User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
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. |
Page rendered in 0.7727 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Nonetheless, that's the *standard* call, until it comes down to making that same call or overturning the "Eli in the fourth quarter" narrative the NFL has staked itself to of late.
Edwards: 1. Rodgers, 2. Brees, 3. PManning(*), 4. Brady, 5. EManning.
I think that's probably fair.
But, given how his backup looked like vintage Dan Marino in week 17, I'm starting to wonder if we may be over-rating Rodgers, and under-rating the rest of his offense.
The reality is, football is not like baseball in terms of player valuation. It's impossible to separate individual performance from team-mates and system.
Not if the official on the field gets it right. You can't seriously be claiming that there was "clear and convincing evidence" Manningham lacked control.
If they had over-turned that call, the Giants should have walked off the field in protest.
Console yourself with the bogus holding on the Giants, and the three pass interferences that weren't called against NE for getting to the receiver too soon. That's a ticky-tack call that's almost always made in the current pass-happy incarnation of the NFL.
(1) A top caliber arm
(2) Doesn't throw excessive interceptions
(3) Doesn't get sacked often, especially when controlling for the quality of his line. Gets the ball out quickly.
(4) Doesn't miss too many open receivers
I just don't get what Eli is NOT doing that Brady or Brees or Rogers ARE doing. He's by far the most talented player on the Giant offense. Wes Welker isn't walking through that door; Jimmy Graham isn't walking through that door.
I'm sure you'll trade those for the baker's dozen holds that weren't called against the Giants.
I didn't hear the announcers mention any. There are tons of holding non-calls in every game on every team. I'm sure there were an equal number of non-calls on the Pats.
He's a semi-successful athlete FROM NEW YORK. Of course they think he's a HOF'er. It's the same mindset that turned Chad Pennington into an "elite QB" and Mark Sanchez into..., well, a starter.
Funny how Phil Simms hasn't quite snuck into Canton yet. Nor Bill Parcells. Must be that anti-Dallas bias on the part of that Eastern Elite Media.
------------------------------------------
That call has gone against receivers more often than not. He didn't control the ball until it was pinned to his chest, and by that time he was out of bounds.
Sam, you might be better off just sticking to tiddlywinks or some other sport that might calm you down a bit, at least until Atlanta gets more than 1 championship in 202 combined seasons of baseball / football / basketball / hockey under its belt. It also must be a bit frustrating to know that your state's most newsworthy citizen right now is Newt Gingrich, but there's nothing to stop you from moving to a better location.
2) I'm not sure his interception rate is going to stay good.
3) He gets a lot of help on avoiding sacks by his running backs (a chip block from Brandon Jacobs is a *big* chip block)
4) He misses all the time, but has athletic receivers who bail him out a lot
Cruz, asshat that he seems to be, is more talented on the offense. Eli is basically on par with Mario Manningham.
My basic critique of Eli is this: 2011 is his Brady Anderson in '96 year. If he maintains 2011 for the next 4-5 years you can make a case that he went Sosa and re-peaked late. But right now, he's just Brady Anderson jacking 50 out of the blue, and he should be assumed to return to earth next year.
I would have taken a knee, let the Pats call their last timeout, then taken another knee, wind the clock down and kick the FG at the end (basically what Auburn did in last year's BCS game). Nothing's guaranteed-look a the AFC championship game-but I'll take my chances kicking a 30 yarder, indoors, to win the game on the last play.
Is the success % on 30-yard FGs really better than the success % of holding a team from driving the entire field for a TD with <1 min to play?
I'd have taken a knee, had the Pats call their last timeout, then tried to score on a QB sneak on third down. If it works, you get the benefits of the four-point lead, but with a few more ticks off the clock and the Pats out of TOs. If it's stopped, you've got the fallback field goal and just 20 seconds left. I'm content with either of those, but I like the idea of having two cracks at the go-ahead score (and yes, I know there's a small risk of fumble).
