• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

National Football League

Page 105 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The good thing about true (advanced) rankings is they are very good at ignoring the "noise" in teams performances (speak: random turnovers, random special teams play, etc.). That´s why they have good records...

OTOH you have guys like Prisco or ESPN who have KC at No. 1. Of course they are 9-0, everybody can see that. But Prisco & Co ignore that they are tremendously lucky ...and had a soft schedule so far.

BTW, thanks for the advanced stats link. Good link.

Funny you mention KC and their soft scedule so far. I was just looking at the remaining schedule of a number of teams and KC stuck out not only as having a soft schedule so far, but also having a fairly tough remaining schedule. KC still plays Denver twice, SD twice, Indy (@home), @Wash, & @ Oakland. Of those 7 games I can realistically see them losing 4 or 5 (both vs Denver, Indy, one loss vs SD, and likely one loss vs Wash or Oak, likely losing to Wash). Conceivably they could lose all 7. Denver has a slightly easier remaining schedule, so Denver could/should take the AFC West division.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
I wouldn´t go as far as them losing all 7, but only b/c of one thing (next to randomness/luck), something which is really undervalued in all rankings, stat breakdowns, predictions, etc.: moral/motivation is a huge factor in the NFL. If fans like it or not, players/teams who have nothing to play for or have tension (b/c of lack of success for example) in the locker room just give up. They only go trou the motion*. That´s one big reason why you have such big turnarounds from one year to another very often. Talent wise NFL teams are very close to each other.

So after all, i see them winning vs. WAS, OAK & SD (at least once)...
B/C of unpredictable things like turnovers, I´d say they at least win one big game (either the IND game, or one vs. DEN).

So my guess is KC finishes a overachieving 13-3, and then exit early (playoff game No. 1 that is). No matter how loud Arrowhead will be.

(* = Tim Green wrote a good chapter about that in his book.)
 
Only just finished watching SNF and MNF and while Foles stole all the headlines Keenum, was pretty ****ing awessome as well. Was helped by the fact that Andre Johnson was on song, but still he showed he could do a little bit of everything. Really looked like he could become the franchise qb
 
6/13? No probs. You'll get 'em next week. Even the best paid pickers and analysts have a bad week. It just depends on what surprises happen any given week in the win/loss columns.

Tricycle Rider said:
Legendary Tony Dorsett and others latest to be diagnosed with signs of CTE. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...indicators-cte-resulting-football-concussions

It's a good thing former players are willing to undergo tests, once diagnosed I'm sure it'll be a rough ride for them. But it's better than not knowing, though, methinks.

Better than not knowing, yes. And then maybe they can become part of the process to come up with a medical treatment to delay effects or prevent further deterioration. Retired Bills OLineman Joe DeLamielleure is one who has that attitude (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1840487-tony-dorsett-joe-delamielleure-leonard-marshall-reportedly-show-signs-of-cte). Props to him.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
6/13? No probs. You'll get 'em next week. Even the best paid pickers and analysts have a bad week. It just depends on what surprises happen any given week in the win/loss columns.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. :)


On a different note (and not to stray off topic too much)...

In comparison to American football, how do rugby players do in terms of concussions? (Sorry, I don't follow rugby.)

They have a name for a specific type of brain damage caused by boxing (dementia pugilistica), methinks the NFL/American football is not too far behind.
 
Tricycle Rider said:
Thanks for the vote of confidence. :)


On a different note (and not to stray off topic too much)...

In comparison to American football, how do rugby players do in terms of concussions? (Sorry, I don't follow rugby.)

They have a name for a specific type of brain damage caused by boxing (dementia pugilistica), methinks the NFL/American football is not too far behind.

Well in rugby you don't really get the head to head collisions as in NFL apart from in a scrum where its controlled. Which is why they don't really wear helmets.

In rugby, tackles are shoulder to waist. And theres no need to go charging in head first to get an extra yard.
 
The Hitch said:
Well in rugby you don't really get the head to head collisions as in NFL apart from in a scrum where its controlled. Which is why they don't really wear helmets.

In rugby, tackles are shoulder to waist. And theres no need to go charging in head first to get an extra yard.

In Rugby there is more chance you will get kicked in the head in a ruck and in Rugby League they have outlawed tackles above the shoulder. Used to be a lot more head contact in League. As for headgear in NFL and amateur boxing, there is a lot of controversy over how effective it is. In boxing they have found that the headgear does not absorb the impact but spreads the impact. Plus in Olympic boxing the fights are only over three rounds for a reason. There is still plenty of charging forward in League and Rugby with the head thrust forward but injuries are usually accidental like running into someone's knee or hip. They also changed the law in both codes about tackling players going up for the ball. Players used to be sitting ducks as they would get hit in mid air in possession of the ball but that law has changed, sensibly as well.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
Since every pundit under the sun is picking my Skins, I'll just have to go with them. Sadly, I have an early appointment tomorrow and can't watch live.

