Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

OT: NFL/NHL thread

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM | 7987 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, nhl

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.

Page 18 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4346702)
Reposting from previous page:

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?
   1702. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4346704)
1565. Meatwad is number 2 in the BCS Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4346298)

best of all he missed it when pete called the time out there....cost em the game. Dont mind seeing it end that way.

1566. smileyy Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4346299)

My impression was that he was pissed that the kicker ended up with a practice


Isn't this a really good argument for not "icing" the kicker, beyond the fact that doing so is generally retarded anyway? The Falcons kicker got a free practice kick there, a minute before he was actually going to kick it, knowing exactly which kick he needed to make and the stakes for missing, and into the exact elements that he was going to attempt the real kick in.

Why give him that chance? Because you are so clueless on this point that you think an NFL kicker might choke under the pressure of having to "think" about the kick for another few seconds?
   1703. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4346707)
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.


Isn't this just delaying the need to go for 2? You're going to need to attempt 2 at some point anyway in order to put yourself in position where you don't need a second TD.
   1704. JJ1986 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4346714)
I think icing the kicker worked the first time that someone tried it and so it became a thing and so coaches don't notice that it's statistically a losing proposition.
   1705. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4346715)
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?


Since you're going to need a 2-pointer at some point (or three TDs), better to find out exactly what you're going to need to complete the comeback. Information is good. If you miss the 2-pointer, then you know for certain you need two touchdowns, and can play accordingly (such as using the onside kick instead of kicking away, depending on the time remaining).

And Slate just had a piece about something I've long believed. If you're down 14, why not go for two on the first TD. If you get it, you're only down 6, and in position to take the lead with a TD and a XP. If not, you still have another chance to tie with another two-point try. Since you should make 1 out of 2 2-point converstions, you're generally going to be left with no worse than a tie and half the time the lead (assuming you score the two touchdowns. And if you don't, the point is moot).

   1706. JJ1986 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4346716)
When you're down 18 (or 15), the only reason not to go for 2 earlier is that you think your opponent will score exactly one more field goal. Otherwise, you want to know how many TDs you'll need as soon as possible.
   1707. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4346717)
I think icing the kicker worked the first time that someone tried it and so it became a thing and so coaches don't notice that it's statistically a losing proposition.

I think it's just psychological--it feels good to feel like you have some control on the situation.
   1708. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4346721)
Also:

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.


I think the problem is that now if you fail on the 2-point conversion, doing it your way, you're done. But if you fail on the 2-point conversion sooner, you can still go for a TD instead.

You can't keep yourself in the dark that long. You need the information sooner, while there is still time to choose a different path if need be. With your way, you've locked yourself in to just one path for winning.
   1709. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4346724)
Delaying the 2-pt conversion does keep hope alive longer than if you go for it early and miss. And maybe that has some value as a fan. I'm not sure it has much value as a football team.
   1710. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4346728)
Unlike players who don't choke, coaches coach scared.

Note Fox's refusal to allow Manning to try to win the game at the end of regulation with 31 seconds left and 2 timeouts and needing just a FG, it is just a miscalculation of the risk on Fox's part. He is so worried about losing if Manning screws up there that he can't see that the risk of Manning screwing up is far outweighed by the reward for going for it and ending the game right there. YOU have the possession. YOU have control of the ball. YOU have control of the game. And you give all of that up for the coin flip randomness of overtime? That is just not the right move. And that situation plays to Manning's exact strengths anyway.

Same with the insistence coaches have at the very end of games with the lead to run the ball to eat clock instead of just ending the damned game with a first down. It's like first downs are rare occurrences or something. It makes no sense, especially when the defense is often selling out for the run anyway.

Losing the game one way is not better than losing the game another way, especially not when you're sacrificing some of your chance to win by being scared of losing a certain way.
   1711. jobu Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4346729)
Why give him that chance? Because you are so clueless on this point that you think an NFL kicker might choke under the pressure of having to "think" about the kick for another few seconds?

If I were coaching against David Akers or Mason Crosby in a big game in 2013, I think I would ice the kicker. Otherwise, generally, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
   1712. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4346731)
I think the problem is that now if you fail on the 2-point conversion, doing it your way, you're done. But if you fail on the 2-point conversion sooner, you can still go for a TD instead.


My way is just an attempt to avoid the harder route until it's necessary. In addition to keeping the field goal option alive, I'm also putting off the harder 2 point attempt (vs the extra point) until it's absolutely necessary. Since it might not end up being necessary at all, why try it before you have to?

But yeah, I'm not fully committed to this. You guys may be right.
   1713. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4346746)
I think it makes sense to avoid doing the two point conversion as long as possible. If, for example, you are down 15 and you score a touchdown, I think you should kick the point after. I understand the argument for going for the 2-pointer right away as it gives you more information sooner but the flip side to that is if you miss, the opposing team now knows that you need 2 more scoring drives. I think it has strategic detriments in that regard.

