Random NFL news

[Oprostaj]

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.

chill the **** out? It was a joke. just a joke.

but while we're at it - McDaniels has shown to not be able to adjust on the fly, and he has shown to be a jerk while losing. Telling the Chargers linebackers you own them before the game? This guy bit off more than he could chew. And don't give me this **** about injuries, everybody has them. I'm playing the world's tinies violin for him, not sure if you can hear me.

Weis has not won despite having great recruiting classes. his teams always end up short at the end of games, which is a reflection of the coach. there are no excuses in football, only results. you are what your record says you are, because that is the only thing that matters at the end of the season. Weis has not only lost, he has lost in comical and dramatic fashion to teams they were supposed to beat, and beat easily.

Mangini - he learned under Belichick, so he is lumped in. So is Crennel, altough I'm not sure anybody will ever with with the Browns.

so to summarise - if you indeed took my first comment as a serious indication about my feelings for those coaches, look up sarcasm in a dictionary and relax. if not, then i like you!

also, majority of people thought that Denver would suck. Just because they started 6-0, does not excuse what is happening. if they end up 6-10 what will you say? "wow Denver exceeded everybody's expectation, they had a great year considering everything..." OR "what an epic cluster**** of a collapse... 10 in a row? I don't care if Henry Burris is your QB, you can eek out one win - just ask the Lions, Browns, and Bucs, AKA NFL subdivision II"

 

[Superman]

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'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, because I know that Mangini isn't the most popular guy. That's obvious. But, even though I haven't watched the game yet, it's very possible that players were faking injury to slow the no-huddle down. It's happened before. The 49ers did the same thing to the Colts a few weeks ago. (You'll challenge this, but Willie McGinest allegedly did this against the Colts in 2003.) It's not like it's never happened.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, because I know that Mangini isn't the most popular guy. That's obvious. But, even though I haven't watched the game yet, it's very possible that players were faking injury to slow the no-huddle down. It's happened before. The 49ers did the same thing to the Colts a few weeks ago. (You'll challenge this, but Willie McGinest allegedly did this against the Colts in 2003.) It's not like it's never happened.

Of course it happens, but again its part of this pattern of him violating the unspoken rules of the fraternity of coaches. I understand you don't believe anyone is obligated to follow them, but it's why I have a hard time believing he is in for a long career because a lot of people in the league take that stuff seriously.

If you owned a company would you hire a guy with a history of stealing trade secrets or employees on company time to go off on his own venture?

 

[Superman]

Of course it happens, but again its part of this pattern of him violating the unspoken rules of the fraternity of coaches. I understand you don't believe anyone is obligated to follow them, but it's why I have a hard time believing he is in for a long career because a lot of people in the league take that stuff seriously.

If you owned a company would you hire a guy with a history of stealing trade secrets or employees on company time to go off on his own venture?

That kind of stuff is serious. No downplaying that. But I should note that he's been hired twice, despite the allegations.

Now, the stuff about not calling other coaches/teams out when they're violating the rules, I think that's hogwash. There's a rule prohibiting players from feigning injury in order to slow the game down. I think that goes completely against the spirit of the game. If a guy is legitimately hurt and trying to get off the field, but the other team is quick snapping it to catch the defense with 12 men on, then he needs to go down and stay down. I have no problem with that. But all too often, you see a guy who was nowhere near the play go down with a leg cramp when the other team is in their hurry up offense. Or you'll see someone get up after making a tackle, then go back down when they see the offense going no-huddle. They'll go off for a play or two, then they come back in and it's like nothing ever happened (every once in a while, they'll make the game-winning tackle at the goal line ). It's pretty obvious when it happens, and it's unsportsmanlike conduct, so any coach who is instructing/allowing his players to do that deserves to be called out.

The "don't go after my players/guys and I won't go after yours" thing is exclusive to Parcells and Belichick and their offshoots, as far as I know. I don't like it, but if they want to follow that guideline, that's up to them. I think it's tantamount to collusion, which is why it's unspoken, but it's not a huge deal. I just don't think any coach or personnel guy that comes from either of their camps and doesn't want to follow that rule shouldn't be labeled as a backstabber because he doesn't want to be limited in who he signs to his team or hires to his staff. He just loses the protection he would have from the other guys in the fraternity. If Mangini went after Belichick's guys while he was still in his employ, that's out of bounds, but if he went after free agents or coaches after he left, I have no problem with that. Steve Sarkissian did the same thing to Pete Carroll when he left for Washington (I think he hired a couple of assistants to go with him), and Pete said something about it, but understands the business aspect, and they are still friends.

The Spygate thing is sort of complicated, but I do think it's kind of dirty for Mangini to blow the whistle on Belichick, assuming he knew the videotaping had been going on for years. It was okay when it benefited him, but now that he's not on the staff anymore, it has to stop? Huge double standard. If I were Mangini, I'd probably be upset if I saw my signals being taped, knowing what was going on, but reporting it is pretty hypocritical.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The Spygate thing is sort of complicated, but I do think it's kind of dirty for Mangini to blow the whistle on Belichick, assuming he knew the videotaping had been going on for years. It was okay when it benefited him, but now that he's not on the staff anymore, it has to stop? Huge double standard. If I were Mangini, I'd probably be upset if I saw my signals being taped, knowing what was going on, but reporting it is pretty hypocritical.

