresome.

by armchair journe... :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:32pm

Then bring up the correct bias... You're looking for "recency."


by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:35pm

Does ben muth have a history of being anti pats? His fav team is in the nfc west.

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:57pm

Freemasons meeting broke early.

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:58pm

Did I add "WAH" here? No? Oh.


10th AFC championship game in 15 years. Please shut up.

by billsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:10pm

Maybe have an "Irrational Patriots vs. the World" thread to replace the old Brady-Manning threads...

by Kulko :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:17pm

No it doesn't but its right that it takes a very short memory to call a Foul "worst ever" only a few weeks after the OBJ cornerback hunting incidents.

by armchair journe... :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:27pm

I think we've gotten quite used to seeing bad hits over the middle (with Burfict's being a particularly egregious example), but the uniqueness of it being a punt downing situation here is a huge part of the collective reaction. I can't remember ever seeing a play like that, however closely you want to parse it to argue legality, the visceral response of most every spectator is how unneccessarily violent the play was... in a situation where you virtually never see a hit like that. When you expected to see just a simple block, it looks irredeemably dirty to a neutral observer.

Or sure, Pats bias, whatever.


by Snack Flag :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:10pm

I think most Pats fans would understand why people think the hit is "dirty". But the fact that some commenters are saying it's the "dirtiest hit they've ever seen", particularly after the behavior we've seen in recent weeks, is what Pats fans take issue with. That hit was not in some special spectrum of dirtiness.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:15pm

Whenever anyone makes an assertion that any play is the "most" of anything, it is nearly 100% guaranteed that it is a huge overstatement. There have been a lot for football plays. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that this one was the most of anything.

by Alternator :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:11pm

I'll see you being reasonable, and raise you the Helmet Catch.


by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:43pm

I was going to quote Joe Buck during the Randy Moss incident, but I couldn't remember exactly what he said. So then I was going to look it up on YouTube, but realized that would entail having to listen to Joe Buck's sanctimonious snit all over again.

So instead I decided to get some Oreos from the vending machine, because it's time for my mid-afternoon coffee break, and Oreos are delicious.

by dmstorm22 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:31pm

It is odd that the Amendola play is getting defended when three years ago in the Audibles comments after the Pollard hit on Ridly caused a fumble there was a definite sense of 'how is that legal', 'I was so ashamed of the Ravens fighting for the ball with Ridley lying there," on what was a definitely more legal, clean play.

by Snack Flag :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:44pm

Saying "How is that legal?" is much different than "Player X should be suspended!" I think most compassionate humans would not want either the Pollard hit or the Amendola hit to be legal in the NFL. If the NFL wanted to change those rules and enforce them going forward, you would probably find few people disagreeing with that decision in these threads.

That doesn't mean that Danny Amendola should be suspended or that calls for his suspension, when considering the NFL's previous punishments in these cases, are reasonable.

by bigpoppapump :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 11:54am

The calls for extra punishment are maybe reasonably rooted in the fact that because it happened on the three or four yard line the effective on-field punishment was 1.5 yards. It's normal to want to see a dirty play (and it was high and dangerous) punished. Here there was literally no sanction at all. And I like the Pats etc.

by Snack Flag :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 12:55pm

He was punished. There literally was a sanction - half the distance to the goal, which is the same penalty every other UR penalty gets inside the 20 yard line. Expecting to change the rules of football for one play would de-legitimize the entire rulebook. If he committed another UR penalty, there's a good chance he'd be ejected (like a yellow card/red card in soccer).

There's nothing about this play that makes it extra awful/dirty/dangerous/irresponsible. Again, if people want to say "Going forward, there should be a greater cost for a hit of this type on this area of the field" that's a fine, interesting conversation to have about the whole of the NFL. For this one specific play, it's bizarrely selective to want a pound of flesh on top of what the rulebook/NFL precedent calls for.

by bigpoppapump :: Wed, 01/20/2016 - 5:56am

It's not bizarrely selective to want to see a specific dirty play punished - it fits in nicely with wanting to see all dirty play punished. Same thing.

I'm just pointing out that it's no shock to see people uneasy with that kind of hit getting 1.5 yards of a punishment. Where's the deterrent? Under the current rules it actually makes Amendola's hit the rational move. If he could remove an opponent from the game at 1.5 yards cost then he should be making that hit...

