User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6357 seconds
52 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
His numbers during the regular season aren't all that good. They're okay. But I like his style of play, so I would go to war with him, yes. I think he's an above-average QB. I can win with that.
that the opposing teams to the colts turned the ball over 8 times in the first two playoff rounds is long forgotten.
not comparing harbaugh to flacco. just throwing out one of many such examples of quarterback labels past
But if they had just blatantly committed penalty after penalty on that play (as they should have) it would have reminded me of Brett Bielma at Wisconsin when the NCAA made that one year rule change to starting the clock on kick-offs when the ball was kicked, as opposed to when it was caught. When they played Penn State a few years ago, with about 30 seconds left in the first half, he just kept having his team go off-side on the kickoff. Not sure if PSU could have just declined it, or been allowed to tack yards on to the end of the run, but either way, they didn't, and it worked perfectly.
I thought of this exact game last night as they play unfolded.
Simms really leaves a lot to be desired. I typically expect the play-by-play man -- the non-athlete -- to be more in tune with the rules and these offbeat strategies.
And yes - each team should be specifically thinking about how to exploit the rules in anticipation of a non-standard situation.
I don't think it occurred to Simms that the safety could eat up so much clock. If it didn't take any time, the 49ers would be able to run one play after the punt return, needing only a long FG to tie. With a generic punt, they still need a touchdown after the punt return.
I'd have thought the networks would have a statgeek or someone whispering sweet nothings into the announcers' ears re this stuff. What the rules are, whether X strategy would make sense, whether the team will get the ball back, etc.
(Of course, I have no realistic expectations that the announcers would actually learn this stuff themselves in order to be competend at their jobs.)
paterno raised holy h8ll with the big ten under the mantle of player safety. i can see that argument.
i am pretty sure paterno never spoke to bielama after that game. as in ever.
nfl teams should have a coach dedicated to clock management but they don't. organizations cut corners in curious ways
Well it was a pretty short window.
Not having a dedicated "clock management coach" has nothing to do with cutting corners. It is that a head coach would never give up that power.
When I saw those blatant holds on the safety, and realized how inconsequential they were, it reminded me of the 2010 World Cup game between Ghana and Uruguay. In both situations, the normal penalties for the infraction at issue (in that case, a blatant hand ball to stop a goal), were generally punitive enough, though not so in the particular case.
It really amazes me that coaches brag about spending 18 hours a day on the job, but can't spend 15 minutes understanding the clock and how to manage it.
head coaches ignore assistants all the time. what makes you think that by having someone dedicated to provide educated input the head coach surrenders anything?
not really. at the big ten season kickoff meeting in chicago paterno had plenty of chances to speak with the wisky coach. didn't happen
It was a joke about him being dead.
That's why it won't work! Head coaches are control freaks.
Of course, as I thought about it, it also increases the risk of a fumble.
It does seem odd, though, that a safety on fourth down is a safety. I mean, if the ball is down just outside the endzone, you get the ball at the one. If it goes down in the endzone you get two points but the ball way back down on your end.
I suppose in most circumstances that benefits the defense.
The problem is the return. If you kick with 8-9 seconds on the clock and they bring it back to the 35 or thereabouts, there would almost certainly be a tick or two left.
i know of what you speak on the length of games. when wisconsin's games were featured espn or abc games the commercial breaks really made the game a chore
that's a stadium where it is particularly noticable (drawn out football games) as one of the few stadiums w/o video replay boards.
While the blackout definitely made these points obvious last night, that column could be written each Monday (perhaps it is). Though, I did love Leitch's line about these shows being a 'Moose Lodge' for the has beens.
he has to be in the act of kicking
if he's running around it would be no different than how his status changes if the punter fumbles the snap and then tries to run with the ball. in that moment roughing is no longer possible. he's a target
Because then you remove the element of surprise, which I think was somewhat in play last night.
I do think it's kind of cheap to exploit the rules in this way, but those are the rules.
(Keep in mind I'm someone who hates the idea that the offense is allowed to kneel down in the final seconds with a lead.)
john is going to be able to rub jim's nose in sh8t forever on that
i know i would
I'm guessing there's no elegant solution to that (if one thinks it a problem).
I don't understand why the stopping clock spike is allowed, though. That should be grounding.
You could do what the Arena League does: if you don't gain yardage, the clock stops.
I'd love for the NFL to adopt this rule within 2 minutes.
It just seems cheap to me that a team can burn over a minute of the clock by kneeling down. I know they earned this privilege since they have the lead, but it just feels like BS.
As someone who had some of the same thoughts, I also realized that if no punter is in, the 49ers can rush everyone. Snap it to a WR and there is no need to have anyone back. If you rush 11 and the punter then kicks it, the ball will not stop rolling before the clock runs out.
