NFL VI

[Mexal]

That's crazy. I hope he is alright

[Lord O' Bones]

(Sorry, I joke in times of peril. Lightens the mood, ya know?)

Don't worry, if it snagged the artery, his piece is probably OK. Unless it was a monster piece. In which case, it's merely wounded.

He's fighting for his life because that's ridiculously serious, due to possibly major blood loss. If he's already in surgery, I think we can expect the best. *fingers crossed*

[Jaime L]

Just read that Sean Taylor has been shot in a robbery at his home.

Oh my God. That's fucking scary. At first was concerned how this was going to hurt the team, now I just hope he's going to be alright. Sean Taylor is one of my five favorite athletes. What the hell is going on with break-ins at professional athletes homes? It's like the 5th one in the last couple months. They're being targeted for their wealth, but honestly, who would willingly target the Grim Reaper? Even with a gun, I don't think I'd go after that guy.

[Rockroi]

God that's terrible. I hate this crap. I know NOTHING of Sean Taylor (he could be a total jerk or the best guy in the world), but nobody deserves this to happen to him. I really hope he makes a full recovery.

Jaime:

I don't know if I would call the other NFL coaches gutless. Part of being a GOOD NFL coach is to stick to a gameplan and not change with the wims and winds of the trends, etc. Almost every good coach I have read up on says something to the effect of "We have to execute our game plan, not invent another one just because X or Y team is coming" (massive paraphrase). But adaptability is a hallmark of greatness (think about how Parcells was able to suceed with the Pats, Jets, and Cowboys with each team bearing little or no resemblance to his Giants). I think previous coaches just felt they had to run their game plan. Also, its not gutless to NOT call an on-sides kick in the second quarter.

I think you have to tip your caps to the Eagles and especially Andy Reid. He was able to make all this happen with a back-up QB (second year in a row we say this, btw). Feeley and his offense jelled almost to perfection and then the D did almost everything they needed to to tie down the Pats.

And yet, the Pats still won. When the game could not be tighter, the Pats made the plays they needed to, and the Eagles stumbled. Will this game be the blue-print? We won't know until the Steelers come to town as I don't think the Ravens have what it takes (then again, I didn't think the Eagles did either).

[Jaime L]

God that's terrible. I hate this crap. I know NOTHING of Sean Taylor (he could be a total jerk or the best guy in the world), but nobody deserves this to happen to him. I really hope he makes a full recovery.

He's been derided as a thug. He doesn't talk to the media and all they see are the big hits and fines so that reputation has lingered. Those who know him say he's a good man and that he's more misunderstood than anything.

I don't know if I would call the other NFL coaches gutless. Part of being a GOOD NFL coach is to stick to a gameplan and not chang with the wims and winds of the trends, etc. Almost every good coach I have read up on says something to the effect of "We have to execute our game plan, not invent another one just because X or Y team is coming"

Which is all well and good if you're playing a normal team with normal weaknesses. But to think what worked against the Jets is going to work against the Patriots strikes me as singularly arrogant. Outside of maybe 2-3 teams, recognizing the Patriots have you completely outgunned isn't a concession or a smack in the face of your guys, it's just a simple understanding of reality. If you think you can beat the Patriots with just your guys and your scheme a) you're insane and they wouldn't be the Patriots. When you treat a wolf like you would a poodle, you deserve to lose that hand.

Also, its not gutless to NOT call an on-sides kick in the second quarter.

No, that was above and beyond the call.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that fit with the coherent, aggressive gameplan that the Eagles put together. Even if they failed that onside kick, I would've applauded the gutsiness of it. What do you really have to lose? They were determined to pull out all the stops and tried to steal one rather than just hoping not to lose by too much, like the Redskins or Bills. Fortune favors the bold.

[Lord O' Bones]

They were determined to pull out all the stops and tried to steal one rather than just hoping not to lose by too much, like the Redskins or Bills. Fortune favors the bold.

And let's not forget that first play from scrimmage. Had that not happened the way it did, this would likely be a different discussion.

[Ser Paladin]

Part of being a GOOD NFL coach is to stick to a gameplan and not change with the wims and winds of the trends, etc. ... I think previous coaches just felt they had to run their game plan. Also, its not gutless to NOT call an on-sides kick in the second quarter.