   1714. billyshears Posted: January 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM (#4346751)
Note Fox's refusal to allow Manning to try to win the game at the end of regulation with 31 seconds left and 2 timeouts and needing just a FG, it is just a miscalculation of the risk on Fox's part. He is so worried about losing if Manning screws up there that he can't see that the risk of Manning screwing up is far outweighed by the reward for going for it and ending the game right there. YOU have the possession. YOU have control of the ball. YOU have control of the game. And you give all of that up for the coin flip randomness of overtime? That is just not the right move. And that situation plays to Manning's exact strengths anyway.


My reflexive view is that this was a remarkably stupid decision by Fox. But I also think that Manning's arm was toast at that point.
   1715. Bad Doctor Posted: January 14, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4346757)
I understand the argument for going for the 2-pointer right away as it gives you more information sooner but the flip side to that is if you miss, the opposing team now knows that you need 2 more scoring drives. I think it has strategic detriments in that regard.

I don't think this is that big a deal, as it intersects with the other recurring theme of the weekend -- coaches are way too conservative in end of game strategy. Being up 10, 11, or 12 late won't change the strategy of the coach that is ahead -- in any case, favor the run and eat the clock. (Same with being up 7 vs. 8 vs. 9.) But it will make a huge difference in the strategy for the team that's behind.

Same with the insistence coaches have at the very end of games with the lead to run the ball to eat clock instead of just ending the damned game with a first down. It's like first downs are rare occurrences or something. It makes no sense, especially when the defense is often selling out for the run anyway.

Usually totally agree with this, but I thought Fox made the right call on 3rd and 7 on Saturday. Generally speaking, a team with no timeouts that needs a touchdown to tie/win and has to go more than a yard a second should be toast. Their best chance is normally going to be to just get into position where a Hail Mary or two can be thrown into the end zone. Brian Burke seems to agree.

For teams that need a touchdown to survive, time makes a big difference. With 1:09 to play, a team typically has a 13 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. With 1:49 to go, they have around a 26 percent chance. The choice, then, is between conceding Baltimore the 13 percent shot or gambling that you’ll either win the game outright or give Baltimore a 26 percent chance to win. League-wide, third-and-7 situations are converted 42 percent of the time. That means if Denver drops back to pass, Baltimore’s chance of winning is (1 - 0.42) * 0.26 = 0.15 = 15 percent. According to the math, then, Fox made the right call: Punting was, just barely, the right probabilistic call.
   1716. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4346762)
Usually totally agree with this, but I thought Fox made the right call on 3rd and 7 on Saturday.

Manning claims the run on that play was his audible, overriding the pass the sideline called.
   1717. Howie Menckel Posted: January 14, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4346765)
"Since you're going to need a 2-pointer at some point (or three TDs), better to find out exactly what you're going to need to complete the comeback. Information is good."

Agreed. Sure the other team gets info, too, but I don't care about them as much as me.

I get why the announcers love the "one score" thing of being down 8. It keeps people tuned in longer. I don't know why coaches are so obsessed with it.

At some point a couple of teams in big games will do the "stay down 8 til the very end," then miss the 2-pter, and it will dawn on some people that knowing sooner what they needed would have helped a lot in terms of their strategy.

   1718. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4346766)
My reflexive view is that this was a remarkably stupid decision by Fox. But I also think that Manning's arm was toast at that point.


I'm not disagreeing, but is there evidence that his arm was toast?

And even if so, the opposing team wouldn't necessarily know that, so what about simply trying to gain the yards on the ground? (I'd actually put the backup QB in in that case but I realize that's a non-starter in today's NFL. But you're likely going to need to throw the ball in OT, and then who would you rather have throwing it? The backup, or a toasted Manning? If he WAS toast, we see how it turned out.)
   1719. Nasty Nate Posted: January 14, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4346780)
I'm among those surprised that Denver didn't take a shot at the end of regulation.

I was also baffled the day before when GB didn't go for it on 4th and 4 near midfield down by 2 touchdowns.
   1720. cmd600 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4346824)
Harvey - not picking a fight. I'm just saying this kid has been pretty amazing at more than just running the ball. That wasn't some kind of fluke game for him. He's been that good for most of the season.

SoSH/1705 - The break even point for going for two when down 14 is 39%. Even if you think your odds of making a 2 pointer are less than 50/50, you should probably still go for it.
   1721. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 14, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4346832)
cmd

thanks for the follow up.

and i agree that the guy has had a lot of success. but i am not going to bore you with the list of many, many players who have burned up the league in some capacity over a brief stint only to see that performance dip. some snap back as they adjust to the adjustments. some do not.

by all accounts he's a sharp kid. that will certainly help long term
   1722. SoSH U at work Posted: January 14, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4346842)
SoSH/1705 - The break even point for going for two when down 14 is 39%. Even if you think your odds of making a 2 pointer are less than 50/50, you should probably still go for it.


Yeah, they don't need to be 50/50 for it to make sense.
   1723. zenbitz Posted: January 14, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4347044)
Harvs and CMD -

I think that if you judge Kapernick and Wilson based on last weekend's games than it's pretty clear Wilson is a better passer. Kaep is a better running back than Wilson, but Wilson is a better scrambler (they are both good though).

