NFL thread #7

[Minaku]

The irony of starting thread #7 after the last one ended in a discussion about Big Ben's off-the-field conduct doesn't escape me.

The first incident is questionable, I won't comment on the second. Wish he could keep it in his pants and not run around like a crazy young kid - oh wait, he is. Or was. He's approaching 30 now and should know better.

Watched the Pats-Colts game. I will agree with others who say Manning didn't choke although that last int was definitely his fault. It looked like a blowout game until Manning singlehandedly brought the Colts back into contention. Hey Peyton! Thanks for giving all the Pats fans a scare on their home field.

[Rockroi]

The Big Ben issue has been covered multiple times and I don't think it needs to be revisited. He almost certainly committed am awful crime against a very young woman and has NEVER addressed his culpability. he's a fucking douchebag. I am very happy he was punched in the mouth. Ask me again next week, the answer will be the same.

BY CONTRAST, Michale Vick got caught, admitted his crimes, separated himself from that lifestyle, fessed up and did his time (22 months in prison). He has since shown himself to be rehabilitated (for now, I know). I am really happy for all involved that he has turned it around. Ask me again next week, the answer will be the same.

As far as the Colts-Pats game, watching the game highlights again, the first INT was definitely Manning's fault as well (assuming that the TE did not just run completely the wrong route). I have not seen a replay of the second INT, but it looked like Wayne and Manning were on two different pages - Wayne did his in-route about 10 yards under the pass. The major issue is that Manning had no running game, and a defense that gave up 5 scores. The Pats never trailed that whole game and Manning had only his arm to carry them back. His 4 TDs are clearly his own, but at LEAST 2 of the 3 INTs he threw are his as well.

But that does not mean he chocked. It just means he had a B+ day when the only way he could beat the Pats was with an "A" day (because the remainder of his team is a perpetual C-).

[awesome possum]

As far as the Colts-Pats game, watching the game highlights again, the first INT was definitely Manning's fault as well (assuming that the TE did not just run completely the wrong route). I have not seen a replay of the second INT, but it looked like Wayne and Manning were on two different pages - Wayne did his in-route about 10 yards under the pass. The major issue is that Manning had no running game, and a defense that gave up 5 scores. The Pats never trailed that whole game and Manning had only his arm to carry them back. His 4 TDs are clearly his own, but at LEAST 2 of the 3 INTs he threw are his as well.

But that does not mean he chocked. It just means he had a B+ day when the only way he could beat the Pats was with an "A" day (because the remainder of his team is a perpetual C-).

Spot on, I think. When you have to throw the football 52 times in a game, not every pass is going to be perfect, or even good. Even when you're Peyton Manning. It just so happened that the Patriots had some players positioned perfectly to make the Colts pay when those bad throws eventually came. I don't think it really says anything about Peyton Manning, other than that he's human. I think it says everything about the Colts. The running game is nonexistent, the defense is just plain bad half the time, and yet the Colts were driving the ball down the field with less than a minute to play. They were in field goal range and could have tied the game up and take it to overtime, an amazing comeback itself, but were trying to go for the kill.

Without Peyton Manning, the Colts would be a joke. With him, they have the chance to win just about every game they play in.

[Mexal]

Spot on, I think. When you have to throw the football 52 times in a game, not every pass is going to be perfect, or even good. Even when you're Peyton Manning. It just so happened that the Patriots had some players positioned perfectly to make the Colts pay when those bad throws eventually came. I don't think it really says anything about Peyton Manning, other than that he's human. I think it says everything about the Colts. The running game is nonexistent, the defense is just plain bad half the time, and yet the Colts were driving the ball down the field with less than a minute to play. They were in field goal range and could have tied the game up and take it to overtime, an amazing comeback itself, but were trying to go for the kill.

Without Peyton Manning, the Colts would be a joke. With him, they have the chance to win just about every game they play in.

You guys do realize that it's only Zadok calling Manning a choker right? And that every opinion he utters is devoid of anything that resembles facts? He throws out statements like that on a weekly basis and they're never true. I feel like we're feeding the troll on this one.

[arrowfan]

Patriots scored 31 points, to me that means the Colts defense did not do a very good job. Sure the NFL has become more offense oriented with the complex passing games and the rule changes to protect QBs. But I still think anything over about 27 points is not good defense. Add on to that the fact that Manning really didn't have a very good day, and the running game was rather anemic... and its fairly impressive the Colts came within 1 play of winning or tying the game up.

Also with and a 17 point deficit, coming back to win against a playoff caliber team means some mad concentration. With passes zinging around the field play after play... accidents are likely.

