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?

steagles Posted: November 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM | 8370 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 3 of 84 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   201. Kurt Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4308198)
I think I agree with everything in Andy's post except the first sentence. The Redskins have lost to the Rams, Bengals and Panthers, and are as inconsistent as anyone else. It wouldn't shock me at all if they lose to Cleveland.
   202. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4308199)
*excluding any message board/comment field which attracts them with the power of a Tesla Magnet.

here's a sheepish, 'like or not, rules are rules.' blog.

rules are rules, says dude working Thanksgiving @ espn.
   203. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4308200)
That was horrible because (a) not only should the Oilers


There should be a rule suspending posting for a day for getting the team wrong in a post, even though we all know what you mean.
   204. puck Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4308207)
here's a sheepish, 'like or not, rules are rules.' blog.

rules are rules, says dude working Thanksgiving @ espn.

Do any other sports have the combo of having so many rules and having rules change so often? It seems like the NFL is unusually difficult in this regard.
   205. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 23, 2012 at 04:26 AM (#4308226)
The challenge flag rule could be exploited, say for instance on a freak td play that you know will get called back you throw the flag to keep the 6 points and take the penalty
   206. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 23, 2012 at 08:10 AM (#4308237)
Are there people out there who still think the Jets don't suck? The problem is not Sanchez, and it's not (Chris Collinsworth) the players around Sanchez. It's the head coach, who directs his offensive coordinators not to have a vertical game.

It's a combination of all of the above.
   207. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:21 AM (#4308250)
It's the head coach, who directs his offensive coordinators not to have a vertical game.


Wasn't this the case when they got to two AFC championship games? It just seems like the quality of their overall roster has gone down.

On another subject, who is having the better season? Luck or Griffin III? The latter seems more spectacular and who I would want leading my team for the next decade, but I haven't been watching Luck as closely.I just don't know how defenses are supposed to defend Griffin.
   208. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4308253)
The Jets don't have a vertical passing game because their receivers suck and their QB can't get them the ball anyway. It doesn't help that they replaced the bland and ineffective Brian Schottenheimer with the even more bland and ineffective Tony Sparano. The whole team is a mess from top to bottom.
   209. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4308254)
da

i know; isn't it awesome?

i feel for fans like ajm, but i have never appreciated the rex ryan experience.
   210. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4308260)
da

i know; isn't it awesome?


Unless you're a Jets fan, the Jets are thoroughly entertaining. For example, apparently Tebow has broken ribs. They why the hell was he dressed?
   211. BDC Posted: November 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4308264)
I think I agree with everything in Andy's post

I'm not about to argue the "Cowboys are stiffs" part :)
   212. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4308265)
Okay, the rule is that an automatically reviewed play is not reviewed once a flag is thrown? Insane.


I'm extremely hard-pressed to think of a stupider rule in any sport anywhere, anytime in the history of sports. The semi-annual Taliban Games are probably more intelligently organized and run and I'm presuming executions and beheadings are an explicit part of their rulebook.

This absurdity is an elegant and sublime microcosm of Lion fandom.
   213. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4308285)
The challenge flag rule could be exploited, say for instance on a freak td play that you know will get called back you throw the flag to keep the 6 points and take the penalty


So, in this instance, if the Lions coach didn't throw the flag, then the Texans coach should have thrown it?

That would be pretty ####### amazing out-of-the-box thinking on his part to do that.
I wonder if Belichick has that in his "dirty tricks" playbook if he needs it...
   214. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4308293)
So, in this instance, if the Lions coach didn't throw the flag, then the Texans coach should have thrown it?


Yes, if Gary Kubiak challenged the play the TD would have stood. I would love to see a coach do this in a playoff game, which will kill the rule.
   215. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4308298)
Unless you're a Jets fan, the Jets are thoroughly entertaining. For example, apparently Tebow has broken ribs. They why the hell was he dressed?


Because he wanted to be there for his teammates, man.

Actually, I believe the Jets' third string QB is out, so I suppose Tebow could have been called upon to hand the ball off if need be. Or, exactly what his entire skillset as a pro quarterback is.

(Do teams not have more than three QBs on their entire 324-man roster?)
   216. Nasty Nate Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4308319)
Is it time to pay attention to the Patriots having a shot at the most-points-in-a-season record? Or should it wait until they hang 45 on Miami?
   217. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4308323)
The Pats scored 35 points in about 12 minutes during the second quarter yesterday. They had 28 points in the first 6 minutes or so. Granted that wasn't all on offense; just noting it.

BTW, Edelman took a vicious hit with his head in a bad position. I thought for a second that he'd been knocked out - his body was frozen in position as he went down. Clearly he was dazed.
   218. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4308331)
Actually, I believe the Jets' third string QB is out


Greg McElroy has no listed injury. Unlike Tebow. Total clown show in NY.
   219. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4308345)
Why can't we see more NFL games during the week, such as we do on Thursdays now? Even if it's just one game on a Friday or Saturday.

