NFL 2013

[Tannhauser]

I don't see much of Seattle down here in the south, but they're real and they're spectacular.  What a gut check against the leagues best defense.  Why did the Texans call that bootleg play?  Why does Schaub throw that?  *boggle*

Buffalo beats the Ravens.  Cleveland beats the Bengals.  Did we enter an alternate universe?  Grats on two young, scrappy teams.  Possibly up-and-comers.

Giants and Steelers lose again.  No idea what NY's problem is but Pittsburgh has no one playing under 80.  Giants may still climb out, but the Steelers are DOA.

Titans are for real this season, but that also depends on the status of Locker.  Guy gets hurt as much as Stafford.  Titans have had no turnovers so far this season.  Wow.

Detroit beats a tough Bears team.  Lions playing very good mostly.  Suh finallly wakes up and gets two sacks, one leading to a TD.  Lions mediocre defense wakes up and plays a complete game.  The return of Reggie Bush finally, finally gives the Lions a threat other than Staffords arm.  

[Malakili]

 No idea what NY's problem is

Giants lines (offensive and defensive) which have long been the anchors of their team are both playing like shit this season.  The O-line is just old and past their prime.  I have no idea why the D-line can't get their shit together.

[Chimpy]

How bout dat fumble? 

[shiznitz]

Giants and Steelers lose again.  No idea what NY's problem is but Pittsburgh has no one playing under 80.  Giants may still climb out, but the Steelers are DOA.

Other than their rookie RB who was injured the first 3 weeks and did well yesterday.  It won't help them though.  I agree that age is killing them. 

So we have 3 4-0 teams.  Everyone is looking forward to Manning (a different one) beating Brady again.  Who wouldn't root for the rumpled face Manning brothers against that pretty dick Brady?  November 24 in Foxboro.  The football press will have an aneurysm that week.

[Nevermore]

After tonight we'll have five 4 - 0 teams: Denver, KC, New England, Seattle and the winner of New Orleans/Miami.

In other news, apparently Cleveland sucks so hard they can't even tank their season right! 

[Paelos]

Still not seeing much to make me believe Seattle and Denver aren't the scariest kids in all the playground.

Yet.

[HaemishM]

Still not seeing much to make me believe Seattle and Denver aren't the scariest kids in all the playground.

Yet.

That's because they are the scariest teams in the league. Right now, Denver is so far and away better than any other team INCLUDING Seattle that it's not a contest. The difference is not just Peyton Manning - the Broncos also have 3 of the better wideouts in the game and a monster TE to go along with a running game. The Seahawks wideouts are good but not on the level of those on the Broncos and of course Wilson is not on Manning's level either.

As for that Houston/Seahawks game, that is Houston's problem in a nutshell. Their defense can't play 4 quarters and their offense while good isn't good enough to overcome their mistakes against good teams. That game should have been sewn up but instead of finishing, their defense lets Wilson run amok and Schaub throws one of the dumbest throws I've seen anyone make in a while. He had no business making that pass. Take the sack, punt the ball, put it on your defense. Houston is just a very weak team this year - they'll get in the playoffs because the AFC is a schizo division but they won't get very far.

Parity seems to be going by the wayside this year. Teams are either really good or really fucking bad. Pittsburgh, the Giants, the Bucs and the Jags? Those guys are dogshit on a stick. Just utterly terrible and they should feel bad about making anyone watch their games. The next tier of teams are all inconsistent and could be terribad or world-beaters on their day. And then there's the Broncos and Seattle, who are playing on a whole other level to everyone else, even the other 4-0/3-0 teams. New England is one 4th down away from 3-1 and could easily be 2-2. I'm very interested in the Miami/New Orleans matchup tonight because I'm not entirely sure about either team. The Saints have an insane offense but is their defense good enough? Miami is so young and winning without Mike Wallace doing a damn thing at wideout.

Tennessee is 3-1 but Locker looks to be out 4-8 weeks. Which means Fitzpatrick gets to add to this career INT totals. Based on the team stats, though, they are winning without putting up huge passing numbers so it may not be a big deal. Both the Bears and Lions are 3-1 but neither team has a defense worth a shit. Cutler throws 3 INT's and they lose in a shootout. I look forward to the Packers/Bears game because it could easily be a 50-49 affair. The AFC North is almost as much of a trainwreck as the NFC East this year. Baltimore, Cincy and Cleveland look like they may all challenge for the division as they are all inconsistent and capable of losing winnable games. Also, Atlanta has no excuse for being as bad as they are.

[K9]

So I'm guessing the top 10 for this week looks something like:

1) Denver
2) Seattle
3)
4) New England
5)
6)
7) Fuck it...
8)
9)
10) Everyone else?