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:51am

I'm a bit surprised to see the level of love for the GB-ARI game. Sure, the last few minutes of regulation were exciting, and it was nice to see Fitzgerald come up big in OT, but long stretches of that game were, in my opinion, quite bad football. I enjoyed watching SEA-CAR much more, even when it was looking like a blowout, because the Panthers were playing so exquisitely well on both sides of the ball, especially on both lines. (Oh, and I am not a Panthers fan, but I cannot disagree more with Vince's "Seahawks beat themselves" narrative. Beating yourself necessarily involves unforced errors, and all of Seattle's first-half errors were forced by the Panthers, or occasionally the turf.)

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:59am

Yup. As quick examples both interceptions were caused by the pass rush

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:59am

I think Vince feels the Seahawks beat themselves because of how the Panthers played the second half. They were just wasting time waiting for the game to end, so the Seahawks of course would look good, but then run out of time. Which is what happened.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:28pm

Yeah. I'll give Vince a pass because we all have our moments of homerism, but... yikes.

Saying the Seahawks beat themselves is delusional to the point where he probably shouldn't have been allowed to drive for 24 hours after the game.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:01pm

Yeah, when you just get your a$$ handed to you, on both lines of scrimmage, for the 1st 30 minutes, and then climbed back into it at the end of the 2nd half, after the opponent followed their pattern of staying in their shell with a big lead, it's pretty dubious to say that your favorite team beat themselves. This is still primarily a game of violence, and the Seahawks were flat-out brutalized in the 1st half.

by hscer :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:40pm

Green Bay-Arizona was a great game for basically the same reason Super Bowls 23 and 42 were.

by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:57am

I guarantee if that were burfict, or suh, or harrison, or someone else with a poor reputation who did what amendola did, everyone including people reading this site would be demanding immediate suspension.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:09pm

You understand that suspension for hits like that do not come with the first infraction, right?

That's the entire point of my argument!!!

by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:12pm

I disagree. Obj doesnt have a history of cheap shotting people, but his spear rightly got him suspended.

This isnt "pats are winnerz" vengeance either

by Andrew Potter :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:40pm

Obj doesnt have a history of cheap shotting people

Actually, he does. He had been fined twice before for violence against opponents: in 2014, $10,000 for kicking Alec Ogletree of St Louis, and earlier this season $8,681 for punching Duke Williams of Buffalo.


by DFJinPgh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:15pm

In the audibles, there were ref questions. Fortunately this week none of them were silly "is it a catch" questions.

We have Word of Muth, an insider lineman posting as an outsider (best column ever!). It would be pretty sweet to get an ex-ref's opinion, right?

Not about catch rules, since that's a black hole. More like, "what's their job?" As in, the side judge is responsible for players x and y, etc.

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:20pm

Kurtz is a ref (high-school level, I think) and wrote a semi-regular officiating column on this site a few years back. Hence his discussion about who was responsible for the initial call on the R. Rodgers "catch."

by schmoker :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:19pm

Not sure if this has been mentioned in regards to Amendola, but the next day we saw Bryant in the Pitt game fail to block the gunner after deciding not to catch the punt, and it really hurt them. Amendola's hit was ejection worthy, but his decision was the right one, and one the inexperienced Bryant failed to make.

Also, the officiating in the playoffs this year, especially in Cin-Pitt and Ari-GB, continues to be shockingly bad. This garbage about only missing 3 calls a game, which the league continues to push and their media partners continue to credulously repeat, is a giant load of crap. Whether it's failing to maintain control of games or missing DPIs and catches, officiating is an embarrassment.

Not a fan of any team in particular, by the way, so no dog to root for in any of these games.

Also, Andy Reid is the worst.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:24pm

No one is saying Amendola was wrong to block the guy. We're saying he was wrong to launch himself head first at another player.

by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:34pm

Exactly. Burfict was legally allowed to hit brown on that play too; it was the unnecessary and cheapness of the play that rightly drew the ire of everyone.

by armchair journe... :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:36pm

No, Burfict is a victim of the media's pervasive anti-Bengals bias.

by Rocco :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:40pm

St. Vontaze the Martyr.

by WeaponX :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:01pm

That overlaps with Pro Pit bias quite a bit too. The hit was with his shoulderpad, IMO it wasn't a dirty play, many disagree and I'm cool with that.

Sometimes I even trip myself out.

by armchair journe... :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:52pm

(was saracsm)

by Steve B :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:00pm


That was Markus Wheaton, not Bryant, though Bryant (who played well overall) had a few mental mistakes, too, so can I understand the confusion.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:27pm

This is entirely impressionistic, so I might be entirely wrong, but this season I have seen more qbs, for teams with winning records, overthrow completely wide open deep receivers, despite there not being a significant pass rush, than I can remember in other years. Anybody else have that same impression?

by Ryan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:44pm

Not done reading, just wanted to roast Vince real quick on his "Seattle beat themselves" comment.


