f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Sports / Fantasy Sports => Topic started by: JWIV on July 13, 2009, 04:46:23 PM



Title: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on July 13, 2009, 04:46:23 PM
FUUUUUUUCKK FUUUUCK FUUCK

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bal-derrick-mason-0713,0,4346245.story

 :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak:


In the most surprising move of the Ravens' offseason, wide receiver Derrick Mason has abruptly announced his retirement.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on August 09, 2009, 05:07:45 PM
 Buffalo vs Tennessee at 7pm CST tonight, Hall of Fame Game.  Even if it is a meaningless game in which the starters will play one series, football is finally here.  And yes, I am ready.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on August 10, 2009, 12:10:33 PM
Was eating dinner @ Cheesecake Factory last night; glanced up just in time to see Vince Young throw a terrible pick. Same as it ever was...

Bittersweet weekend for me- Aaron Curry signed (woohoo!!!!!), but Mora canceled the evening practice Sunday night. You know, the one I had registered to see in the first 10 minutes signups were live. Email from Seahawks offering spots at 5 weekday practices- 8:30AM or 3:30PM. I camped the site and registered for a weekend spot for a reason, you stupid assholes.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on August 10, 2009, 01:20:15 PM
Thank god football has arrived.  I've even taken to listening to sports radio during training camp just to get a little fix. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Draegan on August 10, 2009, 02:40:50 PM
I missed the game last night.

Just got back from Giants Training camp.  Good times.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on August 11, 2009, 11:19:41 AM
Voodoo got me tickets to CHI-SEA in week 3, where WAP and I will try to behave ourselves.

The tickets say "Game 2".  The Seahawks have a bye in week 2?  Man.  I don't know what that means, other than being 6-7 pt favorites (and have fun in December).  Bears will be coming off @ GB, vs PIT, so hopefully I won't be rooting for a 1-2 start.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on August 11, 2009, 11:36:57 AM
Game 2 means it is the 2nd home game IIRC.

Hopefully Cutler will hit his stride in week 4 after a career-worst performance in week 3  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on August 11, 2009, 11:41:14 AM
Of course, duh.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on August 11, 2009, 03:17:20 PM
(http://www.topproducerwebsite.com/users/20814/images/awsome.png?id=0.253236)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on August 11, 2009, 05:39:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGuGdbrQKag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGuGdbrQKag)

FIFY.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on August 16, 2009, 04:14:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGuGdbrQKag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGuGdbrQKag)

FIFY.

To quote a comment there:

damn this shit is terrible


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on August 24, 2009, 06:17:51 PM
Peter King talks to man formerly known as Chad Johnson. I thought the very last line was amusing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/23/mmqb/2.html

Quote
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

I am still shaking my head at the Chad Ochocinco display Thursday night. OK, lots of NFL players can walk off the street and kick an extra point. Big deal. But Ocho's kickoff to start the second half? Pretty impressive. A little background.

Near the end of the second quarter, the man judged the best kicker in the NFL last year, Stephen Gostkowski, the Patriots All-Pro kicker, kicked the ball off from the Patriots' 30 to the Cincinnati 9, a 61-yard boot. To start the third quarter, Ochocinco, a right-footed, soccer-style kicker, rainbowed one 61 yards to the Pats' nine. Same kick. Same weather conditions. Same result. "He's a terrific player,'' Bill Belichick said a day later. "I love his competitiveness. I love his enthusiasm for the game.''

Talked to Ochocinco on Sunday night (how weird it is to write "talked to Ochocinco"?), and he said he played soccer from 4 to 14 growing up in Miami. "Soccer's my first love,'' he said. "I only gave it up my freshman year in high school because it was time to get serious about football as a career.''

"I'm having a lot of trouble calling you, 'Chad Ochocinco,''' I said.

"Just call me 'Ocho,' '' he said. "That's not hard.''

Anyway, regarding his 61-yard kickoff, he said he wasn't surprised. "I've kicked field goals at [Paul Brown Stadium], just fooling around, from 53 yards. Imagine if I devoted practice time to it. There is no doubt in my mind I could kick in this league. Really, I want to kick so bad.''

The dream ended Sunday -- not because the Bengals don't think Johnson could be an adequate emergency kicker, but because they don't want him to risk getting hurt kicking. With incumbent Shayne Graham out for the rest of the preseason, Cincinnati signed free agent Sam Swank from Wake Forest on Sunday.

"Totally unnecessary,'' Ocho said.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on August 24, 2009, 06:38:11 PM
Did the guy really change his last name to Eightfive?

Really?

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on August 24, 2009, 08:02:16 PM
ya rly


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on August 25, 2009, 07:12:14 AM
What happens when he gets traded and the new team already has an 85 and he doesn't want to give it up?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on August 25, 2009, 07:14:57 AM
Any guy willing to change his name to eight five must also be willing to change it to, say, eight eight.  Ochoocho.  I like it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on August 25, 2009, 09:37:53 AM
What happens when he gets traded and the new team already has an 85 and he doesn't want to give it up?


Cue Gil Renard (DeNiro's character from The Fan). :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on September 04, 2009, 11:24:39 AM
Ok, Buffalo brings the number of teams to fire offensive coordinators a week and a half before the regular season starts to 3.  Is this some kind of strange new NFL fad that everyone has to copy, like the Wildcat?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 04, 2009, 11:30:15 AM
Ok, Buffalo brings the number of teams to fire offensive coordinators a week and a half before the regular season starts to 3.  Is this some kind of strange new NFL fad that everyone has to copy, like the Wildcat?



Three makes it a trend!  A particularly STUPID one, but a trend nonetheless.   



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 04, 2009, 11:32:37 AM
What it tells me is that the job of offensive coordinator is wasted space at teams where the owner/head coach is a major micromanager. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 04, 2009, 12:41:21 PM
I would assume they usually end up running practices and working with the other coaches. It must be thankless to work under a coach that calls his own plays, be it offensive or defensive.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 04, 2009, 06:10:25 PM
Kansas City is the only place where the head coach took over the offensive coordinator job, being the former OC of Arizona. In Tampa and Buffalo their head coaches were former defensive coordinators so they promoted people to be the new OCs rather than trying to do the job themselves.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 09, 2009, 08:14:50 AM
So are we doing the usual game picks this season?

Week 1
THU, SEP 10
Tennessee at Pittsburgh

SUN, SEP 13
Miami at Atlanta
Denver at Cincinnati
Minnesota at Cleveland
Jacksonville at Indianapolis
Detroit at New Orleans
Dallas at Tampa Bay
Philadelphia at Carolina
Kansas City at Baltimore
NY Jets at Houston
Washington at NY Giants
San Francisco at Arizona
St. Louis at Seattle
Chicago at Green Bay

MON, SEP 14
Buffalo at New England
San Diego at Oakland






Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 09, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Set up a Yahoo pick 'em league.  Easiest way to do this.  

Survival is also fun.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 09, 2009, 12:16:09 PM
Or even better- one of each!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 09, 2009, 06:57:07 PM
Bat Country created on Yahoo Pickem.


Group ID: 58981
password: froth

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/pickem/58981

Or, if that is wonky:

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/pickem/register/joingroup

Group ID: 58981
Password: froth



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: murdoc on September 10, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
It's game day!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 10, 2009, 09:44:15 AM
Go Titans! Mostly because I loathe Pittsburgh. Sure would be nice to see the season start off with Pittsburgh getting drubbed, and maybe Big Ben snapping something vital.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 10, 2009, 10:51:57 AM
Go Titans! Mostly because I loathe Pittsburgh. Sure would be nice to see the season start off with Pittsburgh getting drubbed, and maybe Big Ben snapping something vital.

I also do my best to loathe Pittsburgh, but I got their defense in my fantasy league.  So I'm hoping the Titans win 2 to 0.  And that Ben snaps his femur in 217 places.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on September 10, 2009, 11:13:07 AM
Go Titans! Mostly because I loathe Pittsburgh. Sure would be nice to see the season start off with Pittsburgh getting drubbed, and maybe Big Ben snapping something vital.

I also do my best to loathe Pittsburgh, but I got their defense in my fantasy league.  So I'm hoping the Titans win 2 to 0.  And that Ben snaps his femur in 217 places.

I'll take those 217 femur snaps and add in some concussions, fuck the Steelers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 10, 2009, 11:14:01 AM
The only reason I want Ben around is so that when the Ravens beat Pittsburgh this year, I don't have to listen to their fans  whining about how we beat them only because Ben ruptured an ovary or some shit.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on September 10, 2009, 11:53:52 AM
The only reason I want Ben around is so that when the Ravens beat Pittsburgh this year, I don't have to listen to their fans  whining about how we beat them only because Ben ruptured an ovary or some shit.

Go Browns!  :ye_gods: Sometimes I hate being originally from there... and living in Pittsburgh currently so you are right to conclude that I did indeed sell my soul to the devil in a past life only to be bent over in this one.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 10, 2009, 11:57:09 AM
Go Browns!  :ye_gods: Sometimes I hate being originally from there... and living in Pittsburgh currently so you are right to conclude that I did indeed sell my soul to the devil in a past life only to be bent over in this one.

Try being from Minnesota.  The Vikings have a shot at looking good this season.  Having watched them play for 40+ years, I know they'll find a way to "Hershel Walker" it all up. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on September 10, 2009, 12:05:38 PM
Try being from Minnesota.  The Vikings have a shot at looking good this season.  Having watched them play for 40+ years, I know they'll find a way to "Hershel Walker" it all up. 

If there's going to be another Walker incident, please make the trade with the Bears :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 10, 2009, 12:09:42 PM
Believe me... I was waiting to hear about an Adrian Peterson and 4 first round picks for Cedric Benson a couple of years ago. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on September 10, 2009, 12:15:48 PM
Believe me... I was waiting to hear about an Adrian Peterson and 4 first round picks for Cedric Benson a couple of years ago. 

I even would have given you Thomas Jones, back when we had both Benson and Jones, for that deal  :heart:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on September 10, 2009, 07:05:42 PM
Nice fucking catch Polamalu!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 10, 2009, 08:31:27 PM
That was a hell of a grab. I can't believe he is still ambulatory after watching his leg bend 30 degrees. Ben, not Troy pls. Although I would loathe Troy a lot less if he cut his fucking hair and played for a non-douchebag team  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on September 10, 2009, 09:19:42 PM
Wow, Tennessee is providing a textbook example of how to lose a game in the last 3 minutes.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on September 10, 2009, 09:42:14 PM
Damn good game, about what I expected (minus the Ward fumble though).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Phildo on September 11, 2009, 12:37:18 AM
Man, all you guys are hating on my hometown.  I'm gonna have to get a black and gold avatar to stand up for myself.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on September 15, 2009, 07:20:28 AM
Guess why I don't bother being a Bills fan. On of my favorite old jokes "How do you know OJ is innocent?" "The killer used a knife and the Bills are chokers."

Jets looked hot, though. Nice D and good rookies. Iggles were looking good until  :ye_gods: Poor chunky soup.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on September 15, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
Guess why I don't bother being a Bills fan. On of my favorite old jokes "How do you know OJ is innocent?" "The killer used a knife and the Bills are chokers."

While I was watching the second half last night the words "Wait for it... wait for it..." went through my mind and then there it was. Choke. And then all was right again with the universe.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 15, 2009, 08:57:06 AM
The Bills - Finding Ways to Lose Already Won Games Since 1989.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 15, 2009, 09:14:09 AM
How do you NOT tell that fool NOT to run that kick out of the end zone?  I remember thinking to myself "damn, okay he probably won't fumble, but that's just fucking stupid."  And then he fumbles.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 15, 2009, 09:20:26 AM
I thought Sanchez showed pretty well for a rookie and almost regretted not trading with Haemish for him in the fantasy league. 

Also Delhomme  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 15, 2009, 09:47:23 AM
I thought Sanchez showed pretty well for a rookie and almost regretted not trading with Haemish for him in the fantasy league. 

At this point, I'm glad you didn't. He has a better matchup this week than Rivers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bunk on September 15, 2009, 02:09:19 PM
Well, I guess I can just keep rewatching that Urlacher hit on Rogers all season long and pretend its a new highlight every week.

 :cry:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 15, 2009, 02:28:33 PM
One year later, and still can't hold a 4th quarter lead.  Looked almost different from the last 2 seasons, with the exception that Cutler has that "franchise quarterback" ability to rack up passing yards that surprise you the next day in the box score.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 16, 2009, 09:59:22 AM
Urlacher injury worse than expected? (http://www.faniq.com/article/Brian-Urlachers-wrist-injury-might-be-career-threatening-1797828)

Career threatening from a wrist. That would be a new one. I am just glad he is missing the Seattle game  :drill:

Where are we sitting, btw?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 16, 2009, 10:17:52 AM
I haven't read any of the reports in any detail, but I am struggling to see why you couldn't just tape that sucker up and play.  What's so special about a dislocated wrist that you couldn't play with a big ole club on your hand?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 16, 2009, 11:04:23 AM
I haven't read any of the reports in any detail, but I am struggling to see why you couldn't just tape that sucker up and play.  What's so special about a dislocated wrist that you couldn't play with a big ole club on your hand?

Have you ever played linebacker competitively?  Your hands are everything.  This is especially true in the hypercompetitive NFL where there are 100 guys waiting in line to take over your spot in the lineup. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 16, 2009, 11:20:12 AM
It's the center lunate bone, fractured.  Movement could cause permanent nerve damage (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-urlacherinjury-gfx,0,180731.graphic), cast or no cast.

And WAP, looks like we'll be surround by navy jerseys in the visitor section.  Lower lever, corner of the end zone.  Really good view of Alexander's back running for the game winning touchdown last time I sat there.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 16, 2009, 11:52:32 AM
I haven't read any of the reports in any detail, but I am struggling to see why you couldn't just tape that sucker up and play.  What's so special about a dislocated wrist that you couldn't play with a big ole club on your hand?

Have you ever played linebacker competitively?  Your hands are everything.  This is especially true in the hypercompetitive NFL where there are 100 guys waiting in line to take over your spot in the lineup. 

No I haven't, and that might be all the answer I need.  I think Sauced's description of the injury puts a period on it...my gut reaction was nothing more than having seen so-called "skill position" players wearing casts, so surely a big fat linebacker could do the same.  I stand corrected.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 16, 2009, 11:53:57 AM
I think Sauced gave a better answer than I did.  I apologize for being a bit over the top. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on September 16, 2009, 12:09:14 PM
I think Sauced gave a better answer than I did.  I apologize for being a bit over the top. 

Also being wrong, the monster LB for the 49'ers Willis was killing people in college with a club on one hand, I believe that was just a thumb injury but the point stands that without use of a hand you can play LB I know I've seen it in the pros as well. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 16, 2009, 12:30:57 PM
Also being wrong, the monster LB for the 49'ers Willis was killing people in college with a club on one hand, I believe that was just a thumb injury but the point stands that without use of a hand you can play LB I know I've seen it in the pros as well. 

I'd argue that there exist a very select few players that could still hold down their LB job with a club hand.  Perhaps Urlacher is one of them.  The neurology would overshadow that in any event. 

I'll concede that there are exceptions, but overall I can't imagine playing a skill position like LB at the NFL level with only one usable hand. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 16, 2009, 01:53:19 PM
It's the center lunate bone, fractured.  Movement could cause permanent nerve damage (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-urlacherinjury-gfx,0,180731.graphic), cast or no cast.

And WAP, looks like we'll be surround by navy jerseys in the visitor section.  Lower lever, corner of the end zone.  Really good view of Alexander's back running for the game winning touchdown last time I sat there.

View, schmiew. How close is it to a beer stand?? Any idea which section? I am going to LMAO if it is near our normal seats.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 16, 2009, 02:38:40 PM
Section is 127, I believe.  Pretty sure concession is right behind there.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 16, 2009, 02:50:01 PM
Same side of the stadium, opposite end zone (we are normally in 142). And yes, there are plenty of concessions nearby. Hopefully the weather will hold up long enough to get through the game sans monsoon.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on September 16, 2009, 02:52:00 PM
You two want to coordinate your outfits in here also?



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 16, 2009, 03:56:01 PM
Apologies for interrupting the deluge of NFL related posts.

And I assume we are going to be wearing opposing jerseys  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on September 20, 2009, 03:46:08 PM
Help the soccer guy out...

Saints, 2-0 with two blow outs. OK, one was Detroit, but is Philly shit too? Or are we possibly seeing something here?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 20, 2009, 05:45:12 PM
Help the soccer guy out...

Saints, 2-0 with two blow outs. OK, one was Detroit, but is Philly shit too? Or are we possibly seeing something here?

Philly is solid, but without McNabb, they're hurting on the offense.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: BoatApe on September 20, 2009, 05:53:37 PM
Long term Saints fan here so take it with a grain (or a pound) of salt...

I had the Eagles as one of the make-or-break games for the Saints this year. Granted, we faced Kolb rather than McRib, but the offense wasn't what had me worried.
We ended up controlling their D but it could have gone the other way if a couple of plays/calls had gone the other direction.

Sean Payton has a happy hand with the red flag and would challenge a gain if he didn't like the look of it - so we give away timeouts at times - it was a push today though...

The Saints look extremely good this year but as a long term fan I know we can veer off-course at any given moment.

I hope we're "seeing something" here, but I've been a fan far too long to get my hopes up this early in the season.

Pardon the blatant homerism and I hope this helps. :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on September 20, 2009, 09:44:26 PM
Suck it, Wade.  I hate that last second coach's timeout crap.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on September 20, 2009, 10:05:23 PM
Suck it, Wade.  I hate that last second coach's timeout crap.

Me too but not nearly as much as I hate NYG, Simms (and his stupid kid) and Eli Manning. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on September 21, 2009, 02:27:29 AM
The Chargers defense likely was borrowed from Fresno State this week.  God was that hard to watch.

That said, any week where both the Pats and Cowboys lose is a good one.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 21, 2009, 02:45:38 AM
The Chargers defense likely was borrowed from Fresno State this week.  God was that hard to watch.

That said, any week where both the Pats and Cowboys lose is a good one.

That's okay - the Ravens secondary wasn't much better.  Rivers is insane and passed all over them all day long. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on September 21, 2009, 09:26:56 AM
That said, any week where both the Pats and Cowboys lose is a good one.

 :thumbs_up:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on September 21, 2009, 09:36:11 AM
That said, any week where both the Pats and Cowboys lose is a good one.

 :thumbs_up:

+ Steelers for the epic win.  Wish the Bungles were 2-0 though, that stupid goddamn random ass play...


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 21, 2009, 09:37:02 AM
I'm feeling rather smug this morning because I actually picked the Jets to win that one.  Was a rather topsy-turvy week in the NFL, this week 2.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 21, 2009, 10:14:50 AM
Hell of a weekend. What was up with field goal kickers? I mean, who would pick Reed to miss two pretty easy field goals in the Steelers' game? And Tynes in Dallas missing what could have been a game-sealing score. It was so wonderful to watch Collingsworth and Al Michaels slobber over Jerry Jones' knob all game only to see the Cowboys lose it in the last second to an Eli drive. Yeah, fuck you everything's bigger in Texas. So are the losses.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 21, 2009, 12:41:48 PM
If anyone needs me, I will be out on a ledge swilling paint thinner until Hasselbeck can play again. FUCK.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 21, 2009, 12:45:47 PM
Didn't his x-rays come back negative?

I wish Seattle would find another backup QB anyway, if for no other reason than Seneca would be a good offensive weapon.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 12:50:14 PM
The potential concussion is the bigger worry I assume.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 21, 2009, 12:52:03 PM
Ah, didn't know about that one.  National media just talked about him getting a rib bruising.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 12:56:52 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2009912952_hasselbeck22.html

Looks like they are reporting a fractured rib now. There was an 'inconclusive' CT scan as well - and he sure looked like he'd had his bell rung after the hit, anyway.

(Niners 2-0 woo)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 21, 2009, 01:02:20 PM
Well, dammit to hell then.  So much for a Seattle resurgence.

(Niners 2-0 woo)

Piss off.  2006 just called.  They want their Frank Gore back.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 01:04:46 PM
Eddie D is hanging around with Jed now, the good old days will be back soon!  :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 21, 2009, 01:44:55 PM
Mob ties.

I think Hasselbeck was in so much pain it staggered him...his face was beet red and his eyes were bugging out of his head before he started going down.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on September 21, 2009, 04:04:42 PM
All I gotta say is "New England held without a offensive TD for first time since 2006".

Go Jets!

This time, for real? Maybe? PLEASE?



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on September 21, 2009, 08:35:24 PM
Man, I'll say it again. Dallas needs a new QB and a new head coach.

But that all won't happen until we get a new owner.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Phildo on September 21, 2009, 11:12:12 PM
Came to make a Jets dig, but didn't have the heart for it.  Good luck, sirs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: gimpyone on September 24, 2009, 07:33:58 AM
Pardon me, I'm just here to gloat over the steamrolling of the Seahawks by the Niners.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 24, 2009, 09:38:25 AM
2 missed tackles does not a steamrolling make.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bunk on September 24, 2009, 01:17:37 PM
Was a good week. Who would have taken a bet that the Bears would beat Pittsburgh without Urlacher, and that Greenbay would lose at home to Cinci in the same week?

Now we just need to have the Vikings actually play against a real team, so that Farve can fall apart.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 24, 2009, 01:52:09 PM
Too bad we couldn't get you to Seattle this weekend.  Looks like a perfect 75 and sunny at kickoff.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 24, 2009, 02:14:58 PM
Last report I heard warned of torrential drunkenness right around the same time.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 24, 2009, 02:24:16 PM
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm about to become a father, and a responsible adult.

Any word on Hasselback?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bunk on September 24, 2009, 02:53:08 PM
Too bad we couldn't get you to Seattle this weekend.  Looks like a perfect 75 and sunny at kickoff.

I'd love it, but my Curling season starts this weekend, and well, being Canadian and all... Plus I really can't justify two trips to Seattle in the same month.

I'll be lounging on my couch watching on Sunday.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on September 24, 2009, 03:04:14 PM
Pardon me, I'm just here to gloat over the steamrolling of the Seahawks by the Niners.

Please don't jinx the Niners by gloating.  We're only two fucking games into the season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 24, 2009, 04:18:22 PM
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm about to become a father, and a responsible adult.

Any word on Hasselback?

Yes.  Word on the street is that he prefers the Hasselbeck spelling of his name :awesome_for_real:

Also, they aren't ruling him out.  He says he wants to play, so if the docs give him the go ahead, he'll probably play.  Half the team is injured this week, of course, so I think they're in for a stomping.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on September 24, 2009, 04:42:16 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on September 24, 2009, 06:01:50 PM
Pardon me, I'm just here to gloat over the steamrolling of the Seahawks by the Niners.

Please don't jinx the Niners by gloating.  We're only two fucking games into the season.

Man, you sound like a Jets fan. They're so adorable, all "NO SHUT UP WE AREN'T GOOD WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME ARGH." Even as they're heading to a Superbowl, they're all "CHRIST DON'T SAY THAT TOO LOUD NO FORGET IT NOW WE'RE DOOMED."

 :heart: Jets fans  :heart:

(I'm a Giants fan myself, but my part of NJ had its share of Jets fans with the very occassional Eagles fan we all sneered at.)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on September 25, 2009, 03:20:58 AM
Pardon me, I'm just here to gloat over the steamrolling of the Seahawks by the Niners.

Please don't jinx the Niners by gloating.  We're only two fucking games into the season.

Man, you sound like a Jets fan. They're so adorable, all "NO SHUT UP WE AREN'T GOOD WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME ARGH." Even as they're heading to a Superbowl, they're all "CHRIST DON'T SAY THAT TOO LOUD NO FORGET IT NOW WE'RE DOOMED."

 :heart: Jets fans  :heart:

(I'm a Giants fan myself, but my part of NJ had its share of Jets fans with the very occassional Eagles fan we all sneered at.)

2007 season, the 49ers won their first two games also.  They then proceeded to lose the next eight games.  Final record for that season was 5-11.  Yeah, I'm not going to get my hopes up just yet that this is the season where they turn everything around.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 25, 2009, 04:37:15 AM
The Niners have played better under Singletary than Nolan. Even with their fairly tough non-NFC West schedule I think 8 - 8 is achievable this year and with a little luck they could go 9 - 7 which might enough to win the NFC West (Cardinals' record last year).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 25, 2009, 08:22:21 AM
I'm picking San Fran to get it together this year like the Cards did last year. St. Louis is going to be an absolute pushover in that division, and Seattle will be inconsistent due to injuries and new coaching scheme. It only remains to be seen if the Cards are a one year fluke or not.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 25, 2009, 09:08:51 AM
I doubt Hasselbeck will play. I am starting my backup in fantasy- Jake Delhomme. That should indicate how confident I am in Hasselbeck's status.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 25, 2009, 10:57:15 AM
Jesus - Delhomme has been fucking awful this year. You are pretty desperate.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on September 25, 2009, 11:38:22 AM
Delhomme is my current backup as well, entirely because I haven't gotten around to cutting his ass. I can't decide which shitty QB that's left I want to replace him with.

He was my starter last year.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on September 25, 2009, 12:33:48 PM
I got suckered into playing in a league this year.  I, too, have Delhomme.  After I saw the amazing point total he rolled up in week 1 I looked to see if there were any other free agent starting QBs left I could pick up.  Unfortunately I’m in a 14 team league which meant my choices were two:  Stafford or Leftwich. 

I actually did pick up Leftwich for a week but when Delhomme managed to not be a point black hole in week 2 and since it looks like he’ll continue to be the starter in Carolina, I decided to drop the one who had the worse week 5 matchup since that’s when Brees has his bye week.  Delhomme vs Washington looked slightly better than Leftwich vs Philly.  Maybe after week 5 I’ll drop Delhomme too and just pick up Mark Brunell since the only way I’d ever sit Brees is if his leg were to fall off.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bunk on September 25, 2009, 01:18:37 PM
I'm not looking forward to San Diego's bye, when I get to start JaMarcus Russel. Better than Delhomme I guess though.

Sorry Way, but I'll be rooting heavily against the 'cocks this weekend, as I'm not only a Bears fan, but I also have three Bears on my roster.

(would have won my matchup last week if Olsen hadn't tripped over his own feet in the endzone)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on September 25, 2009, 02:59:28 PM
Drew Brees is going to have an awesome year. Better than Brady

Romo stinks.

Sorry, don't mean to make big predictions and shit. I'll just say that Romo stinks.  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 25, 2009, 07:31:19 PM
Quote
Sorry Way, but I'll be rooting heavily against the 'cocks this weekend, as I'm not only a Bears fan, but I also have three Bears on my roster.

That just means Sauced has to absorb your share of the Bear fan beatings too. I get the feeling that the biggest loser in all this will be my liver, however  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on September 27, 2009, 03:36:40 PM
Detroit beats the Skins. HAR!  :grin:

Grats on dusting the cobwebs off, Stafford.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on September 27, 2009, 06:32:56 PM
Detroit beats the Skins. HAR!  :grin:

Grats on dusting the cobwebs off, Stafford.

SUCK IT SKINS.  Man, sports radio is going to be hysterical to listen to tomorrow. 

The only thing better would be if I  could listen to Pittsburgh crying about losing to the Bungles.   :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 27, 2009, 06:48:09 PM
The only thing better would be if I  could listen to Pittsburgh crying about losing to the Bungles.   :grin:
:awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Phildo on September 27, 2009, 09:06:42 PM
The only thing better would be if I  could listen to Pittsburgh crying about losing to the Bungles.   :grin:
:awesome_for_real:
:ye_gods:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on September 27, 2009, 10:14:21 PM
SUCK IT SKINS.  Man, sports radio is going to be hysterical to listen to tomorrow. 

The only thing better would be if I  could listen to Pittsburgh crying about losing to the Bungles.   :grin:

Zorn will be looking for a job in the booth soon. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 27, 2009, 10:49:22 PM
It won't be that easy to replace him since Zorn is head coach, offensive coordinator (well technically Sherman Smith is but Zorn calls all the offensive plays) *and* the quarterbacks coach.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 27, 2009, 11:30:26 PM
How bad do the Skins suck? Yeah, that bad.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on September 28, 2009, 06:23:39 AM
How bad do the Skins suck? Yeah, that bad.

pish... go back and watch the browns lowlights. Now there is a team that blows.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on September 28, 2009, 07:27:24 AM
Hey, look. Sanchez learned how to throw in the rain Sunday.  :oh_i_see: Guy is a great QB, I see a lot of early Favre in him, the fakes, athleticism, the friggin arm...but holy crap the rain almost beat him.

I hope Freeney is all right. I love me some Colts D-line.

My boss's husband is a huge steelers fan, I hope she makes it into work today and isn't buried in a shallow grave in the garden.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on September 28, 2009, 07:31:20 AM
How bad do the Skins suck? Yeah, that bad.

pish... go back and watch the browns lowlights. Now there is a team that blows.

In the battle of suck, Tampa Bay had 86 yards of total offense and allowed 400 yards against the Giants.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 28, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
I'm feeling smug this morning, having picked Detroit to win over the hated Redskins. 

I did not, however, see that Cinci win coming. :uhrr:

Also, how can JaMarcus Russel still be considered valid as a human being?  Oakland should probably just opt to go sans QB.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on September 28, 2009, 07:58:40 AM
I hear Darren McFadden can run a mean wildcat  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on September 28, 2009, 08:28:50 AM
Also, how can JaMarcus Russel the Raiders still be considered valid as a human being franchise?  Oakland should probably just opt to go sans QB to the CFL.

FIFY.
And WTF happened to the Steelers defense... I damn near puked on my Terrible Towel on that last drive by the friggin BENGALS(!!!) - beating the Steelers on 2(!!!) 4th downs to end the game... :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 28, 2009, 10:59:29 AM
Apparently Troy Polamalu was doing all the work on D and the rest were just admiring his handiwork.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 28, 2009, 11:20:28 AM
It's probably no big stretch to say that Troy is the difference between Pittsburgh being 1-2 and 3-0 right now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 29, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Troy is similar to Bob Sanders for the Colts - if he's out, the defense is questionable at best. The only difference is that Peyton can win throwing to 3 arthritic senior citizens and Rothliesberger really really really needs a fucking running game. First the Bears and now the Bengals? WTF? The Steelers need to graft some monkey parts onto Polamalu stat and get him out there, because the Ravens are not fucking joking this year. Flacco appears to absolutely be the real deal.

Speaking of Flacco, is it just me, or are some of the younger QB's really fucking good? Ryan and Flacco both appear to be the goods in their second year, Sanchez has been sharp and consistent in his 3 games, both Matt Schaub and Kyle Orton have been good with less than stellar teams, Kolb has been a beast on a team that appears to be punching above its weight, Hill in San Fran is running the offense well, and KC doesn't suck because of what Matt Cassell is doing. I think even Brady Quinn would be doing well if the Browns didn't spend the offseason dumping talent. There are some good QB's out there that just need a few parts to be playoff bound.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: murdoc on September 29, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
How bad do the Skins suck? Yeah, that bad.

pish... go back and watch the browns lowlights. Now there is a team that blows.

In the battle of suck, Tampa Bay had 86 yards of total offense and allowed 400 yards against the Giants.

:(

Hey, at least they get the Redskins this week!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on September 29, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Gee, I hope that game's on TV.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: voodoolily on September 29, 2009, 11:44:19 AM
I don't know what you're talking about, I'm about to become a father, and a responsible adult.

Any word on Hasselback?

Yes.  Word on the street is that he prefers the Hasselbeck spelling of his name :awesome_for_real:


I think Sauced was thinking about these:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wjO9ZSr8ZTA/Sgue8xHj5AI/AAAAAAAAFcw/aGwiCDkVZ50/s800/IMG_0030.JPG)

btw, WAP, your wife drives like a woman. Several times she came to a complete stop at a green light for no apparent reason (sitting there until the light eventually changed to yellow, red, then green again before moving), but had to slam on her brakes once to avoid running a red light. She also slammed on her brakes at a freshly-changed yellow at least once.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 29, 2009, 11:59:56 AM
Speaking of Flacco, is it just me, or are some of the younger QB's really fucking good? Ryan and Flacco both appear to be the goods in their second year, Sanchez has been sharp and consistent in his 3 games, both Matt Schaub and Kyle Orton have been good with less than stellar teams, Kolb has been a beast on a team that appears to be punching above its weight, Hill in San Fran is running the offense well, and KC doesn't suck because of what Matt Cassell is doing. I think even Brady Quinn would be doing well if the Browns didn't spend the offseason dumping talent. There are some good QB's out there that just need a few parts to be playoff bound.

It is absolutely not just you.  It's shocking how well some of them are doing.  And a Ravens team that can put up 30 ppg is a fucking scary thing.  If this (Baltimore's offense) isn't just an early season glitch, then Pittsburgh is done.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on September 29, 2009, 12:01:09 PM
Troy is similar to Bob Sanders for the Colts - if he's out, the defense secondary is questionable at best.
FIFY. Though with Freeney out for a couple weeks, Peyton is going to have to put up some serious points.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 29, 2009, 12:18:58 PM
Quote
btw, WAP, your wife drives like a woman. Several times she came to a complete stop at a green light for no apparent reason (sitting there until the light eventually changed to yellow, red, then green again before moving), but had to slam on her brakes once to avoid running a red light. She also slammed on her brakes at a freshly-changed yellow at least once.

Don't I know it. She was probably especially bad on Sunday running on 3 or 4 hours of sleep after drinking all night. Luckily I was too drunk to notice or care on the way home  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 29, 2009, 01:05:28 PM
Troy is similar to Bob Sanders for the Colts - if he's out, the defense secondary is questionable at best.
FIFY. Though with Freeney out for a couple weeks, Peyton is going to have to put up some serious points.

I don't think it's just the secondary with him. Sanders (and Troy for that matter) are both such huge hitters that they are instrumental in stopping the run game. Freeney can be exposed by off-tackle runs often because he is so focused on the pass rush. When Sanders isn't there to stop it, you get games like the Colts had against Miami last week - they get run the fuck off the field. It's just lucky that Manning is that good and Miami's offense can run its ass off between the 20's but won't score TD's.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 29, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Troy is similar to Bob Sanders for the Colts - if he's out, the defense secondary is questionable at best.
FIFY. Though with Freeney out for a couple weeks, Peyton is going to have to put up some serious points.
I don't think it's just the secondary with him. Sanders (and Troy for that matter) are both such huge hitters that they are instrumental in stopping the run game. Freeney can be exposed by off-tackle runs often because he is so focused on the pass rush. When Sanders isn't there to stop it, you get games like the Colts had against Miami last week - they get run the fuck off the field. It's just lucky that Manning is that good and Miami's offense can run its ass off between the 20's but won't score TD's.
Yes Sanders is their run defense. During their Super Bowl season the Colts' run defense was among the worst while he was out injured but when he came back for their playoff run their run defense was among the best and it's a big reason why he won the Defensive Player of the Year in 2007.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on September 29, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
I stand corrected. When Freeney tackles the HB, it's usually because he chased him after running past him to the QB in the first place. Amazing pass rush but totally open to getting abused by the goddamned wildcat.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on September 29, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
I am so ready to bitchslap the knock cockgobbler that blathers on about the glory of the wildcat. I fucking hate it. I'm gobsmacked that some defenses (INDY) cannot seem to stop this shit. YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING - TACKLE THE FUCKER GETTING THE SNAP. After that fails for 3 or 4 plays, tackle the running back in motion. Not that fucking hard to scheme against.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on September 29, 2009, 04:14:47 PM
I am so ready to bitchslap the knock cockgobbler that blathers on about the glory of the wildcat. I fucking hate it. I'm gobsmacked that some defenses (INDY) cannot seem to stop this shit. YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING - TACKLE THE FUCKER GETTING THE SNAP. After that fails for 3 or 4 plays, tackle the running back in motion. Not that fucking hard to scheme against.

Plus this crap works in college because you'll have someone taking the ball that is a better athlete and much faster than the guys attempting to tackle him.  This really isn't the case in NFL where team speed on defense is miles above what you'll see in college. 

It's a gimmick, it'll fade. Miami may end up running it a lot this year due to their QB situation. Maybe Chad P can go for the comeback player of the year trifecta next year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on September 29, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
The Wildcat is a good situational thing if you can rotate people in quickly, keep the D from making subs, and have some elements of surprise involved with it (like tossing deep to the QB).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on September 30, 2009, 09:01:41 AM
I think the wildcat is supposed to be effective because your runner can hit the gap MUCH faster than when a QB is handing it off (although honestly, hitting the gap fast isn't always a benefit).  The counter to that is that you have to have your linebackers plugging those same gaps as soon as possible.  The negative consequences to that is that you expose the middle of the field and also making it easier to run off tackle with the sweep/option, because the linebackers end up taking themselves out of the play when stuffing the gaps.  That's the dilemma that defenses have to solve.  In short, it amplifies the problem of trying to determine if they are running between the tackles, or around them, because they cannot wait for it to develop (back will be at the second level if you don't plug the gap immediately).  Even worse if you have someone back there who can throw the ball credibly.  Best defense is probably a defensive line that is extremely good against the run all by themselves.