...

31) New York Giants
32) Jacksonville

[Cyrrex]

I want to disagree with you with Denver over Seattle, and would have possibly done so last week.  But with all the points they are putting up and the way Manning the Elder is play...I just can't do it.  That is just too much firepower.  On the other hand, we should probably temper things a bit and look at the teams Denver has played.  Not exactly stellar defenses.  It is funny to think that the Chiefs in November might be their first real test.

[Nevermore]

What's annoying about the Bucs is they have enough talent to be a pretty good team.  But they have the shittiest coaching staff in the league and Freeman, even if he hadn't completely given up over the last two years, just never developed the accuracy to take the next step to becoming a good QB.  He's basically Chad Henne now.  Doesn't matter anyway since the Bucs will never go anywhere with that idiot Schiano coaching them.

[HaemishM]

Ok sure, the best team Denver has played has been Baltimore - and they aren't as good as their record would indicate. However, every single game Denver has played has been seemingly effortless. They haven't "broken a sweat" as it were. Whereas Seattle has struggled with teams they should stomp like Carolina and their offense is simply not the same on the road as it is at home. Denver has had 3 home games so that might also have something to do with it. Don't get me wrong, Seattle is really good but until a team emerges that is anything more than a speed bump, I can't say Denver isn't the best team in football.

Which means they'll get a bye for the first round of playoffs, Manning will be rusty in the second round and they'll get upset by somebody like Baltimore. 

[Cyrrex]

Ok sure, the best team Denver has played has been Baltimore - and they aren't as good as their record would indicate. However, every single game Denver has played has been seemingly effortless. They haven't "broken a sweat" as it were. Whereas Seattle has struggled with teams they should stomp like Carolina and their offense is simply not the same on the road as it is at home. Denver has had 3 home games so that might also have something to do with it. Don't get me wrong, Seattle is really good but until a team emerges that is anything more than a speed bump, I can't say Denver isn't the best team in football.

Which means they'll get a bye for the first round of playoffs, Manning will be rusty in the second round and they'll get upset by somebody like Baltimore. 

Yeah, I basically agree for the most part, at least as far as Denver is concerned.  I wouldn't be so certain about Seattle's opposition, though.  Carolina appears to have a good defense (12 ppg so far, which is right at the top), and the Texans who are probably a better defense than their numbers are showing.  They are supposed to be, anyway.  And those were both away games.  Regardless, I think that Denver probably beats Seattle right now on a neutral field.  The real question, IMO, is whether or not Seattle's offense is going to show up.  It really hasn't so far (you can't count Jacksonville).  If they can get back some or all of the second half of the season mojo they had going last year, then the rest of the league is pretty much toast.  I am not at all sure it is going to happen, though.  Might have to see what happens when Percy Harvin gets back. 

[HaemishM]

Both Seattle and San Fran are suffering offensively because they aren't using the pistol and read option enough. Both Kap and Wilson are good running QB's and better passers when the defense isn't sure whether to cover the run or the pass. In the games I've seen both teams play (2 games each), they have used the running QB so sparingly that it's almost not even a factor. Yesterday against Houston, Seattle's offense was flaccid until they let Wilson do his thing. I'm not sure if they are trying to protect them early in the season because of RGIII's issues as a running QB or what, but they really need to take the chains off those guys.

[Paelos]

They are playing it smart with him so far. You don't take the chains off until week 8, and only if you have to. They don't really WANT them to be running QBs, they just want them to be able to escape from bad pocket plays.

[ghost]

Boy, Chip Kelly has been a predictable clusterfuck, hasn't he?

[Ingmar]

If by predictable you meant "they're going to take a while to get that system going properly and it is going to be entertaining to see it happen" then yes they've been predictable. Their defense was going to be bad with just about anyone at coach considering the personnel they have, and 2 of their 3 losses are to unbeaten teams. I don't think clusterfuck is really apt here.

[Nevermore]

They can continue to be a 'clusterfuck' all season long if it means McCoy continues to single-handedly keep my fantasy team afloat. 

[shiznitz]

The NFC East is going to be an ugly thing again.  Next weekend, the 2-2 Cowboys get Peyton.  The 0-4 Giants are at home against the 1-3 Eagles.  Redskins are on BYE.  They have Denver in week 8.  I find it interesting that each NFC East team plays the Broncos.  Quirk of the calendar but it makes it all even.

[Nevermore]

It's not really a quirk.  Every team from the NFC East plays every team from the AFC West this year.  It rotates from year to year which divisions play each other.

[Paelos]

The Broncos will put 55 on the Cowboys D. It's not pretty.

[HaemishM]

It's not really a quirk.  Every team from the NFC East plays every team from the AFC West this year.  It rotates from year to year which divisions play each other.

