Random NFL news
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
- Status
They have a tough game at NO but other than that I think they will win out.
I expect the 2/3 seed to be NE and Cinci. The 4 seed is probably going to be San Diego. They will play Pittsburgh probably in the WC round. I think those are tougher match ups than Cinci, and they also punish the teams they play softening them up for the next week.
At least in theory, I'd rather play Cinci home or away and at Indy or home Pitt/SD than play Pitt/SD followed by Indy.
I expect the 2/3 seed to be NE and Cinci. The 4 seed is probably going to be San Diego. They will play Pittsburgh probably in the WC round. I think those are tougher match ups than Cinci, and they also punish the teams they play softening them up for the next week.
At least in theory, I'd rather play Cinci home or away and at Indy or home Pitt/SD than play Pitt/SD followed by Indy.
As someone who is neither Pats fan nor Colts fan - although I have Manning as my QB in two of my fantasy leagues - I think that is the whole story in a nutshell. Calling a time out before a play is even run in a possession is bizarre; when it's done with a QB like Brady on the field it's totally unfathomable.
And the last timeout was called because the punt team rushed on to the field and they had to get them off. Maybe BB didn't communicate to everyone he was going for it no matter what, I'm not even sure it was the original plan since if it was you think they'd have run on 3rd and 2. Maybe they saw something on the 3rd and 2 that made them think the 4th down play was a lock. We'll never know since BB keeps notoriously tight lips. I still think the spot was bad after watching countless replays. One thing that I'm absolutely sure of is the official who marked the ball could not see when Faulk caught the ball unless he had X-ray vision.
I think he was going off of body motion. It's clear that the player bobbles the ball, and doesn't have control until he is being driven backward and into the turf. Tough call, especially when you have to make it on the spot. In any case, tough but correct call on BB part. There is conventional wisdom here - you go with what has worked. The Colts have been tearing you up, and you show respect to the best QB in the game. It's not like this is the Browns offense going for 2 yards. All these idiotic announcers trying to break it down... the Colts needed 7 to win. Whether they started at their own 30 or the Pats 30 doesn't really do much since you need 7. I'd be more afraid of Payton with the open field in front of him, at least this limits a bit what they can do. THe guy has shredded your D, and maybe he was even thinking that IF it backfired, it's a short field and they could get the ball back. He was playing to win instead of not lose. I can't fault that. BB played the odds and his only mistake was the clock management. Also, I understand wanting to pass... but not even a back in the backfield motioning... you might as well telegraphed the Colts that it's a pass. Just a weird executed play, but the correct one.
Doesn't matter whose fault it was. It was a huge mistake that normally doesn't happen to a team like the Patriots.
I will say this, though. Sometimes, on a critical down, Belichick will tell Brady that if the defense lines up in a strange or unfamiliar way, just call a timeout and we'll straighten it out on the sideline. That's normally not 1st and 10 after a kickoff, though. That's normally business as usual, and that's why it was so strange for the Pats to call a timeout in that situation.
It makes me appreciate my team having the same offensive coordinator for so long, though. The Pats have switched coordinators, it seems, once every two years, for about six years. I don't think they even have an official offensive coordinator. I'm sure that having the wrong personnel on the field on 1st and 10 after a kickoff wouldn't happen if not for the coaching changes that they have to endure. It's really a testament to how good Tom Brady is that he's consistently one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, despite those changes.
I will say this, though. Sometimes, on a critical down, Belichick will tell Brady that if the defense lines up in a strange or unfamiliar way, just call a timeout and we'll straighten it out on the sideline. That's normally not 1st and 10 after a kickoff, though. That's normally business as usual, and that's why it was so strange for the Pats to call a timeout in that situation.
It makes me appreciate my team having the same offensive coordinator for so long, though. The Pats have switched coordinators, it seems, once every two years, for about six years. I don't think they even have an official offensive coordinator. I'm sure that having the wrong personnel on the field on 1st and 10 after a kickoff wouldn't happen if not for the coaching changes that they have to endure. It's really a testament to how good Tom Brady is that he's consistently one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, despite those changes.
It was a single bat of the ball from which he immediately secured full control and that is clearly viewable in the replay from the opposite angle. At that point his feet came down straddling the 30 and the ball appears to be across it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ZrvtmRbfo
The second angle around the 25 second mark shows clearly that it was a bat and then full control. I submit that if the rules truly nullify forward progress in this insance the Colts player could have kept him from hitting the ground and ran him back to the endzone for a safety and I am sure that's not correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ZrvtmRbfo
The second angle around the 25 second mark shows clearly that it was a bat and then full control. I submit that if the rules truly nullify forward progress in this insance the Colts player could have kept him from hitting the ground and ran him back to the endzone for a safety and I am sure that's not correct.