The above is based solely on my own understanding and may be very, very wrong.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Druzil on September 30, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
It's not about how fast he can hit the gap, it's about the extra man in the backfield that has to be accounted for by the defense.  It puts an extra blocker in the box for the run and if the defense pulls an extra man in the box it's one less man coverage in the secondary giving the "wildcat QB" a shot a throwing a big play against single man coverage.  Miami also uses it, like said above, to keep the defense from subbing in players.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on September 30, 2009, 10:54:41 AM
This is how Arkansas did it with Darren McFadden:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR76aoKghM8

Darren would throw it occasionally as well but the main purpose was the keep the defense guessing how best to stop the run as Cyrrex said.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 01, 2009, 11:12:23 AM
The problem with the wildcat in the NFL is twofold:

1) you face LB that are as fast or faster than your tailback and QB.  

2) You face fewer teams with more time to prepare and better scouting technology at their disposal.  

The wildcat may work well the first time or two, but it's not going to help anyone win in the NFL.  If you win with the wildcat, it's equally likely that you would have won with a standard pro set as well.  


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on October 01, 2009, 11:36:32 AM
I have to pour a metaphysical 40 on the curb for my Browns.  I'm hoping, at this point, they can win one game.  And Mangini is on the fast track to unemployment, hopefully within 2 or 3 games. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on October 01, 2009, 03:24:58 PM
I have to pour a metaphysical 40 on the curb for my Browns.  I'm hoping, at this point, they can win one game.  And Mangini is on the fast track to unemployment, hopefully within 2 or 3 games. 

Most people I talk to around here share the same sentiment. I have no idea why we hired Mangini in the first place, and we're in real danger of going 0-16 the way the first 3 weeks have gone.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 01, 2009, 07:44:11 PM
If DA pulls some shit outta his ass and costs my Bengals a win (I still vividly remember that 54 - 48 game, which is amazing considering how wasted I was by the end) I will be oh so pissed off.  I like Anderson but not this week ffs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on October 04, 2009, 07:55:11 PM
(http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/40252/onion-roughing-the-passer.png)

:uhrr:

(Funny how I remember an Onion video about hockey (http://p://www.theonion.com/content/video/nhl_tries_to_woo_fans_by) for its ending Football gag.)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on October 05, 2009, 09:02:00 AM
Dolphins bitchslapped the hapless Bills!!
Shoulda beat the Colts as well :(

As far as the wildcat goes I was getting kinda tired of hearing it but more and more it is just becoming another formation. I am starting to treat it the same way I would as any other formation.
With so many teams ruining a wildcat package now the commentators are slowly but surely treating it as nothing special and just another formation. IE they are lining up in the shotgun, three wide, spread, wildcat etc.

As far as defenses just scheming for the wildcat. its not that simple as the wildcat creates an additional man on the offensive side of that ball that can block by removing the QB. This creates issues for defenses. Another issue with the wildcat is that with a back coming in motion as the ball is snapped you will end up with the def line having to respect that motion and this also can create gaps that the extra blocker can just make worse and lead to decent gains on a regular basis.

Personally I would love to see my team just line up in a standard Pro Set and ram the ball down the other teams throat, but whatever gets the job done is fine by me.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bunk on October 05, 2009, 10:53:20 AM
If your team had a real QB like the Bears, you wouldn't need wildcat.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on October 05, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Listen here slapnuts. My team has a real QB now. And Henne's arm is just as good as Cutler's.
He may not be at cutler's overall level just yet but he will be soon.

Also my team does not have a fragile effeminate (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1300144,4_1_JO26_URLACHER_S1.article#) MLB like yours :P





 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 05, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
Henne will never be as good as Cutler, trust.  I watched Henne his entire college career, nothing should make you silly enough to think that he will be NFL playoff game winning.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on October 05, 2009, 01:54:57 PM
I'm curious what makes you say that.
He clearly has all the physical attributes.

I know he has a penchant for staring down his receivers now, but he can be broken of that habit.
This last game he did an excellent job of managing the game. What I really liked that he was always placing the ball where there was no chance at a pick. Granted he missed some throws because of this but he erred on the side of no turnover. This is a trait taht most young qb's fail to display.

As he gets more comfortable he will start making these throws.
Mentally he seems like he "gets it". Granted this is just one start and I didn't see him in college. For all I know the next game could be a gong show, but I really don't think so. He may never be quite as good as Cutler as you say but "I" do think the potential is there for him to be as good.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2009, 08:11:28 AM
So yeah, Packers/Vikes? FUCK ME.

The Packers are a bit of a mess. The offensive line is still fucking criminally bad. Why did we resign Chad Clifton again? Oh right, so he could be injured, miss important early season games and cause such a huge reshuffle of the line that it brings the whole offense down. Need to flush the whole unit down the drain and start again, because this team will never be a playoff team without an O line worth a shit. Despite 8 sacks and a wall of purple in Rodgers face all night, he still almost managed to tie the game or at least get close enough to make it interesting. Ryan Grant can't run, but I blame that on the O line for the most part. They can't run block, they can't pass block. They are young, slow and stupid.

The defense, however, was even worse. Look, I realize the Vikes had Brett Favre at QB, and he can thread passes into double coverage. But the Pack couldn't even get coverage right. How many passes did Favre throw to a guy that was WIDE FUCKING OPEN? Answer: too fucking many. It's not like these are premier quality wideouts and tight ends, these are mediocre at best players when they don't have #4 throwing to them. Al Harris looked completely lost most of the night, as if he had no clue who he was supposed to cover. I could have made those passes with guys that wide open. And why is Kampman constantly dropping into coverage on important third downs? I don't care if he's a linebacker or a defensive end, he should most definitely be rushing the passer on passing downs. The fact that Green Bay couldn't get a good pass rush on Favre with 4-5 guys while the Vikes rushed 4 and were in Rodgers face all goddamn night shows the difference in these teams. They stopped Peterson, but let guys like Shancoe and Rice beat them. Really?

The Pack needs a complete overhaul at the O Line and in the defensive backfield. Woodson and Harris aren't going to be around forever, and there is NOBODY on the bench that can hold these guys jocks. Safety position is also fucked, because Bigby can't keep from spraining his vagina.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 06, 2009, 08:21:48 AM
Let's find some positives here.  The Packer defense did an excellent job against the run.  Against the Vikings O-line and Adrian Peterson, this is no small feat.  Second, the Packers have two of the best cover corners in football.  Unfortunately, they got hit with some shitty calls and are supported by two HORRIBLE safeties. 

We agree that the Packers need an offensive line, a standout receiver that isn't past their prime, and some kind of running game.  Aaron Rogers did an excellent job if you consider the pressure he was under all night.  With a good line, he could become one of the top QB's in the league.   


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2009, 08:36:38 AM
They have a standout receiver in Greg Jennings, and both James Jones and Jordy Nelson could be ok #2's if Driver goes out. But they can't catch the ball if Rodgers is on his back all night. And Grant can't run without an O line. Every problem they have on offense could be fixed with an O line. The corners - I'd like to blame last night's coverage on the shitty safeties (and yes, those refs called some ticky-tacky bullshit) but both Woodson and Harris are getting old. I'm afraid by the time the O line is sorted, they'll be retired.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 06, 2009, 08:42:03 AM
I'll give you the point on the receivers, but Grant wouldn't cut it even with a decent line.  I do agree that their defense is running into some trouble with the aging corners.  The problem is money.  You can only fix one problem at a time.  Maybe the best strategy for Green Bay would be to buy a solid O-line and hope that they can win games 35-31.  It would be exciting to watch and keep the fans interested until they could fix their defensive backfield.  

If you look at the most recent NFL drafts, it seems that teams recognize the need for offensive linemen (3 OT went in the top 10 picks in 2009).  I think the problem is that a) good linemen often take a few years to mature and b) people fill seats to watch the money positions.  Now that they have Rodgers, they have some added incentive to buy a line.  They need to take a good look at the free agent market this year and shore up a spot using a pick from the first two rounds. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2009, 08:45:21 AM
I think Grant's decent. He's certainly better than Wynn or Brandon "I Sprained My Labia Again" Jackson.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 06, 2009, 08:49:34 AM
I think Grant's decent. He's certainly better than Wynn or Brandon "I Sprained My Labia Again" Jackson.

He's good enough to make the LB's think about the play action.  That's all GB needs with Rogers at QB.  This is going to be a passing offense first no matter who they have in the backfield.  Like St. Louis of old, Indy, or New Orleans a good RB will just open up the passing game more. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on October 06, 2009, 10:03:08 AM
I'm just amazed that Jon Gruden and Ron Jaworski were able to call the action with that much Favre cock in their mouth.  Guy had a very good game, but good God, I thought we were done with this crap.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 06, 2009, 10:12:10 AM
If they keep winning, you'll hear it every week.  Either how he single handedly one the game, or how he single handedly stepped aside and let AP win the game.  Jaworski I don't mind so much, but Gruden was nearly intolerable.

If they've truly turned into a three headed monster (passing, running, solid defense), then look the fuck out.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 06, 2009, 10:13:25 AM
The fourth head will be their demise.  The one that calls the plays... like last night.  Way to let Green Bay stay in the game, guys!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 06, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
If they keep winning, you'll hear it every week.  Either how he single handedly one the game, or how he single handedly stepped aside and let AP win the game.  Jaworski I don't mind so much, but Gruden was nearly intolerable.

If they've truly turned into a three headed monster (passing, running, solid defense), then look the fuck out.

The content of Gruden's commentary isn't bad but I can't listen to him anymore ever since it was pointed out that his analysis sounds like it's being read by Jack Burton.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 06, 2009, 10:42:42 AM
I'm just amazed that Jon Gruden and Ron Jaworski were able to call the action with that much Favre cock in their mouth.  Guy had a very good game, but good God, I thought we were done with this crap.

Just last week I was thinking that ESPN's Monday night is actually better this year with Gruden ( I didn't say great, I said better). Then they slobbered on Favre's knob all night last night and I turned it off at half time. Favre's a great quarterback. He really is. Retirement bullshit aside, the guy's got great presence, has a great time (which affects the team and side line), and plays exceptionally well. But we don't need to repeat that with every breath. We know. We get it. Let's just call the game, shall we?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Gruden is worlds better than fucking Kornhole, but he is a loud talker. It's like a rabid asshole is screaming in my ear all night. And yes, the knob slobbering was fierce.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 06, 2009, 12:18:53 PM
Gruden is worlds better than fucking Kornhole, but he is a loud talker. It's like a rabid asshole is screaming in my ear all night. And yes, the knob slobbering was fierce.

Despite all the bullshit last night, I have to empathically agree.  Kornholio was a nightmare.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 06, 2009, 01:25:00 PM
Despite all the bullshit last night, I have to empathically agree.  Kornholio was a nightmare.

Seriously. I hated that fucking guy.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 11, 2009, 05:52:30 PM
Derrick Anderson: 2-17 for 23y and one INT with a passer rating of what? 15? and they win the game. talk about a  :uhrr: I think Brady Quinn is in a bathroom somewhere trying to slice his wrists with those safety scissors at this very moment. Seriously, how the hell do you lose your starting position to THAT?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on October 12, 2009, 05:14:24 AM
Its my theory that Quinn (or hell, any other Brown) could potentially be a Pro-Bowler or one of the greatest ever.  But we'll never know, because Cleveland sucks talent from any player's immortal soul.  If Manning or Brady or Favre had went there, they would have been out of the league in 2-3 years as busts. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 12, 2009, 05:59:22 AM
Its my theory that Quinn (or hell, any other Brown) could potentially be a Pro-Bowler or one of the greatest ever.  But we'll never know, because Cleveland sucks talent from any player's immortal soul.  If Manning or Brady or Favre had went there, they would have been out of the league in 2-3 years as busts. 

Amazing to think Tim Couch was slated to be where Manning is now. Cleveland does have a talent of training their sports players for the next level, at least in baseball. Football, you are dead on though. I'd like to watch next year's draft and have a mic on the guy Cleveland picks just to hear the moan of despair as it leaves his lips.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 12, 2009, 12:22:11 PM
Bengals 4-1, top of the division, defense playing well, offense still needs to get a lot better but should be possible if Palmer continues to knock the rust off.  We'll see if they can win a must-win game next week at home or if they finally succumb to typical can't handle success bullshit.  Also should be interesting to see a massively improved secondary against the scariest WR on the planet.

49'ers 3-2, fucking stomped, no Frank Gore but still, Hill looked like the talent we all know he pretty much is and everything went wrong.  Defense played like shit as well.  That was a sad sad game.

Broncos 5-0, after week 1 (versus my Bengals) I find this hard to believe, fuckers, but they beat the lame ass Pats, so hooray.  The Pats btw who absolutely got gifted a game the week before by the refs.  Fucking bullshit Tom Brady.  The sox got swept though so Sunday was a great day to be at a sport's bar, sad Bostonians make my day.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 12, 2009, 12:45:33 PM
What a shitty day of shitty NFL matchups. How bad was it? My 12 game on CBS started with the first half of the Raiders-Giants game, switched at halftime to the Steelers-Lions game, when that didn't pan out they turned on the Bengals-Ravens game and finally ended with the Browns-Bills before switching the Pats-Broncos game at 3. The Bengals got gifted a win by some overzealous defensive backs on the Ravens and some overflaggy refs. I think Ray Lewis is going to shiv the next ref he sees.

The Raiders are just fucking putrid. Who thought Jamarcus Russell could be an NFL QB? He can't even see a rusher running directly at him from the front side. That team is becoming a black hole of talent drainers.

Yeah, the Browns are just so goddamn bad, and yet Buffalo loses to them when their QB completes 2 passes? How the fuck did the coach even keep Anderson on the field? I'm surprised the fans didn't riot in the stands for having to pay to watch such a shitty contest.

Who is the worst team in the NFL? We have plenty of candidates? Rams? Raiders? Browns? Bills? Redskins? Panthers? Chiefs? Bucaneers? Titans? I really hope the matchups on TV are better next week, because this week was slit the wrist territory.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 12, 2009, 05:51:06 PM
I was very excited because this was the first weekend I've had off from traveling to stay home and watch football from start to finish. About halfway through Sunday, I just started watching movies. It was horrid.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 12, 2009, 09:39:53 PM
Fun game tonight, though.  Henne might turn out to be pretty good after all.  Maybe in the off season they can get him some real receivers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on October 13, 2009, 06:23:30 AM
Quote
The redskins are a mere 2-3 and Jim Zorn is on the hot seat, Their 2-3 start is even more disturbing when you consider this amazing stat.

It's week 6, and this Sunday the Redskins will be facing their 6th consecutive WINLESS team. Let that sink in for a moment.

Here's their opponent's records at the time they played

Giants 0-0 - gotta love a technicality
Rams 0-1
Detroit 0-2
Tampa Bay 0-3
Carolina 0-3 - they had a bye in week 4
Kansas City 0-5


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on October 13, 2009, 07:41:49 AM
That Monday night Dolphins/Jets game was about the most fun I've had watching a game all season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on October 13, 2009, 08:03:01 AM
Phins Win!!!

Oh and Hoax, Im still waiting to hear your rational for saying "nothing should make you silly enough to think that he will be NFL playoff game winning."


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 13, 2009, 08:34:28 AM
Moving into a new house so was way too tired to watch more than the first half last night. I was also initially bummed that I missed the entirety of Sunday's games, but then I've read the recaps and your posts here and am actually happy I was painting walls instead. Good game last night, though. At least what I saw of it.

Speaking of ESPN's Monday Night Football, I think I'm going to write in a suggestion to change the name to Monday Night Hyperbole because they can't go 30 seconds without mentioning how a player on the field IS THE BEST EVER! And omg, they had a sandwich earlier and it WAS THE BEST EVER! And did you see that cornerback? I gotta say HE'S THE BEST EVER!

Seriously. I was fucking tired already. I didn't need the hype machine.
 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 13, 2009, 08:46:52 AM
Phins Win!!!

Oh and Hoax, Im still waiting to hear your rational for saying "nothing should make you silly enough to think that he will be NFL playoff game winning."

Well, they won't likely even make the playoffs for one.  AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You'll have to forgive me, I'm just pissed that the Jets lost - seeing as how I picked them to win, the stupid pigfuckers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 13, 2009, 11:52:55 AM
Phins Win!!!

Oh and Hoax, Im still waiting to hear your rational for saying "nothing should make you silly enough to think that he will be NFL playoff game winning."

Let me get this straight, you won a late night game versus the Jets, with a big help from the fact that teams still can't seem to handle the Wildcat, on a day when Rex Ryan said that was one of the worst defensive efforts he's ever been a part of (I believe him) and now you want me to change my mind about Henne?  No.  He's never going to carry a team to a playoff win.  Ever.  If they can play great defense and smash teams in the mouth he might get to throw over the top and some idiots will claim he won a game.  But he's not Big Ben, he wont go from a QB who manages the game to one who just goes out and wins them.  I'm confident because I watched 75% of the games in his college career and every single big game he ever had.  The kid does not have what it takes.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stu on October 13, 2009, 02:07:09 PM
And yet, Parcells (who has most likely watched 100% of his games) still drafted Henne. You're so full of shit it's probly spilling onto your keyboard. Henne completed 20 of 26 passes for crying out loud.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on October 13, 2009, 02:17:49 PM
One good game does not make somebody the next Joe Montana.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 13, 2009, 02:23:18 PM
He doesn't have to be Montana.  He only needs to be Joe Flacco: in a run first offense just manage the game, don't fuck up, have a strong arm and be accurate enough to punish the defense if they try to stack up against the run.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on October 13, 2009, 02:36:41 PM
Which is fine except that Stewie is claiming Henne has the skills and talent of Jay Cutler.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on October 13, 2009, 05:51:23 PM
Whoa hold up there and dont be putting words in my mouth.
heres what I said.
All I was saying was that he has the potential to be every bit as good as Cutler. I also am well aware that 1 or 2 good games is not a true measure of how good he will end up being.  But I really like what I have seen so far. The Game last night just reinforced everything I said earlier.
I've yet to hear any good argument as to why he will never be a playoff winning qb other than "I'm confident because I watched 75% of the games in his college career and every single big game he ever had."
Hoax, I'm not trying to change your mind, Honestly I don't care whether you like the guy or not. I'm just curious as to why you don't.  I have not seen anything to indicate that he wont be good, but if there is something I'm missing in the way he plays, I'm all ears.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on October 13, 2009, 05:58:33 PM
I didn't put any words in your mouth.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 13, 2009, 06:56:49 PM
All I said is he's not going to go and win playoff games, very few QB's go out and just take over a playoff game and win one.  Cutler sure has shit hasn't done that yet.

You are now beside yourself saying how can I possibly say that.  I told you.  I've watched enough football that in a betting situation I'd take a Henne never puts a team on his shoulders and wins a playoff game bet.  Based on the fact that I watched him choke in so many big games at Michigan I lost count.  His leadership was lacking, his poise was lacking, his killer instinct was lacking and he folded under pressure a ton.  You can't coach that shit away.  That's what I'm going off of, but its just one guy on the internet I'm not claiming to be some fucking guru or anything, was just amused at how quick you were being to get excited about the kid.  Remember when Jason Campbell went out and won some games and everyone got excited about how he was really going to turn out to be a good QB?  This is sort of like that.

Again though, I made a really safe bet, that Henne will never go out and just win a playoff game.  How many pretty to very good QB's in the league have never pulled that off?  Will he end up as good as Flacco?  Who knows, you sure Flacco is as good as everybody thinks he is?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on October 13, 2009, 07:51:57 PM
1. Jets defense sucked Monday, had problems stopping the run, so it made throws easy (even for running backs).

2. The game was played in a hot humid Miami with temperatures around 80 for the game.

3. Missed tackles on the best running back tandem, and opportunities to score missed on offense.

Henne is a decent rookie, but was made good by holes in the defense. I can't decide if I was more upset with the Jets D or with all the Edwards throws while ignoring the middle of the field. Two of the drives the Jets punted there were open receivers and Sanchez has zero progression looking Edwards all the way.

I think Henne spread it around more than Sanchez, and looked like the way better rookie, and I'm a Jets fan.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2009, 08:45:13 PM
So, the Cutler for Orton trade.  :ye_gods:

That's NOT the way I thought things were going to unfold. Broncos are 6-0. Wow.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on October 19, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
Broncos seem to start strong every year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2009, 09:20:48 PM
Broncos seem to start strong every year.

This would be the best in a decade.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on October 19, 2009, 09:30:57 PM
Well, they started well in 2008 and had the collapse at the end.  2006 was a strong start also.  No 6-0, but those teams started strong and ended up disappointments.  This team looks to be playoff bound, but we'll see from there.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on October 19, 2009, 09:42:32 PM
If the Bronco D keeps on keepin, they'll have no problems going all the way.

They just destroyed the Charger QB, especially in the 4th.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 20, 2009, 06:37:33 AM
I only watched the first half last night and thought that it would be a high scoring game with a chance to go either way. I didn't expect the rookie head coach of Denver to come out of the half and and have his team dominate the rest of the game.

Also, Kyle Orton? Wow. He just really fits into this system, doesn't he? It's really satisfying to watch him succeed considering the circumstances of the trade. Him being lumped into the trade deal like he wasn't good enough to stand on his own had to sting a bit. It's got to feel good to show how good a QB he can be on the right team. Good for him.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 20, 2009, 09:46:52 AM
So maybe the problem wasn't so much Orton as it was Chicago's offense?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on October 20, 2009, 10:09:47 AM
So maybe the problem wasn't so much Orton as it was Chicago's offense?

Also, it probably isn't so much Cutler as it is Denver's offense.

Anyway, if Orton would remember to hand the ball off to Forte so as to establish a running game he might not be quite so stressed in the pocket.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on October 20, 2009, 10:11:31 AM
If the Bronco D keeps on keepin, they'll have no problems going all the way.

They just destroyed the Charger QB, especially in the 4th.

Broncos coaching staff excelling in making adjustments. Their 2nd half defense has allowed like a FG (40+ at that) in the past 5 games…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2009, 10:12:11 AM
Anyway, if Orton would remember to hand the ball off to Forte so as to establish a running game he might not be quite so stressed in the pocket.

I'm sure Orton would love to hand off to Forte.  Sadly, he's stuck with Moreno.   :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2009, 10:19:40 AM
Well, they started well in 2008 and had the collapse at the end.  2006 was a strong start also.  No 6-0, but those teams started strong and ended up disappointments.  This team looks to be playoff bound, but we'll see from there.

I don't see anything stopping them from reaching the playoffs. The Raiders and Chiefs are absolute punching bags this year... again. The Chargers can pass but they can't seem to run worth a shit this year. LT is too hurt, Sproles isn't the kind of bruising runner they need to spell LT. Their defense is average at best. The Broncos meanwhile, aren't turning the ball over, their defense seems stifling and they beat San Diego on the road. The Chargers might be lucky to make the playoffs, the Broncos are a shoe-in. I feel dirty saying this, but Orton may be just what the Broncos needed. Not great, but like Garrard was that year the Jags won 12 games, he's just not making mistakes.

Meanwhile the Saints defense looks like it's for real. Maybe if Eli had been all the way healthy, the Giants would have been more of a challenge, but even with the running game, the Giants couldn't control that game.

And Goddamnit, the fucking Ravens should have beat Minnesota. Fucking kickers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 20, 2009, 10:25:45 AM
Meanwhile the Saints defense looks like it's for real. Maybe if Eli had been all the way healthy, the Giants would have been more of a challenge, but even with the running game, the Giants couldn't control that game.

I don't think this one should hang around Eli's neck, and trust me, I yell at him through the TV quite often. This was more a combination of Brees being on absolute fire and the Giants' D not knowing what to do about it and looking like a bunch of amateurs out there. Not Titan's bad, but pretty bad all the same. Games against shitty teams were hiding the injuries we have on D. The Saints, being a damn good team, brought that out and shined a huge light on it.

I miss Spags. :(


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2009, 10:38:03 AM
And Goddamnit, the fucking Ravens should have beat Minnesota. Fucking kickers.

While I agree, I have to confess that this is the first time in forever that I've enjoyed watching my childhood team.  They have a solid running game (which Minnesota never has), a decent air attack, a great young TE, and solid defense.  I have no delusion that Minnesota will win the Super Bowl, but I am sure enjoying the season. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on October 20, 2009, 10:44:39 AM

I don't see anything stopping them from reaching the playoffs. The Raiders and Chiefs are absolute punching bags this year... again. The Chargers can pass but they can't seem to run worth a shit this year. LT is too hurt, Sproles isn't the kind of bruising runner they need to spell LT. Their defense is average at best. The Broncos meanwhile, aren't turning the ball over, their defense seems stifling and they beat San Diego on the road. The Chargers might be lucky to make the playoffs, the Broncos are a shoe-in. I feel dirty saying this, but Orton may be just what the Broncos needed. Not great, but like Garrard was that year the Jags won 12 games, he's just not making mistakes.


Sproles can't run between the tackles or even off tackle. The offense SD runs isn't suited for his Eric Metcalf skills — which would be better suited as slotback or maybe they could embrace the Wildcat craze but that would be nonsensical, taking away Rivers ability…

Also, LT is a worn down back now, still a good back, but not at the dominant level he was a few years ago…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on October 20, 2009, 12:56:33 PM
Anyway, if Orton would remember to hand the ball off to Forte so as to establish a running game he might not be quite so stressed in the pocket.

I'm sure Orton would love to hand off to Forte.  Sadly, he's stuck with Moreno.   :grin:

Sorry, meant Cutler.   :heartbreak:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on October 20, 2009, 10:53:09 PM
Minnesota is a worse team than their record indicates. I expect a couple of losing efforts followed by endless Farvruh debating.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2009, 05:39:03 AM
Minnesota is a worse team than their record indicates. I expect a couple of losing efforts followed by endless Farvruh debating.

The power rankings on ESPN and out of Las Vegas both have them in the top 5 in the NFL.  Where do you rate them?  Looking at defensive performance, running game, and record, it's tough to argue that they should be out of the top 5.  Top 5 does match their win-loss record and they're certainly better than Denver, another undefeated team.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 21, 2009, 09:52:17 AM
Minnesota is a worse team than their record indicates. I expect a couple of losing efforts followed by endless Farvruh debating.

when Favre is your weakest link... I'd say they are pretty well and good as a team.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on October 21, 2009, 10:36:07 AM
Minnesota is a worse team than their record indicates. I expect a couple of losing efforts followed by endless Farvruh debating.

The power rankings on ESPN and out of Las Vegas both have them in the top 5 in the NFL.  Where do you rate them?  Looking at defensive performance, running game, and record, it's tough to argue that they should be out of the top 5.  Top 5 does match their win-loss record and they're certainly better than Denver, another undefeated team.

They've won a couple of games on last second heroics.  It makes for fun games but you should be aware that they could easily be 4-2 right now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on October 21, 2009, 10:49:29 AM
Their schedule has been soft too.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2009, 03:30:48 PM
The Vikings beat:

Cleveland, 1-5
Detroit, 1-5
San Fran, by a FG, 3-2
Green Bay, 3-2
St. Louis, 0-6
Baltimore, and they shouldn't have won, 3-3

There's not a single division leader on that list, unless you count SF in a tie with Arizona. I personally don't because the NFC West is the biggest suckass division in the league. I fully expect Pittsburgh to de-pants the Vikings this weekend.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2009, 05:02:17 PM
Pittsburgh has played the Titans, Bears, Bengals, Chargers, Lions, and Browns.  During this time they took two losses.  The only decent team in that lot are the Chargers (I think the Bengals are a farce and they proved it last weekend).  Not exactly a mammoth schedule there either. 

I think that Pittsburgh has a solid chance at beating the Vikings, but I think that's far more of a matchup issue than anything else.  Ben is playing very well and will handle the defensive pressure better than many other QB's in the league.  This will be especially problemmatic if Pittsburgh can establish a running game early on.  Willie Parker getting healthy now should help.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2009, 08:57:24 PM
Well, all that and they are defending champs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 22, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
With any luck a new supervolcano will open under the stadium and swallow Pittsburgh and the Vikings whole.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on October 22, 2009, 10:29:37 AM
The Steelers opponents:

TEN 0-6 (W)
CHI 3-2 (L)
CIN 4-2 (L)
SD 2-3 (W)
DET 1-5 (W)
CLE 1-5 (W)

The two losses, should have been Steeler wins — blown lead @ CHI where Jeff Reed missed 2 4th quarter FG and @ CIN again blown lead and defense went to sleep in 4th quarter (both losses by a FG). Otherwise, PIT is 6-0 and we are looking at a clash of undefeated teams.

Last two were softies and during DET game, it looked like PIT "played down" to the competiton, but not the first four (and though SD + Rivers made game interesting, it was a blowout for most of game).  Yes, TEN is 0-6 but it was a different team in week 1 — they had NFL caliber players starting in the secondary positions but now teams are exploiting the lack of skill at those spots, though it looked like the team as a whole has just quit on the season.

That said, if it was in MIN, I would lean Vikings but @ Heinz Field I expect the Steelers to prevail.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2009, 11:22:39 AM
Minnesota is a very good team this year, and Favre is most definitely not their weak link. The weak link is at wideout - those guys are playing way above their level. They've been helped by a run game that has to be respected and the fact that it's early season and Favre hasn't worn down yet. He either hasn't had to make many passes (like early in the season) or hasn't been pressured at all (Green Bay game). The Ravens game had lots of stupid penalties on the Ravens, and most of the game, the Ravens couldn't get any kind of offense going. And Minnesota still should have lost that game. If Favre's arm wears down like I expect it to (though later in the season than last year because of fewer early throws), the Vikes will make the playoffs but not go to the Super Bowl. If it doesn't, the team has more than enough to win a Super Bowl - strong defense, great running game, good QB. Hell, the Ravens won a Super Bowl on defense and runnning with TRENT FUCKING DILFER. The only receiver they had worth a damn that year Sharpe.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 22, 2009, 11:28:25 AM
I agree with Haemish for the most part.  They are dangerous right now because they got a trifecta going...a very dangerous running game, as surprisingly competent passing game and a good defense.  Barring injuries, the only real question is if Favre can manage to keep it up and/or if that receiving corps comes down to earth.  Shiancoe seems to be getting better and better all the time, Harvin is dangerous, Rice is having a revival and Berrian is pretty solid.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on October 22, 2009, 11:59:50 AM
How can you have a revival if you were never shit to begin with?  :headscratch:

Oddly enough, I think the key to beating Min is taking your chances with AP and hoping he has an off game. Until people start hitting Favre, he's not going to slow down (unless he still has lingering arm issues).  With single coverage on almost every play, any QB not named Vince Young is going to pick apart defenses.

And putting up points on that D hasn't been much of a problem for people yet.  But being down to them in throwing only situations is going to get nasty with that pass rush.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 22, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
Sorry, wrong words chosen.  He is playing way above his pay scale right now, is all.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on October 22, 2009, 06:00:57 PM
I miss Spags. :(

Preach it. :(


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 25, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Oh dear god why do the Browns constantly look like a Div III team? Anderson...really? And to top the next embarrassing weekend off right, the Indians hire the worst Manager in the league for the next three years. Its like the whole town has a "Major League" thing going on, only without the ending...

I seriously think they should just move the team to LA now and be done with it. 10 years of toilet training and the Browns are still shitting on the carpet - time for them to leave and take the Indians with them.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on October 25, 2009, 03:14:54 PM
The Indians hired Tony LaRussa?

Edit: Minnesota lost and Farve lost the ball twice for 14 points. Let the questioning begin!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 25, 2009, 03:36:32 PM
The Indians hired Tony LaRussa?

Edit: Minnesota lost and Farve lost the ball twice for 14 points. Let the questioning begin!

There's no questions, he gets worse as the season goes on. It wasn't the total de-pantsing I expected, but I never thought they could beat Pittsburgh.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2009, 10:09:12 AM
LOVE IT. Favre loses, Green Bay wins, Saints come back from a billion points down to beat a team they shouldn't have had any trouble with in the first place. They started getting it together when they stopped throwing on every down and started ramming Mike Bell down the Fins throats on first and second down. The Dolphins had no clue how to stop the Saints then.

This was blowout weekend. Chicago gets cockpunched by the Bungles, the Raiders finally bench Jamarcus Russell and still get shutout, Kansas City still sucks as does Tampa and St. Louis. I swear this is the year when parity falls apart. We now have 3 tiers of teams - the really good (somehow), the mid-level playoff possible teams, and the really shitty shit shit shit teams. I won't be watching the Eagles dismantle this fuckawful Skins team tonight.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on October 26, 2009, 10:20:28 AM
LOVE IT. Favre loses, Green Bay wins, Saints come back from a billion points down to beat a team they shouldn't have had any trouble with in the first place. They started getting it together when they stopped throwing on every down and started ramming Mike Bell down the Fins throats on first and second down. The Dolphins had no clue how to stop the Saints then.

This was blowout weekend. Chicago gets cockpunched by the Bungles, the Raiders finally bench Jamarcus Russell and still get shutout, Kansas City still sucks as does Tampa and St. Louis. I swear this is the year when parity falls apart. We now have 3 tiers of teams - the really good (somehow), the mid-level playoff possible teams, and the really shitty shit shit shit teams. I won't be watching the Eagles dismantle this fuckawful Skins team tonight.

With next year increasingly looking to be uncapped, things could get really interesting as we'll see how much money the lower quality teams throw at free agents in an attempt to improve (It'll be a race between Al Davis and Dan Snyder to overpay the most). 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 26, 2009, 10:40:14 AM
LOVE IT. Favre loses, Green Bay wins, Saints come back from a billion points down to beat a team they shouldn't have had any trouble with in the first place. They started getting it together when they stopped throwing on every down and started ramming Mike Bell down the Fins throats on first and second down. The Dolphins had no clue how to stop the Saints then.

It wasn't Mike Bell that killed the Dolphins.  Yeah, the Saints were able to move the ball much, much better in the second half but the Fins still win the game if Ted fucking Ginn isn't the worst receiver in the entire NFL.  Cam Cameron's gift that keeps on giving.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on October 26, 2009, 10:44:11 AM
The Dolphins are going to be doing Tackle Drills all week is my guess. So many 5 yard nothing plays ended up being 30-60 yard explosions due to shitty tackling.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2009, 11:24:57 AM
With next year increasingly looking to be uncapped, things could get really interesting as we'll see how much money the lower quality teams throw at free agents in an attempt to improve (It'll be a race between Al Davis and Dan Snyder to overpay the most). 

Things is, both those guys have been overpaying for free agents for years. Free agents are so rarely as impactful in the NFL as they are in other sports, unless you are talking about HOF QB's like Favre. I'll laugh to see Snyder throw even more money at over the hill fuckers and barely finish 2 games below .500. Al Davis has just lost his fucking mind.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 26, 2009, 11:32:01 AM
Don't forget the owners that throw money at players just because they want to say that they owned/knew them.  Having no salary cap is going to open up a can of worms that may tank the NFL. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 26, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
The problem with Snyder is that he throws too much money at people that are not even close to being worth it.  It's ultimately a team full of fucking nobodies, except for the occasional Haynesworth.  Oakland's issues begin and end with Al Davis.  There isn't an issue with that team that can't somehow be traced right back to his special brand of madness.

I've just stated what's already blatantly obvious.  Have a good day.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on October 26, 2009, 12:55:40 PM
With no other obvious explanation for the Bears complete meltdown, I'm anxiously awaiting the discovery of what the problem with Tommie Harris is, exactly, since I've started imagining something bad happened that not only kept him out of the game (when everyone swears he's 100%) but also delivered a major blow to team chemistry in the process.

Or they just suck.

To wit:

Quote
When pressed in an e-mail about why he wouldn't play Sunday, Harris said it was because of his "sphincter," which all but nullified any validity to his original claim.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 26, 2009, 03:26:06 PM
The problem with the Bears, in my extremely narrow minded POV, is that now that they've begun to address their offensive issues (which I earnestly believe they have), their defense is going to complete shit.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sauced on October 26, 2009, 03:35:31 PM
The offensive line is absolutely horrid.  Cutler essentially runs "3 step drop then roll out" plays, and Forte is being hit in the backfield on over 40% of their running plays, which is Dire.