But I think Kaep ran the read/option against GB about 1/2 as much as he ran it for the previous 6 games.

Also he has about 1/2 the passing attempts of Wilson and RGII and 2/3ds (Wilson) and 1/2 (RGII) the rushing attempts as the other 2 "read option" QBs, he is substantially less experienced. He does have the benefit of backing up Alex Smith for a season and a half though.

I think Wilson is helped out by having Marshawn Lynch, and clearly Kapernick benifits from the Niners OL+Gore. Going to be an interesting few years in the NFCW assuming they can avoid hits.
   1724. Jay Z Posted: January 14, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4347148)
And Slate just had a piece about something I've long believed. If you're down 14, why not go for two on the first TD. If you get it, you're only down 6, and in position to take the lead with a TD and a XP. If not, you still have another chance to tie with another two-point try. Since you should make 1 out of 2 2-point converstions, you're generally going to be left with no worse than a tie and half the time the lead (assuming you score the two touchdowns. And if you don't, the point is moot).


The percentages have to be way better than even before any coach is going to try this. The coach who tries this and loses a couple of games right off the bat is going to be crucified. Kind of thing that works in a simulation but not real life. Real life people are too risk averse.
   1725. McCoy Posted: January 14, 2013 at 10:43 PM (#4347153)
It isn't really about being risk averse but that the risks true costs are greater than what is captured in a simulation.
   1726. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: January 14, 2013 at 11:25 PM (#4347175)
Supposed Bears final 3 candidates - Arians, Bevell, and Trestman. I wouldn't have guessed those 3 at the start of this. Odd though that all anyone can say about Emery is that he's been more prepared and thorough than most candidates have seen before and how impressive he's been. I guess that's something.
   1727. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 14, 2013 at 11:36 PM (#4347184)
so--everyone agrees that Reid should have been fired--but he's the first guy to get picked up; and (many) agreed that the firing of Lovie Smith was unfair--so Reid is hired, and as far as I can tell, Lovie hasn't been mentioned in any interview with any team
   1728. JJ1986 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM (#4347187)
Buffalo interviewed Lovie and I think San Diego did too.
   1729. DA Baracus Posted: January 14, 2013 at 11:56 PM (#4347200)
Supposed Bears final 3 candidates - Arians, Bevell, and Trestman.


If you felt Lovie should be fired because there were better options available, and that was perfectly reasonable, this list shouldn't make you feel good.
   1730. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:16 AM (#4347222)
Buffalo interviewed Lovie and I think San Diego did too.

well--maybe, but I haven't seen him on any hot finalists lists
   1731. Jay Z Posted: January 15, 2013 at 02:34 AM (#4347293)
It isn't really about being risk averse but that the risks true costs are greater than what is captured in a simulation.


The idea ignores some information. If you succeed (make the two points on the first TD) you are giving the opposition the game information well before the game is over. So they can change their strategy for the remaining minutes too. They are not passive participants.

It also shortens the game. Puts more games in the likely win and loss column and fewer into overtime. Shortening the game is a good strategy if you're weaker than the other team, and less good if you're stronger. So it's only a really good strategy if your team isn't very good. Which makes the strategy overall less useful.

   1732. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 15, 2013 at 06:32 AM (#4347312)
The idea ignores some information. If you succeed (make the two points on the first TD) you are giving the opposition the game information well before the game is over. So they can change their strategy for the remaining minutes too. They are not passive participants.

I don't really see how this changes anything for the other team though, assuming it is sufficiently late in the game. Regardless of whether you are up 6, 7, or 8, any score makes it a 2 possession game, and you need to stop the other team from scoring a td at all costs. Are they going to try and not score because you didn't make the 2 point? Not defend against a td?

It also shortens the game. Puts more games in the likely win and loss column and fewer into overtime. Shortening the game is a good strategy if you're weaker than the other team

You are down 14 late, it's probably a decent assumption.
   1733. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 08:57 AM (#4347320)
Fox stands by his decision to play scared at the end of regulation. Apparently, Fox thought he was coaching a prize fighter. Or was a prize fighter. A prize fighter that was a loser:

But, Fox said, Denver's situation was nowhere near what the Falcons faced. The Falcons were losing and had no other choice. They were playing in a dome. The Broncos had just given up a game-tying 70-yard touchdown pass and were standing on the sideline in disbelief. The temperature was below 10 degrees. Manning had thrown the ball downfield a grand total of twice the entire game.

"You watch a (70)-yard bomb go over your head, there's a certain amount of shock value," Fox said. "A little bit like a prize fighter who gets a right cross on the chin at the end of a round, you're looking to get out of the round."


This makes no sense. This is football. You're not looking to merely "get out of the round" when you have the ball and thus a chance to win and not go to the next round. The RAVENS were looking to "get out of the round." And there is no reason to believe that the offensive players or Manning would have been so "stunned" by the defensive meltdown that they wouldn't be able to function - indeed, they would need to function 31 seconds later, so why not just start functioning now?
   1734. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM (#4347347)
indeed, they would need to function 31 seconds later, so why not just start functioning now?


