DanteGabriel Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Divisional round is over, and its thread is at 21 pages. :) Owner interference is rarely a good thing. The best owners stay out of the news, and write the checks. Impatience, penny pinching, fanboyism, and tolerance for fools are the enemies of good ownership. I would also strongly disagree with placing Jim Irsay in the "good owner" category. The Colts had Peyton Manning for fourteen years, and they won 1 Super Bowl! It's pretty disgraceful. If we were picking the best/most stable ownership groups, I would take the Packers, Steelers, Patriots, Niners, and Giants, more or less in that order. Round these parts there is some commemoration of Robert Kraft's 20th anniversary of buying the team. There is some part of me that gags at the thought of thinking kindly of a billionaire, but he's introduced stability, stayed out of the coach's way (at least since Parcells publicly complained about shopping for his own groceries), spent what was necessary, and built a stadium without extorting the public for funds. The team is no longer a league laughingstock, and is the model for long-term elite consistency. Plus, six Super Bowl appearances (and one game away from a seventh!) and three victories. Pretty much all you could ask for in an owner. Jim Irsay is a rich drunk's idiot kid who Lucked (or Sucked) into two once-in-a-generation quarterbacks, and actively damages his team with his narcissistic tweetery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 To get back to the pony queen of hate:I was musing on something, and why do most of the people here ignore the time of possession stat? I know that it's flawed, but I remember reading someone write here that 'TOP is not important, it's about the # of plays ran'. Which I kind of agree with, but there's an obvious benefit to long clock-killing drives that shorten the game/disrupt players' timing. I've watched the Chargers do this to Peyton for years. (Which is really weird because they've always been a high-flying offense until it's Peyton's turn, when they morph into a ball-control team). Just something I've been wondering about. Well, it's because it's pretty pointless. Long clock killing drives can be really helpful or really harmful depending greatly on the context. Or they can simply not matter. The best example is one you should be very familiar with - the Miami/Indy game where Miami held the ball for 45 minutes but the Colts won the game. Miami tried long ball control drives to stop Peyton and keep him on the sidelines, but all that does is limit the number of potential drives in a game. That's a good thing when you're a team that isn't as good as the other team because it magnifies any breaks you get while minimizing the regression to the mean. But if you end up not doing as well as the other team, all it does is make the other team's life that much better for you. If a team is really doing well with HUNH - like Oregon has done in college, like the Pats and Broncos and Saints have done in the past - then you can run about 9 plays in under two minutes. At that point how much time you take off the clock doesn't matter in the least. All that rest your defense has gotten doesn't matter either, because what kills the defenses at that point is repeated speedy plays. Put it another way, Jace: if you saw that one team had a ToP of 40 minutes and the other 20, could you easily tell which team won? How about if it was 35-25? Whereas if you see that one team had 75 plays and another 45, I can very confidently tell you the team with more plays is almost certainly the one that won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 To get back to the pony queen of hate: Well, it's because it's pretty pointless. Long clock killing drives can be really helpful or really harmful depending greatly on the context. Or they can simply not matter. The best example is one you should be very familiar with - the Miami/Indy game where Miami held the ball for 45 minutes but the Colts won the game. Miami tried long ball control drives to stop Peyton and keep him on the sidelines, but all that does is limit the number of potential drives in a game. That's a good thing when you're a team that isn't as good as the other team because it magnifies any breaks you get while minimizing the regression to the mean. But if you end up not doing as well as the other team, all it does is make the other team's life that much better for you. If a team is really doing well with HUNH - like Oregon has done in college, like the Pats and Broncos and Saints have done in the past - then you can run about 9 plays in under two minutes. At that point how much time you take off the clock doesn't matter in the least. All that rest your defense has gotten doesn't matter either, because what kills the defenses at that point is repeated speedy plays. Put it another way, Jace: if you saw that one team had a ToP of 40 minutes and the other 20, could you easily tell which team won? How about if it was 35-25? Whereas if you see that one team had 75 plays and another 45, I can very confidently tell you the team with more plays is almost certainly the one that won. Teams that have had success stopping the uptempo offenses in CFB have typically