The whistle would blow if the defender was carrying him all the way back to the endzone. There's a point when the play is done, and that would come long before they covered 30 yards.
From what I understand (still haven't seen Mike P's breakdown; maybe tonight), the ball gets spotted where the receiver lands. It doesn't matter if he has to take a step back himself to secure the ball or if he's knocked back by the defender. Forward progress is wiped out until he establishes control and comes down (two feet, one knee, one elbow, whatever) with the ball.
In the replay, you can see an official standing near midfield, in the direction that Faulk was facing as he secured the football. If anyone had a better view of the play, it was him. He didn't call the spot of the ball, and he didn't try to overrule the side judge. NFL referees will confer and get the right call and the right spot whenever they can, even without replay. There was a play in a game a couple of years ago between the Browns and Ravens, and Browns kicker Phil Dawson kicked a long field goal to tie that hit the center support behind the post, then bounced back through. The officials initially called it a miss, but got together and talked about it and made the right call, because the ball went through the uprights, and that makes it a good kick. NFL rules prohibit officials from reviewing a field goal (strange, isn't it?), but they talked about it and made the right call. Controversial play and ruling, and they actually had to call the Ravens back onto the field to play overtime. But they got it right.
My point is that if any other official believed that the side judge was spotting the ball in the wrong place, they would have talked about it and spotted it correctly. And considering that there were other officials who saw the play clearly, I think they all agreed that the spot was made correctly by the side judge.
I'm not trying to defend the call at all costs; I'd admit if I thought it was a bad call, because the game is over and it's not going to change anything. But according to how I understand the rule, the spot was made correctly.
From what I understand (still haven't seen Mike P's breakdown; maybe tonight), the ball gets spotted where the receiver lands. It doesn't matter if he has to take a step back himself to secure the ball or if he's knocked back by the defender. Forward progress is wiped out until he establishes control and comes down (two feet, one knee, one elbow, whatever) with the ball.
In the replay, you can see an official standing near midfield, in the direction that Faulk was facing as he secured the football. If anyone had a better view of the play, it was him. He didn't call the spot of the ball, and he didn't try to overrule the side judge. NFL referees will confer and get the right call and the right spot whenever they can, even without replay. There was a play in a game a couple of years ago between the Browns and Ravens, and Browns kicker Phil Dawson kicked a long field goal to tie that hit the center support behind the post, then bounced back through. The officials initially called it a miss, but got together and talked about it and made the right call, because the ball went through the uprights, and that makes it a good kick. NFL rules prohibit officials from reviewing a field goal (strange, isn't it?), but they talked about it and made the right call. Controversial play and ruling, and they actually had to call the Ravens back onto the field to play overtime. But they got it right.
My point is that if any other official believed that the side judge was spotting the ball in the wrong place, they would have talked about it and spotted it correctly. And considering that there were other officials who saw the play clearly, I think they all agreed that the spot was made correctly by the side judge.
I'm not trying to defend the call at all costs; I'd admit if I thought it was a bad call, because the game is over and it's not going to change anything. But according to how I understand the rule, the spot was made correctly.
Actually more than anything I am shocked that the guys with a view of Faulk's hands didn't even approach to confer on such a crucial play. That is more maddening than anything because the official who made the spot could not have seen when the ball was in Faulk's hands. Its physically impossible. What I understand is that those referees are supposed to be looking at other things so they didn't even bother to look.
I don't think Mike P's going to solve anything, according to the Mort Reports tweet yesterday he just said it was a judgement call and praised the ref for being in good position to make that judgement. Which he was, but he was still on the wrong side of the ball.
Anyhow, I think the youtube replay clearly showed that at the point he pulled the ball down it was in full control, these two photos show his feet were at the 30 with the ball.
I don't think Mike P's going to solve anything, according to the Mort Reports tweet yesterday he just said it was a judgement call and praised the ref for being in good position to make that judgement. Which he was, but he was still on the wrong side of the ball.
Anyhow, I think the youtube replay clearly showed that at the point he pulled the ball down it was in full control, these two photos show his feet were at the 30 with the ball.
Last edited:
Lions and Browns just played the craziest finish I have ever seen in a decade. Stafford evades multiple rushers as time expires, picked in the endzone, late hit needs help off the field. PI called, Lions get it at the 1, Culpepper in for the injured Stafford. Browns Timeout. Stafford comes back in, throws a perfect strike with a bad arm. PAT good, Lions win.