I don't like context-specific rules, because it's really easy to find a counter that exposes its flaws.
Does this only apply to the team in the lead, or can the trailing team benefit from it as well? What if the game is tied?
Then again, I've never really gotten the objection to the kneel-down. It's a play. The ball is snapped, which the QB has to handle. The defensive team had 58:50 seconds to prevent it from becoming an option.
I don't like the spike though. I prefer the old, fire-it-out of bounds method for clock killing. Then again, I think the spike is tremendously overused. Most times, I'd rather have the down than the handful of seconds it saves.
Yup, that's why the punter had to be the one back there.
Because the implication is the Flacco has some innate ability to perform better in the postseason. Anyone would grant that a. Flacco has the ability to have great games and b. his last six playoff games (I think including 2011 doesn't boost his case) have been great games. The difference is whether you think that's because it's the postseason or you think it's a combination of a hot streak and luck.
I'm not implying a damn thing. I'm just reciting Flacco's postseason numbers, and you can deconstruct them to your heart's content. Whether they're predictive of what he might do going forward is something neither you nor I can know, any more that we could have known what Peyton Manning's regular season numbers would have predicted about what he did against the Ravens.
Personally I think that Flacco's shown elite skills but not elite consistency, which is what separates the true greats from the pack. As a Ravens fan I hope he can carry his postseason level forward and give RGIII a little competition for media attention next year in the Washington-Baltimore market. Too bad the NFL can't bend their schedule template a bit in order to allow natural rivals to meet every year, like the Redskins and the Baltimore Colts did BITD.
But if you are taking a safety and holding all rushers in the process, it doesn't make much of a difference having 11 rushers versus 10. I'm guessing the punter's familiarity with the formation and receiving the snap was the reason he was back there.
Andy, why recite his postseason numbers if you're not implying anything? That makes no sense.
Ah, we have found the cause of the Flacco cheerleading. I should have figured it out earlier.
I've been reciting those numbers on and off for the past few weeks, in response to the idea that Flacco is nothing but an average quarterback on a hot streak, a sentiment that's less openly expressed now, but one that still seems to hold sway in some quarters.
And I don't need to "imply" anything about Flacco. I openly stated what I think about him in the paragraph you chose not to copy---he's shown elite skills but not elite overall consistency.
Ah, we have found the cause of the Flacco cheerleading. I should have figured it out earlier.
I'm cheering him on the field, but his numbers do the cheering here.
And what might be the allegiances of his critics? What's your favorite team, The Flying Rotisserie League Chickens?
Take a reading lesson and apply it to what I wrote right above your question. And BTW what team and QB are you cheering for, Mr. Impartiality?
Flacco looks to me like a very, very good QB and I'd happily have him as my QB. I might think twice about paying him like Brady or Manning, but I'd be happy to pay him well and worry about other areas.
Average QBs can be guys with elite skills who lack consistency. Those aren't contradictory. Eli Manning has elite skills. Cam Newton has elite skills. Jay Cutler has elite skills.
I think he's above average, but that's because I'm obsessed with the long game. I think the statement that he is an average quarterback on a hot streak is certainly a reasonable one.
"Elite overall consistency" is a prerequisite for the whole "elite skills" thing. Any MLB scrub can hit a home run every now and again, or go 16-40 in an eight game stretch. Same for QBs.
I'd say there are 4 elite QBs in the NFL and slightly above average is guys 11-14 or so. In between, I'd fit guys like Ryan, Wilson, Kaepernick, Griffin, Roethlisberger and Rivers.
I'm a Patriots fan who dislikes the Ravens and in particular Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and Ray Rice. But I like Flacco, as I've made abundantly clear, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.
if there was ever a confluence of factors that would drive performance i think this fits
not that flacco is going all aaron brooks after he signs his deal. but let's acknowledge the context
Well, since you asked, one with one of the worst defenses in the league. Flacco went 22-42 for 232 and a TD and an INT (66.8 passer rating FYI) against them in a loss. (The Eagles.) I'm sure his agent will ignore that one during contract discussions.
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years. It's not as if plenty of quarterbacks haven't had the opportunity.
Again I'd quibble with "average," too, but Eli did it. Twice. (Again, for the record, I'd put both Flacco and Eli at well above average, average meaning the 16th or 17th best QB in the league. They're both clearly better than that.)
Well, since you asked, one with one of the worst defenses in the league. Flacco went 22-42 for 232 and a TD and an INT (66.8 passer rating FYI) against them in a loss. (The Eagles.) I'm sure his agent will ignore that one during contract discussions.
Which shows what? That he's not as consistent during the regular season, as I've never said he was? Is that what you're actually counterposing to his performances over his past three postseasons?
And Ray, my question wasn't addressed to you. I'll say many nasty things about your political opinions, but I'll never claim you let your rooting interest affect any of your player evaluations.