I realize Saturday goes up against college, and I wouldn't pretend to know more about the relevant markets than the NFL does, but, geez, it feels like some other nights would work out very well. I enjoy the Thursday night games, even though they're not always the most scintillating matchups. (Is that it, that if you schedule these games to fly solo too far in advance, you might end up with a dud?)
   220. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4308350)
Let's not dilute things more than they already are. I like my football on Sundays and Monday night.
   221. Eddo Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4308362)
So, in this instance, if the Lions coach didn't throw the flag, then the Texans coach should have thrown it?
Yes, if Gary Kubiak challenged the play the TD would have stood. I would love to see a coach do this in a playoff game, which will kill the rule.

No. The rule is written so that a coach/team may not benefit from throwing a flag in this manner. Kubiak throwing his red flag would not have prevented the TD from being overturned.
   222. spycake Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4308368)
The rule is written so that a coach/team may not benefit from throwing a flag in this manner. Kubiak throwing his red flag would not have prevented the TD from being overturned.

How is the rule written? Just curious, I haven't seen the actual text of the rule anywhere yet.
   223. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4308372)
the issue withthe rule was the the illegal challenge flag thrown resulted in a penelty after they play thus makeing the penelty the last play and there for unable to review it. though i could be wrong but Im pretty sure this is how it works
   224. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4308399)
No. The rule is written so that a coach/team may not benefit from throwing a flag in this manner. Kubiak throwing his red flag would not have prevented the TD from being overturned.


I don't see it. Rule 15, Section 9:

There is no limit to the number of Referee Reviews that may be initiated by the Replay Official. He must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.


That reads to me (and a lot of other people) that a coach in Kubiak's situtation can prevent the review.
   225. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4308403)
and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap


Hmm, that word "against" seems to me to say that Kubiak can't prevent the review because, while he committed a foul by throwing the flag, there was no ruling "against" his team.

Who knows. The rule is written poorly in any event.
   226. SoSH U at work Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4308406)
I'm extremely hard-pressed to think of a stupider rule in any sport anywhere, anytime in the history of sports. The semi-annual Taliban Games are probably more intelligently organized and run and I'm presuming executions and beheadings are an explicit part of their rulebook.


The only possible rule that's dumber is the one that defines a catch, the idiocy most in evidence during another memorable Lions loss.

Why can't we see more NFL games during the week, such as we do on Thursdays now? Even if it's just one game on a Friday or Saturday.


I think that the continued relocation of games from Sunday to night games elsewhere is going to start to dilute the massive value of the deals Fox and CBS are paying, if it hasn't already. Eventually, those two networks will start to cry foul.
   227. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4308410)
I can see that, but the ruling of course would go "against" his team, hence the confusion.

If a coach in Kubiak's position doesn't get the advantage then I want to see Rex Ryan do it thinking he's all clever.
   228. DA Baracus Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4308411)
I think that the continued relocation of games from Sunday to night games elsewhere is going to start to dilute the massive value of the deals Fox and CBS are paying, if it hasn't already. Eventually, those two networks will start to cry foul.


That's why the NFL signed them to contract extensions through 2022, then announced more Thursday games.
   229. steagles Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4308420)
Why can't we see more NFL games during the week, such as we do on Thursdays now? Even if it's just one game on a Friday or Saturday.
i am pretty sure that there are federal laws that prevent the NFL from playing on fridays and saturdays while NCAA football is still in season.
   230. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4308429)
I really am curious to know what would happen if Hou had thrown the challenge flag instead of detroit, or in other possible scenarios. I may have to dig deeper on this
   231. Eddo Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4308430)
There is no limit to the number of Referee Reviews that may be initiated by the Replay Official. He must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.
That reads to me (and a lot of other people) that a coach in Kubiak's situtation can prevent the review.

The key term in your quoted section is "against". The ruling on the field was for Kubiak's team, not against it, so the replay official would have been able to still review the touchdown.
   232. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4308432)
I would love to know how Schwartz throwing the flag "delayed the next snap," if they were going to review the play anyway bc it was a TD.

But I am serious when I say that the Houston player flat out cheated. He was tackled and yet got up anyway like a jackass and started running.
   233. smileyy Posted: November 23, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4308436)
But I am serious when I say that the Houston player flat out cheated. He was tackled and yet got up anyway like a jackass and started running.


Its the most logical thing to do in the replay era.

Edit: not even in the replay era. You keep playing until the whistle. And sometimes even after the whistle, as long as you're not putting anyone at risk. Everyone has a role to play on the field, and with a sport with referees, you have to let the referees make the call.
   234. Kurt Posted: November 23, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4308454)
Turnovers are also automatically reviewed, right? It seems like there is still room for shenanigans - if a team is awarded an interception on a ball that hits the ground, could the coach of the intercepting team throw the flag to challenge the spot where the interceptor was ruled down?
   235. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4308470)
The Patsies scored 21 points in a 52-second span last night.

And having watched the replay multiple times, I'm still not clear on how Mark Sanchez managed to run into Brandon Moore's a$$ as if it were a limbo pole. Why was Sanchez's head that low?

(And Collinsworth said that Wilfork purposely pushed Moore into Sanchez, but I didn't see that.)