Not to get into the ethics of the whole thing again, but the actual crime wasn't the taping of signals it was the location they were being taped. Which is kind of a big deal when you basically destroy your mentors reputation over it.

The reason the "don't go after my players" thing is "only" big with Parcells/BB is because they are amongst a select few that actually have a coaching tree as large as they have. Honestly you only talk about coaching trees for a handful of coaches and many of the head guys retire before their pupils fully blossom. Here's a case where you have 5 or 6 guys with Parcells/Belichick connections active in the league at any one time, that's 20 percent of the league.

 

[Superman]

Not to get into the ethics of the whole thing again, but the actual crime wasn't the taping of signals it was the location they were being taped. Which is kind of a big deal when you basically destroy your mentors reputation over it.

I don't feel sorry for Bill Belichick, no matter how slimy Mangini is. It was against the rules. I don't think he was winning games because of the taping, but it was against the rules, and the NFL did take it pretty seriously.

The reason the "don't go after my players" thing is "only" big with Parcells/BB is because they are amongst a select few that actually have a coaching tree as large as they have. Honestly you only talk about coaching trees for a handful of coaches and many of the head guys retire before their pupils fully blossom. Here's a case where you have 5 or 6 guys with Parcells/Belichick connections active in the league at any one time, that's 20 percent of the league.

Good point. I still don't like the whole thing, whether other guys do it or not.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I don't feel sorry for Bill Belichick, no matter how slimy Mangini is. It was against the rules. I don't think he was winning games because of the taping, but it was against the rules, and the NFL did take it pretty seriously.

I don't feel sorry for him either, I do think the media blew it way out of proportion and didn't actually bother to address the actual rules violation and that lead to the punishment being as swift as it was. But expecting the media to do that is unrealistic in this day of 24/7 news channels.

 

[Superman]

but while we're at it - McDaniels has shown to not be able to adjust on the fly, and he has shown to be a jerk while losing. Telling the Chargers linebackers you own them before the game? This guy bit off more than he could chew. And don't give me this **** about injuries, everybody has them. I'm playing the world's tinies violin for him, not sure if you can hear me.

I get you not liking him and the Broncos, but injuries are totally relevant. Everybody does have them, but they play a role in the overall outcome of the game every week. No sense in ignoring them, especially when you only play 16 games. They matter less in the NBA and MLB.

Weis has not won despite having great recruiting classes. his teams always end up short at the end of games, which is a reflection of the coach. there are no excuses in football, only results. you are what your record says you are, because that is the only thing that matters at the end of the season. Weis has not only lost, he has lost in comical and dramatic fashion to teams they were supposed to beat, and beat easily.

That doesn't quite fly in college football. If not for the Irish having such a good first year, I don't think Weis gets that crazy extension, and I don't think the expectations get quite so high. I don't believe that Weis is necessarily head coach material; he's a great coordinator, but especially in college football, you have to be a leader and a salesman, otherwise you can't recruit and you can't control your team. That said, I don't think the problem at Notre Dame is exclusively the coach. They have the deck stacked against them in more ways than one, and I don't care if your coach is Bill Cowher, Bill Belichick or Bill Walsh, you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, USC, and even Michigan and Ohio State.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Also there's a huge difference between losing your starting QB and any other injury. Most other positions the backups not only get into the game at some point they also get a full practice. Backup QBs don't get snaps with the real team unless there is an active battle for the starting job.

This is interesting, NFL concussion doctors resign, Goodell looking into more rule changes to reduce head trauma. I've always had mixed feelings about these kind of things, obviously the safety of the players is important and the NFL has a poor track record in the past, by the same token because they didn't care for decades there's the whole "That's football" mentality when it comes to brutal hits. I mean we all love them so long as its our guys delivering them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fbn_nfl_concussions

 

[Oprostaj]

I get you not liking him and the Broncos, but injuries are totally relevant. Everybody does have them, but they play a role in the overall outcome of the game every week. No sense in ignoring them, especially when you only play 16 games. They matter less in the NBA and MLB.

I never said they were irrelevant - can you point out where I said that? My point was that it is not an excuse. No they shouldn't be excused but they damn well shouldn't be uses as an excuse. If that's the case 50% of the leauge should be given a free pass. Broncos start 6-0 and he's a genious. They lose 4 in a row and it's poor McDaniels and the injuries. I just plain don't like the guy, I'll admit it. THe sooner he's gone the better the leauge will be, so I am harsh on him. But it's just the reality. His teams haave been getting killed in the second half, he makes no adjustmentss, and has no backup plans. He has had impressive victories, but his team looks undisciplined, unorganized and lacking any semblance of a team. That's not me being a ****, that's just reality. But if he turns it around, I'll be the first to say I was wrong and to congratulate the Broncos.

That doesn't quite fly in college football. If not for the Irish having such a good first year, I don't think Weis gets that crazy extension, and I don't think the expectations get quite so high. I don't believe that Weis is necessarily head coach material; he's a great coordinator, but especially in college football, you have to be a leader and a salesman, otherwise you can't recruit and you can't control your team. That said, I don't think the problem at Notre Dame is exclusively the coach. They have the deck stacked against them in more ways than one, and I don't care if your coach is Bill Cowher, Bill Belichick or Bill Walsh, you're going to be at a disadvantage compared to Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, USC, and even Michigan and Ohio State.