Given Denver's performance in overtime, one could argue that they never started functioning. I think Fox's answer contains the truth to some degree: his staff was reeling, and they buckled a bit under the pressure. They weren't thinking completely logically, but rather reacting emotionally.
   1735. stanmvp48 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4347355)
I am a big Manning fan; in fact, I was a fan of his father, and he will probably win the MVP. However, would you have rather had Brady or Rogers or Brees at that point (or Ryan) . I am not sure Manning was enough of a deep/medium threat to give them a good shot at scoring in 31 seconds.
   1736. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4347364)
Manning's experience at playing in the cold, at this point, is extremely limited. The Broncos didn't really have a cold weather game all season, he didn't play last year, before that he was in a dome... He was wearing a glove on his throwing hand, which can't be conducive to good quarterbacking. He's 36 years old. You spend four hours in zero-degree weather trying to play football under those circumstances, and eventually you're going to break down. I'm not surprised that Manning lost effectiveness the longer he was out there.
   1737. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4347365)
The RAVENS were looking to "get out of the round."


Yes, exactly. The Ravens weren't hoping that Denver would try for a game-winning field goal. They must have been kicking themselves with joy that Denver chose to go to OT.
   1738. DA Baracus Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4347369)
He was wearing a glove on his throwing hand, which can't be conducive to good quarterbacking.


Kurt Warner wore one in Arizona and Ben Roethlisberger wears one. Also it was 13 degrees at kickoff, no one has a lot experience throwing in that kind of cold.
   1739. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4347372)
I'm not disagreeing, but is there evidence that his arm was toast?


I don't remember the exact play that made me do it but early in OT I texted a friend that Manning was going to throw an INT for a touchdown because his arm was shot. Football is about 10th on the list of sports I'm knowledgeable about so I wouldn't call that anywhere close to evidence but it was an observation I made at the time. Others can speak better to it but watching the game his passes looked inconsistent in strength in OT.
   1740. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4347377)
Manning's experience at playing in the cold, at this point, is extremely limited. The Broncos didn't really have a cold weather game all season, he didn't play last year, before that he was in a dome...


I'm really not buying this. He's played competitive football for 20 or 25 years. He's played at a very high level for 18 years. He's certainly played in cold weather many, many, many times before.
   1741. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4347378)
Manning's experience at playing in the cold, at this point, is extremely limited. The Broncos didn't really have a cold weather game all season, he didn't play last year, before that he was in a dome... He was wearing a glove on his throwing hand, which can't be conducive to good quarterbacking. He's 36 years old. You spend four hours in zero-degree weather trying to play football under those circumstances, and eventually you're going to break down. I'm not surprised that Manning lost effectiveness the longer he was out there.

I'd love to see the overall results for postseason games played in extreme temperature conditions like Saturday's Ravens-Broncos. I can recall a few times when a warm weather team managed to win in arctic conditions, like when the 49ers crushed the Bears in a 1988 playoff game in Chicago when the wind chill was 2 degrees. But most warm weather teams, or teams with QBs like Manning with little experience in extreme cold conditions, don't generally adapt very well, and I'd bet that this rule applies against the point spread as well as head-up.
   1742. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4347383)
I am a big Manning fan; in fact, I was a fan of his father, and he will probably win the MVP. However, would you have rather had Brady or Rogers or Brees at that point (or Ryan) . I am not sure Manning was enough of a deep/medium threat to give them a good shot at scoring in 31 seconds.


I don't believe in the choker stuff, but if you're saying that Manning's style of play isn't as conducive to that situation as is the others', well, maybe. But even here I don't really buy it. They only needed to get to the 35 to have a reasonable shot at a FG. They had 31 seconds. They had two timeouts. They didn't need to wing it deep downfield. It seemed to me that a short/medium passing game was all that was needed there, which Manning is certainly suited for.

Fox really blew it. You cannot give up an opportunity there. It's bad enough when teams do this at the end of the first half. Possessions are key, and ought not be treated with indifference.
   1743. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4347384)
He's played competitive football for 20 or 25 years. He's played at a very high level for 18 years. He's certainly played in cold weather many, many, many times before.


There's a difference between doing it when you're 27, and doing it when you're 36 and haven't had to endure weather like that for several years.

Harveys has mentioned a few times that Brett Favre began having lots of trouble playing in cold weather as he aged. And if anyone had experience playing in the cold, it was Brett Favre.
   1744. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4347385)
I'm really not buying this. He's played competitive football for 20 or 25 years. He's played at a very high level for 18 years. He's certainly played in cold weather many, many, many times before.

But how well has he played under those conditions? And that wasn't just "cold weather" in Denver last Saturday. By the end of the game the wind chill was either -6 or -10. There's a big difference between that sort of numbing cold and games played on a windless day of 28 degrees, which are a lot more common in the regular season.