had long sustained drives that eat up clock and run a lot of plays. Think it's more about getting the offense out of rhythm than it is the defense resting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Oh man, Roger Goodell's inbox is cracking me up at work. Especially the one from the Tijuana police. And Philip Rivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independent George Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Long clock killing drives can be really helpful or really harmful depending greatly on the context. Or they can simply not matter. The best example is one you should be very familiar with - the Miami/Indy game where Miami held the ball for 45 minutes but the Colts won the game. Miami tried long ball control drives to stop Peyton and keep him on the sidelines, but all that does is limit the number of potential drives in a game. That's a good thing when you're a team that isn't as good as the other team because it magnifies any breaks you get while minimizing the regression to the mean. But if you end up not doing as well as the other team, all it does is make the other team's life that much better for you. I think it should be qualified a bit. When one team is clearly better than the other, the worse team should try for fewer possessions, because it amplifies the effect of a few random bounces. The more possessions there are in a game, the more likely it is that the better team will win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Oh man, Roger Goodell's inbox is cracking me up at work. Especially the one from the Tijuana police. And Philip Rivers. Love the Belichick and Karl Rove messages. "Noggin Tougheners". Lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independent George Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Oh man, Roger Goodell's inbox is cracking me up at work. Especially the one from the Tijuana police. And Philip Rivers. The Belichick one is pure gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The Tom Brady one is pretty good also. But my favorites:Phillip Rivers and Tijuana Police Dept. :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 By the way, this is pure gold. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/ryan-grigson-we-dont-win-12-games-without-trent-richardson/ Dude you traded for Trent Richrdson. Just shut the fuck up, alright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independent George Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The Seahawks remind me of the 2001 Patriots. They have a great, dynamic defense, a smart HC returning from years in exile, and a promising low-round draft pick at QB who supplanted the apparent starter and was first made famous by a controversial call by the refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Hell, what about the '98 Minnesota Vikings? I think every knowledgeable sports fan understands both (1) how unbelievably awesome that offense was, (2) how soft that defense was, and (3) how we just barely missed out on a Super Bowl matchup for the ages. ETA: I hate auto-smiley. Because a kicker who was perfect in the regular season (35 for 35) missed the only kick that actually mattered against the Falcons in the playoffs! Instead of getting one of the most fascinating Superbowl matchups of my lifetime we got an awful one-sided game (the 90's specialty) and had to be subjected to two more weeks of the Dirty Bird. Fuck you Falcons! I'm still bitter about the whole thing and I'm not even a Vikings fan. By the way, this is pure gold. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/ryan-grigson-we-dont-win-12-games-without-trent-richardson/ Dude you traded for Trent Richrdson. Just shut the fuck up, alright? I think he means you guys win 13-14 games without TR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Jim Irsay is a rich drunk's idiot kid who Lucked (or Sucked) into two once-in-a-generation quarterbacks, and actively damages his team with his narcissistic tweetery.For Maithanet as well: I didn't mean to imply Irsay is a good owner. I was going more for the fact that he generally left the team to Polian and got smashed, which is better than being Al Davis. To get back to the pony queen of hate: Well, it's because it's pretty pointless. Long clock killing drives can be really helpful or really harmful depending greatly on the context. Or they can simply not matter. The best example is one you should be very familiar with - the Miami/Indy game where Miami held the ball for 45 minutes but the Colts won the game. Miami tried long ball control drives to stop Peyton and keep him on the sidelines, but all that does is limit the number of potential drives in a game. That's a good thing when you're a team that isn't as good as the other team because it magnifies any breaks you get while minimizing the regression to the mean. But if you end up not doing as well as the other team, all it does is make the other team's life that much better for you. If a team is really doing well with HUNH - like Oregon has done in college, like the Pats and Broncos and Saints have done in the past - then you can run about 9 plays in under two minutes. At that point how much time you take off the clock doesn't matter in the least. All that rest your defense