I think you have to tip your caps to the Eagles and especially Andy Reid. He was able to make all this happen with a back-up QB (second year in a row we say this, btw). Feeley and his offense jelled almost to perfection and then the D did almost everything they needed to to tie down the Pats.

The Eagles have been notorious over the Andy Reid Era for doing things like onsides kicks at odd times (I think they started a game against the Cowboys with an onsides kick a couple seasons ago). Aggressive blitzing and having a top-end secondary are also hallmarks of the Reid/Jim Johnson era, at the expense of a DT push up the middle. They historically don't do well against smash-mouth run-it-up-the-middle teams.

I'm saying that fit with the coherent, aggressive gameplan that the Eagles put together. Even if they failed that onside kick, I would've applauded the gutsiness of it. What do you really have to lose? They were determined to pull out all the stops and tried to steal one rather than just hoping not to lose by too much, like the Redskins or Bills. Fortune favors the bold.

As I mentioned above, the Eagles didn't do much "special" for the Patriots game. They just happen to be built to exploit the few chinks in the Patriots philosophy. And it still wasn't enough. Again.

[Jaime L]

And let's not forget that first play from scrimmage. Had that not happened the way it did, this would likely be a different discussion.

Yeah, looked like it was going to be a rout. Backup QB in a hostile environment. I imagine a less aggressive team would've gone into a shell at that point and would've lost by 30 in the process.

[grozeng]

And let's not forget that first play from scrimmage. Had that not happened the way it did, this would likely be a different discussion.

Yeah, if it were a TD instead of a 2 yard pass to Westbrook, the Eagles win by 4

Just kidding.

I was talking to my brother about the game earlier in the day and I mentioned that Feely beat the Pats a couple of years ago so maybe it would happen again. It would have been real funny if I were right.

[Stego]

I think it highly unlikely someone breaks into a persons home and shoots them in the balls by happenstance. He was probably targeted for payback in some sick and twisted way for some insane reason.

I hope he is alright.

[Jaime L]

As I mentioned above, the Eagles didn't do much "special" for the Patriots game. They just happen to be built to exploit the few chinks in the Patriots philosophy. And it still wasn't enough. Again.

To some extent I agree. I had to amend my last post where I said the Eagles completely changed their strategy to them tweaking it. I agree that their usual strategy is a good fit for the Patriots. Two big points where they changed things up.

One, when Donovan McNabb went down last year they went from being an extreme pass heavy team to a run-first operation and put their season on Westbrook's back. They didn't do that here because they knew that'd be playing to the Patriots strengths. Instead they spread 'em out and used Westbrook as a decoy/blocker most of hte game.

Two, Jim Johnson's defensive schemes looked quite different from the kind I'm used to. He actually blitzed far less than I've seen him. Infact, he constantly went with a three man rush with a delayed fourth blitzer..a blitz I never recall seeing the Eagles used before. And this was against a team he knew was going to pass 75% of the time. However, as per his hallmark he did blitz on some crucial third downs and put Sheppard on Moss basically the entire game.

[davos]

Interesting weekend. The Pats got a scare but weathered the challenge, which is what great teams are suppose to be able to do. To be truely great you have to be able to fight through the tough games where the other teams is playing over their heads and you are not playing your best. They proved they could do exactly that. The game did show that the Pats d will give up yardage to short and medium range inside passes. Bellichek will likely adjust to prevent teams with the right tools from attacking this area but it at least gives the rest of the league the hope that maybe they do have a soft spot to go after (soft being relative of course, this Pats team is just damned good acrost the board. Saying they have an area that can be attacked isn't saying they have a weakness so much as something they don't do quite as well as they do everything else).

Its also easy to forget that Brian Westbrook is just one hell of a football player.

Packers win yet again. Farve throws for 3 TD's and 300+ yards yet again. He's playing more like its 97 than 07. In the past 5 games he's thrown for 13 td with only 2 ints to offset that. He's starting to put together the kind of season that would be worthy of MVP consideration if Tom Brady already hadn't sown up that award.

