National Football League - Page 207 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2061  
Old 01-07-13, 03:43
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
Thanks, hon.

What a wretched way to lose after a start like that. Shanny should have pulled RG3 much sooner, it was evident to all that his throws were off and that he couldn't run after that first hit. Not for a moment saying that we would have won with Cousins, but it might have been less hopeless. Our defense let us down badly after the first quarter.

All credit to Wilson, who had a great game. The Hawks were deserving and worthy winners tonight, goddamnit. I hope Atlanta murder them.
I was not happy to see RGIII go down at the end. Never like to see that sort of thing. Up until that point you have to go with RG. All the analysts on FOX and NFL Network agreed with that. Part of what I thought did in the Skins was getting away Morris and the run game. Then maybe RG would have been more effective.

Skins will look better next week after Hawks murder the Dirty Birds.
Reply With Quote
  #2062  
Old 01-07-13, 15:54
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,536
Default

I too cringed when RGIII went down. But Cousins would not have led them to a win. Seattle was just a better team. Very stiff and tough defense, and their offense very efficient and Russell Wilson showed great poise and played an awesome game, that block he threw for Lynch epitomized his determination. I still like Seattle next week to take out Atlanta. It's going to be tough playing in there, but the Seahawks are red hot, very physical (two things the Falcons aren't) and playing with total confidence now.

Amster, you should hope it's Seattle who murders the Falcons, as it gives your team more value, knowing you lost to the best team in the NFL (maybe).

I thought the Baltimore-Indy game was pretty good for a half but the Colts just made too many mistakes. Too many dropped balls, penalties. The other games were less interesting.

I'll talk about next week's games soon, but am going to stick with what I wrote before. Sea, SF, NE and Den should all win.
Reply With Quote
  #2063  
Old 01-07-13, 16:20
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
I too cringed when RGIII went down. But Cousins would not have led them to a win. Seattle was just a better team. Very stiff and tough defense, and their offense very efficient and Russell Wilson showed great poise and played an awesome game, that block he threw for Lynch epitomized his determination. I still like Seattle next week to take out Atlanta. It's going to be tough playing in there, but the Seahawks are red hot, very physical (two things the Falcons aren't) and playing with total confidence now.

Amster, you should hope it's Seattle who murders the Falcons, as it gives your team more value, knowing you lost to the best team in the NFL (maybe).

I thought the Baltimore-Indy game was pretty good for a half but the Colts just made too many mistakes. Too many dropped balls, penalties. The other games were less interesting.

I'll talk about next week's games soon, but am going to stick with what I wrote before. Sea, SF, NE and Den should all win.
Lynch was the key; he didn't lose any faith and kept dragging half of Washington's defensive line with him. But for a fumble and dropped pass this game would have resembled the other recent blowouts and RGIII wasn't playing defense....
It will be great to see both of these quarterbacks mature into some sort of rivalry over time. Whether scrambling quarterbacks can survive is another thing altogether. In commentary Trent Dilfer pointed out that any seriously great QB learns to adjust his game to the level of "nicks" he's sustained.
Going forward Seattle's defensive strategy better adjust quicker if they plan to go deep; you can't spot SF or Denver 14 points and expect to come back.
Reply With Quote
  #2064  
Old 01-07-13, 17:48
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
I too cringed when RGIII went down. But Cousins would not have led them to a win....

Amster, you should hope it's Seattle who murders the Falcons, as it gives your team more value, knowing you lost to the best team in the NFL (maybe).
Agree Cousins would not have helped. Inserting Cousins, who did not take the bulk of reps during the week, would have made Seattle's decisions on defense that much easier by not having to worry about the QB scrambling. And it would have been easier for Seattle to do things defensively to confuse Cousins. Even with an injured RG, he was still getting 8 to 10 yards on a gimpy leg, which was still something of worry for Seattle. Inserting Cousins would have let Seattle forget about that concern. You will hear a different opinion if you read commentary of some media ppl (e.g. Dan Graziano of ESPN, who says Shanny made a mistake keeping Griff in the game). But Graziano prolly did not play much organized football in his life. All the Fox and NFL network analysts I referred to in my earlier post are ALL either ex-NFL players or coaches who thought you keep Griff in the game.

