National Football League

Page 186 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
P.S.:

Defenitly will watch the SB. Because I have something to strongly strongly cheer against: The fully underserving Seahawks.

I hope, wish, good luck to/for Beli-Cheat: Do all the little dirty tricks your opponent does, "and then do more" (to quote LA from the TH book). Get magical and overcome the receiver issues...

If SEA wins (likely), I not only skip football regulary, but completely. If they win, I have to stop my longest running tradition: Watching the yearly SB. It will be as hard as stop smoking. But I´ll do it.

I hope there are not such cowards in the AFL like McCarty, Reed, or Norv the smurf. Looking forward a great season in Australia...
 
Incredible finish that had seen the Seahawks make the superbowl! Can't believe the Packers did not win that game.

Pretty easy win for NE as I expected. Not sure who I want to win the superbowl now, perhaps Seattle as I have a slight irrational hatred for the Pats as every part-time NFL fan over here seems to like them.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
"I didn't think it would take a lot of points to win this game," McCarthy said. "I came in here to run the ball. The one statistic I had a target to hit was 20." (Wow, intentionally leaving points on the field before the game. There is no word for to describe it. Man, is he a monkey or what? :mad:)

The loser spoke. On man, I am out of football, but it hurts. Dumbness always hurts. And it hurts more coming from a multi millionaire, getting rich being dumb. It insults my brain. I really really feel like to spit in his face.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
The football gods giveth, the football gods taketh away.
And, again!

Say what one will about McCarthy, the Packers recover the onsides kick, they win. Dix covers the 2-pt properly, they win. More.

Workmanlike dismantling by the Pats. If the same two teams show up that dd today, I'll take NE in the Superbowl.

Earl Thomas dislocated his shoulder, and Richard Sherman will have an MRI tomorrow on his elbow.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Oh thanks god am out of that...
I mean it annoys me heavily to see the game book only... 4th-1 1yL = FG, 4th-1 1yL = FG, 4th-1, inside the "maroon zone" = FG.

WOW, what a COWARD. Don´t need to see any footage. The man to blame is McCarthy. No one else. Watta big big phuck...

Imagine I would have seen that game: Today was the time for a heart attack. No doubt about that. Not coz the wrong team won (which did, turning the ball over 5 times, including FOUR ints by future billionaire for nothing got lucky lotto winner), but because I could do that phucking job: Being a coward football coach. But I´d be happy to do it for 1/100 of the money this COWARD gets for failing again and again. He single handedly threw the season away. :mad:

-----

Good job Beli-Cheat. But bad news is: Won´t win with no receivers vs SEA. Anyway. Awesome to do it year in year out: Winning with average talent on at least one side of the team. Respect. Great coach... Best ever. GOAT!
You're off your meds, Foxxy. If you actually had watched you would have seen a game that e eventually was one on emotion and some faith in spite of apparent looming failure. Just like a bike race.
It was a really gritty Seattle defense and, in the last 4 minutes an extremely lucky and flawless offense that won the game. While the Packers may have left 4 points on the board, Seattle's horrible offensive 3.5 quarters spotted them field position for 15 GB points.
Russell Wilson may get paid but that's between his boss, Paul and him. Paul looked like last year and this is worth a few bucks.
Suck it up and watch a game that the East Coast pundits will say favor Tom Bundchen and his gritty NE guys. They're worthy of the machinelike planning you favor.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
And, again!

Say what one will about McCarthy, the Packers recover the onsides kick, they win...
The football gods chortled... No way they give it to a coach playing not to lose. GB had it coming. The ball bounces here or there, sometimes coverages are missed, sometimes onside kicks get recovered by the kicking team. That is random. That is football.

But, but, but, deliberately leaving at least 8 points on the field to fullfil a dumb, dumb, dumb pre-game "tactic" to go for 20 points instead of the maxime: "go for every single possible point, you never know how things turn out later" is ... well ... beyond words to describe. Instead of letting his players decide the game, he chose to do it. What a FULL BLOWN PHUCKING IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT. May what happened today goes down in history the same way as when Norv the smurf punted his win away in the infamous 12-21 loss at NE.

Oldman said:
You're off your meds, Foxxy. If you actually had watched
Thanks god I didn´t watch. I wouldn´t be here to write, I simply would have died of a heart attack.

Oldman said:
East Coast pundits will say favor Tom Bundchen and his gritty NE guys. They're worthy of the machinelike planning you favor.
I´d say the clear cut favo must be SEA. Beli-Cheat or not: How in the world will he overcome the great disadvantage of having average receivers (at best) vs the now surging SEA pass defense. Almost impossible.
If Beli-Cheat wins that one, he goes down as football Jesus. By far the best ever without a tiny doubt.