Their defense requires pretty much "great" play up the middle.

Pretty close to Great : 2005/2006-era Tommie Harris, Brian Urlacher, Mike Brown
Not so much: Marcus Harrison, Nick Roach, Al Afalava (R)

Unless the Bengals game was a *complete fluke*, it's going to be hard to turn this around.  Now that they traded next years 2nd round pick for Gaines Adams, next April will be the second draft in a row where they don't make a pick until round 3.  Things could get a lot worse before they get better.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 26, 2009, 06:29:05 PM
The offensive line is absolutely horrid.  Cutler essentially runs "3 step drop then roll out" plays, and Forte is being hit in the backfield on over 40% of their running plays, which is Dire.

Their defense requires pretty much "great" play up the middle.

Pretty close to Great : 2005/2006-era Tommie Harris, Brian Urlacher, Mike Brown
Not so much: Marcus Harrison, Nick Roach, Al Afalava (R)

Unless the Bengals game was a *complete fluke*, it's going to be hard to turn this around.  Now that they traded next years 2nd round pick for Gaines Adams, next April will be the second draft in a row where they don't make a pick until round 3.  Things could get a lot worse before they get better.

Big fucking deal... they aren't the Browns. I only say this because on the cleveland plain dealer articles, it seems most Browns fans have taken up the mantle of being the worst is at least something.

"how about them Brownies!"
'holy shit they suck'
"I know huh? awesome isn't it?"
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on October 26, 2009, 08:39:02 PM
An item that may only be of interest/amusement for FF players:  Jon Gruden just called McNabb "durable".


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on October 26, 2009, 08:49:06 PM
An item that may only be of interest/amusement for FF players:  Jon Gruden just called McNabb "durable".

Gruden's just filling in the noise they give every QB when they are winning. MNF seems unwilling to talk about anything else.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 27, 2009, 08:41:27 AM
They do suck copious amounts of QB cock. I've seen less enthusiastic knob polishing in pr0n.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 27, 2009, 09:06:19 AM
I avoided the knob polishing last night as I couldn't come up with a reason to watch the game. There was no way the Redskins would win and the state of both teams convinced me it would be a shitty game regardless of the outcome. According to the recap I read this morning, my predictions were proven true.

NFC East... remember when people talked it up? Ya... not so much now. I try not to think too long on the fact that the Giants, while in the lead, are still not that far ahead. Looking at Philly and Dallas it means they're mediocre at best. Once again... Please to be bringing back Spags please.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on October 27, 2009, 09:12:42 AM
I avoided the knob polishing last night as I couldn't come up with a reason to watch the game. There was no way the Redskins would win and the state of both teams convinced me it would be a shitty game regardless of the outcome. According to the recap I read this morning, my predictions were proven true.

Watching the Redskins… …man, it's just painful.

Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on October 27, 2009, 09:15:15 AM
Watching the Redskins… …man, it's just painful.

Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…


Can I introduce you to Mr. Anderson (http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8627)?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 27, 2009, 09:19:59 AM
Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…

Watching CBS' pregame show the other day, they had Charley Casserly on breaking down what Jason Campbell was doing, not doing, and definitely not seeing. The guy just does not have the ability to analyze what he sees and make quick decisions based off of that. He's just not good nor will he ever be because he doesn't think on his feet quickly enough. Backup QB is as high as he ever should have gotten.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on October 27, 2009, 09:46:17 AM
Watching the Redskins… …man, it's just painful.

Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…


Can I introduce you to Mr. Anderson (http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8627)?

I think Jake "Hi, I've already thrown 13 interceptions" Delhomme would like a seat at that table.

You know, when you stop to think about it there are a lot of really, really bad QBs in the league right now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 27, 2009, 10:02:32 AM
I don't know what the fuck happened to Delhomme. He was never going to be a premier QB in the league, but fuck it, he's better than he has been since that playoff game with Arizona. For that matter, I can't figure out why Carolina is so bad. They have a good running game, and even though they are getting old, Steve Smith and Musin Muhammed still have enough left in the tank to get open for Delhomme. But they just suck it.

There's a lot of just suck-ass teams this year. After Derek Anderson completed just 2 passes in the entire Buffalo game (and yet the Browns still won), I'd have thought they'd go back to Quinn. At least he's younger - but holy shit, they are just piling one bad decision on top of another.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 27, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
There are some backups that you would think some of these teams would try to pick up and see if a fresh start is what they need:

***David Carr (his o-line was so terrible for almost the entire time in Texas)
***AJ Feeley (why doesn't this guy get a shot in Carolina?  He managed games well in Philly)
***Jeff motherfucking Garcia (this guy is 10 times the QB as so many starters in the league I just can't fathom why somebody doesn't swoop him up)
Rex Grossman (ok this is a stretch but considering Kyle Orton apparently doesn't suck this guy might be worth a 4th-6th round pick to see if lightning can strike twice right?)
Jon Kitna (again, we know this guy can at least keep a mediocre team at 8-8, not the Lions but the Bengals he pulled it off several times, he may be too old at this point though)
***Matt Leinhart (he's from USC and he's not named Booty, he won a heisman, how has his contract not expired in Arizona at this point?)
Sage Rosenfels (I swear this guy can probably play QB in the league, not well but beter then Jason Campbell)
Chris Sims (I hate this little punk, his fucking dad too but again he was looking good for a minute there back in Tampa before he lacerated his spleen or whatever that was)
Alex Smith (Looks like he might finally have woken up and decided to play football, not a game too early for the 49ers, might be a 1-game abboration though)
Troy Smith (I know he's 4 feet tall but he had the starting job won from Flacco before he fucked up his foot)
Jim Sorgi (like many on this list, he should be a  backup but all be damned if he hasn't been twice the QB many of these awful starters are when called upon)
Mike Vick (for real, how is he not on the Raiders, at least they would sell out the next 1-3 games)
Billy Volek (at least he has managed games successfully on back to back Sundays in his career, unlike say, Jamarcus Russle)




Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on October 27, 2009, 01:56:11 PM
No, Carr really is that terrible. I was a cheerleader for Carr for a while - he had a shitty O-Line in Houston. But he sucked just as bad in Carolina with a better O-line. He holds onto the ball too long and gets hammered.

You're right about Rosenfels. He'd have been the starting QB at some point this season in Minnesota if Favre hadn't come back, because Jackson was going to lose that job eventually. Kitna's way too old. Leinart is still signed to his original contract I think, and they expect him to take over for the Gargoyle once Warner retires gets his shins split. Alex Smith does look like he may have learned a thing or two holding the clipboard, but let's see him do it against a decent D. Sorgi and Volek could both be better than Jamarcus Russell, Derek Anderson or Jason Campbell have been. As for Vick, I'm as surprised as you that the Raiders weren't camped outside the prison with a contract. Hell, I thought Al Davis personally issued authographed shanks to the Raiders players when they signed.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on October 27, 2009, 02:06:36 PM
Rex Grossman (ok this is a stretch but considering Kyle Orton apparently doesn't suck this guy might be worth a 4th-6th round pick to see if lightning can strike twice right?)

Strongly disagree with this one. Orton did decent with what he had in Chicago for the short time he was there. He was honestly who I wanted as a starter for a while. Grossman was entirely different. The Bears had problems with dropped passes and the o-line breaking down at times during Grossman's short lived era, but they also had a much better line then they do now. I'd estimate 75% of Grossman's mistakes were his own and now someone else's fault.

However, since he was a Bear, no matter where he goes he'll be a superstar as that is what happens to anyone the Bears trade away/don't keep (Benson, Jones, Orton, Berrian, etc).



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Segoris on October 27, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Watching the Redskins… …man, it's just painful.

Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…


Can I introduce you to Mr. Anderson (http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8627)?

I think Jake "Hi, I've already thrown 13 interceptions" Delhomme would like a seat at that table.

You know, when you stop to think about it there are a lot of really, really bad QBs in the league right now.

Is it too early to add Sanchez to that list? I lost a bet 2 weeks ago when I hoped he'd throw more interceptions then Brady threw TD's. He was 1 off during that slaughter in New England  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on October 27, 2009, 03:02:08 PM
There are some backups that you would think some of these teams would try to pick up and see if a fresh start is what they need:

Troy Smith (I know he's 4 feet tall but he had the starting job won from Flacco before he fucked up his foot)



It wasn't so much Smith's foot.  Right at the end of preseason he got the mother of all tonsil infections.  Came ridiculously close to dying and lost 20+ lbs from it.  He was fucked up enough from it that there were serious concerns his career was going to end.

But in other news, Snyder has banned all signs from Fed Ex field now.  Apparently, the security staff has also started threatening fans wearing any type of derogatory shirt as well.    Dude is trying to start a revolt or something.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on October 27, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
It's hilarious that Snyder has managed to make people pine for the days of that bastard Jack Kent Cook.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on October 27, 2009, 06:10:24 PM
Watching the Redskins… …man, it's just painful.

Jason Campbell might be the worst starting NFL QB (other than Raiders Russell) though once every 20 plays, a false ray appears, making it actually look like he has the talent and potential to excel at the position…


Can I introduce you to Mr. Anderson (http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8627)?

I think Jake "Hi, I've already thrown 13 interceptions" Delhomme would like a seat at that table.

You know, when you stop to think about it there are a lot of really, really bad QBs in the league right now.

Is it too early to add Sanchez to that list? I lost a bet 2 weeks ago when I hoped he'd throw more interceptions then Brady threw TD's. He was 1 off during that slaughter in New England  :heartbreak:

Are you seriously suggesting that Mark Sanchez sucks?  You know that's a sucky QB list right?  Not a hey its his rookie season and its already hard to think he wont take his team to the playoffs the next time NE has an off year.  I feel like I must be misreading, did you type the wrong name?  Kerry Collins maybe?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on October 28, 2009, 05:13:02 AM
Ya, no shit. It's way too early to judge Sanchez either way.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on October 28, 2009, 08:26:49 AM
I feel like I must be misreading, did you type the wrong name?  Kerry Collins maybe?

I can't speak badly of Collins.  On top of the fact that he's had a pretty good run in his career (2 time Pro Bowler and 37k yds passing), the guy does a ton of solid charity work.  Rather than bad, let's just say he's past his prime. 




Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on October 28, 2009, 08:50:17 AM
Collins has never been considered to be much more than a journeyman anyway.  With the right team, that works fine.  Titans aren't that team anymore.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 28, 2009, 09:08:50 AM
It's hilarious that Snyder has managed to make people pine for the days of that bastard Jack Kent Cook.

I feel for Jim Zorn. The rest of those fuckers can die in a car fire, and I am enjoying the hell out of the failboat they are sailing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 01, 2009, 02:08:15 PM
Holy fuck but have the Giants self-destructed or what? That was a curbstomping. The Giants couldn't get anything going.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 01, 2009, 02:42:08 PM
Holy fuck but have the Giants self-destructed or what? That was a curbstomping. The Giants couldn't get anything going.

 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:


Dallas 38 - 17 Seahawks
 :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on November 01, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
Holy fuck but have the Giants self-destructed or what? That was a curbstomping. The Giants couldn't get anything going.

 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:


Dallas 38 - 17 Seahawks
 :grin:

Oh, if we're playing this game  . . .   How about the Ravens defense finally deciding to fucking show up this season.     Landry is still playing soft as hell, but WOOO  gotta love giving Orton and his pornstache their first loss this season.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 01, 2009, 08:16:00 PM
Its really annoying that when the Bengals are finally getting it together the AFC North has to be an ultra competitive 3 horse race.  The next 2 weeks will decide so much in that Division -- Cincy v Bmore & Pitt v Denver then Cincy v Pitt & Bmore gets a free win aka plays the Browns.  Fucking huge.  If the Bengals can't win at home coming off the bye despite the fact that the Ravens are playing crazy well, deserve to have way more wins then they do and don't like that they lost once to us already...  Fucking season defining games scare the shit out of me.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on November 01, 2009, 08:56:52 PM
The only thing more delicious than somehow hanging 30 points on the Jets and beating them despite only getting 100 total yards of offense are the bitter tears that came flowing out of their locker room after the game.   :cry2:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on November 02, 2009, 05:16:10 AM
I love the Dolphins this year, so much fun to watch.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on November 02, 2009, 06:57:55 AM
Holy fuck but have the Giants self-destructed or what? That was a curbstomping. The Giants couldn't get anything going.

I turned the game off sometime during the first half and got some stuff done around the house. The Giants are fucking terrible and unfortunately, we don't have an exciting QB to lift up the entire team like Peyton does. We also lost Strahan. So when the O-Line goes soft or D has a shitty secondary due to injuries and bad play, there's noone there who can step up and get everyone motivated to keep trying.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 02, 2009, 08:03:11 AM
Eli could do it... he's just sucking ass this year. I don't know if it's the teams he's playing against or the foot injury throwing him off or what, but he has played TERRIBLY the last two games. The running game has almost disappeared. What happened to the grind it out running game? They just seem to give up on it the minute they get some adversity.

As for the Packers, it was a great game once Aaron Rodgers remembered that he was dropping back to throw the ball instead of just to stand there and wait for Minnesota to pummel him. Seriously, the O-Line did pretty well in that game, but at least 4 of those sacks were on Rodgers and not the line. The Pack still has no running game to scare anyone. And for some reason, they've completely forgotten how to call slant routes. This team is crazy good at slant routes, but they just don't call them anymore. 2007? It was slant route after slant route. The wideouts have the speed to burn motherfuckers on slant routes. Instead it's all curls in the soft spot of the zones or long posts or streaks. I don't know what the fuck happened to their playcalling.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on November 02, 2009, 08:23:22 AM
I love the Dolphins this year, so much fun to watch.


Seriously, they are easily my favorite game to see every week.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 02, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
I think Eli's foot is bothering him more than the team is letting on.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 02, 2009, 10:50:22 AM
I think Eli's foot is bothering him more than the team is letting on.


If it isn't, that team is in a shitload of trouble.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 02, 2009, 11:07:44 AM
They are in trouble in any event if they can't fix the problems on D. They are giving up way too many big plays.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on November 02, 2009, 11:12:57 AM
I think Eli's foot is bothering him more than the team is letting on.


As someone who has had plantar fasciitis I am positive this is the issue. It can be really, really painful at times, and I can't really imagine going out and playing football week after week within just a few days of having it diagnosed. The other big problem is if my experience is any indicator, it isn't going to heal if he keeps playing on it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 02, 2009, 12:44:40 PM
Too bad their only option for resting Eli starts and ends with David Carr as the starting QB.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 02, 2009, 12:44:58 PM
Eli could do it... he's just sucking ass this year. I don't know if it's the teams he's playing against or the foot injury throwing him off or what, but he has played TERRIBLY the last two games. The running game has almost disappeared. What happened to the grind it out running game? They just seem to give up on it the minute they get some adversity.

As for the Packers, it was a great game once Aaron Rodgers remembered that he was dropping back to throw the ball instead of just to stand there and wait for Minnesota to pummel him. Seriously, the O-Line did pretty well in that game, but at least 4 of those sacks were on Rodgers and not the line. The Pack still has no running game to scare anyone. And for some reason, they've completely forgotten how to call slant routes. This team is crazy good at slant routes, but they just don't call them anymore. 2007? It was slant route after slant route. The wideouts have the speed to burn motherfuckers on slant routes. Instead it's all curls in the soft spot of the zones or long posts or streaks. I don't know what the fuck happened to their playcalling.

I won't admit to having watched a great deal of Aaron Rodgers last year...but wasn't Green Bay's use of the slant route primarily a Brett Favre thing?  I have this idea in my head that he is the best slant route passer I've ever seen - I never associated it with Green Bay specifically.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 02, 2009, 12:50:41 PM
Favre was great at it, but it isn't exclusive to him unless he called most of those routes in '07 as an audible. But considering the receivers are mostly the same now as then, the offensive scheme is the same and Rodgers has a good arm, I see no reason to drop it as a play-calling or audible option. He could use with a lot more 3-step drops and quick hitch passes and let those fast receivers run with the ball.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 02, 2009, 12:54:44 PM
Favre was great at it, but it isn't exclusive to him unless he called most of those routes in '07 as an audible. But considering the receivers are mostly the same now as then, the offensive scheme is the same and Rodgers has a good arm, I see no reason to drop it as a play-calling or audible option. He could use with a lot more 3-step drops and quick hitch passes and let those fast receivers run with the ball.

If you believe all the Favre hype, which is often exaggerated (duh), then he was the driving force behind those plays....they weren't even real audibles.  They say that he had such a rapport with some of those guys that he could just get eye contact with them at the line and they'd know he wanted them to run the slant.  He does seem to have a way of developing that kind of chemistry with receivers, so I tend to believe it.

Edit:  none of which changes the fact that I think you are correct, and that Rodgers could certainly run more slants.  Hell, it seems like one of the most effective pass plays there is, and I don't understand why all teams don't run them like crazy.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on November 02, 2009, 01:00:45 PM
Slant isn't exactly a hard pass to throw.  When writers were bagging on how bad Brees was at a certain time in San Diego they'd mention that he couldn't even throw a slant.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on November 02, 2009, 04:45:58 PM
Too bad their only option for resting Eli starts and ends with David Carr as the starting QB.

At this point I figure it can't get worse. Even if it is David Carr. :(


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 03, 2009, 04:51:47 PM
Last nights Saints / Falcons game was as good an NFL game as I've seen in a while.  Some seriously good hitting going on.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on November 03, 2009, 06:40:54 PM
So, who beats the Saints?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 03, 2009, 06:47:44 PM
Considering it's the Saints, the most cursed team in all of football?

Probably everyone left on their schedule.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on November 03, 2009, 07:15:31 PM
Considering it's the Saints, the most cursed team in all of football?

Probably everyone left on their schedule.

Depends on the weather come late November/December and if they have to depend less on Brees' arm and instead turn to their running game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 03, 2009, 07:57:23 PM
Saints are strong lately, but I'm not sure they can face a team that can put pressure on them without throwing massive blitz packages. You blitz Brees, and he'll pick you apart with receivers that aren't household names. That's pretty solid.

That being said, the saints will run away with the NFC South. The Falcons won't beat them head-to-head, Tampa's awful, and Carolina barely has a pulse. Basically, and SHOCKINGLY, I think the only team that beats the Saints is the Vikings because of their defensive line.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 03, 2009, 08:59:05 PM
Considering it's the Saints, the most cursed team in all of football?

Probably everyone left on their schedule.
Depends on the weather come late November/December and if they have to depend less on Brees' arm and instead turn to their running game.
The Saints' running game is ranked higher than its passing game currently.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 03, 2009, 09:11:16 PM
The formula for winning in the NFL is to have an above average QB that won't lose the game for you, a decent running game, a serviceable defense, and to stay healthy.  There's really not much more of a trick than that.  

The Saints got a bit dinged up in this last game:  their center, Pierre (I think) took a nice lick to the head but still played, and one of their CBs went out (for how long, I don't know).  Also, Cedric Ellis is still hurt.  If they to get back healthy pretty quick and Brees plays llike Brees the rest of the season, the sky is the limit.

But.

They're still the Saints.  Something will go wrong.  That oblong, funny shaped ball bounces in wierd directions at times.  They need to wrap Brees in bubblewrap and put him under 24 hour armed guard observation protection to keep him away from sharp objects, blunt objects, moving objects, and other people in between games.  Last thing he needs is some freakish accident (cutting his hand open, smashin his hand, tripping over something and blowing out his knee, or an overzealous fan begging for an autograph and losing their balance and stabbing him in the eye with a sharpee).  

Because he plays for the Saints.  And weird shit can and does happen.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 03, 2009, 09:49:43 PM
Even if Brees got injured and couldn't play for the rest of the season I still don't see them losing to the Rams, Bucs (twice) and the Redskins even with a rookie QB or *gasp* Mark Brunell. So that would make them 11 - 5 or 10 - 6 if they lose to just one of the above teams (assuming they lose all their other games).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2009, 08:14:29 AM
The key to the Saints season is that defense. That offense has rolled along with and without a running game ever since Brees got there. As long as he's healthy, they'll be fine offensively. But if those corners drop off, the team will fall off a cliff. Those guys are covering people and covering them WELL. Greer and Sharper have been monsters and Roman Harper ain't bad either. If that defense can continue to perform at even a serviceable level, they will go far into the playoffs.

Look at the NFC teams likely to make the playoffs: Vikings, Cardinals, Atlanta, Philly, Dallas, Giants, and either Green Bay, Chicago or San Francisco. The only defenses I can see shutting them down is the Vikings or Philly. Maybe the Giants or the Packers if either one learns how to cover on a consistent basis. Everyone on that list except San Fran or Chicago can be relied on to put up decent points on any given week, but do you think any of those offenses can put up consistent offensive numbers like the Saints week in and week out? I think the most likely on paper matchup for the NFC Championship is a Vikings/Saints matchup at the Superdome.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2009, 10:52:13 AM
All I have to say is Go Vikes!

Fuck even if Favre only plays this year and maybe another, he's still the best QB they've had in years.  They've had QB problems for way too long.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 04, 2009, 12:24:19 PM
I've been enjoying watching the Vikings this year. Nice to see a team that is more or less clicking. While Favre and AP are having fun, I like watching Jared Allen :) He's now my favorite NFL player not named Dwight Freeney. I want Allen and Freeney as my ends on my dream team D.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2009, 12:46:25 PM
Allen is a friggin beast! 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 04, 2009, 01:23:13 PM
Assuming Aaron Rodgers is on the other side.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on November 04, 2009, 01:34:07 PM
The key to the Saints season is that defense. That offense has rolled along with and without a running game ever since Brees got there. As long as he's healthy, they'll be fine offensively. But if those corners drop off, the team will fall off a cliff. Those guys are covering people and covering them WELL. Greer and Sharper have been monsters and Roman Harper ain't bad either. If that defense can continue to perform at even a serviceable level, they will go far into the playoffs.

The Saints are a top 5 or 6 running team.  I know, I didn't believe it either.  That's what makes them so scary this year. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 08, 2009, 03:01:49 PM
So, who beats the Saints?

Carolina, from the looks of things.

Saints need a run defense.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 08, 2009, 04:23:04 PM
So, who beats the Saints?
Carolina, from the looks of things.
Or not.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 08, 2009, 06:28:28 PM
Packers looked like they cared more about getting Ahman Green the all-time team rushing yards mark than they did actually beating a hitherto winless squad.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 08, 2009, 07:36:26 PM
Packers looked like they cared more about getting Ahman Green the all-time team rushing yards mark than they did actually beating a hitherto winless squad.

Green Bay has taken some really tough loses, not bounced back at all, they are falling apart all over the place I would feel bad for them if I wasn't so happy with the rest of this season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2009, 08:57:44 PM
HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!

Also, wow the Giants have imploded. I'm not even sure what's wrong, but expect the Coughlin firing talk to start again soon. (Just like it did before he won a Super Bowl).

NY fans are morons.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: murdoc on November 09, 2009, 07:35:58 AM
Packers looked like they cared more about getting Ahman Green the all-time team rushing yards mark than they did actually beating a hitherto winless squad.

 :awesome_for_real:

From what I understand, the core of the Bucs players (Lynch, Brooks, Barber, Sapp) refused to wear the throwbacks for years because of the futility those jerseys represented. Couldn't be happier they put them on to beat the Packers.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 09, 2009, 08:34:50 AM
We were laughing at the commentators who really, really wanted to keep making loser jersey references. And made them when the Bucs had bad plays, but totally forgot about it when they were doing well. Commentators,  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2009, 08:49:51 AM
Wish I could have seen how the fucking Packers could blow a 3-touchdown lead to the goddamn Bucs. What the fuck? With the talent that team has, they have no business losing that game. I'll continue to blame all their troubles on a shitty O-line.

The Giants looked ok for a good bit of that game, but their defense just fell apart near the end. The Chargers continue to be unable to run the ball, but apparently that's ok, because they can pass like motherfuckers. Had the Chargers receivers not gone through a quarter of the dropsies, they might have won by 2 touchdowns.

The Colts really should not have had so much trouble with the Texas, as they were passing up and down the field most of the first half. They couldn't turn all that into touchdowns though. As for the Saints, I had no doubts about them beating Carolina - the Panthers are really fucking bad this year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 09, 2009, 12:55:28 PM
re: Colts v Texans.  The Texans are not bad, really if they had Slaton and Daniels I would have picked them as likely to upset Indy. 

re: Giants v Chargers.  Like Haem said, if there wasn't a bunch of dropped balls in that game it would never have been that close.  Also everyone who I watched with knew Rivers was going to win it once he got the ball back down 6.  Eli is doing that thing he does where he plays amazing then sucks.  The foot thing or just typical Eli is not Peyton.

re: Packers.  Seriously this team is completely falling apart.  The defense isn't happy, the QB has gotten hit so much its starting to fuck with him and the o-line is a wreck.  Even during a season where the Bears are a joke they don't look like they deserve a wildcard spot.  This has gotta be a huge blow to Pack fans because they don't even look close to being a superbowl contender.  Not even close.  But its not a franchise that rebuilds really so I'm not sure what they are going to do.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2009, 01:47:00 PM
The Packers rebuild - they just haven't really had to do it since Favre got there. They have some seriously good young talent at the skill positions: Jennings, Jones, Rodgers, Cullen Jenkins, all 4 of the linebackers. There are teams that have made the playoffs with less (last year's Eagles team, for instance). But if they don't address that gaping shithole that is their O-line, none of it will matter. I'm still not sure about the switch to the 3-4, mainly because of how much it takes Kampman out of pass rush. I never expected them to be Super Bowl contenders this year without some serious miracles, but I didn't expect them to lose to the shittastic Bucs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 09, 2009, 02:36:05 PM
and in bigger news, the Browns coach is stalling on naming the starting QB for the Ravens game! How does Baltimore prepare for the game without knowing who is going to be at the helm???  :why_so_serious:

I could kill my parents for making me and birthing me right outside of Cleveland and thus plaguing my life with this town's inept sports teams.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 09, 2009, 03:48:16 PM
The Packers rebuild - they just haven't really had to do it since Favre got there. They have some seriously good young talent at the skill positions: Jennings, Jones, Rodgers, Cullen Jenkins, all 4 of the linebackers. There are teams that have made the playoffs with less (last year's Eagles team, for instance). But if they don't address that gaping shithole that is their O-line, none of it will matter. I'm still not sure about the switch to the 3-4, mainly because of how much it takes Kampman out of pass rush. I never expected them to be Super Bowl contenders this year without some serious miracles, but I didn't expect them to lose to the shittastic Bucs.

Packers had no business losing that game. They outgained Bucs almost 2X in yards from scrimmage, yet could never shelve game away…

• …as mentioned earlier, seeming to be more interested in getting Ahman Green all-time team rushing mark, than putting away the game…

• …blocked kick

• …Rodgers getting sacked and he threw some really stupid passes

Eagles should have dusted up Cowboys too. Some bad breaks (got really screwed on that 4th down spot review) and some atrocious play calls by Andy Reid (going for a 50+ FG when you have no timeouts left…), etc.…

And Vince Young is 2-0 as a starter this season…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2009, 08:23:33 PM
HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!

And yes, I'm happy to see the Giants fail in all facets of the game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on November 09, 2009, 10:38:47 PM
and in bigger news, the Browns coach is stalling on naming the starting QB for the Ravens game! How does Baltimore prepare for the game without knowing who is going to be at the helm???  :why_so_serious:

I could kill my parents for making me and birthing me right outside of Cleveland and thus plaguing my life with this town's inept sports teams.

I think we're going to see the start of the Brent Ratliff era  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on November 10, 2009, 02:12:34 AM
and in bigger news, the Browns coach is stalling on naming the starting QB for the Ravens game! How does Baltimore prepare for the game without knowing who is going to be at the helm???  :why_so_serious:

Don't worry.  Our DB's are already practicing missing their tackles in anticipation of the Anderson and/or Quinn passing attack.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 10, 2009, 06:16:32 AM
But if they don't address that gaping shithole that is their O-line, none of it will matter.
This is my leading theory of the Favre defection. I believe his main criteria is to have a solid O line and receivers that will work to get open. The second is trainable and doesn't mean shit without the first, so I believe it's all about the O line for him and has been for a while. Also, it's nice to have AP beat the shit out of the defense for a few downs, too.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 10, 2009, 06:41:23 AM
Favre is getting sacked more after leaving GB than he did the last few years he was there.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on November 10, 2009, 09:06:37 AM
Brett Ratliff is in the NFL?  Holy crap. He was a back-up when he was here in Utah and only played because Brian Johnson was injured.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 10, 2009, 09:59:20 AM
Brett Ratliff is in the NFL?  Holy crap. He was a back-up when he was here in Utah and only played because Brian Johnson was injured.

UFL...  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2009, 08:07:09 AM
Fuck, but it's been hard picking games these last few weeks.  Couple of tough games to pick this week, too.  Crazy ass topsy-turvy NFL.

I'm thinking I may pick Green Bay over Dallas this week.  I mean, I know it isn't quite December yet, but Dallas needs to begin their second half slide early this year due to the Giants' and Eagles' inability to resemble a proper football team.  Also, as troubled as they look, I have a hard time seeing the Pack fall to sub .500.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 11, 2009, 09:38:23 AM
That defensive front 7 against that o-line + a QB who is holding it too long?  I'd consider the Pack at +5 maybe, but I doubt they win that game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2009, 09:53:45 AM
I posted the above with the subconsious intent that someone may talk some sense into me.

But also, despite all the horrendous offensive woes, GB still manages around 27 points per game.  Not against stellar defenses, of course, but still.  And it's a home game.  And I think karma must inevitably come back and ground Tony Romo.  And I think neither Dallas is 7-2 good, nor Green Bay 4-5 bad.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 11, 2009, 10:00:22 AM
Dallas defensive backfield is not that good and they are playing AT Green Bay. I would have to give the edge to Green Bay but I don't really have a lot of conviction in that. Also, Tony Romo sucks when blitzed.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 11, 2009, 05:52:06 PM
Dallas defensive backfield is not that good and they are playing AT Green Bay. I would have to give the edge to Green Bay but I don't really have a lot of conviction in that. Also, Tony Romo sucks when blitzed.

Romo handled the game at Green Bay last year pretty well when they snapped a all-time winless streak at Lambeau. That was September, though. Dallas leads the NFC right now with the fewest points against on D, while Green Bay leads in interceptions. Both have solid run D's, and both have QBs who are prone to mistakes. Statistically, both offenses are practically identical.

The only thing that's different is the intangibles, and the Cowboys have a major edge. Even though on paper the teams are neck and neck, Dallas is on a 4 game winning streak and Green Bay is on a 2 game skid. Dallas smashed their divisional rival the Giants last week, and Green Bay has to feel absolutely horrid because they lost to TAMPA. Let that one soak in...Tampa, the team that had zero wins prior to matching up with Green Bay.

I took Dallas -3 over GB.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 12, 2009, 05:54:15 AM

The only thing that's different is the intangibles, and the Cowboys have a major edge. Even though on paper the teams are neck and neck, Dallas is on a 4 game winning streak and Green Bay is on a 2 game skid. Dallas smashed their divisional rival the Giants last week, and Green Bay has to feel absolutely horrid because they lost to TAMPA. Let that one soak in...Tampa, the team that had zero wins prior to matching up with Green Bay.


I'd go off on you about how you have just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the intangibles, but then Dallas will probably go on to win anyway, and I will just look stupid.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on November 12, 2009, 07:55:29 AM
Wouldn't intangibles be intangible?  Saying something like, "You don't understand intangibles." just seems wrong.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 12, 2009, 10:31:39 AM
Not what I meant at all.  The things Paelos listed as intangible advantages, in my opinion, lead me to the exact opposite conclusion.  A team on a 4 game winning streak, for example, isn't by an automatically smart bet to put your money on...the opposite would be closer to the truth.  When it's the Dallas Cowboys and it's the second half of the season, it seems even more risky.  On the same token, a team that is probably underachieving a bit and just got stomped by the worst team in football isn't necessarily a lost cause.  They're backed in the proverbial corner now, and I think that gives them the edge.

Anyway, whatever.  Dallas will probably win, and I will have regretted my choice. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 12, 2009, 10:54:42 AM
Romo has a stellar record in November (14-2 so far). It's in December where he and the Cowboys have problems.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 12, 2009, 12:03:13 PM
GB's corners are really good, if Romo and Austin start believing their own hype too much, they might lose.  If they just play a smart game of football Dallas should have this.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 12, 2009, 12:24:40 PM
Romo has a stellar record in November (14-2 so far). It's in December where he and the Cowboys have problems.

That's a meaningless statistic without also knowing the win-loss record of opponents in November as well. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on November 12, 2009, 12:35:28 PM
Romo has a stellar record in November (14-2 so far). It's in December where he and the Cowboys have problems.

That's a meaningless statistic without also knowing the win-loss record of opponents in November as well. 

I'll go out on a limb here and say that through 4 seasons (which I suggest it is by those 16 games), the opponents they faced had at least a 0.500 combined record.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on November 12, 2009, 12:43:12 PM
Romo has a stellar record in November (14-2 so far). It's in December where he and the Cowboys have problems.

That's a meaningless statistic without also knowing the win-loss record of opponents in November as well. 

Let's put it in a different perspective.  The only other quarterbacks with 13 consecutive wins in November are Bob Griese and Steve Young, both of whom were pretty good.

The rarity of the accomplishment and the company he's keeping seem to imply that it's actually a fairly significant statistic.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 12, 2009, 12:46:42 PM
That very rarity simply adds fuel to the discussion that it is likely to end very soon.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2009, 10:04:15 PM
That very rarity simply adds fuel to the discussion that it is likely to end very soon.

That's the same nonsense they have in baseball when a guy striking out is "due". I think it's very easy to just say you take a contrarian attitude to past performance and move on.

I hope you only do that in sports.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on November 12, 2009, 10:05:34 PM
I should be happy because the 49ers won, but fuck... all those interceptions and the offense can only get 10 points out of it?  That shit was depressing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 12, 2009, 10:12:35 PM
I should be happy because the 49ers won, but fuck... all those interceptions and the offense can only get 10 points out of it?  That shit was depressing.

The really depressing thing is I have no idea where they are going to find a QB to save this franchise.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on November 12, 2009, 10:24:02 PM
They should trade a couple of first round picks for Culter.  That guy's a franchise QB.  Look at how much better the Bears are after they mortgaged their future to get him.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on November 12, 2009, 11:17:31 PM
I should be happy because the 49ers won, but fuck... all those interceptions and the offense can only get 10 points out of it?  That shit was depressing.

The really depressing thing is I have no idea where they are going to find a QB to save this franchise.

They could probably get by with Smith if they somehow manage to get a decent offensive line.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 13, 2009, 05:28:52 AM
That very rarity simply adds fuel to the discussion that it is likely to end very soon.

That's the same nonsense they have in baseball when a guy striking out is "due". I think it's very easy to just say you take a contrarian attitude to past performance and move on.

I hope you only do that in sports.

No, a better comparison would be the guy with the 35 game hitting streak being bound to go hitless.  You can only defy the odds for so long.  Being terrible (e.g. striking out all the time) is far easier to achieve on a consistant basis.

Anyway, that isn't really the point I'm trying to make.  Sometimes you just have a gut feeling that one team is going to defeat the other, despite (or sometimes because of) evidence to the contrary.  That's all I'm saying.  For what it's worth, I'm better than average at picking them.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2009, 06:16:44 AM
Dallas can lose in GB quite easily. All they have to do is play like they did in Denver. The Broncos suppressed the running game, and they put massive pressure on Romo to single-handedly deliver on the road. Instead, Romo took 5 sacks, a fumble, and a late pick that sealed the game. They couldn't score at all outside of the first quarter.

The only problem is that every team has tried to suppress the Dallas running game since then, all been pretty successful, and yet none of them have beaten the Cowboys. Everyone knows now that the Cowboys win or lose based on the play of Romo, and how much pressure the opposing defense can put on him. Green Bay is 29th in sacks, so they either have to turn around that part of their defense, or they have to hope that Rodgers can win in the overall aerial battle.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 13, 2009, 06:20:10 AM
I always find it hilarious when teams constantly overload the box to stop the run, and are damn successful at it...only to get lit up by the passing attack instead (see Minnesota Vikings).  Stopping the run is one of the easiest thing for a defense to do if they are hell bent on it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2009, 08:43:29 PM
Oh look, Dallas lost the way I said they could...  :ye_gods: Except I didn't see the fact that neither teams' offense would take the field.