Crazy.
Crazy.
So McDaniels now sucks because the Broncos get hit by some injuries in year one of his stint? They haven't even reaped all the benefits of the Cutler trade yet. Nobody expected them to start 6-0 so of course 6-4 is a disappointment now. It shouldn't be.
Weis has been both good and bad. He won with other people's recruits and hasn't done so great with his own. I'm not sure if that means he is a bad coach, a bad recruiter or both. I think I would welcome him back to the Pats as O-Cord if he wanted it. Crennel was never given much to work with but I'm surprised Gallo didn't put him right next to Mangini. He'd also be welcome back with open arms by most Pats fans.
As for Mangini, he left without BB's blessing and attempted to steal away players and coaches while on the team plane. While you can't remove him from the tree, he clearly didn't complete his apprenticeship so it isn't fair to lump him in with the others.
So who are we missing? Oh yeah, only the coach of the #2 college program in the country right now and the front office guy that has rebuilt Atlanta in the wake of Mike Vick and Bobby Petrino.
Weis has been both good and bad. He won with other people's recruits and hasn't done so great with his own. I'm not sure if that means he is a bad coach, a bad recruiter or both. I think I would welcome him back to the Pats as O-Cord if he wanted it. Crennel was never given much to work with but I'm surprised Gallo didn't put him right next to Mangini. He'd also be welcome back with open arms by most Pats fans.
As for Mangini, he left without BB's blessing and attempted to steal away players and coaches while on the team plane. While you can't remove him from the tree, he clearly didn't complete his apprenticeship so it isn't fair to lump him in with the others.
So who are we missing? Oh yeah, only the coach of the #2 college program in the country right now and the front office guy that has rebuilt Atlanta in the wake of Mike Vick and Bobby Petrino.
Every team has injuries, it's a part of football (sports, actually). I agree that the Broncos shouldn't be disappointed with a 6-4 record. I think it's not the record that Bronco fans are disappointed with, but just how they are playing as of late. They lose to a Redskins team with no Portis, and they show up for the biggest game of their season yesterday and stink it up. Seriously that was an awful game for them. I think McDaniels is a decent coach, but I really have to question his decision to go with Orton right up until the end of the 4th, when the game was long over. They need him to be healthy, since Simms has shown absolutely nothing.
Orton is not the long term solution at QB no matter how much early success he had in the system, so they either play him and have a chance at the wildcard or they play for draft position. His long term health really isn't a concern (sorry to say, but it's the truth) They wouldn't have lost to the Redskins had he not gotten hurt and they'd be right in the thick of things then with the other losses coming to quality teams. Losing your starting QB is different than any other injury, we all know that. Very few teams can pick up afterwards.
I still don't know if he's going to turn out good or bad, but using him to bash Bill Belichick is reaching.
I still don't know if he's going to turn out good or bad, but using him to bash Bill Belichick is reaching.
What a difference a month makes. The Broncos were picked by pretty much everyone to be one of the worst teams in the NFL before the season starts. They seemed to have nothing but bad news, from Cutler to Marshall, and everything else in between. Then they come out and win their first six, including an emotional win over the Patriots, and all of a sudden they're Super Bowl contenders. Now they've lost four in a row (and in pretty disappointing fashion), and all of a sudden their season is over and Josh McDaniels can't coach.
In reality, they're only one game out of the division lead, with a 1-1 record against the leader. There are six games left, and they are two games above .500. If you had suggested at the beginning of the season that the Broncos would be above .500 after Week 11, I'd have laughed in your face. They could finish with 12 wins if they win out. If they go 3-3 (they have two games against KC, one hosting Oakland, they host the Giants, and they go to Philadelphia and Indy), they would finish with 9 wins. None of the teams on their schedule are unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination. But a 9-7 season for these Broncos, under the circumstances, is not a lost season. Expectations got a bit out of hand as they played over their heads through the first six games.
The book hasn't been written on McDaniels, either. Or any of Belichick's other disciples. Weis had a tough road to hoe in South Bend (one of the toughest places to build a winner among the programs that are expected to win). Crennel had no talent (and still squeezed a ten win season out of Derek Anderson and Co.) Mangini isn't looking too good, but he's only had three seasons as a head coach so far. Dimitroff is a bit harder to grade as a front office guy, but he's looking good. Saban's found his niche.