Nope, nope nope - this is why I HATE college football. It is the biggest money making industry disguised as a kid's game. Expectations were high right off the bat. You'd have though Jesus himself came down to coach ND. Find the news clips and SC segments before Weis came aboard. This guy was as hyped as anybody. However, that's besides the point. I said he's a ****ty coach - you didn't disagree. He is a good coordinator, what does that have to do with being a bad coach. LOOK AT THE LOSSES HE'S AMASSED - Navy x 2, Boston College, Syracuse, MSU... I mean they lost AT HOME vs Navy, when Temple beat them the week before!!! He has the deck stacked against him?? He has all the money, the prestige of ND as a recruting tool, a fat paycheck... the only thing against him is "expectations"... oh no... that's not fair... poor Weis. He's a good man, a great teacher. His graduation rate is off the chart compared to those "big" schools. But he's in a great position. He recruits, but cannot lead, you're right. How does that argue against my position though? This guy is not a head coach, and the sooner he leaves, the sooner the ND program can reset.

Also.. just have to put this out there. I absolutely loathe these big name schools loading up their schedule with idiotic games against DII and DIII schools, then FLorida and the rest of them ****s running up the score on these poor guys. Why are the DI powerhouses not scheduled vs each other more? There was noise coming out of Boise State that they can't get any of the bigger schools to agree to play them, either next year or 2011 - they're scared of losing and not being bowl eligible. The college game is so flawed and ****ed up that every time I watch a game I can't help but think about it. Can anybody give me a counter argument and help me start liking this stuff?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Also.. just have to put this out there. I absolutely loathe these big name schools loading up their schedule with idiotic games against DII and DIII schools, then FLorida and the rest of them ****s running up the score on these poor guys.

Amen to that. Fortunately the top teams in the conference I like (Pac-10) seem to do a better job of scheduling tough OOC matchups. Florida and Alabama both had cupcakes last week, that's crazy.

I'm not sure what changed at ND in the last 20 years but it went from the school with all the history to a place where "football players are too stupid to get admitted" so you can't recruit. Did they seriously change their admission/scholarship policies to focus on academics or is this total BS? The game has only gotten more complex over the last 20 years so I don't buy this bit that the players are all dumb as rocks.

 

[Superman]

I never said they were irrelevant - can you point out where I said that? My point was that it is not an excuse. No they shouldn't be excused but they damn well shouldn't be uses as an excuse. If that's the case 50% of the leauge should be given a free pass. Broncos start 6-0 and he's a genious. They lose 4 in a row and it's poor McDaniels and the injuries. I just plain don't like the guy, I'll admit it. THe sooner he's gone the better the leauge will be, so I am harsh on him. But it's just the reality. His teams haave been getting killed in the second half, he makes no adjustmentss, and has no backup plans. He has had impressive victories, but his team looks undisciplined, unorganized and lacking any semblance of a team. That's not me being a ****, that's just reality. But if he turns it around, I'll be the first to say I was wrong and to congratulate the Broncos.

You didn't say it wasn't relevant, but you dismissed it as if it doesn't matter and shouldn't be discussed. I happen to think that when you lose a critical member of your team, it's worthy of discussion.

I don't know what it is about Josh McDaniels that makes you think that he's bad for the NFL, even though I agree that he was out of line calling out the Chargers linebackers. Doesn't matter. I just disagree there.

I also disagree that his team looks undisciplined, unorganized, and not like a team, and that he doesn't make any adjustment and has no backup plans. The Broncos were down 17-7 at the half against the Patriots, and wound up shutting them out in the second half and winning in overtime. They came back in the second half against the Cowboys, shutting them out from the 2nd quarter onward. They dominated the second half against the Chargers in the first meeting. You're calling your opinion reality.

The Broncos have been two different teams this season. They looked like surprise contenders after six weeks, and now, they look like also rans. And part of it is definitely McDaniels inexperience as a head coach, but that's not very much unlike most rookie head coaches.

Nope, nope nope - this is why I HATE college football. It is the biggest money making industry disguised as a kid's game. Expectations were high right off the bat. You'd have though Jesus himself came down to coach ND. Find the news clips and SC segments before Weis came aboard. This guy was as hyped as anybody. However, that's besides the point. I said he's a ****ty coach - you didn't disagree. He is a good coordinator, what does that have to do with being a bad coach. LOOK AT THE LOSSES HE'S AMASSED - Navy x 2, Boston College, Syracuse, MSU... I mean they lost AT HOME vs Navy, when Temple beat them the week before!!! He has the deck stacked against him?? He has all the money, the prestige of ND as a recruting tool, a fat paycheck... the only thing against him is "expectations"... oh no... that's not fair... poor Weis. He's a good man, a great teacher. His graduation rate is off the chart compared to those "big" schools. But he's in a great position. He recruits, but cannot lead, you're right. How does that argue against my position though? This guy is not a head coach, and the sooner he leaves, the sooner the ND program can reset.

You can hate college football all you want to. I have my problems with it, too, as do most football fans (two words: Playoff, please). That doesn't change the fact that college recruits who can choose between warm weather and BCS favorite Florida, USC, Texas, etc., and South Bend, IN, are going to choose the warm weather party schools before they go to the wintry capital of Catholicism in the Midwest. Not to mention the academic/moral standards that are more stringent at Notre Dame, which is why the talented but embattled recruits who don't get invited to the warm weather schools go to Ohio State and Michigan State and Texas Tech and Miami.