Also, the Pats took out a gun and just shot themselves in the foot. Thanks Belicheat.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on November 15, 2009, 08:44:45 PM
God Damn Indy can go down the field fast!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on November 15, 2009, 08:46:16 PM
How do you go for it on fourth down at your own 30 with 2 minutes left when you're sitting on a 6 point lead?  Not that I'm sad; I can't stand the Patriots.  I get that if they make that first down they win but talk about handing the game to the Colts.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2009, 08:49:12 PM
How do you go for it on fourth down at your own 30 with 2 minutes left when you're sitting on a 6 point lead?  Not that I'm sad; I can't stand the Patriots.  I get that if they make that first down they win but talk about handing the game to the Colts.

Because they were getting worked, and they knew it. Hand the ball to Peyton on the opposite 30 and I don't believe it's any different, except they don't huddle up and waste clock. If the Pats make the first down it's over, but you had to punt and play the odds.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on November 16, 2009, 05:39:40 AM
Dallas lost and an angel got it's wings. Patriots lost and that same angel got a sweet guitar.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 16, 2009, 08:14:52 AM
How do you go for it on fourth down at your own 30 with 2 minutes left when you're sitting on a 6 point lead?  Not that I'm sad; I can't stand the Patriots.  I get that if they make that first down they win but talk about handing the game to the Colts.

It was pure, beautiful arrogance, and I absolutely loved that it fucking failed. Not only did it fail, the contentious call couldn't even be challenged because Bellichek fucked up his timeouts. Way to be a douche. Worst part was that he treated the Colts like a scrub team - you do shit like that against the Titans or the Raiders, not the fucking Colts. Holy shit. Most awesome.

My fucking Fox affiliate shit the bed so I missed the Packers game, but at least they won.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 16, 2009, 09:28:17 AM
So I went to visit my mother this past weekend for her 60th. Driving into Cleveland I was met with something I never heard before on the radio. The hosts (strangely the same hosts that another channel had several years ago when I lived there) were doing some promotion where they were apologizing for giving away tickets to the Monday night game in Cleveland. It was one of those surreal moments when I came to realize just how far down the ditch the Browns rolled to. Strangely enough, it seems most of the fans in that town seem to behave similarly to an abused wife, as my friend and diehard put it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on November 16, 2009, 10:20:56 AM
Honestly, I liked Belichick's call and I say that as someone that actively dislikes the Patriots.  (It's similar Mike Holmgren's call near the end of the SB XXXII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXII#2nd_half) as both are essentially about conceding a score for clock.)  Let's actually think about the percentages instead of reflexively thinking they say punt.

4th & 2 is a completely makable distance and if you make it, you win.  If you don't get the first down, Peyton Manning gets to make a ~30 yard scoring drive to win while maybe taking all your clock.

If you punt, Peyton Manning gets to make a ~70 yard scoring drive to win while definitely taking all your clock.

Now, of course, if the Patriots had punted and still lost the front page on ESPN would be "Peyton Manning is awesome." with a sidebar on "Does Belichick not trust his offensive anymore?" instead today's of "Belichick is a poopy-head."


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 16, 2009, 10:44:07 AM
Yeah, I might agree with that, haven't decided.  While the actual odds of Peyton marching 70 yards with 2 minutes might be something around 1 in 3...that's just something he has a knack for pulling off.  In my gut, I would have said "oh fuck, he's totally going to march down the field and score on us".  If at the same time I'm staring at 4th and 2 with Tom Fucking Brady on my team for a chance to win...I could see myself making the same call.  The same guys calling him out for the terrible call could just have easily been calling him a mad genius this morning.

Oh and look, the Cowboys didn't come remotely close to winning.  How delicious.  What a fugly game though - all those penalties made it torture to watch.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 16, 2009, 11:25:02 AM
You take the punt every fucking time, unless you are an overconfident douche. Look at it logically.

Your defense has been good, and the last two TD's the Colts got, it took some doing (and one very big, very ticky-tack penalty). They weren't just running up and down the field on the Pats. Also, Manning had 1 timeout? And thanks to your atrocious clock management, you had none. So if you fail at 4th and 2 and Indy DOES score, not only can they run the clock at their leisure (like they did) but you can't stop it at all. Unless you plan on letting the Colts score by having your defense not try at all on the first play, it's a bad call because all of the clock advantage is with the Colts. Make them march 70 yards with 1 timeout - certainly not impossible given the Colts' proclivity for scoring. Any other option is either 1) stupid, 2) arrogant or 3) entirely too risky for words. Again, it's not like the Pats were behind, they were ahead. Their defense just needed to make the stop. If I was a defensive player, I'd be pissed that the coach backed us up in the corner.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 16, 2009, 11:30:54 AM
Honestly, I liked Belichick's call and I say that as someone that actively dislikes the Patriots.  (It's similar Mike Holmgren's call near the end of the SB XXXII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXII#2nd_half) as both are essentially about conceding a score for clock.)  Let's actually think about the percentages instead of reflexively thinking they say punt.

4th & 2 is a completely makable distance and if you make it, you win.  If you don't get the first down, Peyton Manning gets to make a ~30 yard scoring drive to win while maybe taking all your clock.

If you punt, Peyton Manning gets to make a ~70 yard scoring drive to win while definitely taking all your clock.

Now, of course, if the Patriots had punted and still lost the front page on ESPN would be "Peyton Manning is awesome." with a sidebar on "Does Belichick not trust his offensive anymore?" instead today's of "Belichick is a poopy-head."
Even with Peyton Manning the odds of the Colts going 70 yards in 2 minutes to score is less than the odds of them going 30 yards to score. Yes they had essentially done just that their previous series but Peyton had also thrown 2 INTs in the game so it wasn't like he was infallible.

On the other hand the Patriots' D is notorious for its epic 4th quarter collapses. I can understand Belichick not trusting them to get the job done but do you really want to make it known publicly that's how you feel about half your team?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 16, 2009, 12:34:37 PM
This just in, Bill Belichick is a dick.

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4668/belichick2.jpg)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 16, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
This just in, Bill Belichick is a dick.


So was Lombardi going by what my grandfather used to rail on about.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 16, 2009, 02:20:05 PM
This just in, Bill Belichick is a dick.


So was Lombardi going by what my grandfather used to rail on about.

Lombardi was a bastard, indeed.

On the 4th down call, on the surface, /yes, a terrible decision.

But reckoning that Belichick had little confidence in his defense to stop Manning (and probably had a little devil Peyton Manning in his head at that point) and no doubt figured that it was a matter of Patriots v. the Clock at that juncture. Had they converted, he would have been hailed a genius. Earlier in the season, Steelers Tomlin pulled a similar stunt and went for it on 4th down in his own territory nursing a small lead… …I like the call, if your defense has been getting shredded by opposing QB throws…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 16, 2009, 02:29:22 PM
Let's not forget that they were also a bobble away from making it, too.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 16, 2009, 04:59:35 PM
Oh and look, the Cowboys didn't come remotely close to winning.  How delicious.  What a fugly game though - all those penalties made it torture to watch.

That's the kind of game where everybody deserves to lose. I think if both teams take more than 20 penalties in a game combined, they should be fined by the league to pay back the fans who had to watch such shitty football.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 17, 2009, 08:33:57 AM
This just in, Bill Belichick is a dick.

I don't know about that.  He's a player's coach and does what it takes to allow his players to focus on the game.  The guy is a football genius and does more preparation than about anyone in the sport. 

Like him, don't like him... he's damn good at what he does and players want to play for him. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 17, 2009, 11:23:02 AM
I didn't say it was a bad thing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 17, 2009, 11:24:49 AM
I didn't say it was a bad thing.

I'll keep that in mind the next time you call me a dick. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on November 18, 2009, 05:52:11 PM
Ronnie Brown is out for the rest of the year. :sad_panda:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 19, 2009, 05:53:03 AM
Ronnie Brown is out for the rest of the year. :sad_panda:

Which is good news when you have Ricky Williams in your Fantasy Football starting lineup like I do!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: MrHat on November 19, 2009, 06:45:16 AM
Ronnie Brown is out for the rest of the year. :sad_panda:

Which is good news when you have Ricky Williams in your Fantasy Football starting lineup like I do!

::rageface::


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on November 19, 2009, 12:45:33 PM
I don't have either Brown or Williams on my fantasy team.  I'm just sad because I'm a fan of the Fins and Brown is a lot of fun to watch.  It's especially sad because of that horrible knee injury he came back from.  At least this foot injury isn't supposed to have any long-term effects.  Hopefully it won't affect the Fins resigning him in the off season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on November 20, 2009, 07:43:17 AM
How does Carolina's offensive coordinator still have a job?  "Hey, we're gashing these guys bad on the ground.  HEAVE IT UP, JAKE." 12 carries for DeAngelo Williams?   :facepalm:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 20, 2009, 11:29:27 AM
TWELVE CARRIES? I didn't watch the game, but really? How does that Panthers team not keep it on the ground. Does John Fox just not remember how much they punched it up the gut over and over with Stephen Davis in their Super Bowl year, and how Jake Delhomme was great with that style of offense?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 20, 2009, 11:44:42 AM
Is there such thing as an NFL team that gets down by a couple touchdowns and doesn't abandon the run?  Rhetorical, no need to answer.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 20, 2009, 10:09:15 PM
Is there such thing as an NFL team that gets down by a couple touchdowns and doesn't abandon the run?  Rhetorical, no need to answer.

The Saints. They never had the run to begin with. And it just doesn't seem to matter.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 20, 2009, 11:55:11 PM
As I stated earlier the Saints have one of the best running games in the league right now. You just don't hear that much about it because 1) they don't have a featured back (their best rusher has ~1/3 of their total rushing yardage) and 2) they have Drew Brees.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 21, 2009, 04:19:58 PM
As I stated earlier the Saints have one of the best running games in the league right now. You just don't hear that much about it because 1) they don't have a featured back (their best rusher has ~1/3 of their total rushing yardage) and 2) they have Drew Brees.


They have the best scoring rushers in the game right now because they get set up by Brees. However, they do well overall because they are a 3 headed counter-punch to the defense overplaying the pass.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on November 21, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
I'm amazed at Young and the Titans turn-around.  What bothers me though is the 86-year old owner made Jeff Fisher put Young in and they've won, what 4 straight?  I've always been a Fisher fan but now I'm really doubtful. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 21, 2009, 05:13:35 PM
I'm amazed at Young and the Titans turn-around.  What bothers me though is the 86-year old owner made Jeff Fisher put Young in and they've won, what 4 straight?  I've always been a Fisher fan but now I'm really doubtful. 

I can see where both sides are coming from. Vince had his shot with the Titans in 06-07 and had a 21-30 TD/INT ratio with 50 sacks in two seasons. Nothing about those numbers suggest he's an NFL caliber QB. We'll see if he can hold up in the long haul.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 21, 2009, 08:47:07 PM
I can understand sticking with Collins through the first few losses as he was the QB last season when they won the division but when you are in the same division as the Colts and you are now 0 - 4 and Colts are 4 - 0 you have to be thinking about conceding the division and thinking about how to get a Wild Card spot. 10 - 6 is one of those borderline records that may or may not get you to the playoffs (wouldn't have last year, might have the year before that depending on tie breakers). Switching when you are 0 - 6 means you would have to go 10 - 0 the rest of the way, which is highly unlikely, just to have a shot at the playoffs. If you switched at 0 - 4 then going 10 - 2 or 11 - 1 seems a more achievable task.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 21, 2009, 09:07:53 PM
Teams that go 0-3 don't make the playoffs. Take a look and see that only 3 teams have done that since 1990, the worst of which was 0-4 in 1992 with the Chargers. 0-6? Everyone knows you're proper fucked at that point. You might as well make the switch and see what can happen for the fans.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on November 22, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
I'm with the monkey, after 0-4 it doesn't even matter anymore.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 22, 2009, 12:38:12 PM
Then Fisher should've switched QBs when they were 0 - 3 or even 0 - 2.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 22, 2009, 03:49:31 PM
Then Fisher should've switched QBs when they were 0 - 3 or even 0 - 2.


Well, I have an easy answer for why they didn't do that either. The first loss was to the Steelers by 3 in OT. The second loss the Titans lost 34-31, and Collins threw for 64% and 2 TDs. After those two games, you'd not going to make a move away from your QB. Those are tough losses that you maybe believe you can rebound from. The third loss to the Jets, Collins was horrific, but they still only lost by a TD. You might be able to make a case for pulling him then, but you could also (not knowing the future) make a case that he could rebound. Overall, they had lost 3 games by a combined 13 points.

Now, at the game in Jacksonville, they got pounded. It was time to pull him at that point, but they had the Colts and Pats coming up. At this point as a coach, you know your team is pretty much out of any chance at the playoffs, even if you won't admit it. Even with a good QB, I think they were pretty much writing those games off as losses while they prepared to make the change. They certainly weren't going to throw Young in there, have him look like hell against the best offenses in the AFC, and then have the fans question him as a QB yet again.

So, they make the move after the bye week, taking advantage of the extra prep time, and they get a solid win. Momentum picks up and the team feels good about itself again. Expect that to last until they play Indy again.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 22, 2009, 06:16:53 PM
I gotta give it up to Favre... I am 36 and no way can I even run around the block without having a Vitamin B injection.

And wtf? The best game this week was actually involving my Browns that made the team look like a team. But in true Cleveland form, still lost - with 0 seconds left too. At least Quinn looked good.. 300+ and 4 tds will up his trade value.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on November 23, 2009, 05:32:42 AM
I gotta give it up to Favre... I am 36 and no way can I even run around the block without having a Vitamin B injection.

And wtf? The best game this week was actually involving my Browns that made the team look like a team. But in true Cleveland form, still lost - with 0 seconds left too. At least Quinn looked good.. 300+ and 4 tds will up his trade value.

Ya... what the fuck happened there? Did both teams just not play their defenses? I was blown away by the score of that game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 23, 2009, 07:09:31 AM
We were joking that the Browns game was the game to watch yesterday.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on November 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
I'm developing a radar for Broncos season collapses that rivals my Hyu-dar.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 23, 2009, 10:08:13 AM
I'm amazed at Young and the Titans turn-around.  What bothers me though is the 86-year old owner made Jeff Fisher put Young in and they've won, what 4 straight?  I've always been a Fisher fan but now I'm really doubtful.  

I can see where both sides are coming from. Vince had his shot with the Titans in 06-07 and had a 21-30 TD/INT ratio with 50 sacks in two seasons. Nothing about those numbers suggest he's an NFL caliber QB. We'll see if he can hold up in the long haul.

Problem with Young is that you can't look at his numbers, because they suck... and yet he WINS. Wins count a lot more than stats.

EDIT: Also, man does Mark Sanchez just suck or what? A lot of those throws he made against New England were just horribly off-target. He may have taken too many hits recently, as he seems really quick to toss the ball anywhere when there's a rush on him.

ROOFLES - Steelers, Redskins for losing two very winnable games. And I feel real sorry for anyone that had to watch that Skins/Cowboys game. That must have been painful.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on November 23, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
I really really enjoy watching Young run the Option with the NFL leading rusher!
Glad to see the Lions win a game, Stafford gained some man-cred going back in.
Shocked at the Steelers loss.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2009, 08:45:17 PM
I find it hilarious the Saints are undefeated this year. The SAINTS!!!

Are they this year's Cardinals? Maybe.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on November 23, 2009, 11:26:57 PM
The Saints are a much, much better team than last year's Cardinals.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 24, 2009, 07:02:43 AM
Just got invited to the Saints v Patriots game Monday night.  Box suite seats, free booze and food, private bathroom, whole 9 yards.

Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez!!

Though I kinda wish we were sitting in the regular seating.  It just won't be the same not sitting next to some fat ass liquored up cajun that smells of body odor, bourbon, and crab boil.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 24, 2009, 07:11:15 AM
Just got invited to the Saints v Patriots game Monday night.  Box suite seats, free booze and food, private bathroom, whole 9 yards.

That's awesome!  Please stay in the box.  You'll be one of the few people in those luxury suites that is actually there to enjoy the game.  


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: BoatApe on November 24, 2009, 09:01:12 AM
Unless you're locked away in one of the "luxury suites" you should be able to enjoy all the sights, sounds and smells of the 'Dome.

The boxes are are wide open and have the quickest access to the best bars in the Superdome.

(Why oh why did I have to pick THIS season to spend a year away from New Orleans?!...)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 24, 2009, 10:00:36 AM
Thoughts on Vince Young?

Seems it riles people up — many bashers, think he's destined to fail, as ALL "athletic" quarterbacks in the NFL (according to Steve Young, ESPN radio hosts, "common" wisdom, etc.…).

Supporters say he wins games, that all that matters.

I take the middle ground here — no matter how athletic, a excelling QB needs to be able to (a) throw the ball and have a great arm, pinpoint accuracy and (b) needs to be able to see/scan the field and receiver options quickly (something very hard to gauge, especially at NFL level where defenses keep getting faster and reaction time margins smaller)… …OTOH, being physical/athletic may not be a just a "great bonus" as Steve Young proclaimed — the ability to dodge/elude tackles (due to quickness or just size like Rothleisberger) and make plays out of the pocket can be just a difference maker as throwing from the pocket.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 24, 2009, 10:03:16 AM
Thoughts on Vince Young?

Seems it riles people up — many bashers, think he's destined to fail, as ALL "athletic" quarterbacks in the NFL (according to Steve Young, ESPN radio hosts, "common" wisdom, etc.…).

Supporters say he wins games, that all that matters.

See Michael Vick.  He'll be good in the short term, but will lack the longevity of a pocket passer like Peyton Manning.  Vick just doesn't seem to have the field awareness or patience to pick apart a defense like a franchise QB.  I see Young as having a solid career, but doubt he'll be of any value once age slows him down and he's forced to play from a 5 step drop. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 24, 2009, 10:05:56 AM
For however long he can run an option play, he'll be a valuable QB.  I can't see anything more terrifying to a defense on a third and short than having to decide which two-headed monster to attack (Young or Johnson).

For reasons I can't put my finger on, I really want to see that guy succeed.  I hope he learns to be a good pocket passer. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on November 24, 2009, 10:54:23 AM
For however long he can run an option play, he'll be a valuable QB.  I can't see anything more terrifying to a defense on a third and short than having to decide which two-headed monster to attack (Young or Johnson).

For reasons I can't put my finger on, I really want to see that guy succeed.  I hope he learns to be a good pocket passer. 

Flashbacks of the same conversations about McNabb.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on November 24, 2009, 01:54:28 PM
Uhh, McNabb has always been a pocket passer.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on November 24, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
If by passer you mean someone who throws 1 hoppers to his receivers, then yes.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on November 24, 2009, 02:02:46 PM
That was implied.

It is way too early to make any judgments about how good or bad Young is going to be.  Sure, he has a nice record but have of his current 8 game regular season streak was before he got injured and was pondering how his skull would look with a giant hole in it.

His stat line looks like what Vick produced.  Sub 200 yards passing, 50-100 yards rushing, maybe a TD or two. That works great when you've got the best RB in the league (Atlanta always had good rushing attacks under Vick).  I'm not sure you're going to get consistent winning seasons and playoff wins out of his production unless he continues to improve. Vick didn't, maybe Young will.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 24, 2009, 02:26:26 PM
His stat line looks like what Vick produced.  Sub 200 yards passing, 50-100 yards rushing, maybe a TD or two. That works great when you've got the best RB in the league (Atlanta always had good rushing attacks under Vick).  I'm not sure you're going to get consistent winning seasons and playoff wins out of his production unless he continues to improve. Vick didn't, maybe Young will.

Yeah, problem is, come playoff time, games get tight, and you need QB to be able to march down the field with pinpoint accuracy in a short amount of clock time. Steelers w/Kordell Stewart compiled lots of regular season wins and took Pittsburgh to 2 championship games. And in both games, failed to deliver a last minute drive to tie/win game (though 2001 game against Patriots should be laid at special teams failure, more than anything else).

Though, OTOH, Titans looked good in 2 minute drill @ Texans Monday night, chewing up yardage in giant chunks by running and not throwing…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 24, 2009, 03:38:22 PM
Vince Young, from all indications, is a head case.  And to play QB in the NFL and be successful, you've got to be rock solid in terms of dealing with the pressure of the position and be the smartest player on the field.  He hasn't shown that, at all.  The Peyton Mannings, the Tom Brady's, and the Ben Rothlesberger's of the NFL aren't elite QB's because they're spectacular athletes.  They're elite QB's because they're exceptionally smart (brilliant, even) and are seemingly immune to pressure.  I don't think anyone would make the mistake of calling them fantastic athletes, their arm strength and accuracy aside.  You've got to know every position on the field at every given moment in every given scenario vs what the defense is showing before the snap, then make a split second decision after the snap as to what the defense is actually doing: are they showing man, but actually playing a zone, are they showing zone, but actually playing man, where is the blitz coming from, are they showing blitz, did they back off, where are the corners?  are they on the inside or outside shouder of the receiver, are they in bump and run, are the safeties rolling over in their coverage.   You've got to recognize all that, decide where you're going to throw it, and THEN know what the receiver on your read is going to do on THAT particular situation:  is the corner on man, or zone, or jamming at the line, so the reciever may adjust their route to a fly, 10 7 yard curl or 5 or 10 yard streak then cut in OR out.  All that info has to be processed in, what, half a second, with 2 to 3 more seconds (or less) to make the throw?

My brain would explode.

The main problem with 'athletic' qb's is that they take too many hits.  QB's with wheels have spent their entire careers, from tiny mite to colllege to pros being in a 'read one receiver, if open then throw it, if covered then run it' mentality.  And that's ingrained into them for years.  Then when they get to the pros (if they make it to the pros), it's still somewhat second nature and hard to shake off.  Those kinds of QB's are made QB's because they're the best athlete on the field.  They occasionally make great throws, but more often than not their success is predicated on their ability to flat out run/juke everyone else.

SYoung is a bit of an abheration in terms of success as a QB who was a pass run option QB in the West Coast offense; he was surrounded by Hall of Fame talent at every skill position.  He also didnt become a starter until something like 8 or 9 seasons in.  He had a handful of good/great years as a starter, then his skill rapidly diminished as a result of injuries, most notably concussions.

I've often wondered if the spread option offense would work in the NFL if you approached the QB position like it's done in college in terms of longevity:  assume you're going to have a QB for 2 years, 4 years max.  That's because the wear and tear from the QB taking hits pretty much every offensive play would put their average lifespan on par with that of a running back or less.  Once that QB is worn out, cut them, draft a new Michael Vick or whatever that QB that just graduated from West Virginia last year's name is.  White, or something or other.

The 'problem' with the NFL is the sheer speed of the defenses.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 24, 2009, 03:50:48 PM
SYoung is a bit of an abheration in terms of success as a QB who was a pass run option QB in the West Coast offense; he was surrounded by Hall of Fame talent at every skill position.  He also didnt become a starter until something like 8 or 9 seasons in.  He had a handful of good/great years as a starter, then his skill rapidly diminished as a result of injuries, most notably concussions.

Steve Young started in USFL, started couple seasons and incidentally still receives millions per year in $40M 40 year annuity from that time. Team (LA Express) went belly up in his 2nd season, but still he had a game where he threw 300+ yards and ran for 100+ yards, first pro to do so.

He went in supplemental draft to TB and posted a 3-16 W-L mark with 11/21 TD/INT total.

Then he sat on bench for 4 seasons until 1991. Got benched for Steve Bono, then Bono got hurt, he got another chance. 92-94 he broke out, and had great success, pro bowls + SB in 94 season.

After that injuries took their toll, but he still posted great numbers.

QB take lots of hits period — big, small, light, heavy, fast, slow… …and defensive players keep getting bigger, faster and stronger…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 24, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
The 'problem' with the NFL is the sheer speed of the defenses.

Yeah, 300+ pound DL that run 4.6 40… …that's just sick… …and deadly…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2009, 07:19:47 PM
I'm going to point out something obvious here. People don't want running QBs because it makes the game even more one-man oriented than ever. Football is the ultimate team sport, and if you have a QB running around all the time, it puts all your eggs in one basket. Typically the QBs with wheels haven't fared well either. That and I honestly believe certain fans don't want black QBs to succeed in what they consider to be the last white-dominated skill position.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 24, 2009, 07:47:27 PM
Thing is, if your QB goes down, your season is pretty much tanked.  You think the Saints would be in their position if Brees blows out his shoulder again?  Or the Steelers?  The QB is the marquee position in the NFL.  Nothing else comes close.  Maybe WR, but no matter how good a player so and so WR is, it all starts with the QB making the read and then getting the ball where it needs to go for the WR to catch it.  THAT said, a WR with hands of velcro can make any QB look good.

As far as the race thing?  Maybe.  Maybe not, these days.  It's the easiest thing to attack with, so it's the ammunition that gets used.  But I like to think we're past that.

Drooling-at-the-mouth-spit-swearing-obsessed-NFL team-fan-guy that relentlessly posts on sports blogs, calls/emails/texts/stalks the local sports talk shows, and heckles from the cheapseats isn't representative of the whole.  They're just the loudest.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 24, 2009, 07:50:40 PM
Thing is, if your QB goes down, your season is pretty much tanked.  You think the Saints would be in their position if Brees blows out his shoulder again?  Or the Steelers?  The QB is the marquee position in the NFL.  Nothing else comes close.  Maybe WR, but no matter how good a player so and so WR is, it all starts with the QB making the read and then getting the ball where it needs to go for the WR to catch it. 

As an ex defensive guy, I'd argue that a good LB can change the game.  Look at LT, Ray Lewis, Mike Singletary, Jack Lambert, etc.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2009, 07:54:11 PM
Maybe we're past the race things, but the numbers on black coaches and starting QBs make me think we're not.

I do believe that a QB regardless of where they come from is going to be defined by their game intelligence. A big problem with a lot of college QBs now is that they don't get decent development at assessing anything on the field. One of my biggest pet peeves is when a team sets up at the line, looks like they will snap the ball, and then the ENTIRE team picks their heads up like a bunch of goddamn gophers and looks back at the coaching staff changing the play.

You don't pull that kind of bullshit in the NFL.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 24, 2009, 08:20:40 PM
As an ex defensive guy, I'd argue that a good LB can change the game.  Look at LT, Ray Lewis, Mike Singletary, Jack Lambert, etc.

I don't disagree, at all.  I was just speaking purely from an offensive standpoint.

Maybe we're past the race things, but the numbers on black coaches and starting QBs make me think we're not.

Money.  Corporate sponsorships (NFL) and big time donors (college level), would take a hit - or rather, the perception is there.  Rather, the recipients of those sponsorships and donations.  NFL and college football is about one thing:  revenue.   They're not going to sell more seats, or season tickets, or sponsorships just because of a black coach, so why do it?  All they care about is winning.  Which is what drives the revenue (for the most part).  That's the biggest obstacle, I think.  Could be wrong though.

I do think that the resistance is partly due to stubborness from the owners that sit back and privately say 'YOU'RE not going to tell ME who to hire', when responding the BCA inquiries and such.

Quote
I do believe that a QB regardless of where they come from is going to be defined by their game intelligence. A big problem with a lot of college QBs now is that they don't get decent development at assessing anything on the field. One of my biggest pet peeves is when a team sets up at the line, looks like they will snap the ball, and then the ENTIRE team picks their heads up like a bunch of goddamn gophers and looks back at the coaching staff changing the play.

You don't pull that kind of bullshit in the NFL.
 

Heh.  Yeah.  I called them prarrie dogs in the college football thread.  But to be 'fair' to the NFL QB's, while they aren't looking back at the coaches, they can hear them in their helmets.  Not much difference, honestly.

The development starts in tiny mite, IMHO.  If you're a gifted athlete (black or white), you're told do this OR that, then/or run really fast while you do it.  Even the otherworld athletes aren't getting the same mental attention they're getting in physical attention.  Frankly, it's going to get worse.  The spread offense dominates high school football in terms of what systems high schools run, and sooner rather than later it's going to dominate college level systems because that's all that's what the college level talent is getting coached at.  Pretty soon, the prototypical 3/5 drop step 'pro style' QB is going to be a thing of the past in favor of the en vogue spread QB.  The spread is just an evolution of the veer, which is basically an evolution of the wishbone (or I might have that backwards).  

Then in 20 years, it will come back full circle to the pro style once someone starts having major success with it again.


So anyway.  Derailed.  If you want to talk about it, we can in PMs, but this is heading dangerously close to the cesspit forums of F13.  I SHALL NOT HAVE THE SECOND HOLIEST THREAD DISCUSSING FOOTBALL (THE FIRST BEING THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL THREAD) TARNISHED BY SUCH ACTIONS!!  :drill:  :uhrr:

How 'bout dem taints?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2009, 09:24:28 PM
The real question now is: Is it possible for two teams to pull off an undefeated season in the same year? The Colts and Saints have a chance to make history...again.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on November 24, 2009, 09:33:09 PM
The Saints have been living dangerously for a few games now, and their depleted secondary is going to catch up with them.  I actually like the Vikes to beat them come playoff time.

Indy has a better chance, imho.  But they face a streaking Tennessee, and the periodically dangerous Jaguars and Giants (and even Denver has a shot if they stop the free-fall).  There are no Clevelands or Detroits left on their schedule, but I still give them an even shot to take them all. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on November 24, 2009, 10:11:51 PM

You don't pull that kind of bullshit in the NFL.

The Colts do except they look at Manning rather than the sidelines. What that guy is currently doing is on a completely different level that I don't think we've seen in the NFL. I don't know that enough people truly appreciate it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2009, 10:22:17 PM

You don't pull that kind of bullshit in the NFL.

The Colts do except they look at Manning rather than the sidelines. What that guy is currently doing is on a completely different level that I don't think we've seen in the NFL. I don't know that enough people truly appreciate it.

Well his aw shucks demeanor makes you think he barely made it into Indy on a turnip truck. Then, he just owns you in face. He's got the voice, he's got the hard-count, and he's got the change at the line. The key for Peyton, though, is that he has the best play-action fake in the world. That's probably the most underrated part of his success.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on November 24, 2009, 11:00:03 PM

You don't pull that kind of bullshit in the NFL.

The Colts do except they look at Manning rather than the sidelines. What that guy is currently doing is on a completely different level that I don't think we've seen in the NFL. I don't know that enough people truly appreciate it.

"I just run an out route and hope he throws it to me." (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4590458)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 24, 2009, 11:21:32 PM
The Colts do except they look at Manning rather than the sidelines. What that guy is currently doing is on a completely different level that I don't think we've seen in the NFL. I don't know that enough people truly appreciate it.
Quarterbacks used to call their own plays. If you are referring to his ability to read defenses I don't know if he's the best ever but he's certainly at a level beyond what most current QBs and offenses are capable of. He really is like a player-coach out there on the field.

On a semi-related note, NBC adding Tony Dungy to Sunday Night Football/Football Night in America was awesome. I've learned tons by listening to him/watching his breakdowns. Makes me wonder what the fuck all the other coaches turned pre-game/post-game show analysts have been doing all these years.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on November 24, 2009, 11:40:29 PM
The Colts do except they look at Manning rather than the sidelines. What that guy is currently doing is on a completely different level that I don't think we've seen in the NFL. I don't know that enough people truly appreciate it.
Quarterbacks used to call their own plays.

That was a different era though. The schemes are much more complex these days. He is basically an offensive coordinator on the field given free reign. He also helps set up the defensive adjustments at halftime because he sits and watches the other offense when he is off the field.

I love that Mayne clip. Manning definitely has a good sense of humor about himself (http://www.hulu.com/watch/1603/saturday-night-live-united-way).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 24, 2009, 11:54:17 PM
I agree that football is different now with its reliance on offensive and defensive coordinators as the game has gotten more complex. On the other hand Jim Kelly, while obviously not a contemporary of Peyton, played in this same environment and he called his own plays doing exactly what Peyton does which is to line up, read the defense, and audible the play so I still don't think Peyton is unique in what he's doing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 25, 2009, 10:15:05 AM
That and I honestly believe certain fans don't want black QBs to succeed in what they consider to be the last white-dominated skill position.

HEY RUSH, HOW YOU DOING?

Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2009, 11:47:28 AM
I think you got that backwards; Rush would be one of those fans he's talking about.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 25, 2009, 12:27:46 PM
I used to love Favre's fakes with the Packers, I don't think he's selling it like that anymore.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 25, 2009, 06:46:39 PM
I think you got that backwards; Rush would be one of those fans he's talking about.

I think he missed my point as well.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on November 27, 2009, 08:19:14 AM
I forget Coach, what are we doing here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QLrXmArck) NSFW


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on November 27, 2009, 03:43:59 PM
So I got to watch (well, have it running behind me while I was working and turning to catch a few plays) the Packers and Lions yesterday because I was working. I don't own a TV so seeing any game takes an effort.

Was the first time I have watched Rodgers play a full game, and as a Packers fan, I liked what I saw. I will say that I can't for the life of me figure out how Bigby still plays for them. He lost them games with his stupid penalties years ago, and is still doing the same stupid shit.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 28, 2009, 06:34:01 AM
Aaron Rodgers has a HUGE upside.  I think he'll be a top 3 quarterback once he figures out his pocket issues.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 28, 2009, 04:11:16 PM
Aaron Rodgers has a HUGE upside.  I think he'll be a top 3 quarterback once he figures out his pocket issues gets an offensive line.

FIFY


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on November 29, 2009, 06:35:54 AM
Yeah, there are certainly issues with that line, but I still think he needs to develop better awareness, a better clock, and stop making some of the dumb plays he makes. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on November 29, 2009, 01:37:07 PM
Wow, Indy is such a great team.  They just don't get flustered.  They make corrections and put points on the board.  Of course, Manning does so many things almost to perfection.  No ones the perfect NFL player but he comes closest.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on November 30, 2009, 08:22:41 AM
Yeah, there are certainly issues with that line, but I still think he needs to develop better awareness, a better clock, and stop making some of the dumb plays he makes. 
Can't do that without a good line.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on November 30, 2009, 08:50:24 AM
Rodgers certainly has his issues, the main one being the tendency to hold onto the ball too long against good coverage. But again, if he had an O-line worth half a fuck, and he is golden.

Watched about a half of the Bears/Vikings game - what the fuck happened to the Bears? They don't run the ball at all, and Cutler is constantly running for his fucking life. Wasn't this a good O-line last year? And their defense is pretty crap too. Guess trading away the future for Cutler wasn't such a good idea after all. Maybe Orton really is better than everybody thought.

I was impressed by the Steelers backup Dixon last night. What happened to Charlie Batch? Why wasn't he starting? Not that they missed him, necessarily. I was a bit disappointed that Tomlin didn't let the kid try to make the first down on that 3rd down play late in the 4th after Baltimore tied the game. Either you try to win with the team you have, or just punt the fucking ball on 3rd down. But even with the INT that lost them the game, you still have to give the kid props. He made some good throws and good reads against a top NFL defense. I can see someone trying to sign him to start next year - maybe Carolina? And holy fuck, Carolina - I think Jake Delhomme's days as a starting QB in the NFL are sadly over.

I still have doubts about the Colts in the playoffs, both for their lack of running game, their banged up defense and their young recieving corps. But they are getting the shit done in the regular season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on November 30, 2009, 08:52:06 AM
Batch, I think, went down with a back injury in the same game that Rothlesberger went out with a concussion.  But yeah, Dixon looked pretty sharp.  Definately has some wheels on him.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on November 30, 2009, 09:05:49 AM
Batch, I think, went down with a back injury in the same game that Rothlesberger went out with a concussion.  But yeah, Dixon looked pretty sharp.  Definately has some wheels on him.

Batch is out with a wrist injury that required surgery.   Dixon looked really good - the sorry excuse that is the Ravens secondary helps, but the kid showed some great speed and promise.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on November 30, 2009, 01:50:45 PM
So I got to watch (well, have it running behind me while I was working and turning to catch a few plays) the Packers and Lions yesterday because I was working. I don't own a TV so seeing any game takes an effort.

Was the first time I have watched Rodgers play a full game, and as a Packers fan, I liked what I saw. I will say that I can't for the life of me figure out how Bigby still plays for them. He lost them games with his stupid penalties years ago, and is still doing the same stupid shit.