WAS@MIN

(AP to run for some record yardage) :eek:
 
OK Foxxy, don't go taking credit for picking the Vikes as the winner over the Skins because of some stats wizardry. We know you picked the Vikes just to oppose Amster. :D

So just when the defense appears to have AP all bottled up, out of the pack he pops like a shotgun blast. Not a lot of yards running tonight, but yards at key moments. A blast to watch.

Props to old Hawk homme (Vikes TE John Carlson) who pulled in 7 catches for nearly 100 yards. Nice seeing him have a good game.

Interesting scoring-
1st half: Wash 24, Minn 14
2nd half: Wash 3, Minn 20
Until the final possession of the 2nd half, Washington's net yards in the second half alone was 11 plays for a net negative 5 yards. In the first half the Skins could do no wrong, and RG3 was hitting every pass it seemed. In the second half RG3 started missing on passes, and the Vikes pass rush started to get to him (getting 4 sacks for 39 yards and 8 QB hits) with 4 defensive starters out.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Tricycle Rider said:
You're so off already, the current score is 24-14 Skins at halftime.

But that's a'ight, it ain't over till the fat lady sings!

Well, well... :D

on3m@n@rmy said:
OK Foxxy, don't go taking credit for picking the Vikes as the winner over the Skins because of some stats wizardry. We know you picked the Vikes just to oppose Amster.

True. Actually i wasn´t that interested in the game (since i think RGIII was finished as soon he left the SEA game in the playoffs, i lost interest; sorry Amster), but the picks caught my attention. So i looked a little here and there. As soon i saw advanced nfl stats had the Skins only at 54% chance, it was ok for me to take a gamble pick on MIN... :)
 
Tricycle Rider said:
Grumble-grumble... not happy with the Redskins.

But I'm downright giddy the Ducks lost to Stanford last night. :D

Yuk, yuk, yuk. :D After Oregon DC Aliotti's remarks about Wazzu HC Mike Leach several weeks ago I was hoping Stanford would win. That should give insufferable Duck fans a dose of reality. As a result of the loss, Duck QB Mariota is slipping from some pundits Heisman trophy rankings. And like him or not, Johnny Football (Manziel) is surging on the same rankings. As is Florida State QB Jameis Winston. (Heisman Week 11 Watch summary)... so I too am guilty of thread hijacking. ;)

Back to NFL, no bias here ;), but in the only games that matter to me:
SEA @ ATL - Quinn & Cable spank SEA "D" and "OL", respectively, into submission
CAR @ SFO - Panthas actually are dangerous, but so is SF
The past 2 week's performance by Seattle and a string of 5 wins by SFO (even if the 5 wins were STL, HOU, ARI, TEN, and JAX) naturally has all the experts talking about a SF super bowl run, and have forgotten (but not written off) Seattle. I love it. Just the way I like it. Hawks will be edgy.
 
Thanks for the link, Foxxy. But did you notice they agree with me that the 2006 (MLB) Cardinals were the luckiest and most undeserving champions, not the 2007 or 2011 (NFL) Giants (your choice)?

Something about those names. The baseball Cardinals in 2006 and 2011, and football Cardinals in 2008. The football Giants in 2007 and 2011, the baseball Giants in 2010 and 2012. All big winners (the football Cardinals made it to the SB but lost it, barely) coming off generally mediocre seasons.

Don't know why all this cheering that Oregon lost to Stanford. I have a degree from Stanford, but was hoping Oregon would win, for the sake of the conference. This is the third year in a row that one of the two teams was undefeated, and each time the undefeated team has lost, and been knocked out of the national championship game. The 3d year in a row that the Pac 12, despite having two excellent teams, will not be represented in that game. Oregon's loss likely means that we will get to watch another boring Alabama defensive shutdown. And all Stanford gained by winning was the inside track to another Rose Bowl. Like the 49ers and the Seahawks, the Cardinal and Ducks are the two best teams in a conference who happen to play in the same division, and in their case, no wild card available.

The only two games Oregon has lost the past two years are to Stanford. They have scored at least 35 points in all those games except against Stanford, where their combined total is 34. Talk about ball control. Tyler Gaffney carried 45 times. Has an NFL RB ever had that many carries?

Speaking of the number 45. Amster, did you know Washington is the only NFL team that has not had a play over 45 yards this year? And their QB is reputed to have one of the strongest arms in the NFL.
 