has gotten doesn't matter either, because what kills the defenses at that point is repeated speedy plays. Put it another way, Jace: if you saw that one team had a ToP of 40 minutes and the other 20, could you easily tell which team won? How about if it was 35-25? Whereas if you see that one team had 75 plays and another 45, I can very confidently tell you the team with more plays is almost certainly the one that won. I see your point, but that Miami game was kind of a fluke. The Colts scored on the first play of the game (80 yard TD to Dallas Clark) and didn't stop getting insane yardage. And Miami just didn't get anything on their drives. Whereas the Chargers always seem to go on 8 minute TD drives while picking up 4 3rd downs, it kills the flow. I guess it's less about game time spent with the ball, and more about how long (in real time) Peyton always seems to spend on the sideline. Every time the Chargers beat Manning, there's always a 45 minute stretch where he doesn't even see the field. That can't be good for an offense. So I'm arguing clock-crunching drives that end in points, if that's better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Independent George Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I guess it's less about game time spent with the ball, and more about how long (in real time) Peyton always seems to spend on the sideline. Every time the Chargers beat Manning, there's always a 45 minute stretch where he doesn't even see the field. That can't be good for an offense. So I'm arguing clock-crunching drives that end in points, if that's better. Well, I remember one of those Chargers game involved the punter pinning the Colts inside the 5 on seemingly every single drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The Seahawks remind me of the 2001 Patriots. They have a great, dynamic defense, a smart HC returning from years in exile, and a promising low-round draft pick at QB who supplanted the apparent starter and was first made famous by a controversial call by the refs. The 2001 Pats didn't have nearly the talent as the 2013 Seahawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Because a kicker who was perfect in the regular season (35 for 35) missed the only kick that actually mattered against the Falcons in the playoffs! Instead of getting one of the most fascinating Superbowl matchups of my lifetime we got an awful one-sided game (the 90's specialty) and had to be subjected to two more weeks of the Dirty Bird. Fuck you Falcons! I'm still bitter about the whole thing and I'm not even a Vikings fan. I think he means you guys win 13-14 games without TR. Broncos & Vikings fan here... That game was devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The 2001 Pats didn't have nearly the talent as the 2013 Seahawks. Yeah... that team just wasn't all that great. More akin to the Giants team that beat the undefeated Pats team. Ok season that got hot at the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I can't believe that there are people on the Boards here that do not realize how great those Chargers teams really were... Even without a Suberbowl, they go down as the best teams of all time in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Well, I remember one of those Chargers game involved the punter pinning the Colts inside the 5 on seemingly every single drive. Yep, Mike Scifres, he is a weapon. ....Whereas the Chargers always seem to go on 8 minute TD drives while picking up 4 3rd downs, it kills the flow. I guess it's less about game time spent with the ball, and more about how long (in real time) Peyton always seems to spend on the sideline. Every time the Chargers beat Manning, there's always a 45 minute stretch where he doesn't even see the field. That can't be good for an offense. So I'm arguing clock-crunching drives that end in points, if that's better. I concur. I think he means you guys win 13-14 games without TR. :laugh: The Seahawks remind me of the 2001 Patriots. They have a great, dynamic defense, a smart HC returning from years in exile, and a promising low-round draft pick at QB who supplanted the apparent starter and was first made famous by a controversial call by the refs. In my long (euphemism for rambling) post regarding Luck vs Wilson; I had compared Wilson's situation to Tom Brady's early career situation. Not sure about the smart HC thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Because a kicker who was perfect in the regular season (35 for 35) missed the only kick that actually mattered against the Falcons in the playoffs! Instead of getting one of the most fascinating Superbowl matchups of my lifetime we got an awful one-sided game (the 90's specialty) and had to be subjected to two more weeks of the Dirty Bird. Fuck you Falcons! I'm still bitter about the whole thing and I'm not even a Vikings fan. I have nothing but fond memories of that game as I won like $1600 bucks on it. The local line on that game was absolutely ridiculous. Like Falcons +14.5 or something like that. Good times, good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The 2001 Pats didn't have nearly the talent as the 2013 Seahawks. Yes, but Belichick makes up for some the talent gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.