   236. SoSH U at work Posted: November 23, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4308471)
(And Collinsworth said that Wilfork purposely pushed Moore into Sanchez, but I didn't see that.)


Whether he did or didn't, pushing the guy blocking you backward is kind of the nose tackle's fundamental responsibility.
   237. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 23, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4308482)
But I am serious when I say that the Houston player flat out cheated. He was tackled and yet got up anyway like a jackass and started running.


A.J. Pierzynski thinks it was an awesome play.
   238. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 23, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4308499)
The rule is written so that a coach/team may not benefit from throwing a flag in this manner.

But I don't see how Detroit benefited from it. The play was going to be reviewed anyway.
   239. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4308525)
How does this explanation relate to the Schwartz flag at all?

Dean Blandino, the NFL's director of instant replay, explained the review rule, which was instituted in 2011, during a recent appearance on NFL Network on the heels of Smith's challenge. Details of Blandino's explanation were reported by NFL.com.

"The rule was put in place really to prevent a team in a challenge situation from creating a delay," Blandino said, according to NFL.com. "They're thinking about challenging the play, they commit a foul, jump offside, false start, now they've given themselves more time to make that decision.


This doesn't at all apply to this situation. No foul was committed. And no delay was created. Schwartz threw a flag to cause a "delay" so that he could give himself more time to... decide whether to challenge a play that was already going to be reviewed? And even that makes no sense, because him throwing the flag didn't buy him more time to decide whether to challenge; him throwing the flag WAS the challenge.

I seriously cannot think of a more ridiculous rule, ever. You thought these kinds of plays were so critical that you already were going to review... so when the coach mistakenly throws the challenge flag you decide... not to review it? Why not just review it and then fine him the 15 yards, as long as you're going to be anal about it.

The play was already going to be reviewed, so Schwartz challenging it had no affect on anything, so someone in the league office is retarded.

   240. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4308527)
Advanced NFL Stats calculated the win probabilities for the Texans had Forsett been ruled down, and what actually happened. Third and 2 at Houston's own 27 would have given them a WP of 0.18. A touchdown and touchback on the ensuing kickoff give them a WP of 0.35. One poorly timed red flag nearly doubled the Texans' odds of winning.
   241. Srul Itza At Home Posted: November 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4308533)
Why can't we see more NFL games during the week, such as we do on Thursdays now? Even if it's just one game on a Friday or Saturday.


NFL games on Friday Night and Saturday night would certainly draw, but at the expense of high school and college football.

NFL now has a totally free farm system, and obviously works not to conflict with it. I don't see why they would mess around with it.

Note that, at the end of the year, when College Football is largely not playing, you do get some Saturday games, and also during the playoffs.

And of course in Texas, it would be a huge public relations disaster. Interfering with Friday Night Lights might get you shot.
   242. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4308550)
Collinsworth, last night: "Wow, the Patriots keep coming up with these great tight ends."

Ummm, does anyone stop to recognize that it's Brady/Belichick and their offensive game plan that makes these tight ends great, and that it's not that the tight ends themselves are great? Same with players like Welker. With rare exceptions, top receivers and tight ends are made, not born.
   243. zenbitz Posted: November 25, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4309192)
Bears with Cutler and without Chilo are looking like an NFL team again.
   244. Tripon Posted: November 25, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4309229)
Raiders should have played their game under protest.
   245. JJ1986 Posted: November 25, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4309231)
I think Rob Gronkowski is objectively great.
   246. McCoy Posted: November 25, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4309236)
Bears with Cutler and without Chilo are looking like an NFL team again.

Offense still looked rather pathetic today against a mediocre defensive unit. Bears' defense set them up with turnovers to get 14 points and the Vikings missed a FG. Plus throw in the fact that Forte and Hester got injured, along with Tillman, and things aren't looking pretty for the Bears and most especially their offense.
   247. MHS Posted: November 25, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4309238)
Ummm, does anyone stop to recognize that it's Brady/Belichick and their offensive game plan that makes these tight ends great


Yeah, Ben Watson, Jermaine Wiggins, Dan Graham, Chris Baker, Christian Fauria, Algea Crumpler all great in the pats system.



I think Rob Gronkowski is objectively great.


This,

RDP, you don't know a heck of a lot about football.
   248. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4309359)
I think Rob Gronkowski is objectively great.

I'm sure playing in New England's system makes his numbers look better than they would on an average team but he's obviously excellent.

Kaepernick wasn't great but he was solid today. No reason to switch back to Smith for the next game. He gives the Niners a dimension in the passing game that Smith doesn't and he does a better job avoiding sacks.

I like how the Niners are getting to the quarterback a lot better the last two games. 11 sacks in the last two games after only 17 in the first 9 games.
   249. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4309379)
Down 17 points in the second quarter. 4th and inches from your opponent's 10. That really seems like a situation where you should be going for it, but GB kicked the field goal.
   250. McCoy Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4309392)
I like how the Niners are getting to the quarterback a lot better the last two games. 11 sacks in the last two games after only 17 in the first 9 games.

Bears offensive line will make almost anyone look good.
   251. DA Baracus Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4309397)
I'm sure playing in New England's system makes his numbers look better than they would on an average team but he's obviously excellent.


