The NFL Discussion Thread - 2011/12
- Thread starter SacKings7
- Start date
That's the punchline 
I am glad you are cool with how they handled Manning, I would be livid. Pats routinely have had quality backups, Cassel wasn't the only one. I do think the Colts inability in that area was more about cap management strategies than never getting to play. At worst you draft a guy with no expectations in the middle rounds and let him learn from one of the best. Or you get a guy who hasn't been able to stick as a starter and say come learn with us for a year or two and maybe you'll be ready somewhere else. Going after starters at the tail ends of their careers doesn't make sense.
I am glad you are cool with how they handled Manning, I would be livid. Pats routinely have had quality backups, Cassel wasn't the only one. I do think the Colts inability in that area was more about cap management strategies than never getting to play. At worst you draft a guy with no expectations in the middle rounds and let him learn from one of the best. Or you get a guy who hasn't been able to stick as a starter and say come learn with us for a year or two and maybe you'll be ready somewhere else. Going after starters at the tail ends of their careers doesn't make sense.
Cassel wasn't a quality backup until he actually played. Before then, no one expected him to do anything. They certainly didn't spend anything noteworthy to get him. He was a 7th round pick; Curtis Painter -- the Colts #2 quarterback before Collins signed -- was picked in the 6th round. And I can't think off the top of my head of any other Pats backup quarterback who did anything worth mentioning. I'm just saying that I don't believe Belichick has done anything significantly different to backup his All-World quarterback than the Colts have. The difference at this point is that the Colts have never been forced to use someone else, while the Pats have.
So while Cassel worked out, and Brady worked out, the Pats haven't ever really invested in their backup quarterback. Not until this year when they drafted Ryan Mallett in the third round, and he was actually their fifth pick in the draft. And he's still listed as their 3rd quarterback behind Brian Hoyer, the undrafted free agent that's been backing Brady up since they traded Matt Cassel. The Pats haven't done anything different than the Colts at backup quarterback since Belichick has been there. They've just lucked out.
Maybe they could have grabbed a guy like Matt Leinart or Brady Quinn or something. It's easy to say in hindsight that they should have done something different. But Manning has never missed a game in his career.
As for Barkley over Luck, sue me. I'm in SoCal. I think he's more pro ready. I reserve the right to change my mind from now until April.
I think all the fuss over the kickoff rule is overblown. They moved the kickoff back to where it was 10 or 12 years ago. It didn't radically change the game then, and I don't think it will now. There were plenty of returns in preseason and last night. And on the few touchbacks, people were acting like it was ruining the game. There's always been touchbacks, even with the longer kickoffs. I don't understand why everyone has made their mind up about this rule change. Let's wait and see what the actual effect is.
Maybe you're still missing why I thought that was such a zinger.
I strongly disagree though on the way Pats have handled backups. Cassel was a pretty scary pemonition coming into that season, but the Pats did make a lot of effort the season prior to get him snaps. He didn't really look great in them, but they did it. And not in the last two games of the season when all the starters were resting, and he was in his 4th year in the system. Prior to Cassel they had Testaverde and Flutie. Hoyer has already proven himself ready to come in if needed. They drafted Kevin O'Connell in the 3rd round a few years ago but BB didn't like his progression so let him go. Now they've picked Mallett, again with a relatively high pick for BB. Honestly you'd have to go all the way back to Michael Bishop to where I'd really be worried about a backup QB in the Pats system. Ok, Rohan Davies and Cliff Kingsbury aren't inspiring either but Brady was still very young then and they won the SB those two years and most people seemed to think it was all system anyways, Brady wasn't getting any respect during the more conservative Weis years.