EDIT: Ray, I'm not saying by any of this that the Broncos shouldn't have tried to open up more at the end of regulation, since it wasn't as if they needed a miracle play to work themselves into field goal range. The Falcons kind of gave a good example of that on Sunday.
   1745. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4347388)
I don't know what Manning potentially being less effective in the cold has to do with not going for it at the end of regulation. He had led a TD drive earlier in the quarter but now all of a sudden he has almost no chance of getting a few yards to set up the FG?

Maybe I understand taking a knee on the road in that situation.
   1746. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4347390)
There's a difference between doing it when you're 27, and doing it when you're 36 and haven't had to endure weather like that for several years.

Harveys has mentioned a few times that Brett Favre began having lots of trouble playing in cold weather as he aged. And if anyone had experience playing in the cold, it was Brett Favre.


Good point, even though I'm much better at shoveling driveways and sidewalks at 68 than I was at 28. Of course back then it never occurred to me to shovel every couple of hours before the drifts built up to 18 inches. (smile)
   1747. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4347394)
I don't know what Manning potentially being less effective in the cold has to do with not going for it at the end of regulation.


I'm not conflating the two at all. Obviously, the Broncos should have tried to score at the end of regulation. They should have tried to score even if they still had Tebow back there.

I'm just not surprised that (a) P.Manning had, for him, a subpar game, and (b) he seemed to get worse as the game wore on.
   1748. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4347396)
It's bad enough when teams do this at the end of the first half.


Like the Broncos did on Sunday? Same situation, 36 seconds, 2 timeouts and they ran the ball once then went in.
   1749. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4347397)
Tom, I'm not completely dismissive of your point; you've convinced me that it was perhaps a bigger factor than I thought - certainly one could reasonably argue that Manning's age and recent injury history gave Flacco the edge over him in the cold. But, well, what are you going to do? If he's in there he's got to play, and you've got to try for the FG at the end of regulation. If you can't do that, then he simply shouldn't be in there and you should go to whoever the backup is.

I'm just not surprised that (a) P.Manning had, for him, a subpar game, and (b) he seemed to get worse as the game wore on.


Perhaps. I just want to note that the interception near the end of OT that did him in was more a mental mistake than a physical one. Yes, he compounded his mental mistake by not executing either, so it was both, but if he didn't think he were healthy I don't think he'd have attempted an acrobatic run/throw across his body like that.

   1750. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4347398)
Like the Broncos did on Sunday? Same situation, 36 seconds, 2 timeouts and they ran the ball once then went in.


It's crazy. Play scared. Be so afraid of a negative outcome that you don't try for a positive outcome when you really should.
   1751. JJ1986 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4347401)
whoever the backup is.


Brock Osweiler.
   1752. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4347403)
Brock Osweiler.


This is literally the first time I've ever heard of this person.
   1753. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4347404)
At the end of regulation, both teams were cold, tired, and beat-up. Doesn't that situation favor the offense over the defense, generally?
   1754. JJ1986 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4347405)
They might have Caleb Hanie too. They did during pre-season.
   1755. bunyon Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4347407)
I suppose discussing Fox's error (and it was obviously an error) and Manning's age/limitations/neck size is better conversation than the defense. But if Denver plays any defense at all in the last minute, they win the game. Manning did all he needed to to win the game if his team had even a little below average defense. I have no idea who that safety/CB duo was that let the receiver behind them but, geez, keeping receivers in front of you is all you do in the prevent.

Manning has obviously aged. He clearly isn't that great in the cold.* But without a defensive lapse of mythic proportions, he is the winning QB on Saturday.


* He grew up in the deep south, he played his college ball at Tennessee, his professional home was a dome. He may have played in cold weather but I doubt he's played a game that started below freezing more than half a dozen times. Maybe a dozen, tops.
   1756. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4347412)
Manning did all he needed to to win the game if his team had even a little below average defense.


I don't quite agree with this. Manning and the Broncos offense generated 21 points in more than five quarters of football. That's generally not enough to expect a win. It was the two special teams touchdowns that made the offense look more proficient than it was. (On the other hand, special teams touchdowns limit the number of offensive possessions as well, so it did take a little bit away from the Denver offense.)

I have no idea who that safety/CB duo was that let the receiver behind them but, geez, keeping receivers in front of you is all you do in the prevent.


Tony Carter and Rahim Moore. Carter, the CB, thought he had safety help, which he was supposed to have; it was really all Moore's fault as the safety.
   1757. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4347415)
And Champ Bailey had what I have to imagine was the worst game of his life.
   1758. bunyon Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4347416)
Tony Carter and Rahim Moore. Carter, the CB, thought he had safety help, which he was supposed to have; it was really all Moore's fault as the safety.

I don't know much about football, really, but I can accept this. I saw the play live, in a bar, and was gobsmacked. It just seemed so far beyond what you expect to see in an NFL game that I almost couldn't accept that the guy hadn't fallen done or something.