If he played on a worse team he'd have even better numbers as he would be targeted more.
   252. Kurt Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4309408)
If he played on a worse team he'd have even better numbers as he would be targeted more.

It depends on who is doing the targeting, no? Larry Fitzgerald is on a worse team than he was five years ago; it doesn't seem to have helped.
   253. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:45 PM (#4309416)
Just when you think the Giants might be in trouble, they go out and play a terrific game.
   254. DA Baracus Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4309418)
I should have said "could" not "would." Nothing's guaranteed.

It depends on who is doing the targeting, no? Larry Fitzgerald is on a worse team than he was five years ago; it doesn't seem to have helped.


Not if you're the primary target. Fitzgerald had his 2nd highest yards in a season last year. He was 5th in receptions in 2010, his second highest ranking. Randy Moss's career highs in receptions and yards came when the #2 pass catcher on the Vikings was Moe Williams. Tony Gonzalez's best year was when the #2 pass catcher on the Chiefs was Eddie Kennison.

Yes, replace Brady with Ryan Mallet and his numbers likely go down. Or to use an established player, say, Chad Henne or Jason Campbell. But replace Toni Moeaki or Ben Watson with Gronkowski and he could have even better numbers because he will the focal point of the offense. Not massively greater, but one more reception a game, which adds up. Right now (well, if he was healthy) he would be the focal point for some games depending on matchups, or parts of games depending on the flow of the game. On the Browns or Chiefs he would be the focal point of every game. Of course you're also the #1 focus of the defense, but Gronkowski is a great player being the focus of a defense doesn't stop great players.
   255. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 25, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4309422)
it always amazed me that sterling sharpe could catch so many passes when everyone in the world knew he would be the primary target on every pass play. but he kept making plays until the neck injury.
   256. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4309431)
Great example Harv. Sharpe set the single season record for receptions in 1992. Sharpe had 108 catches, followed by Jackie Harris, a tight end, with 55, FB Harry Sydney with 49, RB Vince Workman with 47 and then, the #2 WR in terms of catches was Sanjay Beach with 17. Then he broke his own record the next year with 112, Edgar Bennett had 59, Jackie Harris had 42 in 12 games and then Mark Clayton's corpse with 32 was the #2 WR. That's an awful supporting cast.
   257. Kurt Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:29 AM (#4309438)
Hm. Fitzgerald has two 100-catch seasons, both were with Boldin (and not coincidentally Warner). "Numbers" also include touchdowns; Gronkowski had as many as Kansas City's entire offense last year. Sharpe didn't have Brandon Weeden or Brady Quinn throwing to him either.

Edit: As for Gonzalez, his worst year as a Chief also came with Kennison as their top WR (and Holmes catching 70 passes).
   258. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:38 AM (#4309445)
Hm. Fitzgerald has two 100-catch seasons, both were with Boldin (and not coincidentally Warner). "Numbers" also include touchdowns; Gronkowski had as many as Kansas City's entire offense last year.


Sure, TDs are numbers but so are receptions and yards. Again, nothing is certain, I overstated it in my first post. But it's not at all uncommon for a player to have career highs when they are the only quality player (or sometimes only quality non-QB player) on their team.

Sharpe didn't have Brandon Weeden or Brady Quinn throwing to him either.


And Favre wasn't "Favre" until the following year.

Edit: As for Gonzalez, his worst year as a Chief also came with Kennison as their top WR (and Holmes catching 70 passes).


Part of that is because the Chiefs were 27th in attempts that year. Before and after that they were 16th and 7th.
   259. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4309446)
Just when you think the Giants might be in trouble, they go out and play a terrific game.

It's amazing that the same team that looked so bad against the Bengals could look so good against the Packers.

That Redskins-Giants rematch next Monday night looks like the GOTW from a duelling quarterbacks standpoint, and it'll probably draw the loudest FedEx crowd in the history of that stadium. This is one of the few Redskins games in the past 20 years that I'm actually looking forward to.
   260. steagles Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4309501)
i've just kind of started to look ahead to the 2013 draft. so far, i'm pretty intrigued by a couple of linebackers that are out there, at least statistically. khaseem greene, jamie collins, and phillip steward are all impressive, in terms of making plays behind the line of scrimmage. i think greene is my favorite of the three, and though it's a bit too early to project specific rounds for them, if they could get two of the three between the 2nd and 6th rounds, i'd be pretty happy. right now, they are not at all in a good position at LB. akeem jordan is past his prime (though really, he's less of a 'has-been' and more of a 'never-was'), jamar chaney has taken a step back, casey matthews has done absolute nothing. i'd be okay with chaney getting one more year to compete, but i'd really rather not have either of matthews or jordan back on the team in training camp.