OK, back to reading.

by BroncFan07 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:46pm

The biggest problem with the Amendola hit that I don't believe anyone's noted in the threads yet is that the Chiefs player he hit was a defenseless player. The guy was circling back, looking for the ball, and not in position to defend himself from a shot. The issue, though, is the NFL has taught us that the only "defenseless" players are receivers going over the middle looking for passes. I see debates above about whether Amendola actually hit him helmet-to-helmet, or shoulder first, but from what I saw, he launched himself at the head of an opposing player. That should be an ejection. But, as we've seen just from Week 16:

1) Cody Wallace launches himself using the crown of his helmet on a defenseless player. Penalty, no ejection, no suspension (he didn't hit a WR)

2) Burfict hit against the Ravens. Not sure if there was a penalty, but no ejection. He got suspended, but only because of...

3) His hit on Antonio Brown (who was a defenseless WR), which drew a penalty, but no ejection.

4) And of course, Ryan Shazier, with perhaps the most brutal hit of all, a full two-footed launch leading with the crown of his helmet and hitting Gio Bernard under the chin. Which of course led to no penalty, no ejection, no fine, no suspension, and some convoluted explanation by the NFL about how he and Bernard hadn't lined each other up.

5) The aforementioned Amendola hit.

Bottom line is, as much as the NFL gives lip service to making the game safer, they're looking at the ratings they got from Steelers-Bengals and such, and nodding their heads vigorously while telling players not to hit each other like that.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:51pm

"The biggest problem with the Amendola hit that I don't believe anyone's noted in the threads yet is that the Chiefs player he hit was a defenseless player"

No, he's not. The defenseless rule for punts only covers the returner - it doesn't cover players on the kick team.

That's probably not the way the rule should be, but it's the way the rule is.

by MarkV :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:59pm

I do believe his point was exactly that.

Defenseless shouldn't be a matter of conforming to a long rulebook, it should be a matter of "unable to defend oneself". The rule was clearly wrong there.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:06pm

It actually reminds me of the cheap shot block Warren Sapp laid on Chad Clifton on an INT return years ago, in that it was technically legal, and still egregious enough they then changed the rule to prevent things like that from happening again.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:06pm

Of course it SHOULD be part of the rules.

But its not, and the refs need to call the rules as they are actually written, because that's what the players train for.

He's arguing that it was a correct call because the player was defenseless - which is a specific classification in the rules, and the player on this play doesn't meet the specification.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:01pm

The NFL is taking the illegal blindside block route.

From an NFL release:

The penalty was for unnecessary roughness and the direction the blocker is moving in is the key factor. If he is moving toward his own end line he cannot go toward the head or neck area. This is the interpretation of the rule with regard to an illegal blindside block which was clarified following the 2013 season.

A similar play from earlier this season was penalized and Dean Blandino explained the ruling in this officiating video from November 6, 2015


by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:22pm

They're making shit up to justify the call, as usual.

The rule is in article 9 here:

Defenseless receivers can't be hit in the head - that's clear. Here are the two provisions that maybe are close:

(4)A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(8)A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

4 Doesn't apply because the player isn't a kick/punt returner.
8 Doesn't apply because Amendola hit him from the front, not the side or back.

The rule just doesn't apply

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:38pm

Article 8
There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to: "

So it the call is up to the refs discretion.

"(g) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

"(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body."

Either of these seem like they could apply.

Edit: I hate how the NFL tries to button hole this into some specific rule. Everyone who saw the play understood it was unnecessary roughness. The rule itself allows the refs the latitude to make the call. All the ref on the field said was that it was unnecessary roughness. Just let it end with that.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:54pm

Part (J) cannot apply, because as I just pointed out, the gunner was not a 'defenseless' opponent, as that is a term that is strictly defined in the rulebook, and the gunner does not meet the criteria for such. See the clauses I quoted above.

And part (G) is just silly - its an ugly, violent hit, but Amendola leads with his shoulder, not his helmet.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:57pm

Again, none of which matters since the rule says "but not limited to".

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:48pm

If you're going to take that tact, then literally nothing in the rulebook matters, because anything can be unnecessary roughness. Even non-contact plays.

SO that's not a really convincing argument.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:52pm


(Sorry, can't help it :))

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:00pm

It's FO, most of us can't help that sort of thing,

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:02pm

You are right, anything *could* be ruled as unnecessary roughness, it's the refs discretion. At which point, we could argue if the ref made the right judgement call. So, are you arguing that Amendola did not user unnecessary roughness in attempting to move the Chiefs player out of the way?