Anyway, I also accept what you say about Manning. He's old and recovering and it's not surprising he isn't his prime self. But the way all the talk seems to be on him with that level of defensive gaffe just seems wrong to me.
   1759. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4347419)
And Champ Bailey had what I have to imagine was the worst game of his life.


He's almost as old as Manning.

I think a lot of what is considered "playoff choking" is just guys wearing down after a long, hard season.
   1760. JJ1986 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4347422)
Even after the safety had been beaten, he had plenty of time to recover if he'd run towards the receiver instead of trying to intercept the ball 10 yards from where it actually landed.
   1761. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4347424)
He looked like a guy in the stands trying to catch a T-shirt that had been fired out of a cannon but was going to land three rows behind him.
   1762. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4347427)
Aside from what seemed like a shocking lack of awareness of the game situation by the safety, his specific problem seemed to be that he tried to play the ball instead of the receiver. I am just guessing, but don't they teach you simply to play the receiver at that point? "Don't let anyone get behind you."
   1763. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4347428)
Even after the safety had been beaten, he had plenty of time to recover if he'd run towards the receiver instead of trying to intercept the ball 10 yards from where it actually landed.


THIS! What the hell are you doing in the air, trying to pick off that pass, while it's 10 feet above your head?! Run to the receiver and bat down the ball!
   1764. bunyon Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4347429)
Ray, my knowledge of defense in that situation is only gleaned from color commentators but I'd have to think that is true. Even if that isn't how it's taught, it's pretty obviously how it should be played.
   1765. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4347432)
I am just guessing, but don't they teach you simply to play the receiver at that point? "Don't let anyone get behind you."


Yes. That is your ONLY JOB in that situation. Don't try to be a hero. Just keep the receiver in front of you and knock down the ball.
   1766. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4347435)
If you felt Lovie should be fired because there were better options available, and that was perfectly reasonable, this list shouldn't make you feel good.

Why not? Once it was clear they weren't hiring a retread, from a fan's perspective everyone's an unknown (or limited known). They're not hiring a coordinator from a bad team (coughBrownscough) and all of them have good things on their resume*. For those like me who agreed Lovie had to go, there's no reason I should assume the next guy is going to be worse. He very well could be, but at some point, every head coach was a limited known and unproven. We've heard nothing but good things about the process, so until proven otherwise I'll give Emery the benefit of the doubt.

*Trestman hasn't been in the NFL for some time, so his is a little more dated. And to be honest, it does feel a little too much like Emery's trying to prove how smart he is.
   1767. stanmvp48 Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4347436)
Or tackle the guy at the 15 yard line it would have taken 10-15 seconds for Baltimore to get up and spike. Incidentally, on Smith's second TD catch against Bailey, I thought he pretty clearly pushed off.
   1768. SoSH U at work Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4347438)
his specific problem seemed to be that he tried to play the ball instead of the receiver


Maybe coach Nickerson ended up in Denver after his stint at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

   1769. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4347439)
Or tackle the guy at the 15 yard line it would have taken 10-15 seconds for Baltimore to get up and spike.


Right, a completion and tackle isn't the worst thing in the world there. Even a pass interference flag is better than what the safety chose to do.
   1770. puck Posted: January 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4347442)

Maybe coach Nickerson ended up in Denver after his stint at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.


Damn, I caught this reference. I think. I didn't remember the coach went to SLO. I did think at the time it was an odd thing to be the wedge between player and coach.
   1771. smileyy Posted: January 15, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4347804)
Doesn't that situation favor the offense over the defense, generally?


I'm not sure. I'd guess at that point, hands and fingers are starting to get unhappy, making it hard to catch and throw, vs. keeping in position on defense.

But maybe its lungs that are going, slowing down defensive reaction times?
   1772. smileyy Posted: January 15, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4347808)
THIS! What the hell are you doing in the air, trying to pick off that pass, while it's 10 feet above your head?! Run to the receiver and bat down the ball!


The full-play replay was more damning. He never stopped backpedaling, even as the receiver was getting behind him. He never had an angle on the play, which might be part of why the throw went that way. I'd need to see it again (the full play, top-down), but I don't think it was just "He's beaten the corner, now the throw has to beat the safety" -- I think the safety was effectively out of the play early on.
   1773. mike f Posted: January 15, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4347853)
He grew up in the deep south, he played his college ball at Tennessee, his professional home was a dome. He may have played in cold weather but I doubt he's played a game that started below freezing more than half a dozen times. Maybe a dozen, tops.

Not below freezing, but according to nfl.com:
The bigger concern, of course, is Manning in frigid conditions. His record in games trapped in sub-40 degree temperatures is 6-5, with a pedestrian 15 touchdowns and 12 interceptions, but this includes late-January playoff games against the best in the AFC.

That was before the year. Add in a couple more for this year.
   1774. Nasty Nate Posted: January 15, 2013 at 08:15 PM (#4347864)
I'd need to see it again (the full play, top-down), but I don't think it was just "He's beaten the corner, now the throw has to beat the safety" -- I think the safety was effectively out of the play early on.