But realistic: SEA 17, NE 3

... and remember guys: The team I root for always loses (not only in football as ya all know). NE is doomed. Sorry to say that. :eek:
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
There are two ways of looking at the SB -

Either, the Seahawks used up three lifetimes worth of angel kisses in one game, and have therefore used up all their luck (helped by a whole series of inexplicable GB f*ckups)..

Or, they are the most awesome team ever.

Right now, I'm very much inclined to the former view. As remarkable as the last half of the final quarter was, the Hawks shouldn't and couldn't have ever got back into a lost game without a series of truly epic GB fails.

Of course, for any neutral this was a game for the ages!
 
I agree with that, but was viewing it from another angle. That either Green Bay had "figured out" Russell Wilson, and New England would do the same. OR, Seattle had fought through such tremendous adversity and poor play, there is no way they'll lose to New England.

Regarding match-up's I think the NE receivers are going to have a heck of a time against the Seattle DB's. The Seahawk defense excels against WR's like Edleman and Amondela. But the one exception is a healthy Gronk, playing against a banged up Earl Thomas.

As to Mike McCarthy and "playing not to lose", that I do agree with, to an extent. The Packers still should have won the game. However, at this level you have to play to win and take some chances. Just as Foxxy referred to, San Diego fired Marty Schottenhiemer after a 14-2 season because of a few bad plays, and hired Norv Turner who was great at playing not to lose (Foxxy's aforementioned punting on 4th and 1 at mid-field with the best offense in football), and always losing with great teams.

Some great news for Raiders fans. Gary Kubiak has just been named head coach of Denver! Houston Texan fans on here will surely remember what a great job he did with that team. After Jack Del Rio's passionate speech about being "home" in Oakland, I can't wait for just another year or two when Oakland continually wipes the floor with the Broncos.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I agree with that, but was viewing it from another angle. That either Green Bay had "figured out" Russell Wilson, and New England would do the same. OR, Seattle had fought through such tremendous adversity and poor play, there is no way they'll lose to New England.

Regarding match-up's I think the NE receivers are going to have a heck of a time against the Seattle DB's. The Seahawk defense excels against WR's like Edleman and Amondela. But the one exception is a healthy Gronk, playing against a banged up Earl Thomas.

As to Mike McCarthy and "playing not to lose", that I do agree with, to an extent. The Packers still should have won the game. However, at this level you have to play to win and take some chances. Just as Foxxy referred to, San Diego fired Marty Schottenhiemer after a 14-2 season because of a few bad plays, and hired Norv Turner who was great at playing not to lose (Foxxy's aforementioned punting on 4th and 1 at mid-field with the best offense in football), and always losing with great teams.

Some great news for Raiders fans. Gary Kubiak has just been named head coach of Denver! Houston Texan fans on here will surely remember what a great job he did with that team. After Jack Del Rio's passionate speech about being "home" in Oakland, I can't wait for just another year or two when Oakland continually wipes the floor with the Broncos.
McCarthy's "management" of the game aside (and Foxxy's most hated NFL sin); Kearse's two tipped balls were gifts not necessarily attributable to good defensive play. Much luck to GB on those. The Wilson interception in the end zone was also poorly run so most of the blame rests on execution, rather than some new recognition.
GB's special teams had played exceptionally until those two critical plays and Seattle's had sucked big time. Walters or Baldwin as returners are scary bad and rarely productive.
Hopefully both NE and SEA will play a decent game at the SB. Foxxy just shouldn't watch any of it as there appears to be no upside for him. He's still in denial from last year....
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Oldman said:
McCarthy's "management" of the game aside (and Foxxy's most hated NFL sin); Kearse's two tipped balls were gifts not necessarily attributable to good defensive play. Much luck to GB on those. The Wilson interception in the end zone was also poorly run so most of the blame rests on execution, rather than some new recognition.
GB's special teams had played exceptionally until those two critical plays and Seattle's had sucked big time. Walters or Baldwin as returners are scary bad and rarely productive.
Hopefully both NE and SEA will play a decent game at the SB. Foxxy just shouldn't watch any of it as there appears to be no upside for him. He's still in denial from last year....
The upside would be a NE win. Actually a very big one.
All the NE haters (not you personally, but there are tons of them out there in the fan pages like espn) still didn´t got over the Beli-Cheat seasons. Yet I am very sure all of ´em use dirty tricks (see NO for example). I didn´t get over the SL upset in 2001. But that was a different team, and different reasons (speak: Refs giving the game away)...