I know. I mean, I don't think Eli Manning is the greatest player to ever deign to honor us with his god-like visage! I must be crazy.
On the Manningham catch, after reviewing the play, the official stated that the ruling on the field was "confirmed". Usually, if it's just a matter of there not being evidence to overturn the call, they will state that. I think if they ruled that play no catch on the field, there actually would have been enough evidence to overturn the call the other way.
That right there is some solid counter-argument, my friend. You wit and wisdom is flawless.
I think you need to kick on 3rd down so in case of a botched snap, you can fall on the ball and try again.
I still score the TD.
I'd rather have a 3% of being beaten by a all-time great drive, than a 2% of losing b/c I got too freaking cute.
Besides the earlier mentioned "ref's discretion" counter, there's also the issue of Brady seeing 12+ players on the field and just spiking the ball. 5 yards for 1-2 seconds run off the clock seems to be a positive result.
EDIT: Link: http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/kicking/sort/fieldGoalPct
Sam, I don't need to mount a counter-argument to show why your comments (about the officiating) are embarrassing. They just are. It's self-evident.
Well, in that case, I'll go get your plastic crown for you, your highness.
Well it was a 24 yard FG, they were at the 7.
According to Bill Barnwell, who referenced the live WPA chart, the Giants WP% went DOWN from 89% to 85% after they scored the go-ahead TD and kicked off.
His quote went on to explain how the WPA graph might even be understating the WP% pre-TD
Nobody is saying this on here. You're not proving a point to any of us. You're the one going to one extreme and describing Eli has a mediocre QB when he is clearly not.
He's slightly better than Trent Dilfer. I'll give you that.
On Mike and Mike this morning, Mike Golic recalled a time during his days with the Eagles when Buddy Ryan sent 15 guys out on D in a similar situation.
But then you are choosing to leave the Super Bowl in the hands of an all-time great QB in Tom Brady who has already had 2 4th quarter game winning drives in Superbowls.
Sure. But would you rather go down in history as a coach beaten by an all-time great drive, or the guy who beat himself by telling his players not to score a TD?
That's the kind of thinking that leads to Grady Little leaving a tired Pedro in to get shelled in the eighth inning.
I want the coach who gives his team the best chance to win. Screw how manly it appears.
The Patriots wanted the Giants to score a touchdown. Obviously, Belichick believed the Giants getting six was in his team's best interests.
Just to counter this a little, doesn't the fact that it would have been the most high-pressure situation Tynes and his snapper and holder have ever been in make some kind of difference the other way?
That safety was a terrible way to start the game. It looked like to offensive lineman actually pushed the defender into Brady.
The same Tynes that has kicked 2 game winning OT FGs in NFC championship games? I'm sure he could nail an extra point just fine.
Fine, but you're still up by 4 with less than a minute left and they have to go 80 yards to score and their best receiver is playing on one leg. You've gotten something out of this deal.
Can a QB start a play on his knees? What if he was kneeling (or, in the alternative, crouching) under center and just stuck the ball under the center (or even between the feet of the center and guard)? With some practice, it seems like he'd be able to get a couple of inches very easily (O line wouldn't be moving) and he'd get the TD before the fumble. Heck, since the ball is always within an inch of the endzone, a fumble would be virtually impossible.
True, but 57 seconds is very little time to try to get a TD with only 1 timeout. In such a high pressure situation, I'm not sure the win expectancy metrics accurately reflect the risk of a snapper twitching, a holder fumbling or a kicker shanking. I'm not worried about perception - I'm worried about a tiny, discrete error caused by nerves that could lose the game. At least in scoring and leaving it to the defense in that situation, you're going to build in layers of redundancy so that no 1 player is going to make a mistake and give the game away. Considering the situation, I think that's the better play.
Cundiff and Norwood's attempts would have been good from the distance Tynes would have taken it from. And if the LOS (closer than a PAT) is the point where Bradshaw should have stopped, missing it is extraordinarily unlikely.