Eh, the Lions defense will make any QB look all-pro. Brady Quinn put up huge numbers the week before, with an offense that struggles to tally a TD a game against any other squad…

Steelers seemed to handcuff Dixon too much — too many 3rd downs, they just gave up and ran the ball. Then all of a sudden in 4th quarter, expect him to run hurry-up and zone defense seemed to confuse him. Which Ravens smartly pocketed that trend for OT…

Game of the week (thus far, maybe tonight big matchup surpasses) was Vince Young v. Matt Leinart Rose Bowl Redux and VY going 99 yards, converting 3 4th downs, throwing from the pocket, and finishing with game winning TD pass with 0:00 left. And Chris Johnson, who did have another typical Chris Johnson performance (close to 200 YFS, 150 yards rushing), was almost invisible on that last drive, though he did do some blitz blocking…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on November 30, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
And Chris Johnson, who did have another typical Chris Johnson performance (close to 200 YFS, 150 yards rushing), was almost invisible on that last drive, though he did do some blitz blocking…

That's an incredibly important role for a RB.  It's just not as glamorous. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on November 30, 2009, 08:38:05 PM
WHO DAT?!?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on November 30, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
At this point, best team in the league. Sorry Peyton.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on November 30, 2009, 09:35:54 PM
So, who beats the Saints?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on November 30, 2009, 09:56:03 PM
Looking at their remaining schedule, uh.. the Cowboys? Falcons? 16-0 looking downright easy.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: BoatApe on November 30, 2009, 10:01:56 PM
WHO DAT?!?  :awesome_for_real:

A fellow traveler!?
It's been a looong time comin' but we look damn good at this point. McKenzie acted like he was glad to be home.

Lotta good football handegg yet to go this year.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on November 30, 2009, 10:20:40 PM
At this point, best team in the league. Sorry Peyton.
I know who you meant but Sean Peyton is the head coach. :awesome_for_real:

I also think the Vikings are better than the Colts at the moment.

Peyton (Manning, that is) still is my pick for MVP up to now, though.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on December 01, 2009, 03:39:16 AM
Saints are best team right now I agree.  I can't wait for the Indy/TN game next week. OMG.  I bet Bud Adams is driving Fisher crazy;  "I told ya VY can do it I told ya!"  Unfortunately, Peyton should shred the Titans weaksauce secondary.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on December 01, 2009, 08:12:42 AM
Holy crap what a game.  Seemed like everytime the Saints O took the field Brees was going vertical. 

(Bourbon Street was insane last night.  Reminded me of Mardi Gras.  Havent been to sleep yet.  Time for bed.)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 01, 2009, 08:40:57 AM
Fucking fantastic game unless you're a Pats fan. Yeah, Saints are hands down the best team in the league without any hesitation. Without Reggie Bush or Lance Moore, they still shredded that defense with impunity. That long TD to Henderson where the closest defender was 30 yards back upfield was just  :awesome_for_real:

It's a 3-team league at the moment, and the Vikings are the only team that can maybe beat the Saints. I think the Colts are 11-0 because they are that much better than everyone else in the AFC that they've played, but I'm not sure they can beat either the Vikes or the Saints. The Vikes can shut their offense down, while the Saints can outshoot them. At this rate, if the Vikes play the Saints in the NFC championship game, that'll be a more interesting game than any Super Bowl matchup possible. The dark horse AFC team is the Chargers though - they've got the same strengths and problems that the Colts do, they just lost a few early games due to having no running game. But the Bolts are clicking on all cylinders now, so that will be an interesting matchup when/if it happens.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on December 01, 2009, 08:54:47 AM
I really thought the Pats were going to give them a game, so much so that it wasn't until the last hour before kickoff that I changed my pick to New Orleans.  But holy God, did they give them a a good old fashioned cornhole stomping.  What a thing of beauty.

The Vikings might be able to give them a game.  Only (I think) a team that can slow down that offense and put up big numbers of their own has a chance (other than the usual Any Given Sunday puncher's chance that all teams have).  Vikings are the only team that fit the mold.  I like both of those teams a lot, so I don't even know who I root for.

I know who I'm not rooting for, though, and that's the same tired old AFC that never seem to go away.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on December 06, 2009, 01:35:24 PM
Talk about Trap Game Day.  Good christ.  Saints are only maybe avoiding it because the Redskins are that bad.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on December 06, 2009, 02:44:12 PM
I cannot believe NO pulled that off.  No way Washington can lose that game, and somehow they managed it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2009, 04:51:13 PM
Wow, Miami over NE; Oakland over Pittsburgh; NO over Wash; crazy-ass week!  This shit is exactly why I watch the NFL. 

My prediction was right as well;  Indy beat TN.  TN HAS to win out to get a wild card shot.  Probably just not gonna happen.
Oh and Tony Dungy is great on "Football Night in America", Rodney Harrison sucks.  Something about him makes me want to punch my TV.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on December 06, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
I went from despising the Raiders to loving them very quickly.  Fuck you Steelers.  Them not making the playoffs would be so sweet.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 07, 2009, 05:38:11 AM
Oh and Tony Dungy is great on "Football Night in America", Rodney Harrison sucks.  Something about him makes me want to punch my TV.

He comes off as an overly arrogant douchebag. I'm not sure if that's really him or if that's just him being uncomfortable in front of the camera.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 07, 2009, 06:08:06 AM
Something about the field at Heinz this weekend... I mean that Oak/Pitt game was insane at the end and so was the Cin/Pitt game the day before. Actually was a fabulous football weekend in Pittsburgh aside from the losing, which I don't mind so much...(keeps the natives in check around here).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on December 07, 2009, 06:50:49 AM
What the hell happened to the Vikes? The Cards put on a hell of a show last night, both of the Card's lines were superb.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on December 07, 2009, 07:07:12 AM
Favre threw a vintage Favre interception.  What we now call a "Cutler". 

Shut down AP, contain the pass rush, and hope Favre has a few senior moments and you can beat them. It's not terribly easy to accomplish the first two and Favre hasn't really shown that he's in his late season decline yet.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 07, 2009, 08:16:01 AM
Vikings had a bad game and the Cardinals had an exceptional one and get less credit than they deserve for being a good team.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on December 07, 2009, 08:17:13 AM
That throw and catch to Boldin along the sideline was a top 10 of the season play candidate.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on December 07, 2009, 08:31:20 AM
Vikings had a bad game and the Cardinals had an exceptional one and get less credit than they deserve for being a good team.

Everyone has been anticipating a Favre collapse in December, the real question is, is this it?  Also, last season Arizona didn't get their act together until late in the season, so I'm curious to see if they are for real.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 07, 2009, 09:44:57 AM
I cannot believe NO pulled that off.  No way Washington can lose that game, and somehow they managed it.

Washington Redskins: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory one game at a time.

How the fuck do you miss that chip shot to ice the game? As for the OT fumble, I still think that that was an incomplete pass, but hey, I'm not going to look a gift fumble in the mouth.

Loved watching the Cowboys start their usual December self-destruct sequence. The Giants won that game for one reason: they actually tackled the Cowboys' running backs. There weren't a lot of missed tackles, so the 'Boys couldn't get a good running game going. Romo didn't suck, but he couldn't carry the team on his own.

FUCK YOU, FAV-RAH! You got beat by the Cards. That was another game where the defense didn't miss a lot of tackles and that was what kept Peterson bottled up. And goddamnit, but the Cards have the best wideout corp in the game, hands down. Boldin's touchdown where he pulled the ball in from behind him and then just ran around motherfuckers? Beautiful.

Now I need the Packers to cream the Ravens and my football weekend will be complete.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on December 07, 2009, 09:59:33 AM
Vikings had a bad game and the Cardinals had an exceptional one and get less credit than they deserve for being a good team.

Everyone has been anticipating a Favre collapse in December, the real question is, is this it?  Also, last season Arizona didn't get their act together until late in the season, so I'm curious to see if they are for real.

Arizona is a better team in 2009 than 2008.

Defensive line, when healthy, one of the best in league (Dockett, Berry), secondary is above average, arguably best receiver unit, improved running game (Beanie Wells) and future Hall of Fame QB Kurt Warner…

…looming weakness would be in the form of a crushing hit on Warner (of which he is far more susceptible than any of the other top notch NFL QBs) that delivers career ending concussion and leaves Cardinals fate to Leinart.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 07, 2009, 10:01:08 AM
The Cards will be saved if they are the wildcard team methinks. No one should be THAT good in other teams' buildings....


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on December 07, 2009, 11:19:52 AM
Leinart's not too bad and you've gotta have some love for teams that close the season strong going into the playoffs.

But...I don't see them beating the Saints.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on December 07, 2009, 11:48:54 AM
I thought Minnesota might have had a chance to beat the Saints, but not after seeing the way they played last night.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on December 07, 2009, 12:02:08 PM
Writing the Vikings off after that game seems silly to me.  The Cards are a playoff team, a superbowl team and improved in every way from last year.  It was a home game and the Cards played their best game of the season from what everyone is saying.

Its possible that this is the end of the Vikings but considering their defense let them down, then AP got shut down, then Favre threw some picks in that situation all the people who are stroking their Favre can't play a full season hard on are way ahead of themselves.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on December 07, 2009, 12:12:22 PM
I'm not writing off the Vikings as some kind of bad team.  I still think they're the second best team in the NFC.  I just don't give them much of a chance against the Saints.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 07, 2009, 12:15:23 PM
Actually, I think the Vikes match up quite well to the Saints for one reason. The Saints' defense, even at its best this year, cannot stop Adrian Peterson like the Cardinals did. Their defense is not even close to being on par with the Cards or the Vikings. While their O line probably could stop the pass rush of the Vikings as well as the Cards did (because the Cards O line isn't great), the Saints defensive line and linebackers aren't nearly as good at tackling AP as the Cards were last night. The only question about the Saints/Vikes matchup is can the Saints passing game outscore the Vikings running/passing game?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on December 07, 2009, 03:35:18 PM

Their defense is not even close to being on par with the Cards or the Vikings.

This is not borne out statistically, at least.

Scoring defense: NO is within a point and a half of the other two
Passing defense: They're almost even with the Vikings on yards/game and well ahead of Arizona, and notably have more pass deflections than anyone else
Rushing defense: This is where they suffer, they're way behind the Vikings and about 10 yards/game behind Arizona (but not as far behind as Arizona is behind them on passing)
Other misc stats: NO has a lot less sacks, but a bunch more turnovers forced (more INTs than the other 2 teams put together.) They've also scored *8* defensive touchdowns.

All in all I think they hold up pretty well under scrutiny. They're probably a little behind overall, but with all those turnovers and extra points scored I think they make up for being a little weak against the run.

You might also want to note that NO has more rushing yards/game and rushing TDs than Minnesota does, so I wouldn't necessarily write that part of their offense off.

Now I'd say NO has probably played a weaker schedule, so grain of salt, etc.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 07, 2009, 05:43:53 PM
Loved watching the Cowboys start their usual December self-destruct sequence. The Giants won that game for one reason: they actually tackled the Cowboys' running backs. There weren't a lot of missed tackles, so the 'Boys couldn't get a good running game going. Romo didn't suck, but he couldn't carry the team on his own.

Romo didn't suck? That's all you're going to give the guy? 41/55, 392 yards, and 3 TDs with no picks? He had the best QB rating of anybody for the week!

The Cowboys lost because Barber fumbled the ball away at the end of the first half, giving the Giants an easy TD. Then the defense forgot how to play and let Jacobs rumble 75 yards on a screen pass. THEN, the special teams let them get TD on an 80 yard punt return.

It had nothing to do with Romo and everything with the team literally taking 3 plays off.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 08, 2009, 05:52:01 AM
Now I need the Packers to cream the Ravens and my football weekend will be complete.

And there you have it...


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on December 08, 2009, 06:01:14 AM
Now I need the Packers to cream the Ravens and my football weekend will be complete.

And there you have it...

Pretty much.   Packers spanked the Ravens hard.   :sad_panda:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 08, 2009, 09:28:13 AM
It had nothing to do with Romo and everything with the team literally taking 3 plays off.

That was kind of my point. Romo didn't lose them that game, and despite the great stat line, he also didn't win them that game. Good QB's have great stats when their team loses them the game. Great QB's (like every cocksucker has proclaimed Romo to be) gets his team a win despite the foibles of his team. When Romo is on, he does that. After November and when it's really counted, Romo hasn't. Until he gets over that hump, he'll have the same rep Peyton Manning did before he won his Super Bowl. Good stat guy, can't win the big one. Only Romo hasn't even won the little big one yet.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 08, 2009, 03:50:17 PM
Hard to win tough games when you're coached by the Pillsbury Dough Puppet.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sickrubik on December 10, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
 :ye_gods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzbIt37FVo


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 10, 2009, 01:55:14 PM
Fucking cajuns.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sickrubik on December 10, 2009, 02:18:46 PM
I thought the video was bad enough when they were mixing alcohol and firearms, but then the guy rams is head into the screen. I really thought the video was going a different direction at that point.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on December 11, 2009, 12:19:52 AM
Now that's just unreal. Talk about a team that somehow, someway just quit. Do they want a coach gone? Losing to the 1-11 BROWNS?! WTF am I gonna do with the Towel now...


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Triforcer on December 11, 2009, 12:23:10 AM
Bah.  Now my Browns won't get Suh  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 11, 2009, 03:04:25 AM
As a Browns fan, last night was kittens and blood. Great for Cleveland fans to get a win over a past arch rival. Ohio football is strange in that we have been such perennial losers for so long that in terms of big time football, there are only two golden rules - beat Michigan and beat Pittsburgh. The game last night was just horrible on both sides of the ball save the Browns D, but to beat the Steelers and end their hopes of the playoffs (unless some miracle happens) makes the medicine go down.

As a Browns fan in Pittsburgh, its all the sweeter finally watching that arrogance in the fans dry up as they try to rationalize what the hell just happened. I am going to listen intently to all the reasons today about why Pittsburgh imploded.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on December 11, 2009, 05:49:49 AM
Watching the Ravens implode is killing me.  But seeing the Steelers do it even more so makes the pain go away.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on December 11, 2009, 05:53:57 AM
I enjoy watching the Steelers lose as much as the next fellow, but could they please not do it so much when I'm counting on their defense to put up at least 15 points for my fantasy league playoff game?  It was god damned Cleveland, for chrissakes!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 11, 2009, 05:55:49 AM
WTF happened last night? I mean, I'm definitely one for dancing on the grave of your hated teams, but holy shit; Cleveland??  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 11, 2009, 06:35:42 AM
I enjoy watching the Steelers lose as much as the next fellow, but could they please not do it so much when I'm counting on their defense to put up at least 15 points for my fantasy league playoff game?  It was god damned Cleveland, for chrissakes!

Cleveland's defense has not been that bad this year, though most of the starters are on IR now (which makes last night even more wtf-ish). The offense however... yeah, how the fuck do you win a game when your quarterback throws under 100 yards on 6 completions and your starting HB is also sub 100 rushing? You give the ball to the only player on the team. Why LeBeau did not have 2 people accounting for him is beyond me - though the Steelers special teams have sucked ass all year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 11, 2009, 06:45:55 AM
I didn't watch the game last night - after all, it's the fucking Browns against the Steelers. Should be a walk for Pittsburgh right?

Holy fuck. Just looking at the box score fills me with bafflement. SIX FUCKING COMPLETIONS? AND YOU WIN? AND THERE ARE NO TURNOVERS ON EITHER SIDE?

How fucking bad was that game? It sounds like it was pure awful.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on December 11, 2009, 07:31:27 AM
I watched about 10 minutes of the game and then when flicking through channels ended up watching part of a show about professional BBQ contestants in the south and forgot the game was even on.  So yeah, pretty F'ing bad.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on December 11, 2009, 08:00:20 AM
I didn't watch the game last night - after all, it's the fucking Browns against the Steelers. Should be a walk for Pittsburgh right?

Holy fuck. Just looking at the box score fills me with bafflement. SIX FUCKING COMPLETIONS? AND YOU WIN? AND THERE ARE NO TURNOVERS ON EITHER SIDE?

How fucking bad was that game? It sounds like it was pure awful.

Shame in Steeler Nation.

From Super Bowl Champs driving for seven to now, arguably, one of the worst teams in the league.

Coming into Cleveland, at 6-6, could have easily been 11-1, considering that Steelers have coughed up 5 4th quarter leads.

Against the 32nd ranked run defense and 32nd ranked pass defense, could not even muster a touchdown.

Roethlisberger sacked 8 times by that 32nd ranked defense.

Browns score only TD, 1st rushing TD of the year for them and almost put a 200 spot in yards rushing against Steelers.

Steelers secondary and special teams woes continue, and defense seems to be challenged at simple tackling, something that even past mediocre Steeler squads never displayed.

Watching, just thinking and yelling "COME ON MAN", but it looks like they quit on the season already. Or maybe age has caught up to some of them — Farrior looks done, Ward should have sat the game out, it looks like they need to replace 4/5 of the offensive line and 2/3 of the defensive line, gut the secondary, start over on special teams, etc.…

And Tomlin and Lebeau who looked like geniuses last season, appear brain locked and badly outcoached this season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on December 11, 2009, 09:08:06 AM
The defense's job is to keep the other team from scoring.  The Steelers defense is #3 in the NFL in points allowed.  Hell, after this week it will likely be #2.  This despite havinig 2 of their best players out for most of the year. It's absurd to blame Lebeau and defense for this season.  The offense is #14 in points scored.  Shockingly, the combo of (mediocre-at-best line)+(QB who holds on the ball too long)+(WRs who can't get open quickly) isn't quire the path to glory we all expected.  And the special teams is just abysmal - four interception kickoff returns for TDs and several other very long returns? It's enough to make one forget the FG-kicking debacle in chicago.

If the game's 40% offense, 40% defense, and 20% special teams, a team with a 13-3 defense, an 8-8 offense, and an 0-16 special teams should come out to about 8-8 or 9-7, which looks like we're headed.

On the bright side, unless Dallas has a crazy run we'll still be alone with 7 Super Bowls.  I still feel oddly dead inside.  


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on December 11, 2009, 09:48:58 AM
What does interceptions being returned for TDs have to do with special teams?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on December 11, 2009, 10:28:57 AM
Yeah I don't think you can put this on the coaches, something happened in that locker room.  I mean they beat the Chargers and the Vikings before the bye, lost to the Bears and the Bengals (who dey!) they come off the bye and beat the Broncos in game two of their slump.  Then they loose to the Bengals again and it was very different from the first game, where Palmer had to miracle a 4th quarter win and needed some luck and help to do it.  The second Bengals v Steelers game we fucking roughed them up, we stomped on them and beat them at everything Pittsburgh is supposed to do better.  Fucking manhandled.  From that point on, they've lost every game.  Purely be being out motivated the way I see it.

Tomlin looked like he was holding back tears.  I don't put it on him or LaBeau I put it on Big Ben mostly and whoever else needed to be rallying the troops in that locker room.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sickrubik on December 11, 2009, 10:45:33 AM
Yeah, I don't know if Ben has any real leadership anymore in that locker room. I think Hines Ward's comments about him a couple weeks ago are possibly even more interesting now. (Even though Ward gave him crap for being 'injured' and then promptly got injured himself.)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 13, 2009, 04:54:11 PM
And December continues for Dallas.  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on December 13, 2009, 05:06:10 PM
Watching Dallas and Pittsburgh tank is like an early Christmas present. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on December 14, 2009, 06:27:36 AM
Except with Dallas it's more like a Hannukah present, because it always starts pretty early in December.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 14, 2009, 06:34:33 AM
Watching Dallas and Pittsburgh tank is like an early Christmas present. 

Of course the repercussions of the Browns beating the Steelers means Cleveland will have Mangini back next year. How one game makes up for a full season of sucking is... well, only in Ohio.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 14, 2009, 09:19:12 AM
Cleveland has sucked for years. Even the good years have been borderline sucky. I think Mangini's only failing this year was taking a coaching job in Cleveland. Everything after that was pretty much written in blood.

New Orleans at least made the Falcons' game interesting. Kudos to Mike Smith for making a game plan that Chris Redman could execute and have a chance to win with. Oh and for not having a stroke at the ticky-tack pass interference calls that were flying around. Of course, that's been kind of a theme this year. Pass interference is getting called for the cheapest bullshit. Not only can you not breathe on a QB in the pocket, you can't even look at a receiver in anger.

Watching the Cowboys blow a winnable game with missed field goals was loltastic, but the most satisfying part was seeing them fuck up a goal-line run FOUR STRAIGHT TIMES. You have no excuses if you can't punch Marion Barber into the endzone from a yard out with 4 downs. You just can't miss that.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on December 14, 2009, 03:19:54 PM
What does interceptions being returned for TDs have to do with special teams?

I was so excited I got my forms of fail mixed up. That should be kickoffs returned for TDs. Or kick-offs returned for TDs. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on December 14, 2009, 03:29:50 PM
Watching Dallas and Pittsburgh tank is like an early Christmas present. 

One of the interesting things about the Steelers is that, unlike other teams that have a similar history of success in a given sport and a ton of bandwagon fans (the Yankees, the Cowboys, Notre Dame, the Lakers), they don't have a huge number of people who ravenously hate them.  Except here, that is :pedobear:  I'm having trouble thinking of another team like that.  Maybe the Celtics.

I mean, obviously there's hatred from fans of traditional rivals.  But there are millions of people who have nothing in the world to do with the Yankees who would root for Al-Qaeda if it was playing against the Bronx Bombers in the Series.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on December 14, 2009, 07:35:12 PM
Watching Dallas and Pittsburgh tank is like an early Christmas present. 

One of the interesting things about the Steelers is that, unlike other teams that have a similar history of success in a given sport and a ton of bandwagon fans (the Yankees, the Cowboys, Notre Dame, the Lakers), they don't have a huge number of people who ravenously hate them.  Except here, that is :pedobear:  I'm having trouble thinking of another team like that.  Maybe the Celtics.

I mean, obviously there's hatred from fans of traditional rivals.  But there are millions of people who have nothing in the world to do with the Yankees who would root for Al-Qaeda if it was playing against the Bronx Bombers in the Series.

It is all about attitude of the team and the fans.

Dallas, the Lakers, and the Yankees and their fans all act like they shit fucking gold turds and are total cockgoblins towards anyone who says shit about their teams. Overall the Steelers are historically a working class team from a blue-collar town. Also, I have never noticed the sheer number of bandwagoners for the Steelers as I see for the other three.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 15, 2009, 05:24:25 AM
So does Arizona just lack focus? Because they played an awesome game against the Vikings and apparently turned around and played a shitty one against the 49'ers of all teams. It can't be talent because they have that.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 15, 2009, 06:09:19 AM
So does Arizona just lack focus? Because they played an awesome game against the Vikings and apparently turned around and played a shitty one against the 49'ers of all teams. It can't be talent because they have that.

Perhaps its another team that plays down (or up) to the competition's level.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on December 15, 2009, 11:50:19 AM
The 49ers D gives Warner a lot of problems. He threw 2 INTs in each game this season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on December 15, 2009, 11:57:06 AM
It will be interesting to see how Arizona does against Green Bay.  If Warner struggled with the DBs of the 49'ers, he'll have fits with the GB corners.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 15, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
The 49ers are one of the few ballhawking teams out there in the West. They just gave the Cardinals fits with all the turnovers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: SnakeCharmer on December 19, 2009, 08:04:02 PM
Saints getting romped by the Cowboys...24-10, with about 8 minutes left in the 4th.

Saints just scored to make it 24-17 Cowboys.

Come on Brees.  Pull some magic out of the hat.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on December 19, 2009, 08:19:52 PM
I can't believe Folk missed that field goal (didn't this already happen against Washington?). If Brees goes down and forces overtime then wins I'm going to die laughing.

edit: Nope, no Brees magic tonight. At least they'll have that monkey off their backs going into the postseason.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 20, 2009, 04:53:10 AM
Haha... Out of all of the teams to beat NO.

I've been sort of disgusted all year, but damn.. I guess I'm still a happy Dallas fan after all.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on December 20, 2009, 11:37:34 AM
Yep, oh well. that was fun while it lasted, but now they get to take their frustrations out on the Bucs and the Panthers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 20, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
HOW BOUT DEM COWBOYS!!!  :heart:

The game nobody thought we'd win, we did. Now watch us tank it against Washington.  :ye_gods:

EDIT: If they don't fire Folk, I'd be shocked. Surgury or not, I don't want him kicking for the Cowboys in the playoffs if he can't kick a gameover 27 yarder. It's not the first time either. I'd take Elam right now over Folk, because I think he got a raw deal with the Falcons.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on December 20, 2009, 01:05:44 PM
They should pick up Louis Sakoda.  He came out of Utah last year and is a great kicker. He went up to Canada and did pretty well with the Rough Riders and is just sitting around right now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Montague on December 20, 2009, 04:38:56 PM
Bill Belichick's stunt has a lot of NFL coaches calling plays like frustrated 14 yr olds playing Madden. Tomlin onside kicking while up by 2 is just plain stupid.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on December 21, 2009, 05:15:06 AM
I have no comment other than to say what a crazy, fucked up week of NFL games.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nevermore on December 21, 2009, 07:15:30 AM
Yes, and all my fantasy players decided to suck ass this week.  Brees, Benson, Sidney Rice, Denver defense, the list goes on.  At the end of the regular season I was almost 250 points up on the second place team, and now I lose before even making the finals because everyone decided to suck at once.  Why couldn't Marshall have had one of the best WR fantasy games of all time this week instead of last week?  :facepalm: :angryfist:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 21, 2009, 08:01:02 AM
Bill Belichick's stunt has a lot of NFL coaches calling plays like frustrated 14 yr olds playing Madden. Tomlin onside kicking while up by 2 is just plain stupid.

And yet the motherfucking Packers STILL found a way to lose. What the hell, man?

Also, what the fuck happened to the Vikes? I didn't Tivo the game because I figured the Panthers would shit up the field with their defense and Matt Moore would get killed. Then I go and miss them losing again! FUCK.

The Cowboys winning was all on the fact that they didn't make any mistakes - other than not having a kicker worth a rat fuck. Maybe Folk can go join Mason Crosby on the shitheap. Fuckers. The Saints defense didn't stop Dallas enough, and the Dallas D was excellent for much of the night. Fucking New Orleans never committed to the run, and the normally weak Cowboys defensive backfield was just good enough.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on December 21, 2009, 08:03:51 AM
That Vikings Panthers game was awful.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 21, 2009, 08:14:23 AM
Panther's played a great defensive game. Receivers were constantly covered, AP was shut down, and Favre had Peppers in his face all night. I know the typical blame lies on Favre's shoulders, but this wasn't on him at all from what I saw especially considering he had no picks. He just didn't have anywhere to throw the ball other than away. And when he did, the receiver either dropped it or he had to tuck up because Peppers once again got past McKinnie.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 22, 2009, 04:02:22 AM
Nick Folk is usually solid. I hope they don't get rid of him. He's the least of their problems. Such as the... the coach, quarterback, offensive coordinator. I mean, basically everything that matters to a team is a clusterfuck with the Cowboys.

I still like the Cowboys as a rule.. but I'm not going to bullshit myself into thinking that beating NO actually means anything. It doesn't.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 22, 2009, 05:40:42 PM
Nick Folk is usually solid. I hope they don't get rid of him. He's the least of their problems. Such as the... the coach, quarterback, offensive coordinator. I mean, basically everything that matters to a team is a clusterfuck with the Cowboys.

I still like the Cowboys as a rule.. but I'm not going to bullshit myself into thinking that beating NO actually means anything. It doesn't.

He was solid last year. This year he's missed more FG's than anyone in the league. How many is that? TEN. You can basically count on him shanking one every single game he plays this season. I don't care if you were 100% in 2008 and won the Lou Groza award in college, you'll still get your ass cut if you go one season as the dead last kicker in the league.

Are we just supposed to wait for him to screw up in the last two games and cost us the playoff shot? The team rightly wasn't willing to take that chance. They cut him today in favor of Suisham, who was dumped by the 'Skins. People remember him screwing up in the NO game, but he's 18/21 on the season, so I like the addition.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 22, 2009, 10:59:41 PM
Fair enough, but more important elements of the team deserve the rage. I guess that's what I'm saying. Hell, even the owner needs to go! But I digress.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 24, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
Actually, the way I look at it, the Cowboys special teams and pass defense have been the elements that cost them games. They are HORRIBLE against the screen pass, they are third most in the league in penalties, they have been missing regular FGs, they can't get any decent kick returns, and they are bad on kick coverage.

The only thing keeping them afloat is a top 5 offense and a stout rushing D.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ozzu on December 24, 2009, 05:37:35 PM
Nick Folk is usually solid. I hope they don't get rid of him. He's the least of their problems. Such as the... the coach, quarterback, offensive coordinator. I mean, basically everything that matters to a team is a clusterfuck with the Cowboys.

I still like the Cowboys as a rule.. but I'm not going to bullshit myself into thinking that beating NO actually means anything. It doesn't.

Do you even watch football? Really? Romo is the problem with the Cowboys?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ozzu on December 24, 2009, 05:46:53 PM
Actually, the way I look at it, the Cowboys special teams and pass defense have been the elements that cost them games. They are HORRIBLE against the screen pass, they are third most in the league in penalties, they have been missing regular FGs, they can't get any decent kick returns, and they are bad on kick coverage.

The only thing keeping them afloat is a top 5 offense and a stout rushing D.

The issue with the Cowboys is that their inside linebackers are pretty slow. Brooking has been really good, but he's still like 70 and not that fast. James is slow. Their safeties are iffy as well. Their corners are great, their d-line is top notch, and their outside linebackers are one of the better tandems in the league.

Penalties have been an issue for the Cowboys for quite a while now. They've been better in recent weeks, but it's not uncommon for double digit penalties. Even when Parcells, the hardass, were coaching here, we still weren't very good in that department. Getting rid of Flozell Adams in the offseason will help a lot in that department. He's a penalty magnet and just not good enough as an LT anymore to warrant sticking with him through that shit.

Buehler has made the Cowboys one of the better teams as far as opponent starting position on kickoffs in the league. McBriar is one of the best punters in the league. I'm not sure where the hate is warranted on any special teams unit besides the one that Nick Folk single-handedly fucked up, which is FGs, and we found our replacement a few days ago in Suisham.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 25, 2009, 02:30:32 AM
Nick Folk is usually solid. I hope they don't get rid of him. He's the least of their problems. Such as the... the coach, quarterback, offensive coordinator. I mean, basically everything that matters to a team is a clusterfuck with the Cowboys.

I still like the Cowboys as a rule.. but I'm not going to bullshit myself into thinking that beating NO actually means anything. It doesn't.

Do you even watch football? Really? Romo is the problem with the Cowboys?  :uhrr:

Romo isn't one of the elites, and I will accept no less for the Cowboys.  :grin: Things are different in Texas man. If you're merely good, you suck. If you're great, you're just OK.

Romo isn't the main problem though. Wade is. Mr-I just saw the worst fucking play in my entire life and I have no expression on my face-Wade. What kind of fucking coach does that? I'd rather not try to figure it out. Someone fire Gruden from ABC or something. Let him work in Texas instead. That's what we need. Someone who's pissed all the time. Err.. except we already had someone even better than that. Parcells.. Sadly, guys like Parcells or Gruden never work well with the Cowboys. Because of Jones. We're basically fucked on coaches, so I shouldn't even complain about it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ozzu on December 25, 2009, 10:20:08 AM
Romo isn't one of the elites, and I will accept no less for the Cowboys.  :grin: Things are different in Texas man. If you're merely good, you suck. If you're great, you're just OK.

Romo isn't the main problem though. Wade is. Mr-I just saw the worst fucking play in my entire life and I have no expression on my face-Wade. What kind of fucking coach does that? I'd rather not try to figure it out. Someone fire Gruden from ABC or something. Let him work in Texas instead. That's what we need. Someone who's pissed all the time. Err.. except we already had someone even better than that. Parcells.. Sadly, guys like Parcells or Gruden never work well with the Cowboys. Because of Jones. We're basically fucked on coaches, so I shouldn't even complain about it.

I live in Texas, too. Until Romo wins a Super Bowl, he will never be completely accepted in Dallas no matter how well he plays. I understand that. However, people just don't realize how good he is. There's no other QB in this league that can do the things Romo does behind this shit o-line. Imagine if they actually gave him a clean pocket to work with on a regular basis. If he wins a Super Bowl, he'll be adored. Then he'll get old and his play will fall off and people will boo him like they did at the end of Aikman's career. We're tough on QBs.

Yes, I'm not a fan of Wade as the HC. I'd go for Gruden, but he just signed an extension with ESPN and he seems pretty content to stay there for at least another year. I'm guessing it's going to be Garrett and I think he might be alright as an HC. He strikes me as much more of a hardass than Wade, but not so far in that direction as someone like Parcells.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 25, 2009, 10:44:47 AM
Problem with Garrett is that he has a hard on for QB's... he was a QB, I think. Which doesn't help when that isn't exactly some big glaring strong point. He squanders good running opportunities. Barber's been capable in the past of getting as many yds per carry as the best RB's in the league. But when you compare him to everyone else, he's got a shit total. That's what I call squandering. Anyways, it's probably past his prime now, and he's been hurt a bit, but I hold it against Garrett for barely using him in the first place. I remember Parcells had more planned than that.

edit: This goes without saying that Barber barely needs an O-line! :grin: He is an O-line. Smaller version of Bo Jackson imo.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 26, 2009, 12:27:27 PM
Buehler has made the Cowboys one of the better teams as far as opponent starting position on kickoffs in the league. McBriar is one of the best punters in the league. I'm not sure where the hate is warranted on any special teams unit besides the one that Nick Folk single-handedly fucked up, which is FGs, and we found our replacement a few days ago in Suisham.

They probably don't deserve a lot of crap on kick coverage, but it's fresh in the mind of fans that they gave up a huge game-changer return TD to the Giants that helped seal the game. As far as returns of their own, they are very good on punts, but shitty on kickoffs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on December 28, 2009, 08:12:12 AM
Fuck the Colts for pulling Manning and giving the Jets a win!  Now I gotta hope for the Pats and Bengals to care about seeding enough to beat the Texans and Jets, respectively, for the Steelers to sneak in the playoff backdoor.

Of course, if I were the Colts I would have locked Manning locked in a hyperbaric chamber two weeks ago.  But I can still be mad on the Internet, right?



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 28, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Fuck the Colts for pulling Manning and giving the Jets a win!  Now I gotta hope for the Pats and Bengals to care about seeding enough to beat the Texans and Jets, respectively, for the Steelers to sneak in the playoff backdoor.

Of course, if I were the Colts I would have locked Manning locked in a hyperbaric chamber two weeks ago.  But I can still be mad on the Internet, right?

Tough call to pull the starters. My opinion, it was a shit call. Manning is durable - he is not going to suddenly shatter. The man is about as smart as they come and is very aware when to make the quick throws to avoid sacks and hits. The call just cheapened the game which is fucking nonsense and should not happen in professional sports. Your players are there to play and they know every snap there is a chance to get hurt.

The real wtf situation is brewing in NOLA. Seriously? Tampa Bay? Seriously?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on December 28, 2009, 10:19:41 AM
Personally no worries at NO unless the same thing happens next week.  They were trying to take it easy,  and would have won the game if not for 1: punt return for touchdown and 2: the missed field goal.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 28, 2009, 11:49:43 PM
Both the Saints and the Vikes have something to worry about. They've played like shit for 3 straight weeks. Both defenses & special teams have been inept at the worst possible times. The offenses have been inconsistent. It's a terrible way to coast into the playoffs.

Also, Favre just lost to Jay Fucking Cutler. Fuck you very much.  :drill:

The Colts pulling their starters is completely understandable, but still sucks monkey ass. The fans get to see some shit play for almost half the game, and the Jets get the chance to be in the playoffs that they really do not deserve. They will get hammered by a team taking the game seriously.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on December 29, 2009, 02:48:03 AM
The Colts pulling their starters is completely understandable

Eh, I disagree.  I think if you get a shot at making history, you take it.  There's 43 teams out there that have won Super Bowls.  There's one that's had an undefeated season.  Unless it's a team you're a fan of, you probably couldn't tell me off the top of your head who won the Super Bowl in a particular year.  Most football fans know the '72 Dolphins.  Besides that, the Colts also had a record 23 game regular season winning streak going.   I think showing a complete lack of balls here and playing it safe is only going to be bad for the team going forward anyway.  Nothing like stopping your own teams momentum right before the fucking playoffs.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on December 29, 2009, 05:56:02 AM
Re: the Colts discussion; I really don't like the idea of pulling your starters for any reason. The fans pay to see a game, it takes out the "competitive" in competitive sports. What's the point of playing if you're just going to throw the game?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on December 29, 2009, 06:28:47 AM
The "tackling" for the vikes last night was atrocious.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on December 29, 2009, 07:39:20 AM
The "tackling" for the vikes last night was atrocious.

x10

I can't count how many times I shouted "WRAP HIM THE FUCK UP, ASSHAT" at the TV before just giving up and playing on the PS3 instead.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 29, 2009, 11:31:28 AM
The Colts pulling their starters is completely understandable

Eh, I disagree.  I think if you get a shot at making history, you take it. 