Other than that, I wish I could be a fly on wall around Brian Billick, who said Seattle would be one and done. I will give him credit though because he did not just jump on the Seahawk bandwagon like so many other media ppl. Think about this... two weeks ago in the SNF game with SF at Seattle, announcer Al Michaels said Seattle might as well be located in Bulgaria as far as East Coast media is concerned. I think it is funny how Seattle has gone from that to being media darlings in 2 weeks. (No joke - on NFL radio last week SEA was called media darlings). For Seattle, it is actually better they be considered from Bulgaria, which contributes to that chip on their shoulders.

On who murders who... I was thinking besides value, it would be more of a gauge where the Redskins stand compared to other elite teams in the league if Seattle beats Atlanta.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman View Post
Lynch was the key; he didn't lose any faith and kept dragging half of Washington's defensive line with him. But for a fumble and dropped pass this game would have resembled the other recent blowouts and RGIII wasn't playing defense....

Going forward Seattle's defensive strategy better adjust quicker if they plan to go deep; you can't spot SF or Denver 14 points and expect to come back.
Seattle defense must adjust to play Atlanta. All the talk about the Skins HC making a mistake keeping RG in that game is overshadowing another glaring Skins coaching mistake that I am not going to mention now. Only after the ATL game will I MAYBE mention it, AND ONLY will I mention it if ATL catches on. (You never know, maybe ATL coaches/players actually read this forum )
Reply With Quote
  #2065  
Old 01-08-13, 01:05
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,469
Default

I met a guy at an East Coast Builder's convention ten years ago that asked where I was from. "Seattle". Where's that? "Washington". Love those Redskins....

Seattle adjusted to the running game quickly if you think running Morris more was the answer. They've had Gore and a few more to contend with so assuming they aren't resourceful enough to handle that would be shortsighted.
What they haven't faced is a Peyton Manning.
Reply With Quote
  #2066  
Old 01-08-13, 01:20
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman View Post
I met a guy at an East Coast Builder's convention ten years ago that asked where I was from. "Seattle". Where's that? "Washington". Love those Redskins....

Seattle adjusted to the running game quickly if you think running Morris more was the answer. They've had Gore and a few more to contend with so assuming they aren't resourceful enough to handle that would be shortsighted.
What they haven't faced is a Peyton Manning.
Oooooooow. That's too funny! I love those Skins too

It does have to do with Morris, but like I said, I'll have to wait till after the game next week.
Reply With Quote
  #2067  
Old 01-08-13, 17:12
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,536
Default

Well, one could argue that if we see a Denver-Seattle SB that PM hasn't seen a defense like Seattle's.

Speaking of, here some thoughts on Seattle at Atlanta. First, bad news for the Seahawks, SE Chris Clemons is out the rest of the year with a torn ACL. He was the teams best pass rusher. But the Hawks may be able to recover, rookie LB/DE Bruce Irvin has been increasingly impressive, and played great last week, including an athletic sack of RG3. Rookie DE Greg Scruggs has also been itching to play more, and will now get his chance. But neither are really run stoppers, and expect ATL to shove Michael Turner and Jaquizz Rodgers off tackle as much as possible, to force the Seahawks safetys up more. That could be the game right there, if ATL can run some, and slow Seattle's pass rush, and throw the ball against Seattle's physical secondary. On the other side of the ball, look for Seattle to try to shove Lynch down Atlanta's throats all day long. If they can, and the game is close late, this could be the ball game. I think Seattle has a more prepared and inventive coach in Carroll than the Falcons do in Smith, who is too conservative and lost too many big games. The deciding factors may be how much Clemons loss hurts Seattle, and which Atlanta team shows up. The one who demolished the Giants, or the one who couldn't beat TB or Carolina and barely beat Arizona?

I'll get to the other games later.