then when it comes to the secondary, i am honestly not all that concerned. when it comes to cornerbacks, i think the team is fine. i assume/hope/pray that nnamdi is gone after the season, but even without him, DRC is a legitimate #1, and then between boykin, hughes, and marsh, well, i think they can be pretty decent. then at safety, i think the team has too many holes elsewhere to spend a high pick there. and honestly, i think it's a waste to draft another safety who isn't 6'4+. if i was in the war room on draft day, i'd have a list of big/tall/lanky undrafted WRs who i could bring into camp and try out at safety. with the de-emphasis on physicality and hitting, i think the best thing you could do at safety is to find someone who can cover a ton of ground and challenge receivers for the ball when it comes in high over the middle. right now, that archetype doesn't really exist, so you kinda have to hack it.


as for the defensive line, i think the eagles are fine at DE. babin has to go, and so does darryl tapp, but even then, you have brandon graham, phillip hunt and vinny curry, plus trent cole if you want him back. figure you bring in another body in free agency or in the 5th/6th round, you'll be okay. at DT, well, you fletcher cox is a stud, and then derek landri and cedric thornton are pretty decent rotation guys. mike patterson needs to go, and apparently cullen jenkins has been an ass in the lockerroom, so figure he's gone, too. which brings me to star lotulelei.
if the eagles lose this week, they'll be in a 3 way tie for the 3rd overall pick with carolina (who's their opponent) and cleveland (who beat pittsburgh this afternoon), so star seems to be a legitimate possibility.

now most people are hung up on the offensive line with the first pick, but i'm a sucker for an athletic NT, so star is right up my alley. i just think that if you put star lotulelei (6'4, 325) next to fletcher cox (6'4, 298), the eagles defense would own the line of scrimmage in a way that only a top 5 defense can.


i'm sure there'll be more to come. especially if the eagles lose tonight.
   261. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4309509)
i think it's a waste to draft another safety who isn't 6'4+.


There are no safeties in the league that are 6'4"+. If you are that big they make you a LB when you're in college or high school.

   262. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: November 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4309620)
There are no safeties in the league that are 6'4"+. If you are that big they make you a LB when you're in college or high school.


Yep, or they use you as a "rover" (a la Urlacher in college), then make you a linebacker in the pros.

As far as the Bears go, I was just happy to see them spend a bit more time on the running game. Eventually it was just a clock-burner, but they committed to it early on.

OL didn't look quite as horrid, but it didn't look good. I still saw them getting manhandled on a number of occasions. Decent protection only seemed to happen when they brought in eleventy-seven extra guys to help block.
   263. Tripon Posted: November 26, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4309869)
Best team in the NFL so far? Has to be the Pats, right?
   264. MHS Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4309901)
Best team in the NFL so far? Has to be the Pats, right?


I don't think so. The defense is too uneven. They haven't shown they can consistently get pass rush or that their defensive backs can covered wideouts. nt to mention their base set linebackers particularly Spike or Hightower can cover tight ends or running backs in space.

It is encouraging that the defense played well since acquiring Talib and Dennard being moved into the starting lineup with McCourty moving to safety (which lessons the coverage burdens on Hightower and Spikes). The big caveat of course is that the improved play came against a rookie QB and Sanchez.

Odds of winning SB
1 SF
2 Houston
3 NE
4 Atl
5 Den
6 Bal
7 NYG
8 GB

I put a lot of weight on byes, as the status quo on byes change the rankings will change drastically.
   265. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4309941)
The Patriots are good, but I'll take the Broncos, Texans and 49ers over them. I disagree that their defense has played better in recent weeks. They're still giving up a ton of yards and 24 points to the Colts and 19 to the Jets is nothing to be proud of. Talib got burned for 2 TDs against Indy.
   266. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 26, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4310210)
I don't think so. The defense is too uneven. They haven't shown they can consistently get pass rush or that their defensive backs can covered wideouts. nt to mention their base set linebackers particularly Spike or Hightower can cover tight ends or running backs in space.


And yet, they are +163 in point differential. With the next two teams +121 (San Fran) and +116 (Houston). That is a big gap. I don't claim that the schedules are even or anything, or that this works as well as for MLB, but it does indicate something. And _have_ the 49ers or Texans played a tougher schedule?

Defense? The Pats have only allowed 244 points. 10 teams in the AFC have allowed more. and 9 in the NFC.
   267. JJ1986 Posted: November 27, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4310276)
Defense? The Pats have only allowed 244 points. 10 teams in the AFC have allowed more. and 9 in the NFC.


Of those 19 (now 20) teams, 5 have winning records and the Packers, Bengals and Vikings are very close to the Patriots. All of the other best teams have allowed many fewer.
   268. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4310283)
All of the other best teams have allowed many fewer.


And none of them have come within miles of the 407 points the Patriots have scored.

The next closest team is 327 (HOU) and then 318 (DEN), 305 (NYG).

It seems very obvious to me that the Patriots are the best team. I am surprised that people think there's an issue, actually - let alone that they are putting the Patriots 3rd or 4th.

Their three losses were by a combined 4 points.
   269. DA Baracus Posted: November 27, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4310293)
Thankfully we have a playoff to sort this all out. Right now it's personal preference who's #1.
   270. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4310296)
And yet, they are +163 in point differential.

The absolute difference in points probably isn't as important as the ratio of points scored to points allowed. Just like a team that has scored 25 runs and has allowed only 10 is probably better than a team that has scored 60 and allowed forty, my guess the ratio is more important. The pace that the Patriots allow them to score and give up points at a greater pace than most.