Whatever way you play it, the Giants were overwhelming favorites to win. Me, I'd have split the difference and gone for a score on third down (after the Pats burned their final TO). That gives you the TD to beat you scenario, plus makes it a little harder to get in position (in this case, they don't even get in position for a reasonable Hail Mary without that final TO).
Did anyone else think Gronk was going to catch it in real time? From the angle they showed the play he looked right on top of the ball on the rebound. From the side, he was a good 4 or 5 feet away - must have seemed really, really close to him.
hokieneer, I don't disagree with this, but I guess my question was more an academic one. I think it's already been shown that place kickers do worse if the opposing team does the time out freeze on them, so I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder about how much the high pressure nature of the kicks affects the statistical model.
I thought the reverse was true.
He's very tall. That helps when a ball's just tossed up.
I don't think so. But, oh my god, can you imagine the ESPNgasm that would occur in the American sporting world if Ochocinco caught a Hail Mary to win a Super Bowl? The mind reels with what that would have done to TV.
I'm with SoSH, I thought the reverse was true. Regardless, I agree high pressure kicks can blow statistical models up, no question.
But we're talking about a 24 yard FG here, just a bit more than an extra-point, and perfectly centered. Not a rushed Cundiff FG, or even Norwood's distance and angle.
I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't trust place kickers, but I know if they had gone for the field goal, I wouldn't have been able to watch it. On the other hand, I was never nervous (even the hail mary didn't scare me) watching that last drive.
Not for some gambler in Vegas. He put a thousand down on the first scoring play of the game to be a safety for the Giants. Though he only got 50-1 odds.
- Every eligible QB with two Super Bowl wins is in except for Jim Plunkett. The two not yet eligible are Tom Brady (a lock), and Ben Roethlisberger (on his way, or at the very least is not a counterexample).
- Eli is a far better quarterback than Jim Plunkett.
The baseball equivalent might be something like if every two time Cy Young award winner except for say, Randy Jones, was enshrined in Cooperstown. (I realize this is a hypothetical standard--Denny McLain is never getting in and Randy Jones didn't win two CYAs.) At that point the burden of proof is on the voter to keep him out. And it's much harder in football to contruct a statistical argument that the player doesn't belong.
- Eli is a far better quarterback than Jim Plunkett.
Put in a more rigorous way:
(1) QB is the most important position on the field, and can accrue, by far, the most WARP in the NFL.
(2) Therefore, if a QB wins two Superbowls, he either is (a) extraordinarily lucky, (b) surrounded by a team that's head and shoulders above the rest of the league or (c) HOF-caliber.
I don't think anyone argues that the Giants are a super-elite team outside of Eli. So either Eli is the luckiest QB in the NFL or he's somehow better than people like Sam give him credit for.
Right now? It's Eli. Simply because Peyton has been on the shelf for a whole year, and may be just one big sack away from being crippled. If he's shaken off that rust by the start of the season, then it's Peyton again.
All time? It's Peyton, and it's not even close.
Hell, I thought he DID catch it. That was pretty close as Hail Marys go.
The Giants won the SB before because they had an historically great front four. They were the bigger reason than Eli.
I'm surprised one defender's job isn't to be there for AFTER the ball is tipped. Instead of having 5 guys jump, have 4 jump, and one be ready to spring as soon as the rebound comes.
Most notably, if Kyle Williams just stays the hell away from the ball, they're probably not here.
EDIT: It's the same piece referenced for the Tynes WP stuff above.
YES. the Giants were morons for scoring the TD. MORONS!
No less, they are NFL Champions. The most losses ever for a champion, 7. They beat a team in New England that had a grand total of 1 win over a winning team in 19 tries. The Giants, one of 84 football postseason teams (College & Pro) but one of only 3 teams in that massive group with 7 losses.
NFL ratings declined too.
Sorry, but the NFL is in decline.