I strongly disagree though on the way Pats have handled backups. Cassel was a pretty scary pemonition coming into that season, but the Pats did make a lot of effort the season prior to get him snaps. He didn't really look great in them, but they did it. And not in the last two games of the season when all the starters were resting, and he was in his 4th year in the system. Prior to Cassel they had Testaverde and Flutie. Hoyer has already proven himself ready to come in if needed. They drafted Kevin O'Connell in the 3rd round a few years ago but BB didn't like his progression so let him go. Now they've picked Mallett, again with a relatively high pick for BB. Honestly you'd have to go all the way back to Michael Bishop to where I'd really be worried about a backup QB in the Pats system. Ok, Rohan Davies and Cliff Kingsbury aren't inspiring either but Brady was still very young then and they won the SB those two years and most people seemed to think it was all system anyways, Brady wasn't getting any respect during the more conservative Weis years.
Last edited:
I think Testaverde and Flutie fall into the "older vet" category. I forgot about Kevin O'Connell. And whether Hoyer has proven capable or not isn't the point, it's that the Pats didn't spend anything to get him. He's a UDFA.
The Colts drafted Painter three years ago to be the backup quarterback for awhile. He was put in a really bad situation for his first ever NFL appearance as a rookie, at home, against the Jets, when the team gave up on a perfect season. Needless to say, he didn't perform well. The next week, he played in a white-out in Buffalo, again with poor results. Since then, he hasn't played at all. He's never had a gameplan designed for him to get time with the #1 players at the skill positions; he's always been on the field with the scrubs. Until the game against the Packers this preseason, he's always looked like junk, but finally had a good showing and actually looked capable. Still, it was never expected that he'd have to carry the team in Manning's absence.
Very similar to Cassel, who no one expected to do anything when Brady went down in 2008, much less result in an 11 win season (and they should have made the playoffs). I just don't see much of a philosophical difference between the way the Colts have handled their backup QB position and the way the Pats have. And in this situation, when they're going to rely on a veteran, I don't think it matters too much if he spends the entire offseason with the team or comes in halfway through training camp. Kerry Collins is what he his. A few weeks more isn't going to make that big of a difference.
A side note: People talk about how complicated the Colts offense is. It's really not that complicated. Some have said that they actually have one of the smallest playbooks in the NFL. What makes it seem complicated is the way Manning changes things at the line, but even that's a little overblown anymore. The offense excels on execution and accurate passing. I don't think a few more days in practice would make Kerry Collins more accurate. The coaches will scale it back a little bit and take some of the variables out of the process, but having a vet like Collins get a handle on the offense won't be a big deal.
And yeah, I don't get the joke on Barkley.
The Colts drafted Painter three years ago to be the backup quarterback for awhile. He was put in a really bad situation for his first ever NFL appearance as a rookie, at home, against the Jets, when the team gave up on a perfect season. Needless to say, he didn't perform well. The next week, he played in a white-out in Buffalo, again with poor results. Since then, he hasn't played at all. He's never had a gameplan designed for him to get time with the #1 players at the skill positions; he's always been on the field with the scrubs. Until the game against the Packers this preseason, he's always looked like junk, but finally had a good showing and actually looked capable. Still, it was never expected that he'd have to carry the team in Manning's absence.
Very similar to Cassel, who no one expected to do anything when Brady went down in 2008, much less result in an 11 win season (and they should have made the playoffs). I just don't see much of a philosophical difference between the way the Colts have handled their backup QB position and the way the Pats have. And in this situation, when they're going to rely on a veteran, I don't think it matters too much if he spends the entire offseason with the team or comes in halfway through training camp. Kerry Collins is what he his. A few weeks more isn't going to make that big of a difference.
A side note: People talk about how complicated the Colts offense is. It's really not that complicated. Some have said that they actually have one of the smallest playbooks in the NFL. What makes it seem complicated is the way Manning changes things at the line, but even that's a little overblown anymore. The offense excels on execution and accurate passing. I don't think a few more days in practice would make Kerry Collins more accurate. The coaches will scale it back a little bit and take some of the variables out of the process, but having a vet like Collins get a handle on the offense won't be a big deal.
And yeah, I don't get the joke on Barkley.