Also, the Pats are a team that doesn't really let up when the game is over. Very few teams would play Tom Brady with 25 point leads in the fourth quarter to run up the score. Furthermore, the Patriots only have one win against a team with both a winning record and a positive point differential (Denver).

San Francisco has scored 1.78 points for every point they have allowed. New England is at 1.67 and there are a few teams at over 1.55.

I think the Texans are the class of the AFC. New England and Denver are just below and I think Pittsburgh will be dangerous if they can get to the playoffs with a healthy Ben. Not impressed with Baltimore.

San Francisco and Atlanta are the best teams in the NFC, with the Packers and the good version of the Giants right there as well.
   271. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:17 AM (#4310320)
And _have_ the 49ers or Texans played a tougher schedule?


The Niners have, by quite a bit. The Texans' sked has been about the same.

Thankfully we have a playoff to sort this all out.


Yes, where a mediocre team like the 2011 Giants can get hot, get lucky and win the Super Bowl. Wheeee, what sorting we have done.
   272. Tripon Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:22 AM (#4310323)
Better than a conference creating the myth that they're the best conference year in and year out and fool people into believing that they deserve a spot in the national championship game.
   273. DA Baracus Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4310326)
Yes, where a mediocre team like the 2011 Giants can get hot, get lucky and win the Super Bowl. Wheeee, what sorting we have done.


WHY MUST YOU REMIND ME?
   274. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4310330)
Better than a conference creating the myth that they're the best conference year in and year out and fool people into believing that they deserve a spot in the national championship game.


Yes, and they've been such an embarrassment when they get there.

Hey, I'm sick of the SEC dominance as much as the next guy (and think OSU, not Bama, should have been playing LSU in last year's title game). But the reason the SEC is considered the best conference is because it's usually the best conference.

   275. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:44 AM (#4310334)
Another way to compare San Francisco and New England. The Niners and Patriots have played 5 common opponents: Cardinals, Seahawks, Bills, Patriots, and Rams.

The Patriots have gone 5-2 with the average score being 36.1 to 22.1 in those games.

The Niners have gone 4-0-1 with the average score being 28 to 7.2 in those games.

It seems very obvious to me that the Patriots are the best team. I am surprised that people think there's an issue, actually - let alone that they are putting the Patriots 3rd or 4th.

An argument that the Patriots are the the best team in the league isn't crazy but an argument ranking them lower than that is certainly reasonable as well.
   276. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:11 AM (#4310344)
Im not one to really truly hope for a player injury, but I hope Jared Allen get his knee blown out when he plays chicago in 2 weeks. The illegal hit on louis ended his season, and with it being his last year on his rookie contract has severly affected how much money he will make. for a guy who ####### about cheap shots when blockign a few years ago he really takes the cake here.
   277. steagles Posted: November 27, 2012 at 06:48 AM (#4310388)
just to talk a little about last night:

1, the eagles did not run a single offensive play in the last 8:30 of the 4th quarter. carolina scored a TD with about 5 minutes left in the game, and boykin fumbled the ensuing kickoff, the defense couldn't get a stop, and the game was over. shades of 2010 in the playoffs in the superdome.

2, bryce brown: yeah, pretty good. the fumbles sucked, but he did a couple of things that very few RBs can, specifically there were some really nice cutbacks he made, and on one of his first down runs, he kind of tiptoed his way from one gap to another and gained 6 yards when he could have been stopped for a loss. and then, on his 60 yard TD run, he outran a safety to the sideline and just kept going. the safety took a poor route, but he had a ton of burst. and he's doing that at 6' 220. i was a fan of the pick on draft day, but it's always good to see there's something there.

3, foles: he needs to air the ball out. i know the offensive line is terrible, and i know the receivers are doing a #### job of getting open, but this offense has absolutely no chance of stringing together 12, 14, 16 play TD drives without having them stall out somewhere along the line.

4, defense: ugh.

5, draft: losing tonight was big. the eagles now have the 5th pick in the draft (on paper) and are tied with oakland (3), cleveland (4) and carolina (6) at 3-8.

6, jesus this is a ####### terrible season.
   278. MHS Posted: November 27, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4310393)
And yet, they are +163 in point differential. With the next two teams +121 (San Fran) and +116 (Houston). That is a big gap. I don't claim that the schedules are even or anything, or that this works as well as for MLB, but it does indicate something


The Pats point differential is greatly aided by an unsustainable turnover ratio.

The common opponent methodology used in 275 has little predictive power in other sports, I would assume it has little predictive power in football.

Yes, where a mediocre team like the 2011 Giants can get hot, get lucky and win the Super Bowl


I have little doubt last years Giants team was superior to last years Pats team. 2008 is a different story.
   279. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4310488)


I have little doubt last years Giants team was superior to last years Pats team. 2008 is a different story.


Possibly (though I doubt it). I do know they weren't superior to last year's Packers or last year's Niners or last year's Saints.

   280. Nasty Nate Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4310514)
Also, the Pats are a team that doesn't really let up when the game is over. Very few teams would play Tom Brady with 25 point leads in the fourth quarter to run up the score.