Edit: I'm also firm in disagreeing with you about his actions. I believe he clearly led with his helmet. He may have missed, but he went in helmet first.

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:10pm

I'm curious if he'd hit him just as hard with his shoulder in his chest and laid him out would you be ok with it?

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:38pm

It's less dangerous than using one's helmet as a weapon, but I'm not sure I would be ok with it. Luckily for me, I don't have to make that decision.

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:31pm

Thanks, I understand that position.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:34pm

Exactly this. If you are the league just let the refs control the violence of the game via ejections and unnecessary roughness, and give them feedback about how happy you are with the results. Then you can inform the teams when they need to turn it down a notch if they are not getting the message.

All the legalism is what is really making it hard for them to get this right. Just let these highly paid professional people use their judgement. Everyone could see that Amendola hit was needlessly violent in the NFL of 2015-2016.

by Hoodie_Sleeves :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:53pm

You need legalistic interpretations of the rules because its the only way to try and make sure everyone is on the same page.

If the rule says that a kick returner can drill a gunner if he doesn't call for a fair catch, calling that a penalty midgame unfairly penalizes a team for a play that they thought was legal before the game.

If the rules aren't strictly defined, they become arbitrary.

And we see this every time the refs 'swallow their whistles' - eventually there's a late game play where everybody is pissed because it hasn't been called all day, and now it is. The teams expectations of the rules should match the calling of the rules. The only way to ensure this is to define the rules strictly.

by Alternator :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 1:26am

The problem with this is that a lot of coaches are absolutely terrible, and while they are highly-paid, they are also part time employees.

Is this really a decision you want Jeff Triplette making when the playoffs are on the line? God forbid he actually has to make this decision during the playoffs.

by Athelas :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 10:15pm

Where you say "coaches", do you mean "refs"?

by Alternator :: Wed, 01/20/2016 - 6:30pm

Yes, I did. Mea culpa.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:48pm

I'd just like to give a shout-out to CBS for finding new levels of irrelevance for the sideline reporting crew. They added Jay Feely, so they could go to him to ask questions about things like kicking the ball into the wind and other truly exciting special teams-related subjects. I, for one, have long been saying "Boy, I wonder what a former NFL kicker would have to say about the long snapper in a playoff game, if only somebody would fill this obvious need."

Then again, every time they went to Feely, Phil Simms wasn't talking, so maybe I should take this as a win.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:02pm

I swear, listening to Phil Simms is so painful that it leads to the suspicion that somebody at CBS deserves to be tried at The Hague for crimes against humanity. Simms himself? Nah, he's just the inanimate object used to commit the crime, cleverly disguised as a sentient organism. I muted the sound halfway through the 1st quarter, to avoid picking up a screwdriver to drive through my eardrums.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:09pm

Fouts was pretty bad in the KC/NE game.

One of my "favorites" was when KC was at the NE2 on its final drive, got a false start penalty, and Fouts said "that's not a bad penalty there".

by James-London :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:16pm

Generally, I don't mind Eagle & Fouts, but Fouts completely lost his shit on Sunday. The "penalty's good because now they have more room" was nuts, although to be fair, he did at least get into KC for there abysmal clock management.

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

by BJR :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:37pm

Fouts also praised the Chiefs for not going for two after scoring a TD when down 15, keeping it to a 'one-score game'. Now that's perhaps something any announcer would say as part of the book of NFL Conventional Wisdom, but it's still completely wrong.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:53pm

Eagle is one of the sole CBS guys I really like, and every time Fouts seems annoying, I just remember that a few years ago it would have been Dan Dierdorf.

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:15pm

I remember Dierdorf as being OK till he got older is that wrong? (Given that I'm getting older I no longer trust my memory)

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:29pm

Fouts was terrible until the last 4 minutes where he just ripped the Chiefs to shreds over their time management. That was awesome.

At one point he said Alex Smith just needs to tell everyone to line up and call the play himself if the coach is going to take so long.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:29pm

At least one person in slack switched to SAP and watched the game in Spanish. He said it was a great improvement.

by James-London :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:13pm

Seconded. I really learned something from the insight provided.
"Kicking when it's windy is hard. Back to you Jim"
The fact that they asked Feely about punting more or less exclusively was an added bonus.

Can we just give any important games to Michaels & Collinsworth?