Yes, and so far, the AFC West (which was one of the shittiest divisions last year) is 7-1 against the NFC East. The NFC East is simply a fucking dumpster fire.

The Eagles aren't a clusterfuck but they aren't good. They can put up big offensive numbers but their defense cannot hold teams, especially when their offense is taking 25% less time to score as a normal offense. And we all know it's only a matter of time until Vick gets a lung punctured.

[Paelos]

The Eagles couldn't get rid of Vick this year, so they are stuck with him until they can get something better to run that package.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I honestly don't care because that city is wretched and the fans there deserve to be miserable.

[Ingmar]

So on another topic, how about that Flacco contract? 

I'm not sure how you throw 5 interceptions to a team with no secondary.

[HaemishM]

So on another topic, how about that Flacco contract? 

I'm not sure how you throw 5 interceptions to a team with no secondary.

Easy, you give the ball to Joe Flacco. 

I've been saying this from the minute they traded Boldin - Flacco is going to have a terrible year. He's a very streaky, inconsistent QB. When he's on fire, he can be good but when he's off his game (such as when he's getting pressured or he has no one open to throw to), he is bad. Bad Joe Flacco showed up on Sunday. He's without his starting TE who was a good safety valve, he's without his main possession receiver (Boldin) who BTW was his leading receiver last year. Marlon Brown looks like he might be good but he's a rookie. Torrey Smith is a speed demon but still unpolished and inconsistent. Also, Ray Rice isn't 100% and though good, Pierce is no Ray Rice.

I'm come to the conclusion that based on current form, there are 4 elite QB's in the league, the kind that can survive and win even when the talent around them is suspect - Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers. Everybody else needs help, some more than others (and some like Gabbert are beyond help). There's just no one else I can expect to be throwing to no name rookies and win week in and week out.

[Paelos]

Miami doesn't look that bad if they stop making stupid decisions with the football.

[Malakili]

This game feels like it should be closer than it is, but Miami seems a bit mistake prone.

[Trippy]

Mike Sherman fist palming (caution shaky cam)

[HaemishM]

Tannehill looks to be a decent QB, or he will be once he works out the rookie mistakes and turnovers. Also, Daniel Thomas is not a good short yardage back.

[Nevermore]

Also, Daniel Thomas is not a good short yardage back.

[shiznitz]

During the game last night Gruden made a good comment that seems so obvious to fans but seems to elude NFL coaches.  Some teams are just going to score 30 or more points.  Especially at home.  When you are playing one of those teams (Saints) and you have 3rd and short, go for the 1st down and try for a TD.  Field goals just are not going to cut it.  I know that coaches like to just get some point on the board but it just seems chicken shit to me.

[Paelos]

Coaches aren't aggressive in the NFL. You can't afford it usually because aggressive coaches get fired the second the tide turns.

[MrHat]

During the game last night Gruden made a good comment that seems so obvious to fans but seems to elude NFL coaches.  Some teams are just going to score 30 or more points.  Especially at home.  When you are playing one of those teams (Saints) and you have 3rd and short, go for the 1st down and try for a TD.  Field goals just are not going to cut it.  I know that coaches like to just get some point on the board but it just seems chicken shit to me.

Also, Drunk Gruden is the best Gruden.



If you're NE and you're 4-0 with Miami looking vulnerable, what motivation do you have to rush back injury prone Amendola and Gronk? Wouldn't you just let them heal up extra?

[K9]

Agreed, there's a strong incentive for them to be broadly risk-averse. It's a classic piece of game theory, the payoff matrix for actions such as going for 4th down conversions is so heavily slanted towards the costs of a negative result that Coaches are deterred from attempting them, even if it makes good sense statistically. Coaches are very easy to fire, and so the less they do to put themselves in jeopardy the better.

[MrHat]

Agreed, there's a strong incentive for them to be broadly risk-averse. It's a classic piece of game theory, the payoff matrix for actions such as going for 4th down conversions is so heavily slanted towards the costs of a negative result that Coaches are deterred from attempting them, even if it makes good sense statistically. Coaches are very easy to fire, and so the less they do to put themselves in jeopardy the better.

Bill Barnwell's Thank You For Not Coaching series on Grantland.com is a great read if you want to see great retrospective analysis on shitty coaching decisions.

[ghost]

If by predictable you meant "they're going to take a while to get that system going properly and it is going to be entertaining to see it happen" then yes they've been predictable. Their defense was going to be bad with just about anyone at coach considering the personnel they have, and 2 of their 3 losses are to unbeaten teams. I don't think clusterfuck is really apt here.

So you're still in the camp that he's going to be a good NFL coach?