Eli was passing late in the Giants game with a huge lead the other night.
   281. MHS Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4310529)
They beat the Pats twice. That is a pretty convincing argument to me, they were a better team. I guess you can make the case they were lucky, or that they matchup well... but I'll take the simpler explanation.
   282. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4310535)
They beat the Pats twice. That is a pretty convincing argument to me, they were a better team. I guess you can make the case they were lucky, or that they matchup well... but I'll take the simpler explanation.


The Giants went 9-7 in the regular season, allowing more points than they scored. I'll take the 13-3 club as the better team, H-to-H results be damned.

   283. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4310617)
The Giants went 9-7 in the regular season, allowing more points than they scored. I'll take the 13-3 club as the better team, H-to-H results be damned.

I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Strength of schedule could be wildly different.
   284. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4310622)

I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Strength of schedule could be wildly different.


SoS is not insignicant (and the Giants sked was tougher), but it ain't capable of making up this Points Scored-Points Allowed Difference:

NE 513-342 +171
NYG 394-400 -6

   285. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4310632)
The Patriots are pretty good this year, they were pretty good last year, too. They have some vulnerabilities: they've always had issues with teams with a strong pass rush, and as pointed out above they have gotten a very good TO ratio this season. Unsustainable, maybe, but they only need to sustain it a few more games.

So I'm pretty optimistic about their chances, but don't consider them the prohibitive favorite or anything. I also like my Niners.
   286. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4310641)
SoS is not insignicant (and the Giants sked was tougher), but it ain't capable of making up this Points Scored-Points Allowed Difference:

NE 513-342 +171
NYG 394-400 -6


Yes, this is a general objection I have. People often point to strength of schedule without (a) actually looking to see what the relative strengths of schedule were, and (b) explaining how strength of schedule can make up a massive point differential.

Again, even with all of their flaws, the Patriots are +163.
   287. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4310652)
I think you have to include the playoffs when determining how good a football team is. The Giants record last year looks better as 13-7.
   288. DA Baracus Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4310657)
And yet it's still the worst team to win the Super Bowl. Seven losses is seven losses.
   289. Kurt Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4310658)
Strength of schedule doesn't necessarily make up a massive point differential, but it can often explain it.

In the Pats' case, they have a big point differential because they ran up big margins on the Titans, Rams, Jets and Colts. That's what they're built to do; if I need a team to beat the Rams 45-7 the Pats are unquestionably the team I'd pick.

The Niners and Texans are less likely to run up the score like that, because it's just not the way they play. Don't get me wrong, the Pats are very good and might be the best team, but I wouldn't put them clearly ahead of those teams and maybe a couple of others.
   290. JJ1986 Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4310661)
And yet it's still the worst team to win the Super Bowl. Seven losses is seven losses.


I think the second game against the Redskins meant absolutely nothing to them and they pretty much tanked it. They also lost to the top 3 teams in the NFC, two of whom they later beat in the playoffs.
   291. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4310662)
I think you have to include the playoffs when determining how good a football team is. The Giants record last year looks better as 13-7.


Fair enough. Instead of the .536 team that got outscored by six points, they're the .650 team that outscored opponents by 40. It still doesn't put them in the company of the elites.

   292. Kurt Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4310669)
they're the .650 team that outscored opponents by 40

And their schedule now includes two games against Green Bay, Niners and Patriots. In their games against the "elites" they're now 4-3 with a point differential of -3, which I think puts them among the elites, if not in the upper tier of the elites.
   293. DA Baracus Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4310681)
I think the second game against the Redskins meant absolutely nothing to them and they pretty much tanked it.


They were still in the drivers seat after the loss but it was not a throw away game. No one ever admits they tanked a game but the quotes from Coughlin and Tuck after the game are not soundbites you get after such a game. After that game they were no longer in first place.
   294. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4310684)
And their schedule now includes two games against Green Bay, Niners and Patriots. In their games against the "elites" they're now 4-3 with a point differential of -3, which I think puts them among the elites, if not in the upper tier of the elites.


No, it doesn't. The Giants got hot/lucky at the right time. Bully for them. They're Super Bowl champs. But teams that get outscored in the regular season aren't elite, no matter how you want to slice the schedule further.



   295. Kurt Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4310701)
But teams that get outscored in the regular season aren't elite, no matter how you want to slice the schedule further.

I don't think I'm the one slicing and dicing the schedule here. As Russlan notes they played twenty games last year. Seven of those games came against teams that finished the regular season 13-3 or better*, and in six of those games they stood toe to toe with their opponent. They also played 10-6 Atlanta, and beat them 24-2. They also played five more games against teams that finished 8-8 (all of whom had a positive scoring differential), and went 4-1 with a +41 scoring differential. If there's a team in the history of football that played a tougher schedule I'd like to see it.