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

by merlinofchaos :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:03pm

Chris Kluwe ripped into Feely over his comments on twitter, and then provided some actual insight into what went wrong with those punts. Because Feely could have. And didn't.

by Guest789 :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:14pm

I was only watching near the end, so I saw when they brought in Feely to talk about the onside kick, and I thought that was quite interesting. There's a technique to it and considerations that aren't apparent to the casual fan, so I didn't mind it.

by MarkV :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 12:57pm

Just wanted to say that probably my most amusing play of the weekend was in Den Pitt, not sure which play, but it was some semi-trickery running play for Pitt, and Denver completely had the contain, and the runner is stuck "in the pocket". Watching Roethlisburger was really funny, he seemed to alternate between "I am gonna make a block" and "I don't want to get hit really hard" as he ended up being in the middle of the blown up play.

by theslothook :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:05pm

Boy, im never trusting big ben again when it comes to injury severity.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:38pm

??? This is one of the things he has always been doing, or is that the joke? He was literally doing this his first year in the league.

by James-London :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:18pm

Re the Seahawks- what was with their penultimate kickoff?
Schrodinger's Kickoff, simultaneously an onside kick and not. Anyone want to explain the thinking behind it or was it just a mistake?

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

by Mike W :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:24pm

1. Coming out for the 2nd half up 31-0 presents interesting problems. The proper thing to do is keep running your offense, and keep with your defensive game plan. Instead Carolina tried to kill clock and play ball control on offense, and stopped blitzing. What happened to Riverboat Ron?
2. Andy Reid is a straight-up idiot savant. As in, there is something biologically, or structurally wrong with some portion of his brain. I'm 87% sure I'm not kidding about this.
3. The title seems to be Carolina's to lose, given the injuries to other teams. NE may be healthy enough in three weeks to beat them, though, if they get that far. Don't see anyone else beating them.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:33pm

Riverboat Ron almost always takes a nap once the Panthers have a large lead.

It'll be a significant upset if the Broncos beat the Patriots, so the Patriots are likely getting to the Super Bowl. If the Patriots get there healthy, the Panthers, playing with backups, or guys not even in the league a few weeks ago, at defensive back, are going to have to be at their best to keep the Patriots from being successful on offense. I wouldn't say anybody is a strong favorite in that matchup.

by Mike B. In Va :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:17pm

How, exactly, would it be a *significant* upset for the Broncos to win? NE isn't any better than they were in the first game, at least not from what I saw against KC. I'd say it should make for a good game, since the two teams seem to be a good matchup.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:23pm

NE missed Gronk for a significant portion of the Broncos game.

by aces4me :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:34pm

And Edelman for the whole game.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:35pm

Gronk had 85% of the snaps. Edelman and Amendola didn't play however.

by anotherpatsfan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:06pm

Edelman missed all of that game, and he is at this point viewed as the special sauce that elevates the NE offense back to its high mid-season levels.

There seems to be recency bias at work here -- the Pats looked good against the Chiefs, particularly compared to their last two regular season games (which had people sticking a fork in them). So the "Pats are back!" mantra seems to be prevalent (even though many commented here before and during the game that the Chiefs were a better team and would win that game). I think there is some overreaction to the Chiefs game, but if the Pats are healthy I am cautiously optimistic.

I think at home the Pats would win 8 of 10 times against Broncos. IMO despite all the talk of the Pats winning this game easily it is a much closer call in Denver, particularly as the early weather forecast looks Manning friendly (neither very cold nor windy).

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:17pm

I don't really buy Edelman is that special. I think it's pretty simple, he's the 2nd best pass catcher on the team so he makes them better. I think there are probably 30-40 receivers who could approximate what he does or do it better. Not to start an irrational Edelman vs all other #1 receivers argument.

by Athelas :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:31pm

If there were street FAs around who could do what he does, the Patriots would have signed them when JE went down.

He is the special sauce for the offense because on top of his skills, he is on the Patriots and Brady trusts him--they don't have anyone else, not even Amendola, who does what he does.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:50pm

I don't think 30-40 receivers equates to a street free agent.

I think he's really good in that role but he re-signed with the Pats for bugger all money a few years ago. Now I think the vast majority of the NFL made a mistake at that point but at the same time we've seen several receivers be very productive for the Pats in that role: Brown, Welker, Edelman, Amemdola. I think his production is to some extent due to scheme, coaching and Brady.

by Athelas :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:53pm

I don't disagree with:" I think his production is to some extent due to scheme, coaching and Brady."