It's understandable from the viewpoint that they get nothing but glory from history, but they get shitloads of money as an organization and as individuals for winning a Super Bowl. I think it sucks in every way, though.

And yes, the Vikings defense sucked it last night. No Pat Williams is an excuse to let the Bears run on you, but the passes Cutler made? No excuse for that, especially the last two touchdowns. You just got beat.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on December 29, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
Not to mention at least three times they should have had a pick on Cutler. He throws the ball to the D, that's what he does. You gotta catch 'em!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on December 29, 2009, 12:09:57 PM
I'm really looking forward to seeing who in the AFC makes it to the playoffs. I have no love for Pittsburgh or Baltimore, I almost would like to see Houston finally make the playoffs, or the Jags.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on December 29, 2009, 02:36:59 PM
Are the Dolphins officially out of it yet, or still some far flung chance?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 29, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
The Fins still have a weird outside chance, just like the Steelers. There's a good possibility an 8-8 team could make the playoffs in the AFC.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 29, 2009, 04:28:48 PM
You know how crazy the Vikings collapse is? If the Cowboys beat Philly, the Vikings lose again, and the Cardinals lose to Green Bay, then the Cowboys would get the bye.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 30, 2009, 09:51:50 AM
That would be a travesty of major proportions. However, I would love seeing the Vikes lose the bye to the Eagles, and I fucking hate the Eagles. But not as much as the Cowboys of the Vikings.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2009, 10:13:51 AM
If the entire NFC East were to explode and cease to exist, I am not sure anyone would miss it. Not a team in there I don't loathe.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2009, 03:01:27 PM
If the entire NFC East were to explode and cease to exist, I am not sure anyone would miss it. Not a team in there I don't loathe.

Yeah, Philly, Dallas, and the Giants don't encompass many fans across the US.  :why_so_serious:

Forget America's team, that's America's division, baby!  :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2009, 03:06:32 PM
I am sorry....anyone who deserves to still draw breath  :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2009, 03:25:28 PM
I am sorry....anyone who deserves to still draw breath  :drill:

How bout dem Cowboys!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on December 30, 2009, 03:39:12 PM
I want whatever sets up (I think Philly beating Dallas, Vikings loss, Cardinals win) Green Bay vs Minnesota in the first round. Then I want Green Bay to crush them.

Also, I root for the Eagles, I had a stepdad from there and he rubbed off on me. What's wrong with the Eagles? DeSean Jackson is one of the most exciting players in the NFL to watch.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on December 30, 2009, 03:48:08 PM
What's wrong with the Eagles? Michael Vick and Eagles fans. I think that about covers it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2009, 03:48:42 PM
I am sorry....anyone who deserves to still draw breath  :drill:

How bout dem Cowboys!

Looking forward to re-quoting this after Romo pisses down his leg in another first round game  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2009, 03:55:51 PM
Well we can hope the Seahawks do well in the playo...

Oh, right. They haven't gone over .500 in the last two years in the shittiest division in the NFL. :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
(http://tehdago.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/tony-romo-fumble-jan607.jpg)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on December 30, 2009, 04:14:53 PM
Well we can hope the Seahawks do well in the playo...

Oh, right. They haven't gone over .500 in the last two years in the shittiest division in the NFL. :grin:
Or like how they haven't won a playoff game in 13 12 years while every other team in the conference has won at least one in that span. No wait that's the Cowboys.

Edit: off by one error


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2009, 04:18:25 PM
Hey, if the Cowboys pull a miracle bye week, at least Romo will stay in the country this time.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2009, 04:34:30 PM
Well we can hope the Seahawks do well in the playo...

Oh, right. They haven't gone over .500 in the last two years in the shittiest division in the NFL. :grin:
Or like how they haven't won a playoff game in 13 12 years while every other team in the conference has won at least one in that span. No wait that's the Cowboys.

Edit: off by one error


You won't be wrong for long  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: stray on December 31, 2009, 03:33:49 AM
Haven't the 49'ers sucked for as long as the Cowboys?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on December 31, 2009, 10:39:21 AM
Nope. The 49ers have won a number of playoff games since 1996, though none since Mariucci got canned.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on December 31, 2009, 11:07:35 AM
Nope. The 49ers have won a number of playoff games since 1996, though none since Mariucci got canned.


Thank you for awakening my dormant Terry Donahue rage.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on December 31, 2009, 11:11:28 AM
I blame the Yorks.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on December 31, 2009, 11:15:30 AM
Well, there's plenty of blame to go around.  :awesome_for_real:

My personal feeling is you can chalk most of the long term fail up to the Yorks, but the proximate cause for Mariucci being fired specifically was Donahue wanting to hire "his" guy. GMs never like to stick with coaches hired by their predecessors.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on December 31, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
True.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on December 31, 2009, 06:20:40 PM
I guess Mangina at Cleveland had better watch out then.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on December 31, 2009, 07:09:22 PM
I guess Mangina at Cleveland had better watch out then.

The walrus kinda shot himself in the ass by saying its unfair to fire a coach after 1 year. If he was going to get rid of Mangini outright, he prolly should have refrained from that. Either way, its about time Cleveland Browns football had a guy that is american football. I don't care that Lerner loves his soccer team and actually that gives him props in my book, but treating the Browns as an afterthought is a little  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 01, 2010, 12:31:15 AM
To be fair, Lerner is pretty hands off with his football team in England too (Aston Villa). They happened to be pretty successful since he took over.

The Browns, however, are proper fucked.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 01, 2010, 09:46:18 AM
If the entire NFC East were to explode and cease to exist, I am not sure anyone would miss it. Not a team in there I don't loathe.

I would miss it. :cry2:

The Giants beating the Patriots still makes me all  :awesome_for_real:. Which is good, since they suck right now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 01, 2010, 01:22:05 PM
I get the feeling that the Colts pulling their starters have jinxed them for the playoffs.  Maybe not lose in the first game but not win the Super Bowl.

/the football gods are angry


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 01, 2010, 02:57:20 PM
I get the feeling that the Colts pulling their starters have jinxed them for the playoffs.  Maybe not lose in the first game but not win the Super Bowl.

/the football gods are angry

I tend to agree... not because of the jinx issue, but all the starters will be having that "pull" gnawing at them from now on.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 02, 2010, 04:35:09 AM
I think they should have gone for the perfect season.  BUT if Manning or another starter went down, the press would have had a far different story than they have now.  Kirk may not believe in the no-win scenario but let him coach the Colts.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 02, 2010, 02:13:21 PM
Yeah, about those Colts? The Saints are following suit. Drew Brees will be the #3 emergency QB tomorrow against the Panthers.

That game is going to suck.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 02, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
Yeah, about those Colts? The Saints are following suit. Drew Brees will be the #3 emergency QB tomorrow against the Panthers.

That game is going to suck.

pre-season v2.0


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 02, 2010, 03:44:29 PM
Yeah, about those Colts? The Saints are following suit. Drew Brees will be the #3 emergency QB tomorrow against the Panthers.

That game is going to suck.

Incredibly dumb, although I do understand not wanting Peppers to kill your quarterback.  You need some rhythm going into the playoffs.  There's a reason lower seeds have been doing well. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 03, 2010, 08:50:38 AM
And just think, they are talking about adding two more games to the regular season... :oh_i_see:

That means we get a full 4 games of suck at the end of the season from the teams who clinched instead of just 2.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 03, 2010, 10:03:06 AM
Week 17 Picks

Philly over Dallas-Philly has a more complete team and I don't trust Romo in very clutch games.
Indy over Buffalo-Manning and other starters may play the first quarter but Buffalo still can't win.
Nawlins over Carolina-Tough pick, but I think NO is ready to get serious again.  Carolina is a good team though.
Jags over Cleveland-eh who cares.  Jags have a great running game.
NE over Houston-Houston wins. 
Minn over NY-Giants stagger home as Minn gets back on track.
STL over SF-Friscos are another improving team and will win.
ATL over TB-Ryan's back and will win.
Miami over Pitt-Steelers are hard to predict and I think Miami can't lose another game.  R. Williams having a good year.
CHI over the Motor City Kitties-Da Bears easy win as Lions fans, again, look to the futre.  I can has defense draft picks?
Denver over KC-Denver wants and should get a win.
BAL over OAK-I hate the goddamn Ravens but Flacco has a cannon and they are playing well.
TN over SEA-Easy Titans win.  My faith in Fischer is shaken due to Adams making him start Young though.
SD over WASH-Duh.
ARI over GB-ARI plays to the level of their opponents, but GB is a good team so ARI should match them and win.  ARI defense is faaaast.
Cincy over Jets-Bengals should win over a streaky Jets team. 



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 03, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
Cleveland Browns on a 4 game win streak...  :drill:

Draft day is looking better and better. I would like them topick up a fullback at some point to plow the road for Harrison who is suddenly turning into a probowl-type rusher. Of course, the passing game is completely shit... today Anderson throws for 86 total yards?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 03, 2010, 08:55:31 PM
Week 17 Picks

Philly over Dallas-Philly has a more complete team and I don't trust Romo in very clutch games.
Indy over Buffalo-Manning and other starters may play the first quarter but Buffalo still can't win.
Nawlins over Carolina-Tough pick, but I think NO is ready to get serious again.  Carolina is a good team though.
Jags over Cleveland-eh who cares.  Jags have a great running game.
NE over Houston-Houston wins. 
Minn over NY-Giants stagger home as Minn gets back on track.
STL over SF-Friscos are another improving team and will win.
ATL over TB-Ryan's back and will win.
Miami over Pitt-Steelers are hard to predict and I think Miami can't lose another game.  R. Williams having a good year.
CHI over the Motor City Kitties-Da Bears easy win as Lions fans, again, look to the futre.  I can has defense draft picks?
Denver over KC-Denver wants and should get a win.
BAL over OAK-I hate the goddamn Ravens but Flacco has a cannon and they are playing well.
TN over SEA-Easy Titans win.  My faith in Fischer is shaken due to Adams making him start Young though.
SD over WASH-Duh.
ARI over GB-ARI plays to the level of their opponents, but GB is a good team so ARI should match them and win.  ARI defense is faaaast.
Cincy over Jets-Bengals should win over a streaky Jets team. 


 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 03, 2010, 09:29:25 PM
That's some seriously wrong picks.

Goddamn, what a shitty shit day of NFL games. The only one I watched that was remotely competitive was the one I didn't give a shit about, the Pittsburg/Dolphins game. The Eagles shit the bed bad, and the fucking Bengals couldn't have looked more inept if they were all paraplegic amputee clones of Helen Keller. Also, fuck the NFL for making 3 of the 4 playoff games for next being rematches of this week's game. I understand the seeding but shit, Green Bay back in Arizona and Philly back in Dallas? Go fuck yourselves.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 04, 2010, 03:30:49 AM
Ok I forgot about Week 17 and rest your starters.  Fuck you very much.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 04, 2010, 07:12:14 AM
I've come around to completely thinking the Colts are justified in resting their starters. Their depth appears to blow fucking chunks, losing a starter (at least the critical positions) in the playoffs would be the end.

I also agree with what Haemmy said, though I didn't get to see the Pitt/Miami game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 04, 2010, 08:03:45 AM
I think it gives them (the Colts) bad mojo.  I wouldn't be even remotely surprised to see San Diego eat their lunch yet again.  Even the Patriots, minus the stinky Wes Welker.  Maybe even god damned underachieving Baltimore.  Not the Jets or Cinci, though, let's not be stupid.

Team everyone else should be scared shitless about:  Green Bay.  If I had to put 10 bucks down on any one team to go all the way, it would be the Packers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 04, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
I don't think the Packers are there yet. They are close, but I do not believe in their O Line at all.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 04, 2010, 11:01:14 AM
It isn't a great O line by any stretch, but they seem to have gelled somewhat compared to 8 or 10 weeks ago.  The same seems to be generally true of their new 3-4 defense as well.  Overall, they are just damned dangerous on both sides of the ball. 

That said, I'm really just putting them down as my dark horse.  I haven't really made my picks yet, though I certainly do think GB will kill Arizona again next weekend.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 04, 2010, 11:09:35 AM
The 3-4 defense I think was actually helped by Kampman's injury. I don't think he fits as an outside linebacker very well, because it removes him from the rush too much. Brad Jones has been real good in that spot.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on January 05, 2010, 09:48:58 AM
Oh photoshop, I love you so.





Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on January 05, 2010, 10:06:01 AM
Also -  Congrats to Cyrrex!

Rank     Pick Set Name     Total Points     W-L
1    Cyrrex's Crappy Picks    178    178-78
2    Kilt Wavers            174    174-82
3    Big Enough Levers    172    172-84
4    Nebu's Neurotics    172    172-84
5    Cal's Tragic Femur Injury    171    171-85
6    jwiv's Ratbirds    169    169-87
7    Steagles    162    162-94
8    Endzone Lurkers    148    148-108
9    Abagadro's Albinos    140    140-116
10    Seg    134    134-122
11    Rptrainhaven'tbrakes    111    111-145
12    01101010    109    109-147
13    YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA!    106    106-150
14    Baltimore Hon    86    86-170
15    Best Picks Evar    58    58-198
16    Baltimore Bullies    22    22-234


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 05, 2010, 10:07:14 AM
Grats Cyrrex!  Haemish also did a masterful job. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 05, 2010, 11:27:36 AM
Good job, Cyrrex. I was turning and burning for a while - I forget what fucked me, but it was likely Carolina's last season turnaround. Thanks, Matt Moore.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 11:31:34 AM
I shit the bed and completely forgot about this group. I deserve to be Favre'd.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 05, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
Thanks, Matt Moore.

Heh. That's almost a meme in the making.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 05, 2010, 11:48:36 AM
I shit the bed and completely forgot about this group.
I should probably join up next year. I did fantasy league with you guys (or was it the morlocks) ages ago.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 12:09:50 PM
I shit the bed and completely forgot about this group.
I should probably join up next year. I did fantasy league with you guys (or was it the morlocks) ages ago.

More like I started great but forgot to pick mid-season... damn work.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 05, 2010, 01:24:08 PM
Thanks guys - it was a close thing for a while, but I took a few chances that paid off in the last three weeks or so.  Well, except for week 17 which was just a smoking pile of shit.  Incidentally, I also did an ESPN league with like 500 people which I also won.  I should probably start gambling, but then I just know my luck would change or I'd subconsciously pick differently and lose my shirt.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on January 05, 2010, 04:01:11 PM
You'd also have to take into account the spread which makes it quite a bit more difficult.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on January 05, 2010, 07:43:23 PM
I screwed a week by missing all the early games, and then a thursday game or two.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 09, 2010, 08:31:20 PM
Well we can hope the Seahawks do well in the playo...

Oh, right. They haven't gone over .500 in the last two years in the shittiest division in the NFL. :grin:
Or like how they haven't won a playoff game in 13 12 years while every other team in the conference has won at least one in that span. No wait that's the Cowboys.

Edit: off by one error


You won't be wrong for long  :grin:

 :awesome_for_real:

How bout dem Cowboys!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 09, 2010, 08:39:23 PM
Yup they've been playing great these last few weeks.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ozzu on January 09, 2010, 09:01:27 PM
For me, as a Cowboys fan, it's more relief than any other feeling at the moment. They got the playoff win monkey off their back and really, they could do some serious damage in the playoffs now. It's pretty exciting.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 09, 2010, 09:03:16 PM
What did humanity do to deserve having to listen to Joe Gibbs and Joe Theisman in the same broadcast team?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 09, 2010, 10:45:06 PM
I think the Cowboys secondary surprised a lot of people. It was a complete shutdown outside of the blown tackle when Vick actually decided to pass. I'll cut them some slack on that one though, because I never saw it coming either.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on January 09, 2010, 11:25:58 PM
In a battle of two choketastic teams one had to win.

The Eagles are always dropping passes, fumbling snaps, and just generally playing like crap in big games. There are going to be more calls to drop McNabb after this but the team as a whole plays lousy in these big games. If it's not McNabb throwing balls in the dirt it's a receiver dropping a first down reception. At some point you have to blame the coach and the GM, because while individual players come and go it's always the same story.

Also J-E-T-S!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 10, 2010, 12:52:59 AM
Both games pretty much sucked ass for the neutral spectator. The Eagles couldn't block for shit. Whenever McNabb dropped back he was constantly running for his fucking life. The defense wasn't much better, and they got screwed on some really ticky-tack interference calls. But mostly, they were outplayed.

I don't know how the Bengals even got to the playoffs. Palmer was horrible. Yeah, he had some guys drop passes but mostly, he was totally off his game, sailing balls high or missing the proper throw. The fact that they almost came back on the strength of Cedric Benson shows me this team was a pretender who took advantage of an off year by the Steelers. The Jets are going to get hammered by a good team.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 10, 2010, 06:18:05 AM

How bout dem Cowboys!

9 out of 10 dentists who hate the Cowboys blame the above sentence for their opinion.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 10, 2010, 07:29:31 AM
The Jets are going to get hammered by a good team.

I dunno. Two things the Jets are good at:

1)Pissing off their fans.
2)Pissing off the fans of better teams by pulling a surprising game out of their asses.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2010, 08:20:23 AM
I don't think the Jets are going to surprise Peyton.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 10, 2010, 08:25:52 AM
Still not sold on the 'Boys. And that touchdown pass by Vick was insane- the rest of the game, meh.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on January 10, 2010, 01:33:36 PM
I don't think the Jets are going to surprise Peyton.

Jets are playing the Chargers.

Because the Ravens are playing the Colts!   SUCK IT BRADY.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2010, 03:13:11 PM
Things are just continuing to line up right for the Chargers to take the AFC.

EDIT: Oh and Green Bay looks fucking terrible. None of these playoff games have been remotely close. Even the Jets game wasn't close given the score.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on January 10, 2010, 04:20:29 PM
EDIT: Oh and Green Bay looks fucking terrible. None of these playoff games have been remotely close. Even the Jets game wasn't close given the score.

Uhm....game is tied with 11mins left and the game isn't close?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 10, 2010, 04:25:39 PM
GB was sucking the first half. They are doing better now.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on January 10, 2010, 04:54:42 PM
So I don't have a TV....'watching' the NFL flash live play by play.

Assumed it was over then saw a big flash of FIELD GOAL MISSED.

 :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on January 10, 2010, 04:56:59 PM
myp2p.eu

learn to "pirate" yarrrrr


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 10, 2010, 04:57:10 PM
He hooked it like Happy Gilmour before Apollo Creed died.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on January 10, 2010, 05:04:19 PM
That was a good game, at least compared to the rest of Wild Card Weekend. Cardinals knocked off what I thought was a great GB team. Saints will have their hands full.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Raging Turtle on January 10, 2010, 05:09:07 PM
 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on January 10, 2010, 05:24:39 PM
I love that ESPN's "The Sports Guy" got all four picks wrong. For a guy called "the sports guy" he doesn't appear to know anything about any sport.

Anyway all four of the teams I thought would win won. Which is also the four teams I wanted to win. Happy to see the Patriots get thrashed, especially after the bullshit way the refs bailed them out of their previous game against the Ravens.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 10, 2010, 05:29:41 PM
Wow... GB battles all the way back then pleh? That was a hell of a game that almost didn't watch since it looked like a carbon copy of the pats/ravens.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ozzu on January 10, 2010, 08:36:06 PM
Kurt Warner is as good as anyone when he's on a roll. He was sure as hell on a roll today.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 10, 2010, 08:40:48 PM
Too bad their defense couldn't say the same thing. Luckily, Green Bay's defense was even more full of holes.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 10, 2010, 08:48:53 PM
Where the fuck did Green Bay's defense go? How many times can you throw the same fucking pass down the middle to the same fucking receiver and get burned on it before you figure out what you are doing wrong?

And still that game could have been won because of Aaron Rodgers. Unfortunately, it was also lost because of Rodgers. He doesn't quite get it yet. He holds onto the ball WAY TOO LONG and either gets creamed or has to throw a bad pass - which is exactly what happened on the first and last plays of the game. He thinks he has to be the one to win the game all by himself. That's going to take experience to get over. That and a better O-line. But really, that defense? They ought to be fucking ashamed. Not because Kurt Warner torched them, but because the Cardinals were able to run the ball so well, and because they tackled for shit.

But at least the game was more entertaining than all the other games this weekend combined.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 11, 2010, 03:33:15 AM
Nah, Jets v. Bengals was a good game.  Philly v. Dallas blew. Ravens v. NE was a shocker and in a good way.  Buh BYE Brady.  I hate the Ravens, but it's disgusting how much the league babies Brady.  Didn't see Cards v. GB, just the last play but wow!  Both teams have some serious firepower.  Rodgers is the real deal, he'll be back in the playoffs, great talent. 

So many great games coming.   Can't wait to see the Chargers in action, I don't see any West Coast teams play very much throughout the season.  But I'm glad the Pats are out, so tired of those fucks. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 11, 2010, 05:42:53 AM
Neither team had any defense whatsoever in the GB/AZ game. It got so bad, even Buck and Aikman were making fun of it.

Was awesome to watch Rodgers keep his cool and bring the team back into the competition. While I agree that he can tend to hold the ball too long, I don't fault him too much because the game really did rely on him. There wasn't enough time to get a running game going and they were always playing catch up with the score. I mean, you're trying to match Warner score for score while he's on fire. So, it wasn't surprising that it was Rodgers' mistake that also finished the game. You can only shoulder so much pressure and he had a lot. Played it well though. Impressed the shit out of me, anyways.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 11, 2010, 06:47:15 AM
I liked the slo-mo replay of Lewis rolling over Brady. Classy guy, didn't even mention how they got robbed by Brady-pampering and how good it felt to smash him in the face a few times.

Also, I'm pretty sure there was a face mask that caused that GB fumble to lose the game, surprised that didn't call the TD back. GB deserved that one, hell of a game and a comeback worthy of the ghost of you-know-whovre.

WTF Eagles, pwned.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 11, 2010, 06:54:08 AM
Ya, that face mask and another call earlier that should have been offensive pass interference against Woodson were bullshit. But then again, those kind of calls happen in every game and officiating already eats up the clock as it is. Really, if GB's defense had been on the ball, those calls wouldn't have mattered, so... /shrug.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 11, 2010, 10:07:12 AM
Was awesome to watch Rodgers keep his cool and bring the team back into the competition. While I agree that he can tend to hold the ball too long, I don't fault him too much because the game really did rely on him.

Oh yeah, it's really just his lack of experience that causes it - I hope. He is a fantastic QB but the hardest lesson for really good QB's to learn is when to take an incompletion instead of a sack or an INT. I think part of it is the pressure he puts on himself to live up to the Favre Gunslinger legacy, and part of it is that mental thing that hasn't clicked yet. Of course, if he had an O-line worth a shit, it wouldn't matter so much.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 11, 2010, 10:36:36 AM
Of course, if he had an O-line worth a shit, it wouldn't matter so much.

An extra one second at NFL speed would make all the difference.  I have to confess that I wasn't a huge fan of Rogers, but this season made me a believer.  I really enjoy watching him play.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 11, 2010, 11:14:55 AM
I think he needs another year of a shitty O-Line and minus that one second, though. Give him that gift and he might end up holding it even longer when he shouldn't.

I'm kidding. Mostly.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 11, 2010, 11:20:56 AM
I'm kidding. Mostly.

Some truth to that, though I wish I had access to the full game films.  Two common problems that young QBs face coming to the NFL are a) staring down receivers too long and b) not recognizing coverage schemes quickly enough.  I don't have enough footage to know if Rogers is making bad choices on his checkdowns, not recognizing coverage packages, or just trying to force balls into tight places.   The college game moved so fast that I could barely keep up mentally.  I can't imagine how tough it is to QB in the NFL. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 11, 2010, 11:33:37 AM
I don't think he's making bad choices on checkdowns, I think he is trying to make plays and hasn't developed that internal OH SHIT clock yet.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 11, 2010, 11:41:54 AM
Fuck Pete Carroll. This is going to be a fucking disaster. My only hope is an 0-16 season so they can draft Jake Locker.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 11, 2010, 12:28:21 PM
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a face mask that caused that GB fumble to lose the game, surprised that didn't call the TD back. GB deserved that one, hell of a game and a comeback worthy of the ghost of you-know-whovre.
Yes the front page image of that tackle on Si.com (gone now) showed part of his hand on the face mask though it didn't look like in that frame he was grabbing it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 11, 2010, 12:32:28 PM
It would have sucked to have a game ender overturned because of that.  I think the ball had come out before the hand even hit the facemask.  Missing a wide open receiver on a go route lost the game more than that.

Shouldn't have gone to overtime anyhow.  Rackers looked like a nervous high schooler trying out for varsity on that field goal.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 11, 2010, 12:43:41 PM
Rackers looked like a nervous high schooler trying out for varsity on that field goal.

Almost every kicker is just a couple of missed kicks away from being replaced.  I totally understand his nerves. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 11, 2010, 01:15:55 PM
Fuck Pete Carroll. This is going to be a fucking disaster. My only hope is an 0-16 season so they can draft Jake Locker.

Yeah, I'm not sure what in Carrolll's past history of NFL fuckups makes the Seahawks think he's worth the money they'll pay him. Sure, he did good at USC. Doesn't mean he'll do shit at the NFL level. See Steve Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, and Nick Sabean for examples. While some college coaches have done well, success at the college level hardly is a guarantor of success at the pro level.

What was wrong with Jim Mora, anyway? He's a decent enough coach. But the Seahawks are old and injury prone at QB, have no running backs, and an inconsistent defense. I suppose only being better than the Rams in the shittiest division in football gets you a short fuse.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 11, 2010, 01:43:02 PM
It's kind of funny that the best  franchise and best team in Seattle is the freaking Sounders   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 13, 2010, 07:07:36 AM
Seems KC is quietly assembling Belichick throwbacks. Crennel on D and Weis on O? Pioli has been watching the Blues Brothers one too many times.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on January 13, 2010, 07:56:51 AM
Let me know when they pick up Seau to anchor the D.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 13, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
It's kind of funny that the best  franchise and best team in Seattle is the freaking Sounders   :awesome_for_real:

Only because they haven't been around long enough to vastly disappoint their fans. Yet. It is a Seattle tradition, after all.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 14, 2010, 06:54:23 AM
Let me know when they pick up Seau to anchor the D.
Just announced his retirement on Inside the NFL.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on January 14, 2010, 02:10:18 PM
Let me know when they pick up Seau to anchor the D.
Just announced his retirement on Inside the NFL.

That's never happened before.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 15, 2010, 07:48:50 AM
Seems KC is quietly assembling Belichick throwbacks. Crennel on D and Weis on O? Pioli has been watching the Blues Brothers one too many times.

I never understood how being a Belichick disciple makes anyone a popular candidate for something.  Other than Bill himself, aren't they all pretty much a bunch of giant failures?  He surrounds himself with a bunch of knob-gobbling douchebags.  It's like expecting that the court jester would be a good choice as the next king.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 15, 2010, 09:19:04 AM
Seems KC is quietly assembling Belichick throwbacks. Crennel on D and Weis on O? Pioli has been watching the Blues Brothers one too many times.

I never understood how being a Belichick disciple makes anyone a popular candidate for something.  Other than Bill himself, aren't they all pretty much a bunch of giant failures?  He surrounds himself with a bunch of knob-gobbling douchebags.  It's like expecting that the court jester would be a good choice as the next king.

I am with ya. Though I think Pioli is thinking he can form Voltron without the black lion in KC.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 15, 2010, 05:41:31 PM
Seems KC is quietly assembling Belichick throwbacks. Crennel on D and Weis on O? Pioli has been watching the Blues Brothers one too many times.
I never understood how being a Belichick disciple makes anyone a popular candidate for something.  Other than Bill himself, aren't they all pretty much a bunch of giant failures?  He surrounds himself with a bunch of knob-gobbling douchebags.  It's like expecting that the court jester would be a good choice as the next king.
Nick Saban is considered a branch of the Bill Belichick coaching tree.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 16, 2010, 08:31:05 AM
Seems KC is quietly assembling Belichick throwbacks. Crennel on D and Weis on O? Pioli has been watching the Blues Brothers one too many times.
I never understood how being a Belichick disciple makes anyone a popular candidate for something.  Other than Bill himself, aren't they all pretty much a bunch of giant failures?  He surrounds himself with a bunch of knob-gobbling douchebags.  It's like expecting that the court jester would be a good choice as the next king.
Nick Saban is considered a branch of the Bill Belichick coaching tree.


His success is primarily in the college arena, which doesn't mean a whole lot (for the purpose of my point, anyway).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 17, 2010, 12:31:14 PM
I don't know if I've seen an offensive line look as bad in the playoffs as Dallas did today. Tony Romo was running for his life on almost every play.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 17, 2010, 01:08:29 PM
Paelos, no disrespect or anything, but SUCK IT COWBOYS!!!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 17, 2010, 01:32:34 PM
I don't know if I've seen an offensive line look as bad in the playoffs as Dallas did today. Tony Romo was running for his life on almost every play.

Could it be that the O-line wasn't that bad, but the D-line was that good?  The Vikings have the ability to put a lot of pressure on QB's. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 17, 2010, 01:50:01 PM
I am looking forward to Breesus battling with Father Time. Dragons will blot out the sun that day.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 17, 2010, 03:35:47 PM
It warms the cockles of my black little heart to see the loser face on both Jerry Jones and Tony Romo. Take your giant, billion dollar stadium and cram it right up your ass.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 17, 2010, 04:02:25 PM
I was ACTUALLY rooting for a satelite to crash into the stadium, but I'll take the Cowboys being embarrassed. I want the Vikings to get humiliated next, though. I need this to happen. Favre pisses me off (partly because every announcer EVER sucks his dick so hard).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on January 17, 2010, 04:11:09 PM
Jeez, it's like San Diego is actively trying to lose this game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on January 17, 2010, 04:32:09 PM
Jeez, it's like San Diego is actively trying to lose this game.

3 missed field goals.. really?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 17, 2010, 04:32:43 PM
I was ACTUALLY rooting for a satelite to crash into the stadium, but I'll take the Cowboys being embarrassed. I want the Vikings to get humiliated next, though. I need this to happen. Favre pisses me off (partly because every announcer EVER sucks his dick so hard).


If they suck Favre's dick, they positively nuzzle the testicles and toss the salad of the indianapolis colts.

I think I  saw Trent Dilfer plead for a dirty sanchez from Peyton last night.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on January 17, 2010, 04:43:42 PM
I don't know why I hoped a Norv Turner team would do more than choke in what should have been a rout for them, but there you go.  Fuck.   Now all I'm going to hear this week from idiot Baltimore fans about how we should have kept Ryan and never hired Harbs. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on January 17, 2010, 04:50:17 PM
I was ACTUALLY rooting for a satelite to crash into the stadium, but I'll take the Cowboys being embarrassed. I want the Vikings to get humiliated next, though. I need this to happen. Favre pisses me off (partly because every announcer EVER sucks his dick so hard).

I don't know why you would single out Favre when as pointed out the Colts have gotten the same, if not more annoying.

Favre gets love cuz even at 40 he's having one of the best seasons of his career.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on January 17, 2010, 04:54:27 PM
That offside kick was moronic.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on January 17, 2010, 05:03:36 PM
It was a textbook kick though.

Seriously though: three missed field goals and two interceptions and a recovered fumble by Rivers.  And they lose by THREE.

It's sorrow-drowning time.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 17, 2010, 05:06:24 PM
Holy shit did SD fuck themselves on that one.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on January 17, 2010, 06:05:53 PM
LoL @ the Cowboys crying cuz the Vikes scored that final TD.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 17, 2010, 07:12:27 PM
I love how the Jets still don't get any credit because even if they lost by 6 (assuming those 3 field goals were made), they played one hell of a football game against a team everyone thought they were outclassed against. They should be proud of their performance because they went in there and made the Chargers play the game their way. They never let Rivers get hot, they kept it mostly on the ground to eat up the clock and they made very few mistakes. We'll see what happens with the Colts (doubtful, to be honest), but I'm liking the way they're playing.

Also... SUCK IT COWBOYS!  :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on January 17, 2010, 08:08:46 PM
One of the field goals was 50+ yards. Besides had the Jets been down at the end they wouldn't have played so conservatively. They did what they needed to do to win given the score.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 17, 2010, 08:39:55 PM
LoL @ the Cowboys crying cuz the Vikes scored that final TD.

They can cry over the fact they got completely outclassed in the trenches. I don't mind a loss that had nothing to do with Romo fucking it up, so I don't have to hear about it anymore.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on January 17, 2010, 11:03:35 PM
I was ACTUALLY rooting for a satelite to crash into the stadium, but I'll take the Cowboys being embarrassed. I want the Vikings to get humiliated next, though. I need this to happen. Favre pisses me off (partly because every announcer EVER sucks his dick so hard).

I don't know why you would single out Favre when as pointed out the Colts have gotten the same, if not more annoying.

Favre gets love cuz even at 40 he's having one of the best seasons of his career.

Because it started in freaking August for Favre.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 18, 2010, 05:25:48 AM
I've complained about the Favre nob gobbling myself but if you can't give him credit for the game he played yesterday, you're just being petty. The throws he made while being hit, his ability to sustain those hits at 40, and his ability to still roll out and make across the body accurate passes are unreal. It's not like the Viking's running game was really helping him out. I'm still blown away by a couple of those passes he made to a well covered Rice where Rice just had to hold his hands out and the ball was there. The man can play some fucking football.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 18, 2010, 05:33:07 AM
Yeah, I gotta agree with Brogarn.  While it gets annoying to hear the Jon Grudens of the world schlobbing his knob all day long, the man ultimately went out and kicked ass for basically the entire season.  It was an MVP type of year, or would have been if you didn't have people like Manning around, and he's fucking 40 for chrissakes.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 18, 2010, 08:42:19 AM
I love how the Jets still don't get any credit because even if they lost by 6 (assuming those 3 field goals were made), they played one hell of a football game against a team everyone thought they were outclassed against. They should be proud of their performance because they went in there and made the Chargers play the game their way. They never let Rivers get hot, they kept it mostly on the ground to eat up the clock and they made very few mistakes. We'll see what happens with the Colts (doubtful, to be honest), but I'm liking the way they're playing.

Also... SUCK IT COWBOYS!  :drill:


This. No matter how many mistakes the Chargers made, the Jets forced them to make a lot of those. They took them out of their comfort zone. There are still tons of people who are on the "You guys don't belong here" wagon. They belong, they may not win the next game, but anyone that's gonna take them lightly because they don't feel they've earned their place does so at their peril.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 18, 2010, 10:14:16 AM
LoL @ the Cowboys crying cuz the Vikes scored that final TD.

They can cry over the fact they got completely outclassed in the trenches. I don't mind a loss that had nothing to do with Romo fucking it up, so I don't have to hear about it anymore.

Uh... what? How many INT's and fumbles was Romo personally responsible for? Granted, he was running for his life most of the day, but according to the knobslobberers, that's where he is at his best.

The Jets do not deserve to be where they are. Period. Their defense played well, and Sanchez didn't fuck them in the ass like he has much of the season, but they seriously didn't play well so much as didn't fuck up quite as much as the Chargers. That onside kick was stupid to the extreme. Had Turner chosen to kick it and let his defense stop the Jets, I'm quite sure the Jets would have punted on 4th down and we'd be talking about Rivers' comeback drive.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Mr_PeaCH on January 18, 2010, 10:30:57 AM
All due respect to the Jets; esp. their defense; coming out to San Diego and winning the game, but...

Chargers fucked themselves.  I don't expect the road team to have as many false-starts and delay-of-games.  The personal fouls / unsportsmanlike penalties were collectively unforgivable by themselves.  And we got the glaring bad call of the game in our favor (Chargers receiver fumble WTF ruled an incomplete pass after review).  I can forgive Kaeding missing the long one but not BOTH of the others.  I can forgive Rivers throwing the one pick (Revis getting a great bounce) but the other was sloppy.  Even then we're still not completely fucked until we give up the one good run the Jets had all day or until Norv misguidedly calls for the onside at the end... we stop them in 3 downs but they have the cushion to go for it on 4th and short.  Fucked.  Fucked.  Fucked.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 18, 2010, 10:36:56 AM
Exactly. You SD fucked themselves because they didn't take the Jets seriously enough. I said it earlier, there's two things they're good at, pissing off their fans and pissing of the teams that sleep on them.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 18, 2010, 10:41:53 AM
SD fucked themselves hugely, and should be ashamed of themselves for not showing up to play and taking their opponent seriously.  As for the Jets, while there is no way on paper that they should have won this game...they did what they do and gave themselves a chance.  Whether deserved or not, I don't think you can fake your way through TWO road games and make it to the AFC Championship game.  If by some miracle - which I don't think will happen - they make it past Indy, then it's no longer in question. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 18, 2010, 10:44:00 AM
I completely disagree (with Haemish), but hey, let's go with it then. The Chargers fucked themselves royally. That makes them the worse team on the field, yes? The one that caved to the pressure and had a shitty game? The one that didn't play up to their potential? The one that got into the playoffs yet couldn't handle the pressure of it? Even with home field advantage?