If it's just an 8-game stretch, then you can find guys like Cutler, Romo, probably even Josh Freeman. If you include the 'postseason' qualifier, then that implies that he has some special 'postseason ability'.
Troy Aikman, but I know that won't be popular. Jake Delhomme had 6 straight excellent post season games in 2003 and 2005. Eli Manning has won 2 Super Bowls.
You asked what team I rooted for. I was just having some fun with my answer.
Personally I'm less interested in ranking those QBs than I am in seeing them play, especially "that trio of impressive rookies".** If I could only stand the teams that most of them play for (Denver? Atlanta? New Orleans? Carolina? Yuck to all of them), I'd be watching them a lot more before it got to December.
**Was I ever rooting for a Wilson-Kaepernick rematch for the NFC championship....
neil o'donnell from 93-95 had steeler fans convinced he was a guy who could turn it up come playoff time. played great in a loss to kc. played well again the following seasons. actually didn't play well in the 95 postseason but the team won until getting blown up by dallas thanks to nd throwing some awful interceptions.
If it's just an 8-game stretch, then you can find guys like Cutler, Romo, probably even Josh Freeman. If you include the 'postseason' qualifier, then that implies that he has some special 'postseason ability'.
I certainly do include the postseason qualifier. If I want to see a bunch of Mr. Octobers, I'll go look for Reggie Jackson.
Isn't the answer to this basically just any run of the mill QB who won a super bowl? Trent Dilfer.
Woo hoo, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
aaron rodgers throws a great deep ball but was thwarted this season by a mediocre to poor offensive line, receivers being in and out of the lineup and defenses obssessed with keeping everything in front of them.
flacco has all those things but the ravens also have enough of a running game and a good enough running game that teams just cannot go into a two deep shell and dare baltimore to work down the field because the ravens will do just that
That said, I am receptive to the idea of clutch in football, where I'm not in baseball. Just because we can't find it in baseball doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other sports, although at the professional level I am skeptical. But in evaluating QBs I do take into account postseason performance and weigh it a little more heavily than regular season performance. I admit I don't have a lot of justification for that. But it's not going to turn an average quarterback into much more than that.
Trent Dilfer went 35-73 for 590 yards, 3TD and 1 INT in the Ravens' four-game run to their first Super Bowl title. He was still every ounce the ordinary Trent Dilfer during that winning streak.
Interceptions get credited that way too, Ed Reed has a 108 yard INT return. I agree it's strange that passing TDs don't count that way as well.
Yeah, this is silly. And then to obsess over it. "We told you it was 109 but actually it's 108 so, he only ties the record." Who cares? And why does it seem like a record such as this is being broken every two weeks, despite the fact that the back of the endzone is finite?
God, the announcing really is terrible, in all aspects.
The end zone is the end zone. Once the ball crosses it, the play is dead. However, the end zone is only the end zone if it's the one you're going to. If I gain possession 3 yards deep and run it out and get to the 30, I've gained my team 33 yards (or 10, depending on how you do the math). Thus, it makes sense to me to credit longer returns. He took the ball 108 yards. It was stupid, but wonderful.
However, I thought it was very obvious it wasn't 109 and wonder if any official scoring ever actually called it 109 or if that was just Nantz getting excited.
No, it's the end zone in both directions because of safeties/touchbacks. The yards don't help his team until he crosses the goal liine - e.g. if he ran forward 2 yards before deciding to kneel for the touchback, he doesn't get 2 yards of kick return yardage (as far as I know).
Offensive play yardage counts from the line of scrimmage. Defensive and special teams return plays count from the spot where possession of the ball is taken. Looked at it that way, it makes a little more sense.
When a guy catches a ball 7 yards past the end-zone line he didn't need to go those 7 extra yards.
But this whole discussion misses the larger point...why on earth have 10 yard endzones? Everyone knows every sane football league in the world uses 20 yards.
No, it's the end zone in both directions because of safeties/touchbacks. The yards don't help his team until he crosses the goal liine - e.g. if he ran forward 2 yards before deciding to kneel for the touchback, he doesn't get 2 yards of kick return yardage (as far as I know).
I see what you're saying but he still has to cover that yardage. Sure, he could just kneel but we're assuming he doesn't. Whereas on the other end, any yards past nose of the ball over the line gets you nothing. I completely agree there is no need to get too worked up over it (though how is it being broken every two weeks, Ray?) but those end up being necessary yards covered.
Isn't the answer to this basically just any run of the mill QB who won a super bowl? Trent Dilfer.
No, because aside from the fact that Dilfer rode on the Ravens' back (see SOsH's reply above), Flacco's done this for three straight postseasons, not just one.
The other three QBs mentioned have been O'Donnell, Delhomme and Aikman.