I think punts are less dangerous, and high kickoffs for the same reason, because when the ball hangs up and is caught the return man and his blockers don't have as much speed going forward before they engage with the kicking team. The injuries are more likely when both sides are running close to full speed at each other. So higher kickoffs should still mean fewer injuries.
I get that people don't like touchbacks, but let's not pretend that there hasn't always been touchbacks in pro football. There might be a few more, but maybe not, judging from last night. This is a return to an older standard in the NFL, and the reason is to prevent injuries. We call the NFL out when they don't do enough to take care of former players suffering from chronic ailments, but then we complain when they make a change to protect current players. There's probably 9-12 kickoffs in your average NFL game, and studies have shown that a disproportionate number of injuries happen on that relatively small amount of plays. I think the change was common sense. I'm not saying I like the idea of fewer returns, but I totally get why they did it.
As for your second potential effect, I don't see it. Like I said, the NFL went back to the way it was before. Teams weren't playing with punt-like kickoffs in the past. I could see someone trying it a couple of times, but I really don't think any special teams coach is going to risk the ball bouncing out of bounds for the chance to drop one inside the 20, when he could just have his KOS put it out the back of the endzone.
As for your second potential effect, I don't see it. Like I said, the NFL went back to the way it was before. Teams weren't playing with punt-like kickoffs in the past. I could see someone trying it a couple of times, but I really don't think any special teams coach is going to risk the ball bouncing out of bounds for the chance to drop one inside the 20, when he could just have his KOS put it out the back of the endzone.
That's because Barkley isn't the joke. The joke was "#1 pick out of Stanford". In so much as it pertains to the Colts. I like Luck a lot. I am not sold on Barkley but not sold against him either, he's in a tough spot right now with USC under heavy sanctions.
Testaverde and Flutie do fall into the older vet category but they were also brought in to be vets to work with Cassel so that one day he'd be ready as the backup. It worked. They've almost always carried 3 QBs with one as the game ready guy and one as a longer term work in project being mentored by the 2nd vet. We can just agree to disagree on Hoyer - Hoyer actually beat out two drafted QBs to get where he is. Don't forget that this whole thing started with a #1 overall QB being replaced by an unheralded 6th round pick, you have to think that BB has an eye for guys that will shine in his system vs. drafting the can't miss once a generation QB talent #1 overall.
None of this goes to say that I think the team won't miss a beat if Brady goes down, just that I think the team at least considers the possibility and maybe is even thinking as far as heir apparent when they start drafting QBs in the 3rd round. I think you'd have to agree that the Patriots are better prepared to at least compete for a fringe playoff spot if Brady goes down whereas the Colts have put themselves in the position of having a completely lost season.
Testaverde and Flutie do fall into the older vet category but they were also brought in to be vets to work with Cassel so that one day he'd be ready as the backup. It worked. They've almost always carried 3 QBs with one as the game ready guy and one as a longer term work in project being mentored by the 2nd vet. We can just agree to disagree on Hoyer - Hoyer actually beat out two drafted QBs to get where he is. Don't forget that this whole thing started with a #1 overall QB being replaced by an unheralded 6th round pick, you have to think that BB has an eye for guys that will shine in his system vs. drafting the can't miss once a generation QB talent #1 overall.
None of this goes to say that I think the team won't miss a beat if Brady goes down, just that I think the team at least considers the possibility and maybe is even thinking as far as heir apparent when they start drafting QBs in the 3rd round. I think you'd have to agree that the Patriots are better prepared to at least compete for a fringe playoff spot if Brady goes down whereas the Colts have put themselves in the position of having a completely lost season.
Are the disproportionate kickoff injuries happening to kick returners being popped while defensless? No. They are mostly blockers and ST guys, they'll still be making contact in anticipation of a return either way. And are they concussions? Again I don't think so, but I may be wrong. The fact is kickoffs are exciting plays and people like to see them. They can frequently turn a game around just as quickly as you thought the team that just scored had totally captured momentum. More touchbacks is not good. It also takes away from some kicker strategy. Remember when Ghost got injured last year and the Pats went with a reliable FG kicker as a replacement who was a terrible kickoff man? Starting position definitely cost them down the road. There are times teams have chosen to carry two place kickers for that reason.