Merckx index said:
Don't know why all this cheering that Oregon lost to Stanford.
Don't mean to speak for him, but I think it's because on3m@n@rmy and I have heated Pac NW rivalries. Technically we should have a rivalry with each other (he's a Coug, I'm a Husky), but we've grown out of that. Personally, never really felt much of a rivalry with the California teams...

A former Seattleite I now live in Eugene (the home of Nike/$$$ university), the football atmosphere may almost be as intense here as it is in Alabama. Apparently some local fans had to be taken to the hospital after the Ducks' loss, methinks they're taking their football a little too seriously. (I think some of them were banking on Mariota winning the Heisman trophy this year.)

Anyhoo, I know a Duck loss means no Pac-12 team in the NC, but the whole BCS system is so questionable that I don't lay too much importance on who the eventual national champ turns out to be.

On a side note - I don't mind Oregon's basketball team, I'll root fot them (and any Pac-12 team) during March Madness. But the football team I consider privileged and arrogant. (Phil Knight had just spent $60 million on a brand new football complex, not sure he would have done that had Oregon still been an underdog.)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Everybody over the interwebs is crying b/c of the Rodgers injury. As if the earth came to a stand still. Even the stat geeks are crying.
It seems they got lost in their numbers. They don´t understand that football isn´t baseball. You simply can´t extract QB performance from team performance. No matter how hard you try.
Remember my study: Only .524 winning Pct. for true starting QBs since 1980, and .476 for all backups (including 3rd, 4th, and even some 5th stringers). We simply don´t know if Wallace will produce like Delhomme, Plunkett, or Brady (leading their teams to the SB as backups), or bust like the Caleb Hanie´s of this world.
Anyway, people who picked GB before Rodgers injury should stand behind their pick. If I wasn´t a PHI fan this year, I would pick GB since the spread moved down from 10 to 1 (Edit: some even have PHI now as 1 point favourite). Could be a steal...
Now, while I am writing this, I thought deeper about it, i´ll give it a try tomorrow (picking GB straight against "my" Eagles). It´s worth 10 bucks... :)
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
Hello, I recently heard about the hazing/bullying incident involving Incognito and Martin, and I had to wonder: is this an isolated incident in this specific team, or is hazing a part of every team in the NFL?

I was surprised because in other sports that I follow, such as cycling or European football, teams are always trying hard to integrate players as best as they can and make sure everyone gets along. Cycling teams seem to spend a fair amount of time and money on "team building camps" for example. This seems logical to me: a team where the riders/players trust each other, know each other well and get along well is a team that functions better than a team where players insult and threaten to kill one another.

Is this not the case for American football? It seems to me this specific team could not have put a lot of emphasis on "team building" activities - or else this could not have happened.

Or is this guy just a complete bonehead?
 
Merckx index said:
Thanks for the link, Foxxy. But did you notice they agree with me that the 2006 (MLB) Cardinals were the luckiest and most undeserving champions, not the 2007 or 2011 (NFL) Giants (your choice)?
This isn't an MLB thread, but I completely agree with you there. That was one strange WS. Bad bounces, and poor decisions by Leland.

I have a degree from Stanford...
Why does this not surprise me. Nice library, huh? :)

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Everybody over the interwebs is crying b/c of the Rodgers injury. As if the earth came to a stand still.
So, how many games will they win without him? The Giants for example are celebrating. They now think this is a win for them, and after they beat Dallas in a couple weeks, they'll be in 1st and headed to the playoffs, and ultimately winning the Superbowl against the Patriots, being the first NFL champion in history with a 7-9 record, like Foxxy predicts. :D

Packers worked out Matt Flynn yesterday. I expect him to be signed within a couple days, and play in two weeks, if Wallace doesn't perform. Unless, he has tendonitis or other unconfirmed issues with his throwing arm, as rumored.

Meanwhile, the whole Incognito/Martin mess has more twists and turns than a soap opera. I think the bottom like is that both coach Philbin and GM Jeff Ireland are likely to get fired over this, especially after Don Shula's comments blaming them. Incognito however will be back, after some sort of sensitivity training, and a little blame headed towards the brass. Martin will be back too with another team, but probably not this season.

So Ben Roethlisberger is upset with the Steelers coaching staff? Really? He can direct some of that at Todd Haley, sure. But he's treading on thin ice. And no way he can get into a war of words against Mike Tomlin. He'll wind up looking like a total idiot. Some teams would take a flyer on Ben, even though he's aging, his body is starting to break down, and he's overpaid at $12m a year. But if Tomlin were somehow fired or quit, his phone would ring off the hook within the hour with job offers. It's simply not going to happen.