I think NFL teams play a few more games than college teams. Why not compare winning percentage?
Because he's a troll. Come on now.
My question to the people who think the Giants should have wanted to score the touchdown: do you think the Patriots were correct to concede the touchdown? To be logically consistent, you'd have to call the Patriots wrong to make that decision. Or are you making the argument more from the "cover you ass" point of view?
Totally agree. The Patriots didn't think Tynes was going to miss a field goal under 30 yards.
Consider too that Brady nearly hit Randy Moss in stride on the Pats' penultimate play in Super Bowl 42. IIRC that ball traveled close to 70 yards in the air.
I think the Patriots were correct, though they should have let them score immediately following the two-minute warning.
However, it's not quite so black-and-white. From a pure WP perspective, the Giants should have taken two knees inside the five, then kicked the FG. I probably would have done just what they did, except have Bradshaw stop at the one. Then, you get another chance to score the touchdown, while forcing the Patriots to use their last timeout. There is definitely a huge boost to forcing New England to score a touchdown to beat you instead of a a field goal.
NFL ratings declined too.
Sorry, but the NFL is in decline.
Not to mention the entire country, the entire world, and the entire universe! I tell you we have to bring back the gold standard!
Sam heard a rumor that Eli once might have uttered in his sleep something borderline positive about Ronald Reagan.
As for that game winning SB drive, a luck/gift to get them to the 50 followed by running plays and play action dump-downs to get them to FG range, before the Pats conceded the TD to save clock.
Whatever you want to say about luck/gift, the bolded part is factually incorrect. The first running play of the drive came from the Patriots' 18 yard line:
I think it's a close enough call that the differences in gross aggregate winning percentages could easily be outweighed by specifics about the actual teams (e.g. available personnel, kicker/snapper idiosyncrasies etc.). I have no idea if the coaches weighed those factors correctly.
That said, Belichick's series of decisions to run a real defense on first down, and then let Bradshaw score on the next play after using a time out and letting a few more seconds tick off the clock is pretty clearly boneheaded when looked at together. I could be convinced that the Patriots should have let the Giants score as soon as they got in gimme field goal range, or that they should have played normal Defense and hoped for a fumble, bad snap, etc. But splitting the difference seems like the worst possible choice.
Agreed.
I didn't like the Pats' chances from the moment Belichick threw the challenge flag. I figured they were going to need the timeout, while the Giants would still have had ample time to get into field goal range if the play was overturned.
If I were the Giants, I probably would have run the clock down and kicked the FG with one second left. But the Patriots had the right idea to concede the score, and get their HOF QB back on the field. As #678 says, they didn't execute the strategy in the best way.
I'm not a close NFL follower, but Belichick does seem to be one of the few NFL coaches who thinks outside the box-going for it on 4th down more often, using guys like Mike Vrabel and Edelman on offense and defense, etc.
If the logical move for Bradshaw, or the Giants as a team, was to directly violate their primary goal for 99% of the game I say that's a poorly designed game. The spirit of competition should be, I try my hardest within the rules of the game, and you try your hardest and we'll see what happens. I guess it's easy for me to say since I've never played a sport with anything on the line, never mind a championship, but I'd feel like I was cheating if I "gamed" the system that way to get an edge. But you really can't hold it against the player or coaches. A system that rewards not trying seems lame.
Yes and no. I think there is a legitimate bias for each team to prefer to let the outcome of the game rest in a situation over which they can exert their preferred means of control. For the Giants, that means they would prefer to put their defense on the field with a 4 point lead and less than a minute to go rather than risking a breakdown at one of three phases of what should be a gimme field goal. For the Patriots, that means giving Brady one last shot rather than hoping the Giants screw up a kick that almost nobody ever screws up.
I understand that from a win expectancy point of view, an approach can either be right for the Giants, or the Patriots, but not both. But when you're dealing with such small margins in such a high pressure situation, I think there can be a grey area where each team can prefer the same outcome because that's just how they would prefer to go to war. I think that's a bit of a different animal that mere "cover your ass" thinking.