The ball was in the air so long that I'm pretty sure the safety could have gotten there if he had taken a semi-sane route.
   1775. JJ1986 Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4348186)
Chris Mortensen is tweeting that the Eagles just hired Chip Kelly. I don't really believe it yet.
   1776. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4348193)
Chris Mortensen is tweeting that the Eagles just hired Chip Kelly. I don't really believe it yet.


Assuming it's legit, you're Chip Kelly, you've just hired into the Eagles and you're bringing your schemes with you.

Who do you draft and who do you sign as a FA?
   1777. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4348196)
Chris Mortensen is tweeting that the Eagles just hired Chip Kelly. I don't really believe it yet.
yeah, i'd be really happy with that.

i know that a lot of people think what he does is a gimmick, but if what he does is successful, then the eagles will be 5 years ahead of the rest of the NFC.
   1778. JJ1986 Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4348197)
If I'm Nick Foles, I start looking at real estate in the Kansas City area.
   1779. DA Baracus Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4348200)
Assuming it's legit


It is. Stunner.
   1780. McCoy Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4348206)
Man, gone are the days when college coaches stayed at the same college for decades.
   1781. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4348218)
That's definitely splashier than the Bears' hiring of Marc Trestman.
   1782. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4348219)
If I'm Nick Foles, I start looking at real estate in the Kansas City area.
i wouldn't be so sure of that:
“I’ll tell you what; I’m glad Nick Foles is graduating,” Oregon coach Chip Kelly said after his team’s 56-31 victory Saturday night.

“I catch myself watching him in awe sometimes. … Nick is a hell of a football player. That kid’s a warrior. He’s as good as anyone in the country.”


those quotes are from this article, which was posted following the oregon-arizona game last season.
   1783. smileyy Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4348226)
It seems like a low-risk move for Chip Kelly. They've been great under Kelly, but I'm not sure he gets any more of a shine than he has today. Winning a national title is a crapshoot. I'm sure the Eagles are paying him a ton of money.

And if the NFL doesn't work out, there's a ton of schools in football-mad conferences who would want to make an impact with a coach like him. Maybe this is just a backdoor way of going to the SEC?
   1784. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4348231)
Man, gone are the days when college coaches stayed at the same college for decades.


Was that really an era, or was it just the few super-successful coaches who did that? I don't know much about the history of college sports. Was that era limited to the time before the NFL became bigger business than college?

Today the Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Georgia, TCU, and Missouri (and Wake Forest) coaches have been there for more than a decade. And Mike Riley if you include both his stints.

The only one with a REALLY long tenure is Frank Beamer. And Bill Snyder I suppose. And the guy at Troy.
   1785. Every Inge Counts Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4348233)
Well I guess he got some new info on Oregon's possible NCAA issues....
   1786. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4348242)
Today the Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Georgia, TCU, and Missouri (and Wake Forest) coaches have been there for more than a decade.


I doubt this is fewer than the legendary "tenure" coaches of past eras. We just pay more attention to the big name defections these days.
   1787. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4348259)
Chris Mortensen is tweeting that the Eagles just hired Chip Kelly. I don't really believe it yet.
yeah, i'd be really happy with that.


No escape for Monte Kiffin.
   1788. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4348260)
I doubt this is fewer than the legendary "tenure" coaches of past eras. We just pay more attention to the big name defections these days.

Not only that; most people, I expect, don't really remember the non-legendary coaches who don't last. Sure, Bear Bryant coached for 6.02*10^23 years, but (e.g.) Northwestern changed coaches pretty regularly.
   1789. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4348263)
That's definitely splashier than the Bears' hiring of Marc Trestman.

Speaking of this...what does everyone think? Honestly I'm not sure how to react. Maybe Phil Emery is just very clever and thorough and Trestman is going to set the world on fire...or maybe Emery fell asleep while reviewing resumes and his head smacked down on the desk. The impact woke him suddenly and, disoriented, he shouted out, "Torchwood!" His assistants mis-heard him and issued a press release, and now he's stuck.

(Of course, if that really happened, it still wouldn't be the most hapless Bears front-office hiring misfire, as anyone who remembers the Dave McGinnis debacle can attest.)
   1790. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4348269)
Speaking of <the Bears hiring the CFL guy>...what does everyone think? Honestly I'm not sure how to react. Maybe Phil Emery is just very clever and thorough and Trestman is going to set the world on fire...or maybe Emery fell asleep while reviewing resumes and his head smacked down on the desk. The impact woke him suddenly and, disoriented, he shouted out, "Torchwood!" His assistants mis-heard him and issued a press release, and now he's stuc


It's easy to shout down going to the CFL for a coach, but 1) going to the CFL isn't notably different than hiring an NCAA coach, with the notable difference that CFL coaches have had to coach men being paid to play whereas NCAA coaches are used to having all of their words taken as gospel by the adoring undergrads they lead like cultish messiahs, and 2) the last time a team went "out on a limb" with a coaching hire was when the Falcons hired Mike Smith rather than one of the yearly retread options. That seems to have worked out okay.
   1791. jobu Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4348270)
Northwestern changed coaches pretty regularly.