However, this year it appears the offense is not nearly as effective without him. And Amendola is not an equal replacement.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:40pm

Edelman is more valuable to the Patriots than he would be anywhere else, but that means if you take him away from the Patriots, they are significantly worse off. The Patriots dodn't really run well, nor pass well deep. They really need a guy like Edelman who can be so precisely in tune with Brady.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:06pm

Edelman's presence on the field allows Brady to release the ball much faster. It's been measured that having both Edelman and Gronkowski let Brady get rid of the ball in roughly 2.15 seconds, and it's about a half second slower when Edelman isn't there.


I find the argument that 30-40 receivers could do what Edelman does, but for some bizarre reason are choosing not to get open quickly, just untenable.

Like Welker before him, Edelman is consistently underrated.

by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:40pm

Several years ago I said Welker's production was a result of the scheme, pointing to Troy Brown's numbers and many here disagreed. Then Welker moves on and Edelman steps in with very similar results.

So either it's a bunch of truly amazing receivers, which is unlikely considering where they were drafted and the response they got in free agency, or it's a result of scheme.

I know where my money is resting.

(BTW the choosing not to get open comment? Really? You think it's that simple and nothing to do with coaching and schemes?)

by Alternator :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 1:20am

I think it's more that a very specific skill set is required, and both Welker and Edelman perfectly possess that skill set. Other receivers may be overall better players, but they aren't anywhere near as good as what the Patriots offense requires in that role.

by PatsFan :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 2:56pm

Bingo! We have bingo!

by tuluse :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 4:26pm

"I find the argument that 30-40 receivers could do what Edelman does, but for some bizarre reason are choosing not to get open quickly, just untenable. "

Among other things, they don't get to play with Gronk and Brady.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:33pm

NE isn't any better when Edelman and Amendola play?

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 6:33pm

In the first DEN game NE was missing Edelman, Collins, Hightower (I think) and lost Gronk partway through the game and was leading 21-7 before Harper choked receiving that punt.

by CaffeineMan :: Wed, 01/20/2016 - 12:10am

They lost Hightower part way (half way?) through the game. Their run defense appeared to suffer significantly after he left.

by BJR :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:59pm

Carolina was never in serious danger of losing the game in the second half, in spite of several incredible plays from Wilson and his receivers. Sometimes calling a conservative, low-variance game is the correct approach.

Carson Palmer was clearly off his game most of Saturday night. If that was because he is banged up and physically limited then, clearly, the Cardinals are in a lot of trouble next week. But if he was just dealing with nerves (everyone gets 'em), playing at home, trying to get the playoff monkey off of his back there's a good chance he could bounce back to his previous form next week, in which case they still represent a very tough out.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:00pm

Arizona's blitzers, and it is almost guaranteed that there will be a lot of them, are going to have to play a great, great, game. This is a matchup, in Charlotte, that Cam Newton is well stituated to dominate.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:06pm

Palmer completed passes but until the 4th quarter he had to be perfect to do it. GB coverage, especially, Shields was very good.

by Anon Ymous :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:30pm

If it were possible to filter for such a thing, I'd have to imagine that Pitt just had a bottom 10 special teams performance in which no return TD was allowed.

They have a supremely talent roster, but man does that Pitt team make an inordinate amount of stupid mistakes. Bryant turned an easy first down on a reverse into a 3rd down stop by running outside, and he showed zero awareness by making the same mistake instead of just running up field to get into field goal range on 3rd and 30 (or whatever) later in the game. Then you have the punt where the returner just watched the only guy who could possible have downed the ball before it rolled into the EZ instead of blocking him.

Those are just a couple off the top of my head, but there were a handful more falcepalm moments that are eluding me right now.

As for Denver, the offense is what it is but I wasn't all that impressed with the Defense. The run defense was terrific and the pass rush was strong enough that Ben was sacked nearly every time the DBs had good coverage.... but that's the problem. Pretty much the *only* time they had good coverage were on the three sacks. That's a 30-spot waiting to happen if they play the same against NE.

by Joshua Northey :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:42pm

Yeah I thought DEN defenses and particularly their secondary looked surprisingly beatable.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:44pm

Every time Ben moved in the pocket as if thinking of running (such as it is) the secondary would move with him leaving a Pittsburgh receiver open. Given that Ben these days moves like a wounded moose that was a curious approach.

by JimZornsLemma :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:33pm

It seems like there's been a change in officiating in the playoffs, perhaps a little more leeway for DBs and OL specifically, it's definitely improved the flow of games but it's unfortunate that games aren't just called like this all season.