The Packers game at Dallas this Thursday looms large. While a loss wouldn't be catastrophic it would be painful. A win would give them the inside track to homefield advantage, which is huge considering how much of an edge Lambeau field in January would give them. I'm just extremely irritated that I won't be able to watch this contest since its on the NFL network, which my cable provider doesn't even offer.

[Jaxom 1974]

The Packers game at Dallas this Thursday looms large. While a loss wouldn't be catastrophic it would be painful. A win would give them the inside track to homefield advantage, which is huge considering how much of an edge Lambeau field in January would give them. I'm just extremely irritated that I won't be able to watch this contest since its on the NFL network, which my cable provider doesn't even offer.

Couple things:

1. I think if the Packers beat Dallas, then they'll run the table the rest of the season, barring a major injury. This kid they got at running back right now is growing be leaps and bounds each game, but will the learning curve be enough come playoff time? It hurts to say, but I like Green Bay a lot as the NFC representative in the SB right now.

2. NFL network is quickly becoming an annoyance, rather than a novelty. I think you may have answered my question from a day or two ago. Do you mean that even though the game is on the NFL Network, you can't even get local coverage on the game? Seems assinine.

[Lord O' Bones]

Seems completely, utterly without a doubt, assinine.

[davos]

Do you mean that even though the game is on the NFL Network, you can't even get local coverage on the game? Seems assinine.

Yep, pretty much. Our local cable provider hasn't come to a contract with NFL network so its not even offered. Even if I was willing to pay the additional premium to get the network for this game I wouldn't have the choice. In this market its either go satellite TV or you can't get the NFL network. Local stations have not been able to get the rights to broadcast the game either. I'm down in Madison though, so perhaps the Green Bay stations have been able to come to some kind of an arrangment so their market can see the game. They've done so in the past with games on ESPN but i have a feeling that the NFL network is going to be less willing to be flexible.

Basically it sucks.

[Jaxom 1974]

More and more I come to believe the NFL Network is more evil than anything the Big 10 Network tried to do.

[Bazzlebane]

It hurts to say, but I like Green Bay a lot as the NFC representative in the SB right now.

As much as I am sick of the Brett Farve manlove from every announcer, I'm now rooting for the Pack as the NFC's best hope of not sending the Cowboys to the SB.

[davos]

After doing a bit of digging one of the Green Bay broadcast channels has managed to make arrangments to broadcast the game in that market. Which is good for the fans up there. Problem is that no one if the Madison or Milwaukee markets has been able to make similiar arrangements which means the game is in a sense blackedout for a large percentage of Packer fans who live in traditionally Packers markets. Of course being in the Madison market i'm screwed.

[Jacen]

As far as I know the Dallas vs. Green Bay game will be shown only in Milwaukee, Green Bay and Dallas on local tv. The pack is one of the few teams that is considered to have two "primary markets". Otherwise you have to have the NFL network. I'm in the Milwaukee area, so thank the football God's I'll be able to see it. That is shitty that Madison and the rest of the state is left with no options. I do not forsee the NFL and the cable companies figuring out a compromise before Thursday. Maybe it's worth a roadtrip to a Milwaukee tavern?

So far from what I've read and seen on tv, everyone favors the Cowboys in this contest. I bitterly remember all those times the Cowboys would trounce Favre and the Pack in the play offs...However, if the Eagles can give the Pats a run for their money, certainly the Pack has a very good shot at winning this game.

[Kalbear]

Well, the Packers have a very good corner who should be able to play TO man-to man. That will help. They have good LBs that should be able to deal with Witten or at least mitigate him. What I think it's going to come down to is how well GB deals with Crayton and Barber. GB's weakness has been second and third receivers. However, Romo isn't as good at throwing to them if TO is covered. We'll see how it works out.

On offense, GB has some issues. Dallas is good against both #1 and #2 receivers, and that's what GB likes to throw to. They're bad against RB/TE passes, but GB doesn't tend to do a lot of RB passing plays or TE passing plays comparatively. Dallas is good against the run in general but that's likely not going to be an issue.

I do think Dallas will win; the matchups favor Dallas somewhat. But I think it will be close and high-scoring.