Then it's still the better team that won. The team that didn't fuck up. The team who didn't cave under the pressure. The team that came in with a plan, stuck to it even when it was hard, and came out on top.

The Jets deserved to continue and the Chargers didn't.

But really, the Jets played a hell of a good game, never panicked and played patiently. They kept Rivers on the ropes like they wanted to and won with running and defense. Exactly what they wanted to do. You're full of shit if you don't give them credit for that.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 18, 2010, 12:11:51 PM
Hey, I gave them credit for NOT FUCKING UP - which is what they did. But it was by no means a sparkling game on the Jets part. As for winning two road games, yeah, I could have won that game against Cincy. Cincy played like a JV team, and I can pretty much guarantee that if that Cincy team had taken the field and played like they did last week against even last year's 0-16 Lions, the Lions wouldn't have been undefeated. The Jets could have sleptwalked through that game and won.

Now, if the Jets go in and beat the Colts, well good on them, THEN they deserve to be where they are at. But the Jets had two good drives all game, one of which was on a 20-yard short field. The Chargers handed them that win on a silver platter.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 18, 2010, 12:17:35 PM
I just don't know how the Jets can beat the Colts.  If they do, I'll be impressed.  First, the Colts have a very fast defense that will give the young Sanchez fits. Second, while I agree that the Jets have one of the best cover corners in the NFL, Manning just has too much savvy and too many options to be held in check.  The only hope that the Jets have is that Peyton has a REALLY bad day and Sanchez plays out of his mind. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on January 18, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Fuck one of shittiest states in the union (Jersey) fuck the third worst group of nfl fans (Jet's fans) and fuck San Diego for keeping them in the playoffs another week.  Admittedly Sanchez has now played two games where he hit pretty much every single throw he was asked to hit.  The thing is though, the Chargers were clearly caught looking ahead and generally not playing with any composure.  As noted, what was with the 5 false starts at home, ffs.  I just feel robbed of seeing Rivers v Manning, which would have been a hell of a game and tested what I see as an overachieving Colts D.  That really pisses me off more then the fact that the Jets and their fans and their state can drown in a pool of Axe body spray.  Never have I been more annoyed with Jersey as this year thanks to that MTV show infecting every goddamn piece of pop culture I have the misfortune of still caring about.  I'm so sick of Situation references in EVERY goddamn article on espn.

How about Favre though, all you sad haters.  Man its terrible if you can't get a kick out of what this man is doing because the announcers are too high on him.  Frankly the announcers for the playoffs so far have been so terrible who cares what they are saying I stopped listening a long time ago.

With four teams left my superbowl wishes are:
-Not the Jets
-Not a win for Manning, he's the greatest QB of my lifetime without hesitation but I just can't root for him.  All the funny commercials all the smart insightful interviews all the amazing play it still adds up to a guy I just dont like to see winning.  Must be some kind of root for the underdog thing.  The Colts are just too much a squeeky clean good team/organization it annoys me.  Like the Patriots with less cheating.

I really don't know what would be more awesome between a Saints or Vikes win.  May the best team I guess.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on January 18, 2010, 01:10:56 PM
The Colts only put up 20 against the Ravens, and the Jets have a better defense than the Ravens.  They also have a better offense than the Ravens, and probably the best run-blocking offensive line in the NFL, all due respect to the Vikings.

I expect the Colts to blow them up, but who knows.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on January 18, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
Eh, I've always hated Favre. I don't care how good he is, he beat the 49ers too many times in the playoffs for me to be able to harbor any good thoughts for the guy, and that was before he started jerking the Packers around at the expense of one of my favorte Cal QBs ever.

Call it sad if you like, I never got a kick out of anything Elway ever did either.  :-P


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on January 18, 2010, 01:16:01 PM
Eh, I've always hated Favre. I don't care how good he is, he beat the 49ers too many times in the playoffs for me to be able to harbor any good thoughts for the guy, and that was before he started jerking the Packers around at the expense of one of my favorte Cal QBs ever.

Call it sad if you like, I never got a kick out of anything Elway ever did either.  :-P

You mean being forced to retire when he obviously really didn't want to? 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 18, 2010, 01:30:58 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 18, 2010, 01:47:17 PM
I missed where I said Favre wasn't any good. I just hate him and want him to fuck up.  :grin:

I'm not counting the Jets out yet, they have got to be hungry as hell to beat the Colts "for real." Plus I would enjoy the Colts eating a karmic payback for resting their starters at the end of the season.

PS: How can anyone hate Jets fans? They are adorable pessimists.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 18, 2010, 02:23:27 PM
LoL @ the Cowboys crying cuz the Vikes scored that final TD.
They can cry over the fact they got completely outclassed in the trenches. I don't mind a loss that had nothing to do with Romo fucking it up, so I don't have to hear about it anymore.

Uh... what? How many INT's and fumbles was Romo personally responsible for? Granted, he was running for his life most of the day, but according to the knobslobberers, that's where he is at his best.
Well not all of those were his fault either. Like the fumble caused by Jared Allen cause Jason Whitten was trying to block him *by himself*. Whitten was there to help the tackle and yet somehow the tackle missed his assignment.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 18, 2010, 04:28:18 PM
LoL @ the Cowboys crying cuz the Vikes scored that final TD.
They can cry over the fact they got completely outclassed in the trenches. I don't mind a loss that had nothing to do with Romo fucking it up, so I don't have to hear about it anymore.

Uh... what? How many INT's and fumbles was Romo personally responsible for? Granted, he was running for his life most of the day, but according to the knobslobberers, that's where he is at his best.
Well not all of those were his fault either. Like the fumble caused by Jared Allen cause Jason Whitten was trying to block him *by himself*. Whitten was there to help the tackle and yet somehow the tackle missed his assignment.



He threw one bad INT that was to nobody. Beyond that, any sports analyst you listen to will tell you the line was fucking awful. Oh, and losing probably the most important lineman on the field early in the game who was supposed to be blocking Jarred Allen...

Yeah, that didn't work.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on January 18, 2010, 08:44:11 PM
I was shocked how crappy SD ran the ball. Is the Jets front 4 that good or is LT that old/SD front 4 that mediocre?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 18, 2010, 09:07:57 PM
I was shocked how crappy SD ran the ball. Is the Jets front 4 that good or is LT that old/SD front 4 that mediocre?

I'm not. They were dead last in the NFL in average rushing yards per game. Phillip Rivers had the 3rd best QB Rating in the land. They were the very definition of one-dimensional. The team was literally the Phillip Rivers Experience with Nate Kaeding as the opening act. Both had a shitty game and they lost.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 19, 2010, 12:22:12 AM
heisnotLTarghghghgh


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 19, 2010, 03:30:42 AM
I disagree.  The Jets defense is vastly under-rated and they have a top notch running attack.  They are in the AFC championship game with a rookie QB, they are doing something right.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: shiznitz on January 19, 2010, 07:14:07 AM
I missed where I said Favre wasn't any good. I just hate him and want him to fuck up.  :grin:

I'm not counting the Jets out yet, they have got to be hungry as hell to beat the Colts "for real." Plus I would enjoy the Colts eating a karmic payback for resting their starters at the end of the season.

PS: How can anyone hate Jets fans? They are adorable pessimists.

Favre is neither bad or good. He is streaky and inconsistent. He has flashes of perfection and then a few weeks later, his throws hang in the air like frisbees to be picked off.  The Vikes have the best RB in the league, good defense, and an experienced QB. If they can execute, they are very good. However, Favre has a tendency to believe he is Superman and that always gets him in trouble - usually when it hurts the most.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 19, 2010, 07:42:42 AM
I wish I had more confidence in the Vikes to take out the Saints. Should be a hell of a game. I like the Jets, and the Sanchez story is great, but....

I really, really want a Favre vs Manning, Freeney vs Allen monster of a superbowl.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 19, 2010, 08:33:56 AM
So NY gets a shot at the Colts who basically allowed the Jets into the playoffs. That's a nice fate playing out there. Now, if fate really wants to twist the knife, it will be Jets vs Vikings with the Jets winning due to a Favre implosion. That's a story too outrageous to even print.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on January 19, 2010, 08:52:00 AM
So NY gets a shot at the Colts who basically allowed the Jets into the playoffs. That's a nice fate playing out there. Now, if fate really wants to twist the knife, it will be Jets vs Vikings with the Jets winning due to a Favre implosion. That's a story too outrageous to even print.

 :facepalm:



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 19, 2010, 08:57:55 AM
So NY gets a shot at the Colts who basically allowed the Jets into the playoffs. That's a nice fate playing out there. Now, if fate really wants to twist the knife, it will be Jets vs Vikings with the Jets winning due to a Favre implosion. That's a story too outrageous to even print.

You shut your filthy whore mouth. That would be a worse fucking football ending than the goddamn Vikings winning due to Favre.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on January 19, 2010, 09:03:27 AM
I think now that the eventuality has been pointed out, there's a likelihood of it happening.

I was actually expecting to hear that from one of the shows discussing the playoffs, and didn't... Just copious Farve cocksucking. Hell the Vikings (+Romo meltdown) game got twice the coverage on NFL network compared to the Jets win (and it was a better game).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 19, 2010, 09:16:17 AM
My hope is for the QB shootout between Manning and Brees.  Brain vs ridiculous accuracy would be a game to watch. 

I think the Colts v Jets game will be entertaining as well.  I'm interested in seeing how Manning handles the CB's of NY. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 19, 2010, 09:22:45 AM
I disagree.  The Jets defense is vastly under-rated and they have a top notch running attack.  They are in the AFC championship game with a rookie QB, they are doing something right.

How is the top rated defense in the league with everyone's favorite corner DARREL REVIS (that really needs fireworks shooting off it) underrated?  Just an eerily similar team to some of the Rothlesburger Steeler teams.  Except with a bigger emphasis on the running game because Sanchez isn't quite there yet.

If they manage to get out ahead, they're going to be a handful.   I just can't see this team coming back if they get down more than a touchdown and no lead is safe against the Colts.  We have seen this Colts team put up some very sad offensive efforts this year, so who knows.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 AM
This Colts team is not the Colts high-powered offense of old. That's why I picked the Chargers to beat them. Well, that and Manning's propensity to have more trouble against 3-4 defenses than typical 4-3's. The Jets can most certainly beat the Colts, but god that would make for a shitty Super Bowl.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 19, 2010, 09:27:48 AM
Sanchez in the Super Bowl may end up putting up worse numbers than Big Ben did.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 19, 2010, 11:29:04 AM
Favre is neither bad or good. He is streaky and inconsistent. He has flashes of perfection and then a few weeks later, his throws hang in the air like frisbees to be picked off.  The Vikes have the best RB in the league, good defense, and an experienced QB. If they can execute, they are very good. However, Favre has a tendency to believe he is Superman and that always gets him in trouble - usually when it hurts the most.
That's his normal modus operandi but not this season. His 7 INTs is a career low* where his average is like 17 and in only one game (vs. Arizona) did he throw more than one INT. This year when given the option between throwing it up and taking a sack he usually took a sack.

Edit: * not counting his rookie season


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 19, 2010, 11:35:34 AM
Favre has all the tools this year that he's never had before:
- decent O-line
- tall, strong WR
- outstanding RB(s) that can catch out of the backfield
- a good TE

He's had some, but not all in the past and is reaping the benefits for it.  This, an indoor home field, and a solid defense to maintain leads/keep it close doesn't hurt either.  


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Evildrider on January 19, 2010, 12:01:24 PM
Favre has all the tools this year that he's never had before:
- decent O-line
- tall, strong WR
- outstanding RB(s) that can catch out of the backfield
- a good TE

He's had some, but not all in the past and is reaping the benefits for it.  This, an indoor home field, and a solid defense to maintain leads/keep it close doesn't hurt either.  


Favre is still outstanding.  Hell just go back and look at some of his passes to Rice in that last game.  All Rice had to do was hold out his arms and the ball was there.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 19, 2010, 12:21:37 PM
Favre has proved this year that his O line in Green Bay was a lot worse than many of us thought. He made a lot of those INT's over the years because he had a lot less time to throw the ball. He's still a crazy ass gunslinger - he just hasn't had to sling as much this year because the O line is a fucking brick wall.

EDIT: Which makes what he did in 2007 so fucking brilliant. That O line was worse than this year's Packer line. Grant wasn't a viable option that year until about halfway through the season. He had better wideouts there than he does in Minnesota, IMO, but he always had to struggle to get it to them because of the blocking. It makes me sad to think that the Pack likely would have won the NFC that year with a better O line and an absolutely dominant Favre. That season was better than this one because of the adversity he had to face.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 19, 2010, 12:37:41 PM
Favre was sacked 34 times this year in the regular season which is above his career average of 28. 2007 he was sacked 15 times.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 19, 2010, 12:42:07 PM
Favre was sacked 34 times this year in the regular season which is above his career average of 28. 2007 he was sacked 15 times.

The only offensive player to make the pro bowl for the packers in 2007 was Donald Driver (I should have checked if I got my years right).  Minnesota is sending a guard (Hutchinson) and a tackle (McKinnie) this year.  I think it's safe to say that he has a better line now.  The increase in sacks may have to do with him taking fewer risks and/or running less.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on January 19, 2010, 12:57:01 PM
More sacks but less INTs (7 vs 22 in 2008 or 15 in 2007).  Being sacked is almost certainly preferable to a pick.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Draegan on January 19, 2010, 01:11:08 PM
I was shocked how crappy SD ran the ball. Is the Jets front 4 that good or is LT that old/SD front 4 that mediocre?

The Jets front three.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 19, 2010, 01:34:12 PM
Favre was sacked 34 times this year in the regular season which is above his career average of 28. 2007 he was sacked 15 times.
The increase in sacks may have to do with him taking fewer risks and/or running less.
Yes that was my point. I'm saying his low INTs this year is because he's playing differently. Not because he has better pass protection or something.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 19, 2010, 04:13:43 PM
Yes that was my point. I'm saying his low INTs this year is because he's playing differently. Not because he has better pass protection or something.

I misunderstood.  Sorry about that. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 20, 2010, 06:28:11 AM
Also, less fumbles than ever (2). When you factor in age and the intensity he plays at, it's a heck of a thing. There's a reason people like Favre.

Sanchez, Romo, these kids still have a lot to prove. But guys like Manning and Favre deserve to be praised. So long as they don't forget about guys like Sanders, Mathis and Freeney, though they've been getting pretty good coverage this year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 20, 2010, 08:59:47 AM
Bob Sanders has spent half of time injured (literally) since joining the league. A force when he's out there, but it doesn't seem like you can ever count on that.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2010, 10:27:29 AM
Tony Romo will never amount to a fucking thing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 20, 2010, 10:30:14 AM
Tony Romo will never amount to a fucking thing.

He already has.  That "thing" is a millionaire. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 24, 2010, 06:24:41 PM
I think the Vikings need to fumble more.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 24, 2010, 07:23:44 PM
So glad the Saints won, now Farve can go fuck himself.  Way to throw a pick to end your career.  It's only fitting the 'old gunslinger' goes out like this.
I respect him and his stats but he needs to fucking go away now.

Saints played like shit in the 2nd half but did just enough to win.  Saints are in the Superbowl.  That HAS to be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on January 24, 2010, 07:37:01 PM
He threw a pick on his last play before his first retirement.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 24, 2010, 07:40:38 PM
The pick to which Chimpy refers is my favorite Favre INT of all time.  :why_so_serious:

The Saints make me nervous about their SB chances, just because when one team turns the ball over a billion times, it prooooobably shouldn't go to OT to decide the other team wins.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 24, 2010, 07:44:23 PM
So glad the Saints won, now Farve can go fuck himself.  Way to throw a pick to end your career.  It's only fitting the 'old gunslinger' goes out like this.
I respect him and his stats but he needs to fucking go away now.

Saints played like shit in the 2nd half but did just enough to win.  Saints are in the Superbowl.  That HAS to be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.


As a person who has lived on the Gulf Coast most of his life, I can't tell you how much of an amazing feeling this is. I don't know if we're going to be able to do shit  in the game right now, but this... this is tremendous.

Also twitter is awesome
Quote
Congrats to Brett Favre for coming out of retirement and taking the Saints to the Superbowl!



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on January 24, 2010, 07:56:21 PM
As someone that really found kindred spirits in Saints fans, I wish you guys the best. "Who 'dat" indeed. Good luck boys.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 24, 2010, 09:09:58 PM
WHO DAT, BITCHES!!!!

What a fantastic fucking game. That was exactly the type of nut-clenching game I wanted all year. The two best teams in the NFL going at it to the very end. I've been watching the Saints for 32 years - my first football memory is of watching the Saints play the Lions during Archie Manning's era. And after 25 or more years of sucking major ass, they finally get to the big game. Too damn awesome.

As for Favre, I take great pleasure in knowing that he lost this game and ruined his team's chance to go the Super Bowl in the EXACT SAME WAY he lost it for Green Bay in 2007 - trying to make a play he should never have tried to make and throwing a game-winning drive killing INT. Gunslinger, indeed. You shouldn't have picked the Vikings.

Normally, I'd root for the Colts in the Super Bowl, but it's the Saints. WHO DAT!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on January 24, 2010, 09:58:54 PM
If your spin on that game is that Favre lost the game for his team you are smoking some serious crack.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on January 24, 2010, 10:15:26 PM
A first-drive field goal in Overtime deciding one of the teams going to the Super Bowl.

I remember this coming up early in the playoffs as a possible catalyst for a rule change (in a hypothetical Chargers/Colts AFC Championship).  Funny that that game didn't occur, but the exact scenario did.

Grats to the Saints and all, but that's a shit way for a championship game to end.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on January 24, 2010, 11:30:32 PM
My friend from Minnesota is probably on the verge of suicide tonight.

It wasn't really Favre's interception that really did them in, it was the inexplicable 12 men in the huddle penalty that forced having to do such a play in the first place.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 24, 2010, 11:31:50 PM
I have hated sudden death OT for some time, hopefully they finally fuckin' change it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on January 25, 2010, 12:49:53 AM
As an uninformed observer, what stops the NFL from going to a system more like the one at the college level?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: taolurker on January 25, 2010, 01:21:02 AM
If your spin on that game is that Favre lost the game for his team you are smoking some serious crack.

Favre didn't have to throw that at all, there was 7 seconds left on the clock and all they needed was a field goal. They only needed about 7-10 yards to make it a manageable FG try.

It wasn't really Favre's interception that really did them in, it was the inexplicable 12 men in the huddle penalty that forced having to do such a play in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQi_wd4ol4

Still it's him running the ball out of bounds enough to make up the 5 yard penalty and they have it. If he weren't gimpy the whole game I'd say he even could've gone for the 1st down. There was no one on the right side.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 25, 2010, 05:34:34 AM
Peterson is a beast on the field, but for the love of god stop fumbling the fucking ball. You are a primary ball carrier and you can seem to CARRY THE BALL.

Good on the Saints. I would have liked to see either team go, but the Superbowl will be a treat. I think Archie hangs himself sometime this week.

The Jets might be back if they can hold the team together. I think Ryan has the swagger of a Parcells and getting that deep in the playoffs should pay off for Sancheezy.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Brogarn on January 25, 2010, 05:59:18 AM
Favre's pick didn't lose that game. Every guy on the offense fumbling at some point lost that game. 12 men in the huddle lost that game. Favre played like a fucking champion even after getting drilled into the ground and needing help to make it to the sideline. This is just petty "I hate Favre" bullshit getting in the way of reality.

The Jets also played better than I expected. They have no reason to hang their head after that game and proved they had every right to be there. I think those that say differently just hoped that the Colts would lose to the Chargers who have a good history of that. But the Chargers lost their right when they stepped on their dick in their game against the Jets, so /shrug. Jets made it and they played pretty damn well.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: MrHat on January 25, 2010, 06:16:33 AM
By the second half, Favre was all black and blue.  Poor guy got roughed up so much.

But he did Favre the game up at the end.  Seriously, he could of slid from where he was and got enough for the field goal.

Good on the Saints, but I fear that Manning is going to fuck them up badly.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 25, 2010, 07:13:31 AM
Favre's pick didn't lose that game. Every guy on the offense fumbling at some point lost that game. 12 men in the huddle lost that game. Favre played like a fucking champion even after getting drilled into the ground and needing help to make it to the sideline. This is just petty "I hate Favre" bullshit getting in the way of reality.
This. But I guess they should've handed it to Dropsy McPeterson, right? The game should've been over when Favre could barely walk to the huddle, but he came back and almost won it, ffs. If you can't respect that, you should just stop watching football. Between AP and Favre's injuries, I was sure it was going to be a slaughter, but it went to OT. That's championship football.

And yeah, that 'other' game. Jets have some real potential. Seeing Ryan go apoplectic as his QB got planted without a flag was funny. Colts show how important adjustment and having the smartest QB in the league is.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Draegan on January 25, 2010, 07:22:34 AM
I have hated sudden death OT for some time, hopefully they finally fuckin' change it.

Fuck that.  If a team wants to win they should be able to man up and do it in regulation.  If the team doesn't win the coin toss then man up and play some Defense.

Never change it.

And the college system is gay.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 25, 2010, 08:22:12 AM
I have hated sudden death OT for some time, hopefully they finally fuckin' change it.

Fuck that.  If a team wants to win they should be able to man up and do it in regulation.  If the team doesn't win the coin toss then man up and play some Defense.

Never change it.

And the college system is gay.

I agree, in part. A game decided by a coin toss is silly, even more so when you expect an already worn out defense to step up in OT. However, I definitely hate seeing college go back and forth and back and forth until someone fucks up, which is often times the only reason the other team wins, rather than based solely on a coin flip.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 25, 2010, 08:26:51 AM
Could just have a kicking contest.  Kick FG's from 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 yds.  Best of 5 wins.  55 yarder for a tie breaker. 

Most are decided by a FG anyway... why the hell not?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 25, 2010, 08:36:30 AM
Favre's pick didn't lose that game. Every guy on the offense fumbling at some point lost that game. 12 men in the huddle lost that game. Favre played like a fucking champion even after getting drilled into the ground and needing help to make it to the sideline. This is just petty "I hate Favre" bullshit getting in the way of reality.

Well, no, actually. Yes, the Vikings fumbled more times than old people having sex. They made some stupid penalties when they didn't need to. And Favre and their defense kept them in that game WAY PAST when they should have been blown out. I mean, come on, 4 fumbles? Two of which killed off drives that should have at least netted them field goals? AP and Percy Harvin should be lined up for every defensive player to slap the shit out of them.

But in the end, AFTER ALL THE FUCKUPS, Favre still had the opportunity to win or lose the game. All he had to do was: 1) run the ball with 10 yards of open space - a bad option considering his ankle was probably held together with duct tape, but still an option, 2) throw the ball in the fucking stands - sure, it makes the field goal tough as hell to make but it doesn't give the Saints the ball back and at least gives them the CHANCE at the field goal. Of course, I can also blame Childress for calling a pass there. With one timeout left, AP in the backfield (or even Chester Taylor), you can run the ball up the gut to set up a better field goal chance.

But instead, Favre tries to be Super-Favre, just like he did in the 2007 game against the Giants, the Saints pick it and end up winning the game. Of course there are a lot more factors, but the final gasp of the Vikings left their collective body on the wings of an ill-advised Favre pick. It's what you get with Favre. He's either going to wow you with some shit he never should have thrown, or he's going to cough up a big INT with some shit he shouldn't have thrown.

EDIT: As for the Jets, yep they showed me something. The Colts did the right thing defensively - they made Sanchez beat them and he couldn't. Give him a few years of seasoning and two healthy running backs and maybe he can. Their defense definitely showed up for as long as they could. After the Jets performance yesterday, I will say that they did deserve to be there, but I still would have preferred to watch Chargers/Colts.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on January 25, 2010, 10:19:43 AM
I have hated sudden death OT for some time, hopefully they finally fuckin' change it.

Fuck that.  If a team wants to win they should be able to man up and do it in regulation.  If the team doesn't win the coin toss then man up and play some Defense.

Never change it.

And the college system is gay.

I hate the college system.

If OT were to change I'd like to see them play a mini-game - 2 10 minute halves…

But the players like the OT rule the way it is… …they don't want to play for a longer period of time.

An interesting proposal I heard from an ESPN radio guy a few months back proposed keeping OT the way it is, but automatically awarding the visiting team 1st ball in OT… …reasoning being that if home team couldn't lick the visitors in regulation, visitors should get opening nod in sudden death OT…

Again, the college system is a joke.

But I wish the NFL would take the one-foot-in rule (especially now with the force-out rule change) and modify pass interference to 15 yards/1st down instead of spot of foul from the college game…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 25, 2010, 10:31:38 AM
Could just have a kicking contest.  Kick FG's from 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 yds.  Best of 5 wins.  55 yarder for a tie breaker. 

Most are decided by a FG anyway... why the hell not?

We wouldn't want kickers making a shit ton of money now would we?  :why_so_serious:

Shoot out in the NFL. Interesting concept: part of me is laughing at the notion but the other part is curious.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on January 25, 2010, 10:58:29 AM
The college system is much better, they should use it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 25, 2010, 11:14:52 AM
The college system is for pussies.  :awesome_for_real: I don't get why sudden death is so bad. Coin flip determines possession, first one to score wins, we go home. Don't get possession? Your defense needs to step up, plain and simple.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on January 25, 2010, 11:19:13 AM
The college system is for pussies.  :awesome_for_real: I don't get why sudden death is so bad. Coin flip determines possession, first one to score wins, we go home. Don't get possession? Your defense needs to step up, plain and simple.

I don't feel like a RNG element is really particularly appropriate in football, that's all. The coin flip at the start of the game is ok, because it is balanced out by swapping who receives at halftime. With the coin flip, when two teams with good offenses and bad defenses go to overtime, you're essentially assigning one of them to win with the coin flip itself. That's just kind of lame.

You still have the opportunity to step it up on defense and win the game in the other system, and there's no reason you have to start as close to the end zone as they do in college if you want a better test of the defense.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 25, 2010, 11:36:09 AM
I have little to add to this thread. I wanted the Saints to win but Favre also earned my respect for showing alot of balls. He got hit what? 15+ times? Had his ankle injured? And he kept playing. That's grit. I can respect that. Yeah, he choked on an important play but that's the breaks.

I do have a question. I thought alot of those hits on Favre would draw a flag for late hits or something? Are they more liberal about that than they used to be? I haven't really watched alot of football in the last few years so my theory is that the pendulum swung back. I remember when if you bumped the QB while running past it'd be a personal foul and all that.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: JWIV on January 25, 2010, 11:44:22 AM

I do have a question. I thought alot of those hits on Favre would draw a flag for late hits or something? Are they more liberal about that than they used to be? I haven't really watched alot of football in the last few years so my theory is that the pendulum swung back. I remember when if you bumped the QB while running past it'd be a personal foul and all that.

It's been inconsistent all season; even so far as to being called differently during the game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 25, 2010, 12:00:44 PM
I thought alot of those hits on Favre would draw a flag for late hits or something? Are they more liberal about that than they used to be? I haven't really watched alot of football in the last few years so my theory is that the pendulum swung back. I remember when if you bumped the QB while running past it'd be a personal foul and all that.
Seeing Ryan go apoplectic as his QB got planted without a flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wESYtS9B9o


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 25, 2010, 12:28:25 PM
Roughing the passer has swung from getting flagged every time you looked cross at the QB (if the QB's name was Tom Brady) to letting a guy get skullfucked on the field by three black studs. The officiating has been more egregiously idiotic this year. Pass interference has been called the same way. Favre got a few late hits that should have been called but weren't, and one that was called and should not have been. Of course, the play where his ankle got hurt was a clean tackle, IMO.

EDIT: And yes, that Sanchez hit should have drawn a flag.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on January 25, 2010, 12:31:17 PM
It wasn't though if I understand the Carson Palmer rule correctly.  That was the exact type of play that got him hurt (player diving in below the knees as he threw the ball.  But I haven't really figured out what the rule change they made was since only Tom Brady has gotten that kind of protection since the rule change.

I thought the one they did call was iffy but live it sure did look like the defender attempted to jump off the ground holding him in order to drop all his weight onto Favre.  This is football and that should be part of the game but (again live) I thought the guy was going out of his way to hurt him and the flag didn't surprise or insult me too badly as a result.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Murgos on January 25, 2010, 01:54:58 PM
The Saints did not win that game, the Vikings lost it.  The Vikes were completely dominant in the second half - shutting down the Saints O and marching down the field with almost every possession.  A little more liberal use of sticky tape and all we would be talking about is how annoying the next two weeks of Favre coverage is going to be.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on January 25, 2010, 01:59:22 PM
As much of a diehard Vikings fan as I am, I'm kind of glad that the Saints won.  It would have been hellish listening to the media talk about Favre for the next two weeks.  Instead, this may be the incentive he needs to retire for good.  It's time for him to let someone else run the show.  I just hope the Vikings go out and get a decent QB.  What they have now after Favre is pretty terrible.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on January 25, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
As much of a diehard Vikings fan as I am, I'm kind of glad that the Saints won.  It would have been hellish listening to the media talk about Favre for the next two weeks.  Instead, this may be the incentive he needs to retire for good.  It's time for him to let someone else run the show.  I just hope the Vikings go out and get a decent QB.  What they have now after Favre is pretty terrible.

You are not diehard the way I understand that word to work.  For most franchises five superbowl chances per lifetime is as good as it gets.  Even though I knew they were hardly a playoff team I would have shed blood to see the Bengals win a game or four who knows when if ever they'll make another run?  Green Bay and potentially Chicago have QB's that will be solid to amazing for most of this decade, acting like one less fumble away from the superbowl is no big deal because the media would talk about Favre too much is even more crazytalk then this Favre lost the game shit.

Also losing because of his fumbles could damage Peterson for his entire career, if he had a shot at redemption against the undersized Colts in the superbowl?  I would have put money on him fucking up their day.

The thing about this game was, I wanted the better team to win because I don't need to see Manning get another ring and the Saints are clearly not the better team.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 25, 2010, 02:47:14 PM
I don't think "clearly" means what you think it does...


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 25, 2010, 02:57:39 PM
The Saints were the better team. Why? Because they made less fuckups - and their fuckups didn't hurt them. The Vikes left at least two field goals on the ground in regulation by fumbling inside the 30, and another by tossing that INT at the end of regulation. They left at least 6 and as much as 17 points on the field through fumbles and INT's and there could have been more if the Saints had fallen on the ball. It was only the Vikings defense that kept them from being absolutely blown out, because the Saints left at least a few field goals on the field with 3 and outs after turnovers.

The better team doesn't give the ball away 6 times.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: sigil on January 25, 2010, 03:25:37 PM
That's the thing about Brett Favre; he's not afraid to throw an interception. That's one of the things I most admire about him -Tom Jackson ESPN


Which led to the ESPN Favre Rules for all hash tag and the comedy gold from that before it went sideways.




That's the thing about Leon Lett; He's not afraid to try and pick up a blocked field goal on the two yard line.

That's the thing about Mike Vick; He's not afraid to unleash the hounds when the fight starts. That's what winners do.

And for the footy fan...
That's the thing about John Terry; he's not afraid to go wide on a penalty in the rain on field turf.




Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 25, 2010, 03:53:02 PM
Keep the OT rule as is; your defense is part of your team too.  If you look at the OT record, there isn't a statistical advantage to having the ball first.

College 'playoff' system is a joke, please don't troll that shit.

As for the Vikes, turnovers lose games.  Period.  Why do you think coaches flip out when one happens?  Farve is a future Hall of Famer, but he lost that game and no one else.  QB's get most of the praise and most of the blame.  That's the way it goes.  But he did get them in position to win it in OT.  He just had make a dumb decision and it cost them.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on January 25, 2010, 04:00:34 PM
College 'playoff' system is a joke, please don't troll that shit.

Who said anything about the playoff system?  :headscratch:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 25, 2010, 04:36:30 PM
Keep the OT rule as is; your defense is part of your team too.  If you look at the OT record, there isn't a statistical advantage to having the ball first.
Yes, there is. Post various rules changes like moving the kickoff line back the winner of the coin flip wins 60% of the time. 60/40 or 3:2 is a big advantage.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 25, 2010, 04:39:11 PM
College 'playoff' system is a joke, please don't troll that shit.

Who said anything about the playoff system?  :headscratch:

He probably meant the overtime rules. If he did, he would have just uttered one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The college OT system is by far the best and fairest possible way to end the game. The NFL system is by far the stupidest and most arbitrary.

And yes, it is 60/40 after the kickoff change in 1994. That's an overwhelming disparity.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 25, 2010, 06:16:46 PM
No, I meant the BCS, not OT rules.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 25, 2010, 06:17:23 PM
I have got to laugh at the "man up and play defense if you want to win in OT." Nothing about letting both teams have a possession in OT takes away the "man up and play defense" aspect. You'll just have to man up and play defense to win if your team scores first AS WELL as man up and play defense if you lost the toss. The current sudden death rules are total bullshit, all the dick waving about DEFENSE RAAR MANLY MANNESS isn't going to change that.

As for Favre lost the game/no he didn't ... I bet you a dollar HE thinks he lost it.  :why_so_serious: Also yeah, the better team doesn't turn over the ball a jillion times. But like I said, I don't know if the Saints can beat the Colts, just because when your opponent turns the ball over a jillion times, you should kick their ass in regulation. :/


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 25, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
I wouldn't want Adrian Peterson to ever carry the ball for my team. He's just become this total ball security nightmare that no amount of 100 yard games can overcome. He's lead all runningbacks in fumbles for the last two years.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: BoatApe on January 25, 2010, 06:30:38 PM
Some of those turnovers were gifts but the Saints actively caused 2-3 of them. They've shown a huge improvement in going after the ball this season.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on January 25, 2010, 09:37:29 PM
I always thought OT was supposed to represent the last few minutes of regulation. If two teams are tied and there is 1 minute left, no one seems to care if one team can march down the field for the last second field goal to win the game then.



Maybe they should just ban Field Goals in OT if that's the real issue, make it so you have to score a TD then?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on January 25, 2010, 10:56:05 PM
I could support the "OT is just an extension of regulation, rite" thing if they didn't stop and reset the way they do. If it was simply "play as normal until the score isn't tied anymore," that would be OK, but they stop and do a coin toss and shit.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on January 25, 2010, 11:06:41 PM
My only problem with the college system is the start at the 25.  It turns overtime into as much of a minigame as a Field Goal Shootout.

Change the starting position to midfield or your own 40 and bring it up to the NFL.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 25, 2010, 11:08:39 PM
I always thought OT was supposed to represent the last few minutes of regulation. If two teams are tied and there is 1 minute left, no one seems to care if one team can march down the field for the last second field goal to win the game then.

Maybe they should just ban Field Goals in OT if that's the real issue, make it so you have to score a TD then?
One proposal is the first to 6 points. So 2 FGs or 1 TD would win it.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on January 26, 2010, 03:19:40 AM
Look, each team had 60 minutes to beat the other.  If it goes into OT and you lose well tough titties.  The Saints sucked hard in the second half and the Vikes were on a roll but they didn't do enough to win. So the Saints win the coin toss and march down the field and win.

Let's not forget the turnovers by the Vikes; they were lucky even to go to OT.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Fordel on January 26, 2010, 11:32:00 PM
I always thought OT was supposed to represent the last few minutes of regulation. If two teams are tied and there is 1 minute left, no one seems to care if one team can march down the field for the last second field goal to win the game then.

Maybe they should just ban Field Goals in OT if that's the real issue, make it so you have to score a TD then?
One proposal is the first to 6 points. So 2 FGs or 1 TD would win it.



That seems like a really keen idea, they should do that. Lets a defense 'settle' with allowing a FG the first time and lets their own offense have a crack at things. Little of both camps that way.


Sjofn - Clock management is still a component of the game, without the hard stop and reset, then the last minutes of regulation are entirely moot in a tie game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 27, 2010, 04:24:38 PM
Look, each team had 60 minutes to beat the other.  If it goes into OT and you lose well tough titties.  The Saints sucked hard in the second half and the Vikes were on a roll but they didn't do enough to win. So the Saints win the coin toss and march down the field and win.