As a Seahawks fan, I was begging for a 2pt attempt on the second touchdown (down 24), did anyone else feel this way? I know it's super early, but I felt coming out of halftime as though the only possible way that game was winnable was for Carolina's point total to stay at 31, and 3 made 2pt attempts to make it a 4 score game

by TomC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:10pm

Absolutely. Given the time constraints, I am guessing the probability of converting three 2-pointers is far higher than the probability of getting an extra possession and driving for a fifth score. It's certainly higher than the probability of recovering an onside kick and completing a hail mary.

by tuluse :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:11pm

I was rooting for the Panthers, but a 4TD + 2pt comeback win by the Seahawks would have been the most amazing thing ever.

by big10freak :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:43pm

I said at the time and still believe that McCarthy should have gone for two points at the end. The defense had nothing left to give and Rodgers had shown all game that he could keep a play going.

That and AZ had shown a propensity for taking risks which if the Packers could handle would leave scant coverage in the end zone.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:47pm

On the road especially, going for two and the win is the smart thing to do.

by Mash Wilson :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:44pm

Carolina beat the holy hell out of Seattle in the first half.

Carolina curled up into a ball, went Full Marty, and hoped the clock would expire before Seattle could score 31 points in the second half.

That's the entire story of the game, far as I could tell.

by Duff Soviet Union :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:49pm

Vince's "Seattle beat themselves" might not be giving Carolina enough credit, but this line of thinking might not be giving Seattle enough credit.

It just looked to me like Carolina totally dominated both lines of scrimmage in the first half and stopped doing that in the second. Rivera's Schottenheimer tendencies didn't really have much to do with it. Seattle just started playing better and Carolina worse.

by BDC :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 7:18pm

You don't think being up 31-0 had anything at all to do with Carolina suddenly "playing worse"?

by Mash Wilson :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:01pm

Good on Denver for managing to scrape up a win, but I did not think they were impressive at all. They needed Pittsburgh--limping into the game without the NFL's best receiver, with a badly injured quarterback, and with assorted other injuries--to play absolutely atrocious special teams, bizarrely refuse to play press coverage even though everyone on earth, with the apparent exceptions of Mike Tomlin and Keith Rivers, knows that the only throws Peyton Manning can reliably make anymore are inside of 10 yards, and cough up a turnover at the worst time in order to eke out a win at home.

The AFC Championship line opened at Broncos +3. That seems way low to me. Belichick will not make the same mistake Tomlin did when it comes to how to cover the Broncos' receivers. I think the highest probability outcome is that the Patriots wipe the floor with the Broncos.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:08pm

Yeah, it'll be a pretty large upset if the Broncos win. Not historically huge, but not at all minor. In game injuries, as they so frquently do in the playoffs, could be a huge factor.

by Steve B :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:53pm

Of the four teams left, Denver clearly has the lowest % chance of winning it all. It's likely going to take their defense playing at 2000 Ravens (or insert the name of another historic defense) level along with Manning in the Trent Dilfer role. A big play (or three or four) from their ST wouldn't hurt, either.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:00pm

Well, non-predictable stuff happens, like a Pats o-liememan/Gronk/Edelman going down early, or Brady taking one big hit early. Most of the stuff I see, however, entails something happening to a Pats offensive player, because the state of the Broncos 0-line and Manning's arm doesn't provide a nontrivially likely scenario of the Broncos having a good offensive performance.

by Steve B :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:08pm

Playing in Denver has mostly been a house of horrors for NE during the Belichick/Brady era, so I wouldn't blame the average NE fan if they're currently thinking "we're clearly better than them...but what's going to go wrong this time?"

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:20pm

I think it depends on how many of the injured Patriots defenders play. If they end up starting their 4th / 5th linebackers like they finished with against KC it'll be tough.

by Steve B :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:46pm


It's not like Manning was lighting them up even without them playing much press coverage. As you allude to, the Broncos were gifted six of their points due to ST and their one TD drive came after a balloon deflating fumble when it looked like the Steelers were about to put the game away. It was also at a point where the thin air tends to start getting to the opposing team. Also, James Harrison said afterward that Manning did a great job of knowing what running plays to go to on that drive. My criticism of the Steelers' defense (who played well overall) would be not enough of an overall pass rush on Manning.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 1:59pm

In the KC/NE game Brady, out of the tackle box was about to be sacked, switched hands, and weakly threw it away left-handed. It was clearly 3-4 yard short of the LOS.

The refs said it wasn't IG because it made it to the LOS, which was patently false.