I have to say, the play calling seemed a bit risky when all they needed was a FG to tie the game up (I mean you gotta at least be sure of that).

Overall I think both teams showed why they are playoff caliber.

[Rockroi]

You guys do realize that it's only Zadok calling Manning a choker right? And that every opinion he utters is devoid of anything that resembles facts? He throws out statements like that on a weekly basis and they're never true. I feel like we're feeding the troll on this one.

Mexal:

First and foremost, I am sorry for your loss. Its terrible to lose a football team as badly as the Bengals have become lost, but I hope you and them bounce back. And I do not know how Marvin Lewis still has a job.

Second, Zadok may be saying it, but many people on this board MAY think I share that sentiment. And I don't. If the Colts-Pats game was a back-and-fourth affair and the Colts were dropping 7 and then giving up seven with Brady and Manning popping it back-and-fourth, and Manning threw those INTs in that type of stretch, sure, MAYBE I could foster the argument that Manning chocked (the last Super-Bowl seemed to bet that type of game). However, without Manning, the Colts ... are the Panthers. Manning is the whole team. In many ways I felt that way about the Pats in 2005 and 2006 (but the D was better); without Brady those teams would have blown. But instead they were playoff caliber in both seasons. Football fans cannot say on the one hand that Manning is the whole Colts team and then on the other hand say he chocked.

If you want to win the game through only Manning you have to expect that at certain times... its just not going to happen.

And lost in this is how "on" Brady was this game. Brady was simple and effective, underneath passes and streaks through the middle of the field; he seemed to be lacking the 4th quarter due mostly to a retracting game plan (I felt the play-calling the 4th quarter was discombobulated and lacked focus... to say nothing of Edleman's drop in the endzone). And in here is where I know what I like: give me sub-200 and 2 TDs and 0 INTs ANY DAY over 350+ yards 4TDs and 3 INTs. You can have the argument on who is the best QB in the NFL or where they all rank on the NFL's 100 all-time list. Give me the W and avoid giving the other team the chance to get theirs. That's why I like Brady over Manning.

At the same time... I was with 3 other guys watching the game on Sunday and it was classic "deja vu all over again." We all saw it coming again. We ALL THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO LOSE! And no other team makes me get like that than the Colts. Or more accurately, no other single player can do that to me like Peyton Manning. And if that's not a praise of Peyton Manning over EVERY OTHER PLAYER in the NFL ... than I really do not know what is...

[Mexal]

Mexal:

First and foremost, I am sorry for your loss. Its terrible to lose a football team as badly as the Bengals have become lost, but I hope you and them bounce back. And I do not know how Marvin Lewis still has a job.

Appreciate it. Most of our coaching staff should be fired and I expect that come next year. I hope Zimmer sticks around though as I still think he's a talented coach and one that the defense responds to when healthy. Though without a GM, scouting department and indoor practice facility for that cold Cincinnati winter, we'll still be a minor league team playing with the big boys. So it doesn't really matter who coaches us.

That being said, I just laugh at how bad we've become. I didn't see it coming and I always had hope we'd turn it around but after watching every game this year, it's embarrassing how poorly coached we are. I hope we lose out the rest of the games and have the ability to get Andrew Luck. I suspect Brown wouldn't pull the trigger on him but with a new coaching staff, it's entirely possible they'd set up their own franchise QB and I think Palmer would be a good mentor to him. However, I don't think we'll end up with the #1 pick as I think Carolina is worse and I believe they'd do the same thing as us. That leaves us with Bowers or Green, both of which I think fit our needs immensely. So something to look forward to anyway.

My support has gone to the Giants (though it's always been there) and the Falcons (because they're fun to watch). I can only hope for them to fair better than my hopeless Bengals.

[wolverine]

Without Peyton Manning, the Colts would be a joke. With him, they have the chance to win just about every game they play in.

The touchdown pass to Wayne was one of the best passes I have seen all year. Perfect. When he throws the ball there is zero separation but he just puts it in a perfect place for his receiver to be the only one touching the ball.

[Swordfish]

So much for the theories that Oakland is a good team.

[BLU-RAY]

So much for the theories that Oakland is a good team.

Oakland is a team that does something well (run the ball). In a league with plenty of teams that don't do anything well, that's enough to make them passable. Throw in that they're in the AFC West and can lock down the other team's no. 1 reciever, and it could even disguise the fact that they don't do anything else even mediocrely. It'll be interesting to see how the rest of their season plays out, moreso in terms of public opinion rather than the actual games (nobody watches Raiders games)...

[Quoth]

I'm surprised. No posts on the Vince Young melt down?