Now, I agree with you up to a point. If the Pats had played a meaningless week 16 game against the Redskins they would likely have won by 30 points. To the extent that consistently and thoroughly beating bad teams is a marker of an elite team, the Giants failed to do that. The PAts over the course of the entire season were better than the Giants. But during the 13 games they played against good-to-elite teams, the Giants played exactly like you would expect an elite team to play. If that last bit amounts to slicing the schedule, so be it. If they can be "hot/lucky" for thirteen games, why not sixteen? Were the 2007 Pats just "hot/lucky"?

* The Patriots in the last five completed seasons have played a total of three games against 13-3 or better teams, and lost two of them. If you want to add a 2010 win against the Steelers (who would have finished 13-3 with a win), fine.

   296. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4310712)
SoS is not insignicant (and the Giants sked was tougher), but it ain't capable of making up this Points Scored-Points Allowed Difference:

NE 513-342 +171
NYG 394-400 -6


How about SoS measurement of their opponents scored/allowed (excluding games against them).*

NE:
16 games against opponents whose combined Points For-Points Against (excluding games against Patriots)
4975-5132 (that includes double counting Bills, Jets, Dolphins)
-157


NYG:
16 games against opponents whose combined Points For-Points Against (excluding games against Giants)
5478-5008 (that includes double counting Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles)
+470

The Giants opposition was stronger than the Patriots in 2011, and quite significantly.

The Giants had 3 games against opposition that scored over 500 points for the season (Patriots, Saints, Packers), while the Patriots had only one against an opposition that scored over 400 points (Chargers).

The Giants had only 2 games against opposition that allowed over 400 points for the season (Bills, Rams), while the Patriots had 5 games against opposition that allowed over 400 points for the season (Bills x2, Colts, Giants, Raiders).


*Example: Bills scored 372 points, and allowed 434.
Against the Patriots, they scored 55 and allowed 80. So, versus the Patriots, they are counted twice at 317-354.
Against the Giants, they scored 24 and allowed 27. So, versus the Giants, they are counted once at 348-407.
   297. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4310727)
If they can be "hot/lucky" for thirteen games, why not sixteen?


If you're including the 13 games they won, then it's not out of 16, it's out of 20. And being hot for 13 out of 20 games in the NFL doesn't make you elite.

I have no problem saying the Giants were better than their -6 regular season point differential would suggest as a result of a tough schedule. I have no problem saying that their impressive playoff run elevates them from the mediocre regular season team into a different class of ballclub.

But I will insist that elite teams don't get outscored during the regular season (or outscore their opponents by only 40 when you add the regular season to the postseason). The 2012 Giants were a decent team that got hot at the end of the season, benefited from some good fortune (particularly against the Niners), and won the big prize. They're Super Bowl champions, which is all that really matters. But it doesn't turn them into something they weren't.
   298. Kurt Posted: November 27, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4310747)
And being hot for 13 out of 20 games

Doesn't exist, there's no such thing. At some point you're actually good. (EDIT: also, I'm not including the 13 games they won, I'm including the 13 games they played against good-or-better opponents, in which they went 9-4. Sorry for the confusion)

The Giants were fortunate only in the distrbution of their performances. Their five best games were their last five, which works out nicely when you're trying to win a Super Bowl. But blowing out Dallas, then blowing out Atlanta, then blowing out Green Bay, then winning very close games against the Niners and Pats isn't "hot/lucky"; it's being really damn good.

But I will insist that elite teams don't get outscored during the regular season (or outscore their opponents by only 40 when you add the regular season to the postseason).

And I will continue to insist that that's entirely consistent with being elite (or a shade below) when faced with the hardest schedule in the history of football (EDIT #2: with the possible exception of the 2007 Giants, who played three games against 13-3 Dallas, two against the 13-3 Packers and two against the 16-0 Pats).

I would also add that IIRC the Pats were favored by 2 1/2 in the Super Bowl, which indicated that the general public saw the teams as being reasonably evenly matched.
   299. SoSH U at work Posted: November 27, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4310753)
Doesn't exist, there's no such thing. At some point you're actually good. (EDIT: also, I'm not including the 13 games they won, I'm including the 13 games they played against good-or-better opponents, in which they went 9-4. Sorry for the confusion)

I'm not saying getting hot is the entire explanation for them winning football games in 2011. I'm saying that this team, which demonstrated itself to be not terribly impressive in the 16-game regular season, got hot in the playoffs. And that's because they did.


when faced with the hardest schedule in the history of football.


I doubt that's remotely close to being true.
   300. Kurt Posted: November 27, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4310772)
I doubt that's remotely close to being true.

It's almost impossible to play seven games in one season against 13-3 teams; you basically have to reach the Super Bowl (and not be a 13-3 team yourself) to do it.
Page 3 of 84 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(2 - 2:24am, Oct 24)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(368 - 2:12am, Oct 24)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3402 - 1:51am, Oct 24)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(867 - 12:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(13 - 11:36pm, Oct 23)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGold Glove Awards finalists revealed | MLB.com
(53 - 11:07pm, Oct 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(904 - 10:56pm, Oct 23)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogSalvador Perez, Hunter Strickland Exchange Words In World Series (GIF) | MLB | NESN.com
(27 - 10:44pm, Oct 23)
Last: toratoratora

Page rendered in 0.6926 seconds
53 querie(s) executed