Could KC have challenged that if they wanted to?

by PirateFreedom :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:09pm

I saw a play this year where the announcers claimed the rule was "at or near" the LOS after a ball was clearly short.
It seems like an unnecessary place to put another judgment call in the books though.

by Travis :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 2:21pm

The exception has been "at or beyond the line of scrimmage" since 2009. (Before that, it was "near or beyond".) The referees no longer have any judgment call to make with regards to this piece of the intentional grounding requirements.

It is not reviewable.

by jonsilver :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:03pm

The not reviewable part is, of course, very silly...why is it ok to correct a bad spot and not ok to correct a bad ruling on where the ball hits the ground under this rule? An intentional grounding call/non call is as important as a first down/not enough for first down call. The whole rule book seems to be based on whims, not to mention the on the field officials' decision-making.
Jon Silverberg

by duh :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:14pm

And then Peraira called it a good call!

'Good job by a young referee, Craig Wrolstad and his crew. He is in his second year as a ref. Was not grounding and that is not reveiwable.'

by RickD :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 9:55pm

The only penalty that can called by review without having been called on the field is "too many men on the field".

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 10:08pm

I thought "illegal forward pass because passer is over the LOS" is another one. I'm pretty sure if it's called on you you can challenge it.

Come to think of it, I think "illegal forward pass because a forward pass was already made" is also something that can be imposed via review. If there are laterals that ultimately end up in the hands of a player behind the LOS and that player throws a forward pass I believe the defense can challenge the play saying that it believes a lateral actually went forward. If on review the ball is found to have gone forward on a lateral I believe the play is wiped out and an illegal forward pass penalty imposed.

I will now wait for travis to enlighten us all :)

by Travis :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 11:11pm

The full list (that I know of):

1. More than 11 men on the field at the time of the snap.
2. Forward pass beyond line of scrimmage.
3. Second forward pass.
4. Forward pass on a return.
5. Illegal touching of a pass by an eligible receiver who has gone out of bounds and returned inbounds.
6. Illegal touching of an onside kick before 10 yards or by player who has gone out of bounds and returned inbounds.
7. Kickoff out of bounds if returner is straddling sideline at the time.
8. Illegal touching of punt by gunner who has gone out of bounds and returned inbounds.

Also, the referees can also impose intentional grounding after review on what was called a fumble on the field, but only if they originally threw a flag for it at the time or made a pre-replay announcement to the effect of "if the play is reversed to an incomplete pass, we will enforce intentional grounding." They can't actually look to see if the conditions for intentional grounding were met when reviewing the replay.

by Eddo :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 4:11pm

I believe you can also review if a pass was tipped in order to negate a pass interference penalty.

by Travis :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 5:01pm

If you're going to include penalties that can be negated by replay, add:

1. Pass interference (if the pass was tipped prior to the interference).
2. Running into the kicker (if the kick was tipped or blocked).
3. Roughing the kicker (if the kick was tipped or blocked, as long as there wasn't unnecessary roughness).
4. Illegal touching of a pass by an ineligible receiver (if the pass was not touched).

by Eddo :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 6:46pm

Thanks for that list, Travis.

by tuluse :: Tue, 01/19/2016 - 7:12pm

I assume illegal touching could be negated through a review showing a tip as well.

by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:21pm

Thinking about the Blakeman re-flip it occured to me to wonder why players even call the toss?

Just have a bunch of coins made with a "H" on one side and a "A" on the other (or if the NFL is too cheap to do that, just designate the heads side of the coin as "H").

No one makes any call. If the coin lands with "H" facing up the home team has won the toss. If the coin lands with "A" facing up the away team has won the toss.

This completely does away with any chance of the ref hearing a player's call wrong or forgetting a player's call.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 3:25pm

The television network executive in me says they shoud have captains do a rock-paper-scissors contest at midfield, and three ties leads to a commercial timeout, before they go at it again. Hell, at the Super Bowl, you could probably work in an extra musical act.

by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:29pm

I've got an idea.

What if instead leaving it to chance, you put two players into a sort of one-on-one scrum to come up with the ball. You set the ball down in the middle of a circle, and when the refs blow the whistle, the two players dive in and scramble after it. We can give it a catchy name, too, like... "Contest where two players try and take the ball away from each other".

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 4:42pm

Didn't the XFL start their games with an All-22 free for all? Hmmmm, I'll go check....

....back now. Nope, it was a two player scrum, as you describe. Never watched an XFL game, so I wasn't sure.


by Independent George :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:04pm

I know. I was making a joke...

If I recall correctly, the stopped it after players started injuring themselves during the scramble.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 01/18/2016 - 5:29pm