As a Northwestern fan, I hope that pattern has been put to rest for a long time.

Re Trestman, and as a Bears fan who is very familiar with their offensive travails, I am optimistic. The one worry I have is that they will lose too much of what has been good about the team as they pursue offensive creativity. With Toub and Smith gone, you have to wonder how much of the special teams success and aggressive defensive philosophy will remain. That said, I have been in Soldier Field many times bemoaning the offensive playcalling (whether it was John Shoop, Ron Turner, or whoever), so I am anxious to see what they can do with someone who should be able to get the most out of Cutler, Marshall, Forte, et al. They also have a new OC/offensive line coach, which perhaps will help--but they need more talent on the line and at tight end.
   1792. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4348275)
Not only that; most people, I expect, don't really remember the non-legendary coaches who don't last. Sure, Bear Bryant coached for 6.02*10^23 years, but (e.g.) Northwestern changed coaches pretty regularly.


For every Bob Devaney & Tom Osborne: 1962-1998
there's this at nearby KU: Jack Mitchell, Pepper Rodgers, Dan Fambrough, Bud Moore, Dan Fambrough again, Mike Gottfried, Bob Valesente, Glenn Mason, Terry Allen: over the same period.
   1793. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4348276)
Sure, Bear Bryant coached for 6.02*10^23 years, but (e.g.) Northwestern changed coaches pretty regularly.


Pat Fitzgerald has been at Northwestern for seven seasons now, and he's still only 38. Given that he's a good but not great coach, so he's unlikely to draw a huge amount of interest from other schools, and that he has very strong ties to Northwestern, he could end up being the coach there for 30 or 40 years if he wants to.

He's already the winningest coach in school history. I bet there aren't a lot of under-40 coaches who can say that.
   1794. McCoy Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4348277)
I've always been a little nervous of this focus on an offensive minded coach as next the next head coach. The Bears have so much invested in the defense and so little invested in the offense that I think it will take years for a shift in focus to actually pay dividends (playoff games) for the Bears and I don't know if the new system will be allowed to hang around that long to do it.
   1795. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4348284)
Maybe they plan is to bring in a heavy hitter DC like Lovie Smith or something.
   1796. DA Baracus Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4348285)
The Bears have so much invested in the defense and so little invested in the offense


That it makes sense to hire a coach you feel is innovate offensively to get the most out of what you have. What's a defensive coach going to bring to the table that is going to get the Bears over the hump?
   1797. McCoy Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4348292)
A innovative coach needs resources to utilize those innovations and the Bears have very little of those resources focused on the offense which means they'll have to spend those resources building up the offense.

If the Bears continue to have a good defense for the next 5 years and have an offense that goes from one of the worst to just below average and the Bears continue to not get "over the hump" will they allow the head coach/front office to continue in the direction they were going?

How much time will a HC and front office get to implement their new direction and what will qualify as a success for that new direction?
   1798. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4348297)
regarding the bears coach and how it relates to the packers i think for whatever his flaws mccarthy does pretty ok getting his team to score points so if the bears new guy wants to try and go score for score with green bay the packers will be fine

chicago's advantage with green bay was the ability to keep it close and maybe steal it at the end. it wasn't working the last few years but that was as much chance as the packers being better.
   1799. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4348298)
Considering how long Angelo and Smith were given to not get over the hump, I personally am not concerned about Emery/Trestman not getting enough time.

And totally agree with DA in 1796. In fact, there's rumblings they might even keep Marinelli around as DC.

Also, just because he's an offensive coach doesn't mean the defense is going to turn to ####. Both Billick and Gruden were offensive guys that took over defensive teams and won with the defense. A successful coach will find a way to maximize a team's strength and minimize their weaknesses (it was that 2nd part where Lovie failed).
   1800. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4348301)
I've always been a little nervous of this focus on an offensive minded coach as next the next head coach. The Bears have so much invested in the defense and so little invested in the offense that I think it will take years for a shift in focus to actually pay dividends (playoff games) for the Bears and I don't know if the new system will be allowed to hang around that long to do it.

The defense isn't getting any better, no matter who you hire. If you want to progress as a team, you need to bring in somebody to fix the offense, and primarily the line. And if you don't want to progress, and are happy where you are, then why fire Lovie?
Page 18 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(52 - 8:49am, Jul 30)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(19 - 8:45am, Jul 30)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(37 - 8:37am, Jul 30)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-29-2014
(63 - 8:33am, Jul 30)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3574 - 8:24am, Jul 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(103 - 8:00am, Jul 30)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(2 - 7:34am, Jul 30)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(22 - 5:38am, Jul 30)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogMelky Cabrera smashed a windshield with a homer
(15 - 5:02am, Jul 30)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(33 - 3:14am, Jul 30)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1015 - 1:10am, Jul 30)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(59 - 12:58am, Jul 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(11 - 12:29am, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(13 - 12:02am, Jul 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(508 - 11:02pm, Jul 29)
Last: frannyzoo

Page rendered in 0.9748 seconds
53 querie(s) executed