Watching Jet games are killing me. They're just, ya know, killing me.

[Bronn Stone]

And in here is where I know what I like: give me sub-200 and 2 TDs and 0 INTs ANY DAY over 350+ yards 4TDs and 3 INTs. You can have the argument on who is the best QB in the NFL or where they all rank on the NFL's 100 all-time list. Give me the W and avoid giving the other team the chance to get theirs. That's why I like Brady over Manning.

But what you are REALLY saying here is 'give me a running game' and 'don't let me fall behind'. You don't get numbers that low from a team that isn't running the ball effectively. Or playing catchup football.

If you have the luxury of running the ball reasonably well (which the Pats do these days somehow behind the Law Firm), you can pick your spots for the passing game. And when you are trailing big, 'not forcing the ball' is the same as losing. You cannot afford to punt in some situations.

[DanteGabriel]

So much for the theories that Oakland is a good team.

I appreciate that Richard Seymour hit Ben Rapistberger in the mouth, not only doing what everyone wishes they could do to that scumbag, but also putting himself in a position to get suspended for a game and maybe improve the Pats' draft position a bit.

[Mexal]

I'm surprised. No posts on the Vince Young melt down?

Not really. It's kind of old news. Vince Young has been off and on for the last few years. He's done in Tennessee and has never lived up to his considerable hype.

[Arakasi]

Manning could just as easily be a game manager. But the team doesn't have the talent to do that. Their defense is built to play from ahead and the only reason they run the ball well at all is because Manning sets it up with the play action pass. They get an occasional good run despite being stuffed for 2 yards or less on 80% of their runs.

[Swordfish]

Oakland is a team that does something well (run the ball). In a league with plenty of teams that don't do anything well, that's enough to make them passable. Throw in that they're in the AFC West and can lock down the other team's no. 1 reciever, and it could even disguise the fact that they don't do anything else even mediocrely. It'll be interesting to see how the rest of their season plays out, moreso in terms of public opinion rather than the actual games (nobody watches Raiders games)...

I don't disagree, running teams struggle against the steelers. I suppose it's fairly relative. They are a good team compared to what they've been recently.

I suspect they'l go around .500 the rest of the season.

[Bronn Stone]

I don't think the Raiders are really in the conversation in the AFC West. Assuming SD wins tonight, next week will say a lot. Both the Chargers and the Chiefs go on the road, where neither has been much good. KC has a much easier matchup - visiting the the reeling Seahawks. SD has to go to Indy. It would be much easier on the Chargers if they didn't fall two games back. But I still think that this is the last 'probable loss' on their schedule. They could lose at Indy and still win the division at 10-6.

If SD loses tonight, next week becomes a must win. And my 'probable loss' comment is contingent on San Diego being in playoff contention weeks 16 and 17 (they are on the road, but their opponents - CIN and DEN - will be mathematically out of it by then).

I also get a nice bonus from the Chargers over the next few weeks. Because of a Sunday night, a Monday nights and games against Bay Area teams, I will get to see 4 of their next 5 games on TV without going to a sports bar. Then I'll be in San Diego for Christmas weekend (and they'll be at Cincy, so I'll see that one).

[Jaime L]

The only thing that disappoints me about this thread is the lack of trashtalk from Bluray about the Bills coming from 21 points down to win by 11. And where's the mention of Steve Johnson's "Why so Serious?" T-shirt after completely schooling Batman and Robin. Bills are downright frisky at the moment.

I'm surprised. No posts on the Vince Young melt down?

Lot of weird things about it between Young wanting to go back in the game but not communicating it to Fisher who clearly was intent on sticking with the awful Rusty Smith over him. Then the verbal altercation with Michael Griffin who ran after Young wearing nothing but shorts after he stormed out. And not to mention the reported exchange between Fisher and Young which went this way:

Fisher: Are you going to run out on your team?

Young: No, I'm running out on you!

Which is awesome because it reminds me of this

from the 80s.

[Bronn Stone]

Chilly is gone. No surprise there.

ETA: Once again, getting blown out by the Packers takes out a coach. Why can't Norv go to Lambeau?

[Mya Stone]

Fisher: Are you going to run out on your team?

Young: No, I'm running out on you!

Which is awesome because it reminds me of this

from the 80s.

:rofl: Oh, man. That commercial. So many good memories...I miss the 80s.

You know, I read the Yahoo article on Young, then went to his linked Twitter, where he comically misspelled "hear" as "here" and then was corrected by the Twitter-user (Tweeter?) who was taunting him to begin with. Of all the iterations of VY, I like bat-shit crazy the best.