Years ago kickers weren't as strong, kickers got too strong so they moved the kicks back. Kickers are only getting stronger, which is why more touch backs started happening. Coaching has also evolved quite a bit in this age and I think 15-20 years ago teams approached kickoffs differently. Now with all the easy access to tapes and replays and headsets and the amount of in-game corrections I think you will see kicking off become more of a placement science. Nobody is going to attempt coffin corners, but they will go for high kicks inside the hash marks where the cover men can get right on top of the ball forcing either a deep fair catch or free play on a live ball.
Years ago kickers weren't as strong, kickers got too strong so they moved the kicks back. Kickers are only getting stronger, which is why more touch backs started happening. Coaching has also evolved quite a bit in this age and I think 15-20 years ago teams approached kickoffs differently. Now with all the easy access to tapes and replays and headsets and the amount of in-game corrections I think you will see kicking off become more of a placement science. Nobody is going to attempt coffin corners, but they will go for high kicks inside the hash marks where the cover men can get right on top of the ball forcing either a deep fair catch or free play on a live ball.
I agree, punts are much less dangerous if you ask me. Punts have the teams lining up on the line of scrimmage, so most of the contact is made right then and there with little momentum. As for the kickoff rule, I understand it but I don't like it from an entertainment standpoint. Football is a contact sport. Are they gonna cut out pass plays over the middle next? That's just as dangerous if you ask me. I think we're gonna see a new record for a KR touchdown this year or next. Somebody (like Cobb last night) will take it deep out of the zone and go for 109 yards
Ah. Yeah, well I'd rather they pick #1 than #8 or #12 or something. I don't see them doing anything more than 6-10 if Manning doesn't play. More on this in a minute.
I'm not knocking Hoyer. I've seen him in action. I was actually a little surprised he didn't get drafted, but in a league where Tim Tebow gets picked ahead of Colt McCoy (not to mention all the other good players that the Broncos passed on), I guess anything can happen. Graham Harrell didn't get drafted either, and he's only the NCAA touchdown record holder. The previous record holder, Colt Brennan, is also out of the league. But "Tebow's a winner!"
All I'm saying about Hoyer is that he was a UDFA. Belichick signed him on a flier. He beat out some other guys, which is great, but he doesn't represent any significant investment by the Patriots.
What the Pats have done is developed younger quarterbacks, which the Colts fail to do.
Yeah, absolutely. Not a knock on Brady. I obviously prefer Manning, but Brady is a top notch quarterback. He can do whatever you need him to do to win games. I'd love to have him, if not for Manning. But the Patriots have invested more in auxiliary players who fit their system, and it's paid off to the effect that the Pats can win 11 games without Brady. I think the Colts are a well-run organization, but these past three or four years, I've just grown so much in my respect for the way the Pats operate, even though they haven't won anything in that time. I think maybe Belichick overdoes it with the pick swapping sometimes, but the dude has a monster of an organization over there. And Bob Kraft ... well, nuff said.
Where the Colts have fallen behind in the backup quarterback department is that they don't spend anytime on their backups. Painter doesn't take practice snaps because Manning takes them all. They've put all their eggs in one basket in that regard, which optimizes the first team offense but jeopardizes their chance of success with anyone else. Manning's ability to avoid pressure with hot reads and adjustments also has masked the problems on the offensive line for three seasons now. People still think the Colts have one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, but they haven't since 2007. I could go on and on. Having a guy like Manning is enviable, but it's also created some problems that the front office hasn't solved yet. I'll take the trade-off most years, but it sucks that 5-11 is probably what we're looking at this year.