As far as Charlie Weis is concerned, the hype was there when he first got hired, but remember that he wasn't their first choice. Urban Meyer was their guy, and he turned them down for, guess who? Florida. Once Weis got hired, he was highly touted, but the whole "we should be playing in BCS bowl games and for national championships" didn't really get loud until the Irish came out on fire and looked like they had a chance to go to a BCS bowl. Coming within inches of beating USC, everyone expected them to stay at that high level and compete every year, and it hasn't happened since then, and that's the reason Weis is leaving.

We do agree that Weis isn't a great head coach, and I said that from the beginning. But I don't think that's the reason he's getting fired. He wasn't any worse this season than he was in 2007. He's never won a major bowl game or beaten a major opponent. He's getting fired because he hasn't lived up to the high and unrealistic (IMO) expectations that go along with the job. And I don't think anyone is going to. I think the Notre Dame job is a B-level job in college football, and I think anyone who goes there is setting themselves up for a very public failure.

Also.. just have to put this out there. I absolutely loathe these big name schools loading up their schedule with idiotic games against DII and DIII schools, then FLorida and the rest of them ****s running up the score on these poor guys. Why are the DI powerhouses not scheduled vs each other more? There was noise coming out of Boise State that they can't get any of the bigger schools to agree to play them, either next year or 2011 - they're scared of losing and not being bowl eligible. The college game is so flawed and ****ed up that every time I watch a game I can't help but think about it. Can anybody give me a counter argument and help me start liking this stuff?

I mentioned this earlier this year. Florida opens up with Troy and Charleston Southern, and holds on to their #1 ranking. I'd love to see the heavyweights slug it out, but they really have no incentive to do so, as long as their not being penalized for it. The real reason I watch college football is so that I can see the guys that I'm going to be watching in the NFL. I don't get too wrapped up in the rankings and such because it doesn't make sense to get into it. It's hogwash.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Wow. Hats off to the Saints. Its been a long time since I completely gave up on a Pats game.

 

[Rockmeister]

Wow. Hats off to the Saints. Its been a long time since I completely gave up on a Pats game.

Yea, I stopped watching in the middle of the 4th quarter. The Saints played awesome. Although, I am a Pats fan, the Saints is a team I would root for providing that aren't going against the Pats.

 

[Oprostaj]

You didn't say it wasn't relevant, but you dismissed it as if it doesn't matter and shouldn't be discussed. I happen to think that when you lose a critical member of your team, it's worthy of discussion.

I don't know what it is about Josh McDaniels that makes you think that he's bad for the NFL, even though I agree that he was out of line calling out the Chargers linebackers. Doesn't matter. I just disagree there.

As much as I agree that it matters if you lose critical personel to injury, it's not fair that you only apply it to the Broncos. If this is the case, we should go team by team and diagnose all the players out on each team for every game they played. Because that would be idiotic, I just say that every team has injuries, and head coaches are paid millions to deal with those situations. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES. Every team is in the same boat.

I also disagree that his team looks undisciplined, unorganized, and not like a team, and that he doesn't make any adjustment and has no backup plans. The Broncos were down 17-7 at the half against the Patriots, and wound up shutting them out in the second half and winning in overtime. They came back in the second half against the Cowboys, shutting them out from the 2nd quarter onward. They dominated the second half against the Chargers in the first meeting. You're calling your opinion reality.

Sorry, I meant during their losing streak. They did look impressive during their magical start, but there is no way you can look at me with a straight face and say that this team fell apart, culminating with Moreno and Marshall losing it and getting into a shoving contest at the sideline. Physical confrontation falls into the lap of the coach. When have you seen Billichik's teams fight on the sideline?

The Broncos have been two different teams this season. They looked like surprise contenders after six weeks, and now, they look like also rans. And part of it is definitely McDaniels inexperience as a head coach, but that's not very much unlike most rookie head coaches.

Sorry, he doesn't get a pass because he's a rookie. His team starts good, he's hailed as a genious, makes all the right moves, yadda yadda yadda, then when his team struggles he gets to hide behind the whole "rookie" thing? I understand that they've excedeed expectations, but either he's a genious that's hit a rough patch, or he's overrated and this team is exactly where it shoud be - middle of the pack. Personally, if his team didn't go on that crazy streak in the beginning, he would be hailed as a good coach that has taken a group of players most figured would have 3-4 wins, and taken them to playoff contenders. As it stands now, they simply fell apart.

You can hate college football all you want to. I have my problems with it, too, as do most football fans (two words: Playoff, please). That doesn't change the fact that college recruits who can choose between warm weather and BCS favorite Florida, USC, Texas, etc., and South Bend, IN, are going to choose the warm weather party schools before they go to the wintry capital of Catholicism in the Midwest. Not to mention the academic/moral standards that are more stringent at Notre Dame, which is why the talented but embattled recruits who don't get invited to the warm weather schools go to Ohio State and Michigan State and Texas Tech and Miami.