Baseball isn't entirely immune from this. It's rare, but teams with a lead have been known to intentionally make outs in the fourth/fifth innings to try to beat the impending rainstorm.
As for the game, as a Giants fan, I was having too many Trey Junkin flashbacks. I wanted the TD.
Intentional walks.
I just think there is no way to ensure that the proper strategy for a game are ALWAYS the proper strategy.
I think those saying there was a middle ground are correct. Take a knee on the 1, let NE burn the last TO, then run it in. I just like runs for TDs in that situation. Fewer moving parts, more points. I am perhaps a little gunshy on FGs at the end after watching Stanford and the Ravens.
Also, yeah, the guy running out of bounds. Horrible. I'd forgotten that.
Along the lines of running time off using too many guys, why not line up in an illegal formation if you're the Giants? Run the play, make it a handoff to the outside, burn 6 or 7 seconds and, if the penalty is accepted, you burn clock without using a down.
Heh, hadn't thought of that. Seems pretty obvious.
I find that pretty annoying too. Maybe there just aren't any sports out there that satisfy me.
Well, there's no reason for the Giants to do this since the Patriots can always decline the penalty, with the clock still stopped, resulting in a free timeout for the Patriots. The only way it would help is if the Giants knew they would gain more yards using an illegal formation, but I'm not aware of any formation that is that effective, especially for a low risk play such as a running play. And if the formation is *too* effective, the result of the play is a touchdown, which is what the Patriots conceded anyway.
I don't really agree with him that Alabama would beat the Colts or whatever, but he makes interesting arguments.
He exhibits classic troll behavior. He makes outlandish statements to draw a rise from people, completely ignores the logical responses people make, and just continues to make those statements. See: his constant harping on the tired "Patriots didn't beat a winning team!" meme.
I stay out of it and my collegial nature wants to agree with you, but it's hard to defend somebody who has repeatedly made an argument based on a comparison of the the raw number of losses of NFL teams to the raw number of losses of college football teams.
A troll is someone who says something simply to get a response, not to start or continue a conversation.
HI!
So, it's toward the very end, and Dyer for Auburn looks like he falls into the endzone for the TD that would have given Auburn a six point lead. However, replay suggests that Dyer was actually stopped just short.
The Oregon fans are jumping up and down. "We've still got a chance!" and all. I point out to them that, no, you don't. Now Auburn will just run the clock down to three seconds and kick a FG that amounts to an extra point, a kick to be performed by a guy who rarely misses even at more typical distances. They got awfully quiet.
So, yes, the Giants should have stopped short. Given Brady the ball with a minute left is never, ever a good idea. It worked out, but I don't see why you would give a team with such an effective passing offense that opportunity. If you'll recall, the Packers went down the field to beat the Giants with about a minute left earlier this season, in a drive that seemed to take about three plays.
That's my move! /Frank Constanza
I'm glad Fanshawe in #678 above brought up the point about taking a timeout then letting Bradshaw score. When they let Bradshaw score, I wondered why they didn't do it a play earlier and then they'd have 2 timeouts.
The Packers scored a FG, not a TD, which is a big difference.
The guy clearly loves footballl, but doesn't like the NFL and has a number of arguments for why he feels this way.
"Arguments" is an awfully generous term for things like raw # of losses of college+pro teams. The "Pats never beat a winning team! Amazing!" thing was misguided but okay to post, once. It's fine to dislike the NFL (it's not Costanza), but continually posting in an NFL thread about how much the NFL sucks is textbook trolling.
Well yes, but that's simply a question of math.
If you allow 2 teams into the playoffs out of 150, vs. 10 out of 32, your champion is going to have a more gaudy W%.
If the NFL picked the two teams with the fewest losses to play in the Superbowl, you'd always have a 13+ win champion.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main