I'm not knocking Hoyer. I've seen him in action. I was actually a little surprised he didn't get drafted, but in a league where Tim Tebow gets picked ahead of Colt McCoy (not to mention all the other good players that the Broncos passed on), I guess anything can happen. Graham Harrell didn't get drafted either, and he's only the NCAA touchdown record holder. The previous record holder, Colt Brennan, is also out of the league. But "Tebow's a winner!"
All I'm saying about Hoyer is that he was a UDFA. Belichick signed him on a flier. He beat out some other guys, which is great, but he doesn't represent any significant investment by the Patriots.
What the Pats have done is developed younger quarterbacks, which the Colts fail to do.
Yeah, absolutely. Not a knock on Brady. I obviously prefer Manning, but Brady is a top notch quarterback. He can do whatever you need him to do to win games. I'd love to have him, if not for Manning. But the Patriots have invested more in auxiliary players who fit their system, and it's paid off to the effect that the Pats can win 11 games without Brady. I think the Colts are a well-run organization, but these past three or four years, I've just grown so much in my respect for the way the Pats operate, even though they haven't won anything in that time. I think maybe Belichick overdoes it with the pick swapping sometimes, but the dude has a monster of an organization over there. And Bob Kraft ... well, nuff said.
Where the Colts have fallen behind in the backup quarterback department is that they don't spend anytime on their backups. Painter doesn't take practice snaps because Manning takes them all. They've put all their eggs in one basket in that regard, which optimizes the first team offense but jeopardizes their chance of success with anyone else. Manning's ability to avoid pressure with hot reads and adjustments also has masked the problems on the offensive line for three seasons now. People still think the Colts have one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, but they haven't since 2007. I could go on and on. Having a guy like Manning is enviable, but it's also created some problems that the front office hasn't solved yet. I'll take the trade-off most years, but it sucks that 5-11 is probably what we're looking at this year.
You have a small amount of plays resulting in a relatively high amount of injuries. I don't begrudge the adjustment, on that basis. I don't think it matters the nature of the injury. More touchbacks reduces them all.
I just think it's a double standard. Not talking about anyone in particular, but people and players have been saying for years that the NFL doesn't care about player safety, they just care about money. So the NFL makes a change that shows a real concern for player safety, and people complain about the change because "kickoffs are exciting." They can't win. I'm not a company man, but I see this as a common sense adjustment, not a radical neutering of the game. I think the complaints about this are overly dogmatic. You have your mind made up already, but why not wait and see what happens? If last night's game is any indication, it might be just fine.
Let's talk about that if and when it happens. And even still, deep fair catches will result in more punts, effectively making up for fewer kickoffs. As of right now, it's a minor adjustment that will probably result in fewer injuries and dangerous plays.
I just think it's a double standard. Not talking about anyone in particular, but people and players have been saying for years that the NFL doesn't care about player safety, they just care about money. So the NFL makes a change that shows a real concern for player safety, and people complain about the change because "kickoffs are exciting." They can't win. I'm not a company man, but I see this as a common sense adjustment, not a radical neutering of the game. I think the complaints about this are overly dogmatic. You have your mind made up already, but why not wait and see what happens? If last night's game is any indication, it might be just fine.
Let's talk about that if and when it happens. And even still, deep fair catches will result in more punts, effectively making up for fewer kickoffs. As of right now, it's a minor adjustment that will probably result in fewer injuries and dangerous plays.
See I think you're getting me now. It's not that I think the Pats are spending resources they could use elsewhere on backups, its just that they seem to have a plan b. I can't really remember my reaction when Brady went down in Game 1, but part of it was denial and the other part was well how far can a 16-0 team fall the next season, they've still got loads of talent. So I probably wasn't as depressed as you are now to where I completely wrote the season off. In the end I felt pretty fantastic going 11-5 and by some crazy fluke missing the playoffs. (Plus I was a new dad so my mind was occupied elsewhere and the Sox were in the playoff hunt coming off a WS the previous year.)
It may be a double standard for some, but I think you've seen me complain about the crack downs on other routine contact in the past.