As far as Charlie Weis is concerned, the hype was there when he first got hired, but remember that he wasn't their first choice. Urban Meyer was their guy, and he turned them down for, guess who? Florida. Once Weis got hired, he was highly touted, but the whole "we should be playing in BCS bowl games and for national championships" didn't really get loud until the Irish came out on fire and looked like they had a chance to go to a BCS bowl. Coming within inches of beating USC, everyone expected them to stay at that high level and compete every year, and it hasn't happened since then, and that's the reason Weis is leaving.

We do agree that Weis isn't a great head coach, and I said that from the beginning. But I don't think that's the reason he's getting fired. He wasn't any worse this season than he was in 2007. He's never won a major bowl game or beaten a major opponent. He's getting fired because he hasn't lived up to the high and unrealistic (IMO) expectations that go along with the job. And I don't think anyone is going to. I think the Notre Dame job is a B-level job in college football, and I think anyone who goes there is setting themselves up for a very public failure.



I mentioned this earlier this year. Florida opens up with Troy and Charleston Southern, and holds on to their #1 ranking. I'd love to see the heavyweights slug it out, but they really have no incentive to do so, as long as their not being penalized for it. The real reason I watch college football is so that I can see the guys that I'm going to be watching in the NFL. I don't get too wrapped up in the rankings and such because it doesn't make sense to get into it. It's hogwash.

I can't really disagree with anything you've said here... I do think Weis was hyped more than you state though. THe prodigal son coming back home, the mastermind offensive coordinator back to mentor Quinn, the hot shot QB. They set him up for failure, altough Weis did not help with some terrible high profile losses. Altough, there is no way that he would not be on the hot seat even if he came in there with no expectations. He has a worse record that both Davies and Willingham in the same amount of time, and he has a worse record with his recruits than he does with Willinghams'!!!! Dude is a bad coach, plain and simple. He might not have his pick of high profile recruits, but he has enough talent not to go .500, or lose to Navy @ home. I don't know, he bit off more than he could chew I think.

The whole college system is flawed. It's a money making business, and I can't watch it without feeling like it's dirty. Forget even the playoffs, you would know who the best two teams were if they played each other during the season. You wouldn't need a playoff if these teams played an actual season.

 

[Oprostaj]

Amen to that. Fortunately the top teams in the conference I like (Pac-10) seem to do a better job of scheduling tough OOC matchups. Florida and Alabama both had cupcakes last week, that's crazy.

I'm not sure what changed at ND in the last 20 years but it went from the school with all the history to a place where "football players are too stupid to get admitted" so you can't recruit. Did they seriously change their admission/scholarship policies to focus on academics or is this total BS? The game has only gotten more complex over the last 20 years so I don't buy this bit that the players are all dumb as rocks.

I don't think that players are dumb... just that some schools don't actually focus on academics. With all the talk of boosters and such, it's just a dirty game. I hate saying this because I have no actual proof, but you take a look at some of these schools, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if teachers are letting student athletes skate by simply because they are so important to their athletic program (at the end, this same program is going to pump money back into the school)

 

[Superman]

Yea, I stopped watching in the middle of the 4th quarter. The Saints played awesome. Although, I am a Pats fan, the Saints is a team I would root for providing that aren't going against the Pats.

Yeah, they completely dominated. Two things the Pats aren't good at right now is rushing the passer and covering in the secondary, and that's a recipe for disaster against a prolific passing team like the Saints. They really miss Richard Seymour and Mike Vrabel.

 

[Superman]

As much as I agree that it matters if you lose critical personel to injury, it's not fair that you only apply it to the Broncos. If this is the case, we should go team by team and diagnose all the players out on each team for every game they played. Because that would be idiotic, I just say that every team has injuries, and head coaches are paid millions to deal with those situations. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES. Every team is in the same boat.

Injuries happen to everyone, and there's no sense in using them as excuses, but when you lose your starting quarterback, that's a pretty significant handicap. So when I look at your team and see that you lost your quarterback, I'm going to grade your team's performance a little bit differently. In this case, the Broncos didn't lose their quarterback for a long time like we thought they would, but they did have to play a half of football with an inept backup who couldn't generate any points in the second half. It's relevant. I don't expect McDaniels or any other coach to lean on injuries as an excuse, but I certainly take them into consideration.

(On the other hand, I give Bill Belichick high marks for winning 11 games last season after losing the NFL MVP in the first game of the year; I thought that was the best coaching job of his career.)

Sorry, I meant during their losing streak. They did look impressive during their magical start, but there is no way you can look at me with a straight face and say that this team fell apart, culminating with Moreno and Marshall losing it and getting into a shoving contest at the sideline. Physical confrontation falls into the lap of the coach. When have you seen Billichik's teams fight on the sideline?

[...]

Sorry, he doesn't get a pass because he's a rookie. His team starts good, he's hailed as a genious, makes all the right moves, yadda yadda yadda, then when his team struggles he gets to hide behind the whole "rookie" thing? I understand that they've excedeed expectations, but either he's a genious that's hit a rough patch, or he's overrated and this team is exactly where it shoud be - middle of the pack. Personally, if his team didn't go on that crazy streak in the beginning, he would be hailed as a good coach that has taken a group of players most figured would have 3-4 wins, and taken them to playoff contenders. As it stands now, they simply fell apart.

They did fall apart. I'm just reluctant to judge them based on four bad weeks, same way as I wasn't crowning them champs after the first six. I gave them credit when they beat Dallas, New England and San Diego all in a row, because I expected them to lose all three of those. But I wasn't one of the people saying that all signs point to the Super Bowl. The quarterback is still Kyle Orton, so this team has a ceiling.

In the same vein, I never proclaimed Josh McDaniels as a genius. But the fact is that, before the season started, everyone expected the Broncos to be a four win team, primarily because of the Cutler saga and the Marshall issue. So, if you look at them now (7-4 overall; they've beaten the Bengals (8-3); the Patriots (7-4); the Cowboys (8-3); the Chargers (8-3); and the Giants (6-5)), they look a heck of a lot better than we expected them to look. The defense was soft and couldn't stop anyone last season; they're 5th in total defense this season. They are one game behind the red hot Chargers in the AFC West.

I don't see why it has to be either/or with McDaniels. To me, he looks like a fine coach who has made some rookie mistakes. His team went through a really rough patch, but came back and beat a tough, desperate team, convincingly, and they look like they might be able to fight for the division title or a wild card spot. The season isn't over yet, but so far, the Broncos have looked a lot better than I thought they would. And there's no way you don't credit the head coach for that. Overall, though he's flawed in certain ways, he's done a very good job. Which is why I don't understand how anyone can say that he's bad for the NFL.

I can't really disagree with anything you've said here... I do think Weis was hyped more than you state though. THe prodigal son coming back home, the mastermind offensive coordinator back to mentor Quinn, the hot shot QB. They set him up for failure, altough Weis did not help with some terrible high profile losses. Altough, there is no way that he would not be on the hot seat even if he came in there with no expectations. He has a worse record that both Davies and Willingham in the same amount of time, and he has a worse record with his recruits than he does with Willinghams'!!!! Dude is a bad coach, plain and simple. He might not have his pick of high profile recruits, but he has enough talent not to go .500, or lose to Navy @ home. I don't know, he bit off more than he could chew I think.

The whole college system is flawed. It's a money making business, and I can't watch it without feeling like it's dirty. Forget even the playoffs, you would know who the best two teams were if they played each other during the season. You wouldn't need a playoff if these teams played an actual season.

I'm not crying for Weis. He's not a good head coach. Had no head coaching experience before Notre Dame, had never done the college thing, and was really in over his head. Add to that that he's a bit ego-centric and he's not a good salesman, and he just can't succeed with the most recognized college football program in the country. He'll wind up with an NFL or a college team as a coordinator (probably NFL), and he'll re-establish himself as one of the best X's and O's guys in football, but he's not a good head coach and probably won't ever get another shot at it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The pass rush deficiency is well known but I didn't think the secondary was that bad but last night they got eaten alive, every time a player stumbled on his feet or slipped his receiver just flew past him and it was a 40+ yard game. They did seem to have more slips than usual, perhaps they got so rankled the first few times they got burned they were overcompensating.

In any event its clear the Pats aren't a super bowl caliber team.

 

[Superman]

The pass rush deficiency is well known but I didn't think the secondary was that bad but last night they got eaten alive, every time a player stumbled on his feet or slipped his receiver just flew past him and it was a 40+ yard game. They did seem to have more slips than usual, perhaps they got so rankled the first few times they got burned they were overcompensating.

In any event its clear the Pats aren't a super bowl caliber team.

You can't cover against one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL (and huge receivers) if you can't rush the passer. I'm stating the obvious, but it was on clear display yesterday. And the touchdown to Devery Henderson was just a blown coverage, no slips. But if anyone can come up with schemes to hide defensive weaknesses, it's Belichick.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You can't cover against one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL (and huge receivers) if you can't rush the passer. I'm stating the obvious, but it was on clear display yesterday. And the touchdown to Devery Henderson was just a blown coverage, no slips. But if anyone can come up with schemes to hide defensive weaknesses, it's Belichick.

I agree but despite the lack of the pass rush all season the defense had held its own and the secondary was a big reason for their success. Even the one game that the defense blew against the Colts they kept Manning in check until the 4th quarter and there was a phantom PI call that really swung things around. Here they just looked dazed and confused. Oh well, onto the next week. I think the Pats will win out their schedule and still have a good shot at the #2 seed since this was a non-conference loss and the Chargers and Bengals play each other, but at this point I don't like their chances against any top team in either conference. Very 2005-2006 season vibe for me right now.

 

[Superman]

I agree but despite the lack of the pass rush all season the defense had held its own and the secondary was a big reason for their success. Even the one game that the defense blew against the Colts they kept Manning in check until the 4th quarter and there was a phantom PI call that really swung things around. Here they just looked dazed and confused. Oh well, onto the next week. I think the Pats will win out their schedule and still have a good shot at the #2 seed since this was a non-conference loss and the Chargers and Bengals play each other, but at this point I don't like their chances against any top team in either conference. Very 2005-2006 season vibe for me right now.

Aside from last year, 2005 is the only year I didn't think the Patriots could win the Super Bowl. This year, it does sort of seem that way, but the difference is that Belichick gave away two critical pieces that would be contributing right now. I know he got back good value for both of them, but it was sort of surprising to see him send Vrabel and Seymour off while Brady and Moss are still in their prime.

 

[SacKings7]

I think it's about time I dug up possibly my favorite thread on the board again. Chargers have won 8 straight and I'm lovin' it. Too bad they'll lose in the playoffs because of their non-existent run game. But I gotta give credit where credit's due...I think Norv Turner has done a good coaching job these past few weeks. And Rivera has done an amazing job with the defense, seeing as how it seems they're missing different starters every single week (and big Jamal for the whole season). I don't know where Brandon Silar came from, but he did a great job last week against the Cowboys, and was huge in that goal line stand.

Colts and Saints still undefeated? I'm honestly surprised. Both teams are great, great teams but I don't think either team is good enough to be undefeated. I guess that's what having a great QB will do for you.

The AFC playoff race is as jumbled as its ever been! Should be an entertaining few weeks. I'm glad to see the Steelers (likely) miss out. Here's to hoping the Patriots and Broncos do too . Neither will though. Here's how I think the playoffs will look:

AFC:

1. Colts
2./3. Chargers/Bengals (Entirely depends on whoever wins their game on Sunday)
4. Patriots
5. Broncos
6. Dolphins (I wanna say the Ravens but they disappoint me every time I think they'll do good)

NFC:

1. Saints
2. Vikings
3. Eagles
4. Cardinals
5. Packers
6. Cowboys

Some good matchups there in the NFC

 

[Superman]

I think it's about time I dug up possibly my favorite thread on the board again. Chargers have won 8 straight and I'm lovin' it. Too bad they'll lose in the playoffs because of their non-existent run game. But I gotta give credit where credit's due...I think Norv Turner has done a good coaching job these past few weeks. And Rivera has done an amazing job with the defense, seeing as how it seems they're missing different starters every single week (and big Jamal for the whole season). I don't know where Brandon Silar came from, but he did a great job last week against the Cowboys, and was huge in that goal line stand.

Colts and Saints still undefeated? I'm honestly surprised. Both teams are great, great teams but I don't think either team is good enough to be undefeated. I guess that's what having a great QB will do for you.

The AFC playoff race is as jumbled as its ever been! Should be an entertaining few weeks. I'm glad to see the Steelers (likely) miss out. Here's to hoping the Patriots and Broncos do too . Neither will though. Here's how I think the playoffs will look:

AFC:

1. Colts
2./3. Chargers/Bengals (Entirely depends on whoever wins their game on Sunday)
4. Patriots
5. Broncos
6. Dolphins (I wanna say the Ravens but they disappoint me every time I think they'll do good)

NFC:

1. Saints
2. Vikings
3. Eagles
4. Cardinals
5. Packers
6. Cowboys

Some good matchups there in the NFC

I'd replace the Cowboys with the Giants, strictly because the Cowboys have a BRUTAL schedule for the final three weeks (@ NO, @ WAS, vs. Philly), and the Giants have it easier (@ WAS, vs. Carolina, @ MIN, when the Vikings should be taking it easy). I think the whole Cowboys team has a splinter in their mind and is going to have to break through big to get over this whole December/January thing that's been going on for so long, and I can't see them doing it with Wade "They've Won Eight Games" Phillips.

In the AFC, I want to say the Ravens are going to win out and get in over the Jags, who I expect to lose at least one of their last three (tomorrow night vs. Indy!) But it's really a tighter race there, and anything could happen. The Steelers could come back to life and the Ravens, Dolphins and Jags could all tank. Those four teams are too unpredictable to say. Plus, you have the Jets, Texans and Titans all right there with the Steelers at 6-7. Could be wild.

The Chargers have looked great. It's funny, I want the Chargers to fail just so I can say "told you so" about Norv Turner, but he's proving me wrong so far. They're either winning convincingly or making big plays down the stretch; no late game collapses. The defense has rounded into form over the course of the season, even though they'll miss Jamal Williams in the playoffs. Phil Rivers is an elite quarterback, and is making up for the deficiencies in the running game. And they're now a game ahead of Cincinnati for the 2nd seed in the AFC, going into this week's showdown (which is the AFC Game of the Week, for me).

The Colts and Saints are proving that you need a lot of luck (or whatever you want to call it) in order to go 13-0, but as the Colts like to say "luck is the residue of design". The Pats had their lucky breaks down the stretch in 2007, and that's what's been happening for the Colts and Saints. Neither team will be able to cruise through the playoffs, but if the two should meet at 18-0 in the Super Bowl, that would be one hell of a game.

 

[SacKings7]

I'd replace the Cowboys with the Giants, strictly because the Cowboys have a BRUTAL schedule for the final three weeks (@ NO, @ WAS, vs. Philly), and the Giants have it easier (@ WAS, vs. Carolina, @ MIN, when the Vikings should be taking it easy). I think the whole Cowboys team has a splinter in their mind and is going to have to break through big to get over this whole December/January thing that's been going on for so long, and I can't see them doing it with Wade "They've Won Eight Games" Phillips.

In the AFC, I want to say the Ravens are going to win out and get in over the Jags, who I expect to lose at least one of their last three (tomorrow night vs. Indy!) But it's really a tighter race there, and anything could happen. The Steelers could come back to life and the Ravens, Dolphins and Jags could all tank. Those four teams are too unpredictable to say. Plus, you have the Jets, Texans and Titans all right there with the Steelers at 6-7. Could be wild.