Meanwhile, that BCS game was a total turd. The NCAA badly needs to eliminate the stupid BCS and get an 8-team playoff going. Even a four team playoff would be better. It's pretty apparent that Oregon is the 2nd best team in college, and once again, we'll never know if they could have beaten Alabama.
Reply With Quote
  #2068  
Old 01-08-13, 17:26
pmcg76 pmcg76 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
Well, one could argue that if we see a Denver-Seattle SB that PM hasn't seen a defense like Seattle's.

Speaking of, here some thoughts on Seattle at Atlanta. First, bad news for the Seahawks, SE Chris Clemons is out the rest of the year with a torn ACL. He was the teams best pass rusher. But the Hawks may be able to recover, rookie LB/DE Bruce Irvin has been increasingly impressive, and played great last week, including an athletic sack of RG3. Rookie DE Greg Scruggs has also been itching to play more, and will now get his chance. But neither are really run stoppers, and expect ATL to shove Michael Turner and Jaquizz Rodgers off tackle as much as possible, to force the Seahawks safetys up more. That could be the game right there, if ATL can run some, and slow Seattle's pass rush, and throw the ball against Seattle's physical secondary. On the other side of the ball, look for Seattle to try to shove Lynch down Atlanta's throats all day long. If they can, and the game is close late, this could be the ball game. I think Seattle has a more prepared and inventive coach in Carroll than the Falcons do in Smith, who is too conservative and lost too many big games. The deciding factors may be how much Clemons loss hurts Seattle, and which Atlanta team shows up. The one who demolished the Giants, or the one who couldn't beat TB or Carolina and barely beat Arizona?

I'll get to the other games later.

Meanwhile, that BCS game was a total turd. The NCAA badly needs to eliminate the stupid BCS and get an 8-team playoff going. Even a four team playoff would be better. It's pretty apparent that Oregon is the 2nd best team in college, and once again, we'll never know if they could have beaten Alabama.
Thought the NCAA were introducing a 4 team play-off in 2014-15, think I read it on wikipedia recently. Let me say as a non-American but football fan who has only a passing knowledge of college football, it just seems to be the strangest, most confusing sports competition ever. I have had it explained to me numerous times and read the wikipedia pages but it still confuses the hell out of me. OK, the #1 & #2 teams play in the BCS game but then how did Florida #3 play Louisiana who were just a top 20 side in the Sugar Bowl!!!
Will have to get the brother(UF alumni) to explain it to me again when he gets here.
Reply With Quote
  #2069  
Old 01-08-13, 20:37
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcg76 View Post
Thought the NCAA were introducing a 4 team play-off in 2014-15, think I read it on wikipedia recently. Let me say as a non-American but football fan who has only a passing knowledge of college football, it just seems to be the strangest, most confusing sports competition ever. I have had it explained to me numerous times and read the wikipedia pages but it still confuses the hell out of me. OK, the #1 & #2 teams play in the BCS game but then how did Florida #3 play Louisiana who were just a top 20 side in the Sugar Bowl!!!
Will have to get the brother(UF alumni) to explain it to me again when he gets here.
That would make your brother the one genius who can say it works and how. Somehow the East Coast press bias manages to exert itself no matter what...
Reply With Quote
  #2070  
Old 01-09-13, 04:04
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

That BCS game was a total turd. This college bowl season has been one of the worst in history it seems, with 23rd ranked teams beating much higher ranked teams. Wipeouts like Bama-ND. Don't get me wrong. I like it when underdogs do well. But this season has emphsized the weakness of the poll system, and the need for a playoff system. The absolute best thing about this bowl season... the fact that 6-6 teams get to practice and play one more month, giving them valued practice time to make them better next season, recuit better, and maybe be more competitive next season vs the bigs.

Irvin and Scruggs are capable. Maybe throw in a little OLB action with Malcolm Smith or Mike Morgan, both who played their college careers at USC (huh, how'd that happen?), and are decent. Maybe some blitz packages. But there is NO replacing Chris Clemons, which goes without saying. It is definately going to take 2 or 3 guys to fill Clemons shoes.

In this weeks divsional games:
- most likely to lose in the NFC = Baltimore (@ Denver)
- most likely to lose in the AFC = Houston (@ New England)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.