And I still don't think it addresses my concerns about player health which is less about in-game and in-career health than the way so many are just cast out of the system once their careers end and left to fend for their own. And that is as much on the NFLPA than it is the league itself.
And I still don't think it addresses my concerns about player health which is less about in-game and in-career health than the way so many are just cast out of the system once their careers end and left to fend for their own. And that is as much on the NFLPA than it is the league itself.
But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you can reduce violent collisions on a handful of plays in a game, the plays that seem to have the highest rate of injury, maybe you can save someone's life in 20 years (Dave Duerson). And you do it without drastically affecting the outcome of the game. Let's say every KOS kicks the ball out of the endzone and we have nothing but touchbacks next year. BFD. Average starting position after kickoffs last year was 22.4. Are we really going to throw a fuss over 2.4 yards per possession after kickoffs, especially if the change has the potential to reduce violent collisions that lead to immediate injury (you remember Kevin Everett, right?), the potential to reduce head trauma over a career, and the potential to reduce other neurological issues that develop in former players after their careers are done? Reducing kickoffs has a minimal impact on the result of the game, and it can potentially have a significant impact on injuries. I think that's an acceptable trade-off.
I don't think collisions on returns is "routine contact," like hands to the head of a quarterback, etc., that many have complained about in the past.
By the way, I'm being put in a position to defend this change. I'm not trying to advocate it. I just think too much is being made of it.
I don't think collisions on returns is "routine contact," like hands to the head of a quarterback, etc., that many have complained about in the past.
By the way, I'm being put in a position to defend this change. I'm not trying to advocate it. I just think too much is being made of it.
You could prevent injuries by removing linemen and having the rushers count Mississipis and putting flags on players and penalizing anyone who tackles them instead of pulls their flags.
I'm sorry, but even though kickoffs account for a small amount of the overall # of plays in a game imho they are extremely key to the game. So many games have swung because of big returns. Hell the Pats-GB SuperBowl that made Brett Favre's career is largely considered to have hinged on the opening return of the 2nd half.
This is one that maybe won't have a dramatic effect right away but in a few years when people stop talking about it might be re-evaluated and people will go holy crap, did they really do that?
I'm sorry, but even though kickoffs account for a small amount of the overall # of plays in a game imho they are extremely key to the game. So many games have swung because of big returns. Hell the Pats-GB SuperBowl that made Brett Favre's career is largely considered to have hinged on the opening return of the 2nd half.
This is one that maybe won't have a dramatic effect right away but in a few years when people stop talking about it might be re-evaluated and people will go holy crap, did they really do that?
You're talking about a radical change that would affect 90% of the plays in the game. We're talking about a nominal change that affects 10% of the plays in the game, and only affects them by about 2.4 yards per possession after kickoffs.
You're also sensationalizing the entire matter by pretending that this change takes returns completely out of the game. There were two big kickoff returns last night. Aren't we overreacting here? It's not like they're taking the kickoff out the game entirely and just placing the ball on the 20 yard line.
As long as they continue to evaluate and determine whether the change is reducing injuries without drastically changing the game, then everything should be fine. If they go back in three or four years and say "wow, this has been a lot more influential on games than we expected, maybe we should reconsider," then that's fine with me. I doubt they come to that conclusion, though. I think the kickoff return is alive and well, and will continue to be.
You're also sensationalizing the entire matter by pretending that this change takes returns completely out of the game. There were two big kickoff returns last night. Aren't we overreacting here? It's not like they're taking the kickoff out the game entirely and just placing the ball on the 20 yard line.
As long as they continue to evaluate and determine whether the change is reducing injuries without drastically changing the game, then everything should be fine. If they go back in three or four years and say "wow, this has been a lot more influential on games than we expected, maybe we should reconsider," then that's fine with me. I doubt they come to that conclusion, though. I think the kickoff return is alive and well, and will continue to be.