Let's not forget the turnovers by the Vikes; they were lucky even to go to OT.

See it would be fine if college hadn't created a vastly superior OT, and they just ignore it. It's just as stupid as college football ignoring the vastly superior playoff system. Both are retarded and are only motivated by money.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Chimpy on January 27, 2010, 04:31:46 PM
The College Football OT was not some amazing new idea that the NCAA came up with.

Illinois has had a very similar system in place for decades for high school games. I am sure other states had it at the high school level for a long time as well.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on January 27, 2010, 05:15:58 PM
SO are any of you actually going to watch the probowl?

I tend to, just to see if some "pro" will end his career on the field with a Theismann-like injury which will inevitably get the NFL to drop this farce of a game... 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 27, 2010, 05:24:37 PM
SO are any of you actually going to watch the probowl?

I tend to, just to see if some "pro" will end his career on the field with a Theismann-like injury which will inevitably get the NFL to drop this farce of a game... 

You mean the "Pro" Bowl where QB's Aaron Rodgers and Matt Schaub will start? How about Antonio Gates and Vernon Davis! No? Miles Austin? Adrian Peterson?

Oh that's right, all the best players can't play...

Yeah. I think I'll be watching golf.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on January 27, 2010, 07:38:05 PM
The Pro Bowl has been a joke for a long while. They need to shitcan that whole thing, take out the extra week between the championships and the Super Bowl and just name the people who would've gone to the Pro Bowl All-Stars or something. It was stupid when it was a week after the Super Bowl and in Hawaii. It's worse now, because all the Super Bowl players won't be playing.

And the college OT system? Lame.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on January 27, 2010, 08:43:25 PM
The Pro Bowl has been a joke for a long while. They need to shitcan that whole thing, take out the extra week between the championships and the Super Bowl and just name the people who would've gone to the Pro Bowl All-Stars or something.

They already do, it's called the "All Pro" team and it's far more selective than the Pro Bowl.  I'm not sure why the owners/coaches allow the Pro Bowl to exist with how paranoid everyone is about injuries. Maybe they should just play the thing in a giant inflatible bouncy castle.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on January 28, 2010, 06:52:56 AM
It's worse now, because all the Super Bowl players won't be playing. .
I was wondering about that.

I don't think I've ever seen more than ten minutes of a pro bowl game.
I'm not sure why the owners/coaches allow the Pro Bowl to exist with how paranoid everyone is about injuries.
I can't even conceive of the insurance premiums.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Draegan on January 28, 2010, 08:23:23 AM
People watch the probowl?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on January 28, 2010, 08:58:42 AM
The Pro Bowl has been a joke for a long while. They need to shitcan that whole thing, take out the extra week between the championships and the Super Bowl and just name the people who would've gone to the Pro Bowl All-Stars or something. It was stupid when it was a week after the Super Bowl and in Hawaii. It's worse now, because all the Super Bowl players won't be playing.

And the college OT system? Lame.

When it was in Hawaii, Pro Bowl just served as a vacation mecca for players and their family/friends. Now that it's part of the superbowl pre-event gala hype, not sure what function it really serves.

It should be replaced with a skill competition carousel — fastest runner, have QBs fire passes through tires and/or put a radar gun on 'em, 3v3 (fl|t)ag football, lineman reverse tug-o-war (i.e., line up on opposite sides of tackle "dummy" and see who can push who off), strongest man, etc.…

That would be more exciting than the extremely lame pro-bowl game…


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 28, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Battle of the Network NFL Stars.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on January 28, 2010, 04:54:23 PM
Think about it though, the skills events surrounding the All-Star games generally draw better ratings than the games themselves. The Home Run Derby and the NHL skills competition jump to mind.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Azuredream on January 28, 2010, 06:03:20 PM
I would watch NFL dudes racing each other. Pro bowl.. no thanks.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 28, 2010, 06:13:58 PM
Battle of the Network NFL Stars.
I loved that show as a kid. It was fun watching NBC's football team crush everybody else when they had Mark Harmon (starting QB at UCLA in his college days) playing for them.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on January 29, 2010, 05:33:49 AM
Man, I love that show too.  Mostly it was because of all the really hot women, which is odd because I was only like 6 or 7 at the time. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on January 29, 2010, 08:48:43 AM
Man, I love that show too.  Mostly it was because of all the really hot women
...wearing swimsuits...


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on February 01, 2010, 03:28:16 AM
The Pro Bowl has been a joke for a long while. They need to shitcan that whole thing, take out the extra week between the championships and the Super Bowl and just name the people who would've gone to the Pro Bowl All-Stars or something. It was stupid when it was a week after the Super Bowl and in Hawaii. It's worse now, because all the Super Bowl players won't be playing.

And the college OT system? Lame.

When it was in Hawaii, Pro Bowl just served as a vacation mecca for players and their family/friends. Now that it's part of the superbowl pre-event gala hype, not sure what function it really serves.

It should be replaced with a skill competition carousel — fastest runner, have QBs fire passes through tires and/or put a radar gun on 'em, 3v3 (fl|t)ag football, lineman reverse tug-o-war (i.e., line up on opposite sides of tackle "dummy" and see who can push who off), strongest man, etc.…

That would be more exciting than the extremely lame pro-bowl game…

Excellent idea.  I'd love to see that and would give the NFL another way to highlight their players.  Have Manning and Brady goof around and chat and throw footballs.  Have some of the players that have a personality chat and just hang out.  I would watch that way more than the Pro Bowl.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 01, 2010, 09:17:51 PM
Mike Martz is the Bears new offensive coordinator (http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=4877772&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines).

So a douchebag will be coached by an asshole. Awesome.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on February 01, 2010, 10:03:32 PM
They already do, it's called the "All Pro" team and it's far more selective than the Pro Bowl.  I'm not sure why the owners/coaches allow the Pro Bowl to exist with how paranoid everyone is about injuries. Maybe they should just play the thing in a giant inflatible bouncy castle.

The way it is they basically play two-hand touch.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on February 02, 2010, 05:48:47 AM
The way it is they basically play two-hand touch.

That's it!  They can play flag football for the pro bowl!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Cyrrex on February 02, 2010, 05:53:26 AM
Isn't there a league full of Playboy Playmates?  We could just watch that instead.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 05, 2010, 10:03:17 AM
Maybe if they gave a $2 million dollar bonus to the player that actually inflicted an injury to someone on the opposing team?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bungee on February 06, 2010, 02:24:27 PM
Isn't there a league full of Playboy Playmates?  We could just watch that instead.

The LFL (http://www.lflus.com)?

Go San Diego Seduction!!!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on February 07, 2010, 05:05:35 PM
Am I wrong in saying that this superbowl is rather blah so far? Even the commercials are pedestrian... aside from Snickers which gets a big win for Betty White and Abe Vigoda.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Margalis on February 07, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
I could sure go for some Doritos and Bud Light!

Yeah, commercials and game have been blah. I guess partly because I don't care even slightly who wins.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Merusk on February 07, 2010, 05:57:07 PM
The Bud Light commercials have sucked.  I got chuckles out of the Snickers and a few Doritos commercials. The Denny's Chickens were pretty damn funny too, but I enjoy stupid humor like that.

Oh, forgot the Letterman spot with Leno and Oprah.  "Worst superbowl party ever.."


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on February 07, 2010, 06:47:53 PM
Who Dat?

The motherfucking superbowl champions, that's who.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: K9 on February 07, 2010, 06:59:15 PM
Fucking awesome game.

Who Dat!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on February 07, 2010, 07:03:54 PM
Hopefully this will make the boo hooing Vikings fans shut the fuck up.

Oh, who am I kidding.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Surlyboi on February 07, 2010, 07:05:24 PM
No, now you'll just have boo-hooing Colts fans joining in on the chorus.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Bzalthek on February 07, 2010, 07:10:58 PM
Solid game, though I was disappointed I couldn't spot Nesbit on the field.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on February 07, 2010, 07:16:02 PM
What a great game, not too many penalties, only one turnover and some great plays.  Kudos to Indy for playing their usual excellent game, but man did the Saints scratch and claw.  Without a doubt the best two teams played and without a doubt the Saints are the best team of the year.  Such gutsy calls by Coach Peyton, that onside kick was amazing.  

Regardless of who plays, I'm always glad to see close Superbowl games.  

Oh and the commercials were the worst in years.  The auto-tune one was kinda funny but it was just a lousy year for commercials.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 07, 2010, 07:19:53 PM
Well, I'm highly pissed off.  I can't believe that the fucking Saints won.  I mean really.  Their defense sucks and Brees is a dillhole.  Also, Manning is a Catholic priest that actually does not molest small children and brought Tennessee out of the Civil War.  Really.

Actually, I couldn't give a shit.  Does it matter?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on February 07, 2010, 07:23:09 PM
Well, I'm highly pissed off.  I can't believe that the fucking Saints won.  I mean really.  Their defense sucks and Brees is a dillhole.  Also, Manning is a Catholic priest that actually does not molest small children and brought Tennessee out of the Civil War.  Really.

Actually, I couldn't give a shit.  Does it matter?

Just because we keep banning the biggest douchebag on the forums quarterly, doesn't mean someone needs to take up the reigns.

If it doesn't matter to you, why are you reading the thread and better yet, why are you posting?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 07, 2010, 07:28:02 PM
What a great game, not too many penalties, only one turnover and some great plays.  Kudos to Indy for playing their usual excellent game, but man did the Saints scratch and claw.  Without a doubt the best two teams played and without a doubt the Saints are the best team of the year.  Such gutsy calls by Coach Peyton, that onside kick was amazing.  

Regardless of who plays, I'm always glad to see close Superbowl games.  

Oh and the commercials were the worst in years.  The auto-tune one was kinda funny but it was just a lousy year for commercials.

My wife (Saints fan) got kinda cranky with me when I criticized the on-sides kick as risky for no reason.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on February 07, 2010, 09:14:05 PM
Saints won, and I don't begrudge them. Still, did it not sound like a Saints home game in there? Damn if I've never heard a Super Bowl crowd so very one-sided in years.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 07, 2010, 09:28:22 PM
That's because an absolute shitton of New Orleans fans went to the Super Bowl, hell a bunch went to Miami just to be in the fucking city. 44 years of disappointment and despair and it's finally over.

SAINTS WIN!

That was a good game. It wasn't decided by the refs, by penalties, by stupidity, it was the best team coming through at the right time. I've been watching these bastards trip over their dick for 32 years. My first football memory is the Saints losing to the Detroit Lions on TV. I never thought I'd be able to utter the phrase SUPER BOWL CHAMPION NEW ORLEANS SAINTS!


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on February 07, 2010, 09:31:44 PM
Was a very good game and I agree with Haemish that that it was refreshing how little role the refs played. I feel a bit bad for Manning. He is really a master and watching him play is a thing of beauty. In my opinion that interception was actually not his fault. If you look at it Wayne was very lazy on his break. I think he was the hot read on the blitz and Wayne didn't read it so didn't break for the quick slant. Doubt it would have mattered all that much as NO basically outplayed them from the start of the 2nd quarter on.  Sean Payton has big brass ones, that's for sure.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 07, 2010, 09:41:26 PM
Well, I'm highly pissed off.  I can't believe that the fucking Saints won.  I mean really.  Their defense sucks and Brees is a dillhole.  Also, Manning is a Catholic priest that actually does not molest small children and brought Tennessee out of the Civil War.  Really.

Actually, I couldn't give a shit.  Does it matter?

Just because we keep banning the biggest douchebag on the forums quarterly, doesn't mean someone needs to take up the reigns.

If it doesn't matter to you, why are you reading the thread and better yet, why are you posting?

Sarcasm, my friend.......

I thought it was so over the top it wouldn't merit a ban threat, but sorry anyway  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on February 08, 2010, 06:31:27 AM
The interception was just beautiful from a defensive point of view, in my opinion. I tend to agree with wasn't Manning's fault exactly, it was just a great defensive play.

I haven't watched the Colts play very much. Their coach ... he's sort of disturbing. There's having a game face, and then there's looking like you do not feel human emotions because you are an android sent from the future.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on February 08, 2010, 07:20:08 AM
Well, I'm pretty sure Tony Dungy is an alien. So usual fare over at Indy.

I really wanted a Vikes v Colts SB, I really wanted the Colts to win, but credit where it's due. It was a good game, both teams pretty much executed well and the best team won.

Garçon's drop was huge. I was a bit unhappy with the scrum for the ball during the onside kick, Saints players mobbed it and were pulling Colts off the pile and jumping on the pile at the same time...after the refs were there trying to break it up. It was pretty ugly. The long FG attempt for Indy was a huge mistake, handing the Saints great position.

I think maybe putting it in Adai's hands more would've been good, they were getting some good success with that early. Really, who prepares for a Colts running game? Great pick six, game was over that exact second, even though I never count Peyton out. Clock management was a bit crappy toward the end.

Funniest moment was big-mouth Shockey getting elbowed to the face into the ground. Or maybe the down marker smacking that guy on the sidelines (I hope he's ok, but the face was funny).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on February 08, 2010, 07:25:54 AM
The interception was just beautiful from a defensive point of view, in my opinion. I tend to agree with wasn't Manning's fault exactly, it was just a great defensive play.

I haven't watched the Colts play very much. Their coach ... he's sort of disturbing. There's having a game face, and then there's looking like you do not feel human emotions because you are an android sent from the future.

Caldwell always has that "huh?" look to him. I don't want to outright question his ability to coach but I have not seen anything from him when I caught games this season. I don't think I have heard him speak on the sidelines either. Not saying he doesn't coach, but it does make you wonder just how much authority Manning has on that team.

As for the SB. First half blew ass and the Saints def got shredded pretty much the whole game (though they did not play for almost the entire 2nd quarter) aside from one mistake/great-play. Saints offense...my god, if you see that the Indy def is that god damn fast, stop running east to west and start throttling it between the tackles. Second half played out much better. The Saints field goal kicker was spot on though... insane leg and accuracy in that type of situation. Glad they got that 43 year old monkey off their back.

...now about my Browns.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 08, 2010, 07:37:50 AM
It was a good game, both teams pretty much executed well and the best team won.

The superbowl usually seems to be more of a one sided affair.  I'm happy that the anticipated round of excuse-making for the Colts and Manning hasn't happened.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on February 08, 2010, 08:02:33 AM
It seems like the Superbowls of late have all been pretty good, or at least ended fun. I can't think of a full out shitty one since Ravens-Giants (<sob>).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 08, 2010, 08:11:02 AM
Colts-Bears and, in particular, Steelers-Seahawks were yawners. 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sjofn on February 08, 2010, 08:17:11 AM
Haha, I forgot about those completely, so I guess you're right.  :drill:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: K9 on February 08, 2010, 08:27:54 AM
The kickoff return was the highlight of the Colts-Bears superbowl.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: ghost on February 08, 2010, 08:43:08 AM
Twenty eight of the superbowls have been won by at least 10 points.  There have been some real stinkers in the past, however.  My personal favorite has been the SF-Cinci game where Tim Krumrie broke his leg in horrific fashion and Montana engineered one of the most amazing drives in NFL history.  But then there's the Pats-Bears from '85.  What a terrible game.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 08, 2010, 08:49:06 AM
Colts-Bears and, in particular, Steelers+refs v Seahawks were yawners. 

/bitter

Nice work, Saints! Much closer than the score indicated. I was pretty sure Indy was going to roll when they went up 10-0, but the Saints made the right adjustments on both sides of the ball.  :heart: The 2nd half kickoff- people will be talking about that in 50 years. Very cool.

Even though they sounded and looked like crap, I still loved the halftime show too. Like the trend of using classic acts instead of the latest flash in the pan and their 500 favorite dancers.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: K9 on February 08, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
What was the deal with nobody on the pitch for the halftime show by the way?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Abagadro on February 08, 2010, 09:54:55 AM
They didn't want to inadvertanly violate Townsend's protective order.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 08, 2010, 09:57:35 AM
The long FG attempt for Indy was a huge mistake, handing the Saints great position.

Yes, yes it was. I mean, you'd already gone for it on 4th and 2 instead of trying a field goal that was longer. The 50 yarder was most definitely not in Stover's wheelhouse, not outdoors in the winter. Plus, if he misses it, the Saints get an extra 10 yards - you miss the 4th down, they get the ball somewhere in the 30's. Yes, the Saints could still drive that down for a TD, but make them work a bit more for it. And if you get the first down, well, you'll probably go for TD or at least get an easier field goal later in the drive, and you won't be giving the ball back to Drew Brees. I think Caldwell got too conservative then.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Hoax on February 08, 2010, 01:22:31 PM
I almost felt bad for Manning and I really begrudge how talented he is.  The Colt's coach just seemed to be along for the ride the entire time and the contrast between that and Sean Payton going balls to the wall every other drive was very noticeable.  Then he gets fucked by that really big drop and by Wayne taking most of the game off.  It wasn't just the interception where he looked uninvolved and lazy running his routes to me.

Fuck yeah though couldn't have happened in a better non annoying storybook way, unless Reggie Bush had gotten the chance to do some amazing shit in the win somewhere.

Good superbowl, skipped the halftime show, really shitty commercials, fucking recession.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on February 08, 2010, 01:36:14 PM

Even though they sounded and looked like crap, I still loved the halftime show too. Like the trend of using classic acts instead of the latest flash in the pan and their 500 favorite dancers.

I like the trend, but they just looked and sounded OLD.  Which they are. Steve Winwood in the pregame looked like a goddamn zombie.

I didn't get to see most of the second half.  Did find out my son has a milk allergy though.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on February 08, 2010, 01:42:57 PM
I thought Daltrey's voice was great and Pete's rhythm guitar was excellent. Pete's voice sucked wind and the rhythm section makes me miss Ox and Moonie, though.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on February 08, 2010, 06:41:31 PM
The Colt's coach just seemed to be along for the ride the entire time and the contrast between that and Sean Payton going balls to the wall every other drive was very noticeable.

Payton's coaching was essentially Revenge of the Stat Nerds after that Colt-Pats game early in the year.  Was good to see that style of play-calling pay off on a big stage, even if I wasn't pulling for the Saints.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on February 16, 2010, 11:50:59 AM
Darrell Green is still a freak.  (http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/02/16/darrell-green-runs-4-43-40-yard-dash-on-50th-birthday/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002)


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: tazelbain on February 16, 2010, 11:54:25 AM
It was good year for football.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 16, 2010, 02:36:34 PM
Darrell Green is still a freak.  (http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/02/16/darrell-green-runs-4-43-40-yard-dash-on-50th-birthday/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002)

Good lord. That guy is a marvel.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on February 27, 2010, 10:49:56 PM
Quote from: AP
INDIANAPOLIS — An NFL spokesman said Saturday the league could change its overtime format for playoff games at a meeting next month.

Under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, Greg Aiello said. If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again.

Under the current rules, the first team to score wins.

"There have been various concepts that have been discussed in recent years, but this one has never been proposed," Aiello said.

The competition committee will discuss the new concept with teams and players at league meetings March 21-24 in Orlando, Fla., when it could come to a vote. At least two thirds of the teams would need to agree to the changes for new rules to be adopted.

The competition committee met with the players' union and players on Thursday during the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis. Discussion continued when the competition committee met with a general managers' advisory committee on Friday.

The debate about the rules gained steam after the NFC championship game, when New Orleans beat Minnesota 31-28 in overtime and Brett Favre's Vikings never got the ball in the extra period. Under the proposed rule, Minnesota would have gotten another possession because the Vikings didn't allow a touchdown.

Overtime was adopted for regular season games in 1974, a sudden-death format that allowed games to end in a tie if neither team scored in 15 minutes. Overtime for playoff games always has been sudden death.

(source: AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grCIWCh6zQ2q7BJ6wPlizO5S4_MwD9E4RCH80) via ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4953182))

It's still think its dumb that a battle between two high-powered offenses after 60 minutes is liable to get decided by a coin flip, but it's better than what we have now.

Also, Fordel probably wins the pool with:

Maybe they should just ban Field Goals in OT if that's the real issue, make it so you have to score a TD then?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on February 27, 2010, 10:56:17 PM
I'm actually not against a "TD or GTFO" overtime. I'm not against any change to the current overtime in the NFL.

But the players are.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 28, 2010, 09:51:27 AM
I'm against it. I don't see anything wrong with the OT rules as we have them. Lose the coin toss? Get your defense to stop the other team or go home. Stop crying like little bitches if you lose.

But if they put this in, they should just call it the "Brett Favre is supposed to win" rule.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on February 28, 2010, 09:55:43 AM
I'm against it. I don't see anything wrong with the OT rules as we have them. Lose the coin toss? Get your defense to stop the other team or go home. Stop crying like little bitches if you lose.

I'd agree only if the league would stop handcuffing defenses with ticky-tack calls. As it stands, in the rules dept, offense > defense - which I could assume affects the defensive team in overtime.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2010, 10:04:33 AM
I'm against it. I don't see anything wrong with the OT rules as we have them. Lose the coin toss? Get your defense to stop the other team or go home. Stop crying like little bitches if you lose.

I'd agree only if the league would stop handcuffing defenses with ticky-tack calls. As it stands, in the rules dept, offense > defense - which I could assume affects the defensive team in overtime.

It's becoming the Air-it-out league because of the changes to the rules. You can't touch a guy after 5 yards, you can't hit him up high, you can't handcheck him even if he does it to you, and if he runs into you while you make a play on the ball, it's your fault. Toss in the fact that you can even touch the QB below the waist or above the neck without drawing a flag, and you get Manning and Brees sitting all day in the pocket with no fear.

Add in the defense getting beat up for 4 quarters, and you get a 20% advantage to the first man with the ball. But no, it's all ok, just fucking man up.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 28, 2010, 10:11:22 AM
That's right, man up. The defense faces the same shit in OT that they face in regulation. That's the game, win or go home.

Now, we can talk about the emphasis on offense all we want, and I'll be right there with you. This season was one of the worst for Mickey Mouse interference calls that changed games, roughing the passer calls that made me apoplectic, QB's being handled with such ridiculous kid gloves that they might as well be wearing skirts and my personal pet peeve, the illegal block in the back on punt returns. Those are all things that need to be looked at by the league long before they consider a change to the OT rules because Brett Favre's last pass in the NFL was a dumbass interception.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on February 28, 2010, 10:30:24 AM
Blame the fans.  People want to see high scoring games and the NFL have modified the rules to provide this.  It's not all that different from what happened to baseball since the 60's.  Casual fans of football, baseball, etc just want offense.  They want lots of gratification from high output games and will continue to pay and show up in numbers to watch it.  If the starting QB or #1 WR get knocked out, the fans will lose interest.  The business side of the game demands that the fans get what they want, particularly with the stupidly expensive ticket prices being charged. 

From the perspective of an ex-defensive guy offense has always had an advantage in football.  They know where the ball is going.  Add in the protective rules (QB protection, pass interference, 5 yard contact rules, etc) and the offensive advantage gets even greater.  Then you add dome stadiums, artificial turf, and schemes and it has become a coastal style game.  On the plus side, these shifts have given huge wage increases to defensive players particularly at the skill positions (CB, Safety, OLB). 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2010, 10:32:12 AM
The only thing that will change the rules will be either several NFC/AFC championship games decided by OT in a row, or one Super Bowl where the first team with the ball wins it with a chipshot FG.

The fan outcry would be too epic to ignore at that point.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: 01101010 on February 28, 2010, 04:55:29 PM
on a side note: Hate him all you want, but Favre is one tough son of a bitch to survive all those years getting smashed around before the rule changes. I only bring him up and not the countless other tough sons of bitches at QB because Farve is still playing. Wonder if the rule changes about hitting QBs are keeping him around considering...

Back to the topic... Every other major league sport in the US has overtime that is not "so dependent" on the coin toss for OT. Baseball each team goes another inning, basketball...well who gives a shit about basketball anyway... Hockey has a shootout... Meh, I side with the each team gets a shot argument.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on February 28, 2010, 05:54:14 PM
Favre isn't still around because of the rules, he's around because he's one tough sumbitch. The QB to place the blame for the touchy refs this season is Tom Brady. They might as well have wrapped him in cotton and bubble wrap this year.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
Favre isn't still around because of the rules, he's around because he's one tough sumbitch. The QB to place the blame for the touchy refs this season is Tom Brady. They might as well have wrapped him in cotton and bubble wrap this year.

I hang it mostly on Brady. I hang the other half on the NFL wanting to keep the running QB out of the game. "You're fine as long as you do exactly what we want in the pocket, but if you take off everything is out the window."


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on March 23, 2010, 03:05:58 PM
Post-Season OT rules change (http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=5022064).



Quote
• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

• If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
What a fucking joke. At least it's better than the college system, but not by much.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on March 23, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Goddam.  Maybe next they'll take out tackling.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on March 23, 2010, 03:56:20 PM
Goddam.  Maybe next they'll take out tackling.

How are these remotely comparable?

I still really don't understand the objection to making OT less random. Can one of you articulate clearly what the actual problem you have with the change is?

EDIT: Most of the objections seem to boil down to "change is bad". Am I missing some fundamental reason other than that to oppose this?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on March 23, 2010, 04:06:47 PM
I have a better solution: If a game end in a tie, both teams take a loss to their record.  Might make the last 2 minutes of the game a bit more interesting and force coaches into 2 point conversion decisions during the last half of the game. 

It will never happen, but it's fun to imagine.   


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Velorath on March 23, 2010, 04:11:28 PM
Goddam.  Maybe next they'll take out tackling.

How are these remotely comparable?

I think he's getting his hyperbolic reaction a little mixed up.  That's the kind of thing you say when they add in more bullshit rules because they're afraid of injuries.  These changes to OT would have the opposite effect in that more playtime would equal more possibilities for injury.


I have a better solution: If a game end in a tie, both teams take a loss to their record.  Might make the last 2 minutes of the game a bit more interesting and force coaches into 2 point conversion decisions during the last half of the game. 

It will never happen, but it's fun to imagine.   

Wouldn't work in this situation since these changes so far are only for play-offs, so one team has to win.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Nebu on March 23, 2010, 04:17:41 PM
Wouldn't work in this situation since these changes so far are only for play-offs, so one team has to win.

Damnit.  I didn't think of that one. 

Can we make QB's wear a dress?  A red dress?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2010, 09:26:13 PM
My problem with changing the OT rules is they aren't broke. It's a fix looking for a problem that doesn't exist. That's why I call it the "Favre Must Win" rule. The only time we've heard this bullshit is when Favre didn't win in OT from butthurt fans who think Favre should have won that game.

There's almost no scenario where sudden death will feel fair, but eventually games have to get decided. What the fuck was so wrong with first team to score wins?

If you want to hold a great big group hug over rules changes, how about removing the bullshit ticky tack pass interference calls, the pussy-faced roughing the QB calls when the QB is barely touched or that goddamn illegal block in the back bullshit on punts that fucks up 80% of the punts in the game?


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on March 23, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
If you don't think the fact that the winner of the OT coin flip was 50% more likely to win the game pre-rule change was a problem then I've got some swampland in Mississippi to sell you.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Sky on March 24, 2010, 06:27:38 AM
He already bought it.

OT rules change is ok, it at least reduces the amount of field goal cheese. I bet kickers are  :mob:
the pussy-faced roughing the QB calls when the QB is barely touched
Especially when it seems to get called over a handful of QBs and other QBs (not as famous/rich) are getting manhandled. Brady can get a whisper of contact and draw a flag, someone like Sanchez can get suplexed without penalty.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on March 24, 2010, 08:22:22 AM
If you don't think the fact that the winner of the OT coin flip was 50% more likely to win the game pre-rule change was a problem then I've got some swampland in Mississippi to sell you.



Sure, I can buy those numbers along with the swampland. It still doesn't change my mind. Someone has to win eventually. First one to score wins is fine with me. If your defense can't stop them, you don't win. That's the way it's been for decades, and it's worked fine.

I keep thinking back to the Green Bay/Seattle playoff game from what, 2003? When Seattle won the toss and said "We're gonna win!" And he was very likely to win, except that the Green Bay defense stepped up, picked off a pass for a touchdown and won the game. The defense stepped up and beat the odds.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on March 24, 2010, 08:31:40 AM
And in that situation under the proposed rules, Green Bay would have still won. 

DURRRR.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on March 24, 2010, 08:40:47 AM
Of course they would. All I was saying is that in that case, the team that won the coin toss didn't win because the defense stepped up. They beat the odds. Just because the odds were against them didn't make the rules unfair, or in need of change. The OT rules weren't unfair or broken.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Rasix on March 24, 2010, 08:56:36 AM
I'd say they were a bit unfair, but not broken (if that makes any sense).  When I saw the change, my immediate reaction was unfavorable.  This sounds a bit too structured, a bit too controlled. 

 :|


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on March 24, 2010, 11:11:18 AM
Just because the odds were against them didn't make the rules unfair

Actually that's exactly what it does. The rules set up a scenario where one team has a massive advantage over the other one, from factors neither can control. It isn't a level playing field and it makes a farce of fair competition.

And no I'm emphatically *not* a Favre fan.  :-P


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on March 24, 2010, 11:13:51 AM
That's cause you are a weenie :raspberry:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on March 24, 2010, 11:15:03 AM
That's cause you are a weenie :raspberry:


Yeah yeah. Thanks for the basketball coach, btw.  :grin:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Stewie on March 24, 2010, 11:23:51 AM
Quote
Just because the odds were against them didn't make the rules unfair
Actually yes it does make the rules unfair. Odds being against you is unfair, there is no way around that.
One could argue that the defense plays just as big of a part and because of that they just do their jobs and your offense gets the ball back, and then the odds are back in your favor, but one would be wrong to make that argument.

The simple fact of the matter is that going in to ot one team has an advantage. An advantage that they gained through no effort of their own. You cannot have an even competition when the playing field is uneven.

I would like to see something like a shoot out in hockey for the nfl playoffs where each team gets equal opportunities on offense and if one scores and the other doesn't then they win.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Slayerik on March 24, 2010, 11:29:40 AM
2 point conversion shootout!  :uhrr:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on March 24, 2010, 11:36:39 AM
I would like to see something like a shoot out in hockey for the nfl playoffs where each team gets equal opportunities on offense and if one scores and the other doesn't then they win.

This is basically what the college system is, which people object to for some reason I don't really get.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on March 24, 2010, 11:38:55 AM
That's cause you are a weenie :raspberry:
Yeah yeah. Thanks for the basketball coach, btw.  :grin:
Sure thing, though you really should be thanking the Warriors (for both luring him away and then firing him).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: HaemishM on March 24, 2010, 01:03:46 PM
I would like to see something like a shoot out in hockey for the nfl playoffs where each team gets equal opportunities on offense and if one scores and the other doesn't then they win.

This is basically what the college system is, which people object to for some reason I don't really get.

I object to it because it's the equivalent of giving out participation awards to every player on the team.

As for the odds being against the team who loses the coin toss, well how else would you determine who gets possession first? Since it's obviously unfair that one team gets possession first, even though that's how football works, your solution is to put training wheels on the game and give everyone a "fair" chance.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Draegan on March 24, 2010, 01:55:45 PM
Goddam.  Maybe next they'll take out tackling.

How are these remotely comparable?

I still really don't understand the objection to making OT less random. Can one of you articulate clearly what the actual problem you have with the change is?

EDIT: Most of the objections seem to boil down to "change is bad". Am I missing some fundamental reason other than that to oppose this?

NFL teams are made of 3 parts, Offense Defense and Special Teams.  If you don't get the kickoff in OT, man up and play defense.  This is a terrible change.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on March 24, 2010, 02:19:16 PM
As for the odds being against the team who loses the coin toss, well how else would you determine who gets possession first? Since it's obviously unfair that one team gets possession first, even though that's how football works, your solution is to put training wheels on the game and give everyone a "fair" chance.

The current OT system is so weighted to one side that it's like a coin flip at the beginning of a baseball game determining who gets to use corked bats.

As for fairness, sports are supposed to be as fair as possible.  That's why we have the Draft, and competition committees, and revenue sharing, and to a certain extent, salary caps.

With this system, you still need to "Man Up."  If your special teams gives up a kickoff return for a TD, you lose.  If your defense gives up a touchdown, you lose.  If your offense has the ball first, turns it over, and it leads to any score, you lose.  If your offense goes second and you turn the ball over, you lose.  If you trade field goals on the initial two possessions, it works the same as the current system: first score wins.

Do I still think the college system moved back a bit is better, yes, by a mile.  This makes OT less random, and that's a good thing.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Tannhauser on March 24, 2010, 05:03:59 PM
You just had four quarters to beat the other team.  You failed.  Now you lost a coin toss.  You failed again.  Fail a third time and you lose the game. 

The coin toss does give a statistical advantage.  But football is a game of chances (and inches).  How many times in the game did you have a chance of winning?  You blew all those chances now you're whining about losing a coin toss? 

What if you have a great defense and a lousy offense?  You might be glad to lose the toss and get a turnover or a three and out.



Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: caladein on March 24, 2010, 05:09:44 PM
You just had four quarters to beat the other team.  You failed.  Now you lost a coin toss.  You failed again.  Fail a third time and you lose the game.

I see a very big difference between fighting another team to a tie through sixty minutes and an event that is by its very nature random.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on March 24, 2010, 06:12:25 PM
Funny, I see "play defense" as a much more viable argument under the "TD and you lose" rules than the "March out your faggy European to win" rules.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Ingmar on March 24, 2010, 07:31:02 PM
You just had four quarters to beat the other team.  You failed.  Now you lost a coin toss.  You failed again.  Fail a third time and you lose the game.  

Except why is the other team getting rewarded for failing the same amount of times during regular game time but winning the stupid coin toss? It isn't just about being unfair to the team that loses the coin toss, its also about unfairly rewarding the team that wins it.
I would like to see something like a shoot out in hockey for the nfl playoffs where each team gets equal opportunities on offense and if one scores and the other doesn't then they win.

This is basically what the college system is, which people object to for some reason I don't really get.

I object to it because it's the equivalent of giving out participation awards to every player on the team.

As for the odds being against the team who loses the coin toss, well how else would you determine who gets possession first? Since it's obviously unfair that one team gets possession first, even though that's how football works, your solution is to put training wheels on the game and give everyone a "fair" chance.

Again I'm not seeing the connection between the participation award thing and an overtime that actually picks a winner based on the actual skill of the teams. There's nothing unfair about the order of possession in and of itself, it is the sudden death part that causes the stupid results.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Paelos on March 24, 2010, 09:22:24 PM
Don't read too much into it Ingmar. They just want the game over. They don't care how it happens as long as there is some sort of conclusion. Shockingly, it's the same reasoning that the players union uses.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on March 24, 2010, 09:35:23 PM
I hate the OT change. Not as much as the college system, but it still sucks.

Leave it the way it is or make it an entire period of play (or like 2 5-10 minute halves).

Now heard on radio owners want to extend to regular season and other modifications (like moving the KO mark up 5-10 yards in OT).

Don't think they're thinking this through enough.

It's going to turn out that the coin toss winner is going to be strategically at an advantage to kick first.

Some of the other rule changes are ridiculous too.

Like the one about muffed punts. It sounds good and its noble of the NFL to fret over player safety but that puts the defensive guy charging down the field in an awful spot. Unless he ESP to determine beforehand if returner is going to juggle the ball and thus he'll have to lay off the hit/tackle.

How to make the game safer? Get rid of the hard helmets and shoulder pads and replace with softer, more leather like/pillowy material (something designed to protect but not also inflict injury).


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: Trippy on March 24, 2010, 09:43:25 PM
Now heard on radio owners want to extend to regular season and other modifications (like moving the KO mark up 5-10 yards in OT).
If they are willing to do that they don't need to fuck with the scoring rules. It's because of the fact that the KO spot was moved back plus the increase in kickers field goal distances that the odds changed from essentially even to the 3:2 we have now.
 


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: El Gallo on April 01, 2010, 12:34:22 PM
I like the change. What makes current OT feel cheesy is that an OK kick return and two first downs wins the game.  The TD requirement ends that.

To be honest, I think they should get rid of field goals alltogether, but that's another issue.


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: naum on April 01, 2010, 02:42:42 PM
I like the change. What makes current OT feel cheesy is that an OK kick return and two first downs wins the game.  The TD requirement ends that.

To be honest, I think they should get rid of field goals alltogether, but that's another issue.

I'm all for bringing back the dropkick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_kick)  :thumbs_up:


Title: Re: 2009 NFL
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 01, 2010, 02:48:45 PM
We should probably start a new thread, since we are 3 full months into 2010  :oh_i_see: