User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5546 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
There was plenty of time for the holder to throw the ball away.
I'm not sure I would feel good about that being my head coaches reaction.
Do you think when Smith and Carroll met at midfield Carroll said "you're lucky I never kicked a FG."
Yes, I can't imagine a team that has lost 3 consecutive postseason games - and whose collective sphincters could have spewed out enough diamonds to feed a first-world country, and who were on the verge of the second-biggest collapse in the history of the NFL - handling a botched snap on a potential field goal with anything but aplomb.
Why would they have any reason to panic in that scenario? Just calmly grab the odd-shaped object, get up, scramble away from the behemoths chasing you, and toss it out of bounds. Easy peasy. And certainly much easier than throwing a short sideline route to get into a better range for your up-and-down kicker.
I know I wouldn't feel good if Pete Carroll was my teams head coach.
I'm not arguing that they should have factored that in. I like I said, I too wondered "why the hell are you leaving time on the clock?" I'm saying that maybe that's why. Or as I also said, maybe it's because as someone said, coaches get dumb in the final minutes of the game.
You don't use them before the two minute warning, then after their was not great option.
They played it right... At least in re: to time outs.
I wasn't speaking about just after the two minute warning, but once it's clear Houston was going to have excess time, the Pats should have been calling time outs to make sure they have as much time as possible for their own drive. Before the two minute warning would be slightly better, but I don't know why they shouldn't call them afterwards. What am I missing?
I don't mind missed calls, or bad calls. But when you make the right call and then go back on it, something is wrong.
Well:
1) the pats don't need more than 80 seconds with 2 time outs
2) Houston can stop them and giving the ball back is bad..,, which is what happened.
Just because they're capable of scoring with 75 seconds and 2 time outs doesn't mean they wouldn't be more likely to score with 115 seconds and 1 time out. They should be doing what they can to maximize their point expectancy.
Yes, that's the risk, but I don't think Belichick should be giving up equity to protect their lead going into the half when their lead is only 7. It's the kind of decision that gets every other coach in the league rightfully mocked.
Well, the lead was more like 9-10 when you account for Houston being a near lock to score. And whether it's 7, 14, or something in between doesn't really matter. You don't trade value for reduced risk that early in the game unless the game is already a blowout.
If the pats hold on this game, they will lose next. The NFL has spoken.
Haven't really noticed any. The Pats have left points on the board and went into prevent mode way too early.
(Play just finished). Doesn't matter. Very little benefit, huge risk.
EDIT: I'm talking about the 2-point conversion.
I take it back. Damn homer.
Fortuitous, certainly, but looked like a clear hold on the replay. Of course I'm also not whining about the calls.
Not as hilarious as Atlanta chances of lifting the Lombardi trophy. Wait do you rednecks know who Vince Lombardi was?
True odds of less than 3 to 1.
Vegas will have them closer to even money which is absurd.
They will be, they're always the betting favorite in the playoffs. But I don't know that they're overwhelmingly better than Baltimore, and I don't really think they're better than SF. Atlanta is an enigma to me, I have no idea what they're capable of.
NE -6.5
Assuming score holds.
Sorry, I got distracted when I was banging your mom.
Says some witless pudfucker cracking "redneck" jokes about Atlanta? Please.
seeing 49ers -3 and Patriots -8 to start in Vegas...
Not with Gronk out. I'll still take them over Baltimore and Atlanta, but not having him could be a difference against the 49ers.
RJ Bell ?@RJinVegas
$100 wins $100 if you bet #Patriots to win Super Bowl. #49ers 9/4; #Falcons 5/1; #Ravens 8/1 [via @LVSuperbook]
i was at the green bay/san fran game.
i don't think erik walden is going to be on the green bay roster for much longer. i am pretty sure ted thompson (an old linebacker) had a blood pressure of about 220/140 when walden crashed inside leaving the end wide open for the sf qb to run 50 odd yards for a td. at which point walden was benched
but walden had lots of help in crudness last night. tramon williams was dreadful. just more interested in flapping his gums than playing. hawk needed to come strong against a running team because run defense is his one believed strength and the san fran guards manhandled him way too often. woodson was caught trying to make plays versus keeping his assignment.
i thought the packers offensive line held up in protection most of the night and i thought beforehand if that happened the packers had a great chance to win. but the offense was just ok when with the defense going kaplewy and the special teams being awful the offense had to be pretty much perfect. stunned that mccarthy punted on that 4th quarter 4th down. thinking his exhausted defense would hold was folly.
anyway, i don't think the san fran qb is some guy who is going to take the league by storm. i think last night was the perfect storm of a defense not properly prepped, players unable to keep to their assignments and san fran blocking really, really well. the san fran kid looks to have a chance to be a real qb but i have seen this script before and eventually teams force guys like this to make decisions and make real plays versus romping through big holes created by blown assignments.
good luck to him and san fran
He had a passer rating of 98 this year, just as good as Brady or Ryan, and his QBR puts him just between those two as well, and football outsiders has SF as one of the best pass offenses in the league. Sure, taking the QB by storm is a vague, and high standard, so he may not reach it, but the kid would still be damn good if his legs only helped make him elusive from d-lineman, and not able to outrun defensive backs.
Did they ever mention on TV today that Brian Billick was broadcasting a game featuring his brother-in-law, Mike Smith (yes, the Falcons head coach)? That's a little weird.
Maybe that's why Billick had so many errors....
let's see how next year plays out
again, good luck to sf
It doesn't take long for a Redskins fan to envision a much worse ending for Mr. Kaepernick. I'm crossing my fingers for him and Wilson as well.
i am speaking long term
if you want to pick a fight look elsewherr
that doesn't necessarily mean clawing for every last yard, but just taking a first down with your legs when the defense gives it to you.
when you have an athelete like mcnabb or vick or kaepernick (or wilson or RGIII or newton), defenses can't play man-to-man in pass coverage because if the secondary gets turned around, that's an 80 yard scramble for a TD waiting to happen.
i also think a lot of the success of these mobile rookie QBs goes to the increased presence of the spread offense. it's simple math. if you have 2 deep safeties, plus 4 defenders spread out wide to cover opposing receivers, that leaves 5 OL v. 5 DL/LBs. if you add a mobile QB to that, it becomes 6 v. 5 because you have the RB as an extra blocker.
that i was gung-ho for chip kelley. he understands that the strength of the spread offense isn't in the passing game, but in the running game. when you clear defenders out of the box like he does, and when your offensive line can consistently win at the point of attack, you can absolutely gash defenses. and then when you add the hurry-up elements, it's a thing of absolute beauty.
If they can keep next year's #1 off the IR, maybe they can get rid of Walden. If Bishop is healthy next year, maybe they can get rid or Hawk or Danny Jones. Only so many options off the street.
Maybe they were playing so much man because they were blowing assignments on some of the zone coverages late in the season. There is some youth in the secondary. You're right, Williams was not good.
Game plan was inadequate, though. Or looked inadequate. Get beat by being mashed or not being able to cover, not by some QB running untouched for almost 200 yards.
I think Wilson's better than Kaepernick, but it seems vaguely unfair that the year the Falcons rebuild their defensive schemes to beat Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers they have to make a run through a couple of Cam Newton clones instead. Running QB's is the bane of this defense.
williams is a strange guy. he has games where he locks down the very best receivers, like calvin johnson, and you think the guy is a pro bowl type player. then he goes against a go who is ok but not super duper like crabtree and he just seems to go through the motions.
just a strange player
the guy who impressed the h8ll out of me was don barclay. that kid held up against a tremendous defender in aldon smith all night and the packers didn't give him much help. green bay may have stumbled on a tackle. i wonder if they think about moving bulaga to left tackle to challenge newhouse who is very mediocre?
I have to disagree. Kap is a great runner but he has shown the ability to be a very good passer as well. He completed a good percentage of passes while throwing the ball downfield. He's not someone who looks to run the ball first.
on a stats centric site are folks telling me i am being stupid and/or stubborn for not declaring a guy will be really good for the remainder of his career based on a limited data sample?
i clearly recognize that in a partial season the young man has done well. but my gosh all fans have seen this script before. everyone here can relay a story of a player who seems to ahve the world by the tail for some amount of time and then bam, it changes. sometimes the player adjusts and gets back to being tremendous. sometimes they fade away
i have to confess i am surprised
Kapaernick is the new hip thing right now. Last week it was Russell Wilson (who is a better QB to my eyes than Kapaernick.) Basically this is run-over from the game he had against Green Bay.
He has already made decisions and real plays. Everyone is talking about the rushing yards but he threw for 263 yards against the Packers on 31 attempts. He threw the ball downfield and threw passes with touch. He's got an excellent arm with a good throwing motion.
Saying you need a bigger sample is different than saying he has not made "real plays or decisions".
I would never call you stupid Harvs! Honestly, I don't know enough about football statistickery to make a case for Kaepernick that way. Football is a sport where I just trust my eyes. He's a great athlete with a great arm, throws with some accuracy and can move in the pocket and hoof it when he needs to. The tools are all there--it just remains to be seen if he'll be able to adjust when defenses adjust. I'm not putting him in the HOF yet but I can see why they rolled the dice with him. I think the most promising thing for him is that he doesn't NEED to run and that he'll settle into being a traditional pocket passer with plus mobility.
You misspelled RG III, lol. Though he's an even better runner and got too caught up in that at times (though 6.5 per carry for 800 yards isn't shabby, obviously he was reckless too often). the rest applies, though - pocket passer, rocket, accuracy. If RG III ran less, I don't see how Kaepernick would grade out higher. He's more mistake-prone with his throws, for instance.
Kaepernick is 25, Griffin is not yet 23, fwiw
Russell Wilson : Steve Young :: Kaepernick/Griffin III : Randall Cunningham
EDIT/CAVEAT: Of those three, RGIII looks the smallest and flimsiest out there (even before the knee injury.) At least the other two have some sort of physical presence to them. (Yes, I know Wilson is short, but so was Young and Drew Brees.)
wasn't sure if you thought of Griffin as a "running QB." yes and no - well, maybe both kinds is a better way to put it?
geez.
I think a lot of people overestimate the skills it takes to for a QB to run the scheme. It’s important to build the right personnel around the QB, but the best part is that you can build that with flawed players who wouldn’t otherwise be in high demand.
Build a mobile offense line that excels at run-blocking, but only needs to pass block 40% of the time, and the QB gets to read the defense before deciding to pass, so he can steer away from heavy blitzes or mismatches. Build a receiving core that doesn’t need blazing speed, but excels at blocking and catching quick passes. Find a workhorse running back who might not break long runs, but can reliably get 3-5 yards between the tackles.
The QB is the hardest piece to find, but viable candidates are getting churned out of the college ranks as you see more athletic QBs throughout the NCAA. Above-average speed is important, but you don’t need 4.3 or even 4.5 speed. Griffin was running for 50+ yards/game on a bum leg, and yesterday Kaepernick was breaking 40 yard runs without being touched. Accuracy at the short-to-intermediate range is critical - a big arm and deep accuracy are a bonus, but not required. The most important skills are ball-handling, decision-making, and durability.
Yes, NFL defenses will find schemes to make the read option less effective, but it’s a technically sound philosophy that creates mismatches and allows the offense to dictate the action. It’s not a fad.
russlan
geez.
I don't think my comments were inflammatory or insulting.
i am not a fan of word parsing, that's all.
i wasn't knocking the kid. just working to remain objective
that is all
You and Simms were both wrong. The right move was to go for it, as Kubiak did.
The loss of Gronk, or of any offensive player except the quarterback, is so trivial as to be irrelevant.
I mean, they just showed that by... losing Gronk... and yet rolling the Texans anyway.
Also, I'm tired of the "Player/Team/Coach can't win in the playoffs" thing. This has been disproven time and again. There was no reason Atlanta couldn't win. People are really silly and moronic sometimes, and completely fail to understand what they have spent their lives watching.
And if the Falcons kicker misses, then Matt Ryan is still a choker. It's like football is a team game or something...
I've seen the argument but still think I'm right. If they failed on that conversion attempt, their options were limited to scoring 2 touchdowns. If they kick, they're behind by 11, and they have more options.
If on the next drive they're down 11 at the NE 30 and find themselves with a 4th and 10, they can kick the FG, and still be within range of 8 to tie. If they're instead down 12 (having failed to convert the 2-point try) and find themselves at the NE 30 with a 4th and 10, they have to go for it with an extremely minimal chance of converting. It risked limiting their options when they went for 2.
On the other hand, I do understand that Manning said after the game that Fox did call a pass on that 3rd down play where they needed a first down to end the game, and Manning audibled it to a run. At least, that's what someone told me.
Manning did make mistakes like the secondary and Fox, but they should really not have lost the game.
So they will need to try a two-point conversion sooner or later. Wouldn't it make sense to try it sooner, so that they can plan for two more scores if they need it?
Again I get that argument. The 2-pointer is eventually necessary. But (and I'm genuinely asking, I'm not 100% certain here) isn't keeping the much easier to accomplish field goal on the table a huge point in your favor?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main