Yet we are still seeing teams make weak kicks that are clearing the end zone with ease, I think teams are still trying to figure out ways to work the rules to their advantage and having it backfire on them right now.
In any event, I think I like this automatic review on all scores rule even less. Sure takes a lot of the strategy of calling for a review out. But it will be awesome when someone intentionally goes out at the 1 to avoid a review because they knew it would be overturned. In my eyes they should just give the refs authority to call for a review any time they are unsure along with the existing challenge system.
Oh and seriously, Cowboys... you suck.
In any event, I think I like this automatic review on all scores rule even less. Sure takes a lot of the strategy of calling for a review out. But it will be awesome when someone intentionally goes out at the 1 to avoid a review because they knew it would be overturned. In my eyes they should just give the refs authority to call for a review any time they are unsure along with the existing challenge system.
Oh and seriously, Cowboys... you suck.
I'm glad you posted this VF. I was feeling a nervous energy before the game. I really wanted to see some good Niner football today. Right now I'm ambivalent about Alex, but truthfully I want him to succeed. I don't know how the guy keeps coming back to us. Alex seems to be one of the most polarizing quarterbacks in Niner's history.
Today it seemed like we were really conservative and somewhat strategic with our offense. I'm a little concerned with the vanilla playcalling, but at least we won the game. I just hope Harbaugh puts out a more assertive WCO as the season progresses. I definitely think this is the most talented team we've had in the last couple of years, and I hope that they will give Alex all the help he needs to succeed. GO NINERS!!
Last edited:
I have no dog in the hunt, but I really think Alex was the victim of a lousy coaching situation.
He may finally have the guy that can do him right. I don't think he deserves another chance but I feel pretty confident that had the 9ers drafted Rodgers instead they'd have done a perfectly fine job ruining his career.
He may finally have the guy that can do him right. I don't think he deserves another chance but I feel pretty confident that had the 9ers drafted Rodgers instead they'd have done a perfectly fine job ruining his career.
Yesterday was a decent day of football. Unfortunately for me the two games they televised early; Pit/Bal & Chi/ATL were blowouts. It was great to see Baltimore finally give it to Pittsburgh and hit em hard in the mouth with that running game. McKennie did a hell of a job blocking and that might turn out to be a solid pick up for the Ravens. I don't know what Big Ben was doing throwing the ball twice to Ed Reed with no one in sight, interesting.
Atlanta was just dominated by that stiffling Bears defense. The Texans have three formidable backs, that's going to be huge if they plan on making a playoff run. Depth is big and we will see how their defense fares against a better offense.
While I give credit for Cam Newton having a hell of a rookie debut, he has to buy Patrick Peterson and the Arizona secondary a buffet or something for making him look like a HOF in his first game.
Unfortunately for the Chargers they had a couple of injuries in yesterdays game and two of them could be out for the year in Keading and Castillo. Tolbert got banged up too.
Giants look awful, but I guess you can give them a pass because they are really hurt in that secondary with them missing key players on the defensive side of the ball.
Lastly, that Cowboys Jets game sure was a fun one to watch! back and forth scoring, don't know what Romo was thinking in the end there throwing the ball perfectly to Revis. None the less, entertaining game.
Atlanta was just dominated by that stiffling Bears defense. The Texans have three formidable backs, that's going to be huge if they plan on making a playoff run. Depth is big and we will see how their defense fares against a better offense.
While I give credit for Cam Newton having a hell of a rookie debut, he has to buy Patrick Peterson and the Arizona secondary a buffet or something for making him look like a HOF in his first game.
Unfortunately for the Chargers they had a couple of injuries in yesterdays game and two of them could be out for the year in Keading and Castillo. Tolbert got banged up too.
Giants look awful, but I guess you can give them a pass because they are really hurt in that secondary with them missing key players on the defensive side of the ball.
Lastly, that Cowboys Jets game sure was a fun one to watch! back and forth scoring, don't know what Romo was thinking in the end there throwing the ball perfectly to Revis. None the less, entertaining game.