Aikman is a HoF QB who seems to be thought of as the Jim Rice of quarterbacks around here. But given his pedestrian career numbers compared to his sparkling postseason performances, I'll admit that's not a bad comparison.
Delhomme didn't match Flacco's postseason numbers (106.1 for 4 games in 2004; 82.4 for 3 games in 2006; and 39.1 for one game in 2009), and his peak consisted of one season, not three.
O'Donnell had back-to-back postseason ratings of 99.9 (1994) and 96.0 (1995), but that was for a total of only three games. In the Steelers' run to the Super Bowl in 1996 his rating was 61.6.
I would very much like the NFL to have 20 yard end zones with the goal posts still at the end line. Makes FGs less important and would open up the field on redzone plays.
Why do you keep leaning on passer rating?
It could be worse. The Redskins once lost an NFL championship game when Sammy Baugh's pass hit the goalpost (which then sat on the goal line) for a safety, and the final margin was 15 to 14. The Rams missed one extra point, and the other one hit the crossbar and dribbled over for the win.
It's better than the fanboy factor or the fear factor, but perhaps you can come up with something else. Should we look to see what the temperatures and wind factors were for each game? (Actually, that might be useful info.) Should we look at the video for each play and assign a unique number to each pass, taking dropped passes and blitzing pressure into account? (That would be even better, but I'll leave that to you.)
Which is about where I might put him, too, though I'm glad he saved his best for last. Aren't we all?
2012: 17 / 17 (behind Sam Bradford, ahead of Carson Palmer in DYAR)
2011: 14 / 18 (behind Alex Smith, ahead of Cam Newton)
2010: 11 / 15 (behind Carson Palmer, ahead of Michael Vick)
2009: 14 / 17 (behind Matt Ryan, ahead of Carson Palmer)
2008: 19 / 22 (behind Matt Cassel, ahead of Seneca Wallace)
In other words, Flacco has basically been Carson Palmer in the years in which Palmer has played a full season. If that's not a consistently average QB, I don't know what is.
ETA: Late-era Palmer, of course. Being compared to a younger Palmer would make him decidedly better than average.
If Ray Lewis could somehow lose but the Ravens win, I could live with that.
Football Outsiders and Pro Football Focus already chart games and have advanced stats based on context. Advanced NFL Stats has metrics as well. The results are not favorable to Flacco.
PFF does this.
IMO, this is how it should be done, even though I completely understand why it isn't. You should be getting credit for the yardage you added to help your team win. Just like net punting, which should be the primary measure for a punter, and not gross distance.
Ray, I'd love to do that, but since I base much of my ratings on what I've seen, and since I watch the NFL mostly (though not exclusively) in the postseason, I'd be doing nothing more than making incoherent guesses about QBs I've almost never seen**.
BUT, of those I have seen, I'd say that on the basis of what they've done, and not how I'd rank them in terms of whether I'd want them going forward (which would be completely different), I'd probably go, very roughly, something like this, in groupings:
Brady/Peyton/Brees/Rodgers.....Ryan/Roethlisberger.....Rivers/Schaub....Flacco/Eli.....Griffin/Wilson/Kaepernick/Luck....Vick/Smith....and then down at the bottom, Sanchez/Tebow (thanks, you ####### Romney stooge owner)
Going forward, I'd want Kaepernick, Wilson, a healthy Griffin, Rodgers, Ryan, Luck, Flacco, Brees, Brady, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Eli, Smith, a flyer on Flynn, Peyton, and throw the last three in the dumpster. Obviously age is a major factor here, and if Griffin turns out to be a candidate for the glue factory, then forget where I put him above.
And obviously Stafford and Newton should be up there somewhere, but as I said, I've hardly ever seen them play.
**Newton, Stafford, the Arizona guy, the Rams guy, the Bucs guy, the Vick replacement, Da Bears guy, the Vikings guy, the Fish guy, the Bills guy, the Bengals guy, the Browns guy, the team formerly known as the Oilers guy, the Jags guy, the Chiefs guy, the Raiders guy. (Hmmmm, somehow I think I'm convincing myself to contract the NFL to half its current size.)
Well, it is dying.
The weird thing is sportscasters and commentators who say they are only bringing up something "because it's what everyone's talking about", as if they themselves aren't driving the conversation.
He certainly isn't the worst of the blabbermouths but what, precisely, is the point of James Brown?
I dunno. Tour guide? Sort of a moderator type of role? The others at least pretend to do analysis.
One of the huge problems is the bad, canned jokes. Tossing the football -- and then dropping it on purpose. The lame verbal jokes. The laughing over nothing, the fake laughing, the pretense that they are providing something useful to you. It is just a horrible presentation, from start to finish. And they come on before the game, during halftime, after the game. Who needs it?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main