The Chargers have looked great. It's funny, I want the Chargers to fail just so I can say "told you so" about Norv Turner, but he's proving me wrong so far. They're either winning convincingly or making big plays down the stretch; no late game collapses. The defense has rounded into form over the course of the season, even though they'll miss Jamal Williams in the playoffs. Phil Rivers is an elite quarterback, and is making up for the deficiencies in the running game. And they're now a game ahead of Cincinnati for the 2nd seed in the AFC, going into this week's showdown (which is the AFC Game of the Week, for me).

The Colts and Saints are proving that you need a lot of luck (or whatever you want to call it) in order to go 13-0, but as the Colts like to say "luck is the residue of design". The Pats had their lucky breaks down the stretch in 2007, and that's what's been happening for the Colts and Saints. Neither team will be able to cruise through the playoffs, but if the two should meet at 18-0 in the Super Bowl, that would be one hell of a game.

Nah I think the Cowboys will shake their recent "we can't win in December" history and make it through. To me, the Giants just don't have "it" this year, I haven't been impressed with them at all. Mind you, the Cowboys don't have "it" either, but they're 1 game up.

I agree about the Ravens but like I said in my previous post, they always seem to disappoint me when I put faith in them. I chose the Dolphins because they own the tiebreaker over the Jags. And I agree about Rivers as well. He should get some mention for MVP in my opinion. He shouldn't even come close to winning it, but I think he deserves to be mentioned with the way he's been playing, especially since they're getting very little out of LT and Sproles run-wise, although LT breaks 1 or 2 runs every game which makes me say, "why can't he do this all the time?"

And a Colts-Saints SB with both teams 18-0? That would be EPIC and would be great for the league. Damn, now you got my hopes up

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The Colts don't seem to care about going unbeaten so I don't think an all undefeated SB is going to happen. I also think they could lose to the Pats (though I have written this season off for the Pats) and most likely would lose to the Chargers. I will be happy when someone actually seals the deal on 19-0 just so somebody shuts those damned Dolphins up.

 

[Superman]

The Colts don't seem to care about going unbeaten so I don't think an all undefeated SB is going to happen. I also think they could lose to the Pats (though I have written this season off for the Pats) and most likely would lose to the Chargers. I will be happy when someone actually seals the deal on 19-0 just so somebody shuts those damned Dolphins up.

Even if it's the Colts?

The Colts are going to play tomorrow night just like they played Sunday. The only players sitting out or getting limited action are players with considerable injury concerns. In 2005, they played their regulars like normal until they lost (in Week 15, ironically), a week after they clinched the #1 seed. I don't know what's going to happen if they beat the Jags, but for now, they're conducting business as usual.

I think the Colts have much more to fear with the Pats than the Chargers. Not trying to sell the Chargers short, but all this "the Chargers own the Colts" business is over blown. They've won three of the last four meetings, by a total of 12 points, and three of them were at home. The last one went into overtime, in San Diego, and was a one possession period. They've played four really tight games that all could have gone the other way.

I don't care about what happened four years ago, because these are two different teams (different coach, coordinators and quarterback for San Diego; four years ago is irrelevant). And without Jamal Williams, the defense will have more trouble slowing down the Colts than they did in last year's playoff game. Plus, the Colts defense is better. It would be a great game, and I'm hoping that it happens, but I don't think the Chargers have any sort of advantage over the Colts because of the results of the last few meetings.

 

[kingsnation]

The...Saints are proving that you need a lot of luck (or the Washington Redskins) in order to go 13-0...

Fixed.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Even if it's the Colts?

I think NO is more likely to be in that position, but yes. Short term I'd be a little bitter, long term those jackholes would be shut up for good. Unless they teamed up and behaved equally obnoxiously. Then I might just blow a fuse.

I think there is a happy medium between shutting the team down entirely as the Colts have been known to do and going all out for 16-0 like the Pats did that is more likely to result in a Super Bowl victory than either strategy worked out the past few years.

 

[Superman]

I think NO is more likely to be in that position, but yes. Short term I'd be a little bitter, long term those jackholes would be shut up for good. Unless they teamed up and behaved equally obnoxiously. Then I might just blow a fuse.

I think there is a happy medium between shutting the team down entirely as the Colts have been known to do and going all out for 16-0 like the Pats did that is more likely to result in a Super Bowl victory than either strategy worked out the past few years.

I can tell you my opinion about what the Colts should do, and what I think they will. I think they're gonna play the Jags like it's a must win game, and if they win, they'll play the Jets the same, especially since they'll have ten days between games. And they'll have to if they want to win, because both teams are fighting for their playoff lives. But if they lose tomorrow night to the Jags, they'll probably start limiting a few more players more than they would starting with the Jets game, to get them rested for the playoffs. Then, if they're still undefeated in Week 17, their depends on the weather in Buffalo. If it's 10 degrees and a wet and nasty field, then they'll be more cautious with certain guys to limit injuries. If it's fair weather (unlikely, January in Buffalo), then they might take all the leashes off and go for it, to a reasonable degree.

What's not gonna happen is they're not going to play Manning and the other starters for the first quarter and put them on the bench for the rest of the game. At least not starting this week, and probably not next week either, regardless of whether they win tomorrow or not. All this talk about shutting it down and what not is unlikely, unless they drop one of these next two games.