In reality, they're only one game out of the division lead, with a 1-1 record against the leader. There are six games left, and they are two games above .500. If you had suggested at the beginning of the season that the Broncos would be above .500 after Week 11, I'd have laughed in your face. They could finish with 12 wins if they win out. If they go 3-3 (they have two games against KC, one hosting Oakland, they host the Giants, and they go to Philadelphia and Indy), they would finish with 9 wins. None of the teams on their schedule are unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination. But a 9-7 season for these Broncos, under the circumstances, is not a lost season. Expectations got a bit out of hand as they played over their heads through the first six games.
The book hasn't been written on McDaniels, either. Or any of Belichick's other disciples. Weis had a tough road to hoe in South Bend (one of the toughest places to build a winner among the programs that are expected to win). Crennel had no talent (and still squeezed a ten win season out of Derek Anderson and Co.) Mangini isn't looking too good, but he's only had three seasons as a head coach so far. Dimitroff is a bit harder to grade as a front office guy, but he's looking good. Saban's found his niche.
I don't think Mangini is going to get too many more chances. He might be a good X's and O's guy but his personel management is lousy and despite my obvious bias I think he has established himself as something of a first class jerk around the league and not just amongst Pats fans.
I had the Broncos pegged at about 6-10/7-9.
I had the Broncos pegged at about 6-10/7-9.
He's still employed with the Browns. That very well could change, but they didn't look too horrible yesterday. He has a ton of draft picks next season, and that's going to be a good thing for whoever is making the decisions after this year.
But I don't think anyone who is not a Patriots fan hates Mangini as much as you all do. I guess I understand it, for the most part. I don't see why he needed Bill's blessing to leave; that seems sort of odd. And I don't understand why his tutelage wasn't complete, either. Honestly, he seems more like Belichick than any of the others do. He hasn't had much success so far (though let's not forget that the Jets were 10-6 with a playoff appearance in his first season there), but Belichick stumbled out of the gate, too.
The Spygate stuff and recruiting players and coaches on the plane stuff is understandable. I don't agree with the unspoken rule that supposedly exists between Parcells and Belichick and all of their understudies that they don't go after each others players. Seems like collusion to me. But in all, not a big deal. I just don't think that if a coach breaks that rule that he should be demonized by the fans.
But I don't think anyone who is not a Patriots fan hates Mangini as much as you all do. I guess I understand it, for the most part. I don't see why he needed Bill's blessing to leave; that seems sort of odd. And I don't understand why his tutelage wasn't complete, either. Honestly, he seems more like Belichick than any of the others do. He hasn't had much success so far (though let's not forget that the Jets were 10-6 with a playoff appearance in his first season there), but Belichick stumbled out of the gate, too.
The Spygate stuff and recruiting players and coaches on the plane stuff is understandable. I don't agree with the unspoken rule that supposedly exists between Parcells and Belichick and all of their understudies that they don't go after each others players. Seems like collusion to me. But in all, not a big deal. I just don't think that if a coach breaks that rule that he should be demonized by the fans.
I didn't realize that was what the whole argument is about, my bad. I really, really, really don't like Belichick but I'm not gonna bash him.
The jury is still out on McDaniels obviously. But he made a **** move yesterday before the game, saying to the Chargers linebackers that "we own you"....after playing against them once. If this was Shanahan saying that it'd be different, because this is a great rivalry, but you don't say that after playing against them once. And while the linebackers themselves never had the greatest game, I'm glad the defense as a group dominated after that comment.
The jury is still out on McDaniels obviously. But he made a **** move yesterday before the game, saying to the Chargers linebackers that "we own you"....after playing against them once. If this was Shanahan saying that it'd be different, because this is a great rivalry, but you don't say that after playing against them once. And while the linebackers themselves never had the greatest game, I'm glad the defense as a group dominated after that comment.
I've heard that a few players (like two or three) have issues with him, but I have trouble believing that there's a huge sentiment against him in the locker room. Those stories always get blown out of proportion.
And the idea that he's one of the least liked people in the NFL is propagated by the media, mostly. Same as the idea that Belichick is the worst person in professional sports. I don't like either of them, but I don't buy the stories about them either.
And the idea that he's one of the least liked people in the NFL is propagated by the media, mostly. Same as the idea that Belichick is the worst person in professional sports. I don't like either of them, but I don't buy the stories about them either.
All I'm saying is that if it was just a Patriots thing, the media which hasn't been kind to the Pats lately probably wouldn't be running a feature on it.
I just caught this - looks like he's making more friends:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8146fc3f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
I just caught this - looks like he's making more friends:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8146fc3f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
Last edited:
- Status