So a NE win would be sweet to give it to the haters.

A NE win would be sweet by washing away some of the injustice of the past two seasons. Still can´t believe a one-sided team is going to back-to-back Superbowls*. That´s beyond me. OTOH, gives me fun at the SB night. Something to cheer for respectively against.

(* You´ll all find out how great Wilson is when he captures 80% of cap money and has to rally his team week in week out, since no mo D winning them games)

And finally a NE win would safe me future Superbowls, even though I´ll skip regular seasons anyway. BTW: Didn´t miss anything since my boycott. In the end, seasons are thrown by coaches anyway, so WTF waste time watching regular season games? They just feed the monster...
I saw the single playoff game (besides the coming SB) I wanted (the DEN loss), and as "warm up" saw some minutes of the non-catch that was a catch reversal call. That was enough for me to know I made the right call; to skip NFL.
Once they (NFL) get down to earth again, and clean the rule book, I will come back. But I doubt it will happen in my lifetime...
 
Not sure if you heard, but you're going to love this one Foxxy: Patriots are being investigated for supplying under-inflated footballs in Sunday's game against Indy. The officials even took one ball out of the game and weighed it, then confiscated the ball. Let Deflategate begin!

As to play, I'm probably in the minority, but I like the regular season more than the playoffs. And during the playoffs I tend to like the WC and divisional weekends the best. The playoffs are too often more of a tournament, where strange bounces, bad calls and dumb plays detract from things, and help determine outcomes. And this year is no exception, though the top 2 seeded from each conference did again get to the final game.

As to this Super Bowl, I would have rather seen other teams in there, to be honest. So most of all I'm hoping for a close, great game, not decided by mistakes and the like.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The upside would be a NE win. Actually a very big one.
All the NE haters (not you personally, but there are tons of them out there in the fan pages like espn) still didn´t got over the Beli-Cheat seasons. Yet I am very sure all of ´em use dirty tricks (see NO for example). I didn´t get over the SL upset in 2001. But that was a different team, and different reasons (speak: Refs giving the game away)...

So a NE win would be sweet to give it to the haters.

A NE win would be sweet by washing away some of the injustice of the past two seasons. Still can´t believe a one-sided team is going to back-to-back Superbowls*. That´s beyond me. OTOH, gives me fun at the SB night. Something to cheer for respectively against.

(* You´ll all find out how great Wilson is when he captures 80% of cap money and has to rally his team week in week out, since no mo D winning them games)

And finally a NE win would safe me future Superbowls, even though I´ll skip regular seasons anyway. BTW: Didn´t miss anything since my boycott. In the end, seasons are thrown by coaches anyway, so WTF waste time watching regular season games? They just feed the monster...
I saw the single playoff game (besides the coming SB) I wanted (the DEN loss), and as "warm up" saw some minutes of the non-catch that was a catch reversal call. That was enough for me to know I made the right call; to skip NFL.
Once they (NFL) get down to earth again, and clean the rule book, I will come back. But I doubt it will happen in my lifetime...
Your history is purely imaginary. How many points did the defense score against your beloved Broncos in the last Suckerbowl? I guess Elway spotted the Seahawks the rest?

As for no D....many of those guys were locked down at the end of last season. Paul will spend and has always had a good rep with the players. Those that left needed to leave. How much success have most of them had where they landed? Percy at NYJ? Come on; it's just possible they are a good team and you just lost your will/money along with Peyton. Oh wait, Peyton didn't lose his money.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
"I didn't think it would take a lot of points to win this game," McCarthy said. "I came in here to run the ball. The one statistic I had a target to hit was 20." (Wow, intentionally leaving points on the field before the game. There is no word for to describe it.
Alpe d'Huez said:
And, again!

Say what one will about McCarthy, the Packers recover the onsides kick, they win. Dix covers the 2-pt properly, they win. More.

Earl Thomas dislocated his shoulder, and Richard Sherman will have an MRI tomorrow on his elbow.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The football gods chortled... That is random. That is football.

But, but, but, deliberately leaving at least 8 points on the field to fullfil a dumb, dumb, dumb pre-game "tactic" to go for 20 points
Slight correction is needed there Foxxy (maybe because of the translation) on the "20"... McCarthy did not say 20 POINTS. He said 20 RUNNING PLAYS... that his intent in the game plan was to "run the ball at least 20 times in the second half". McCarthy's response was to address questions about why he got conservative late in the second half by running the ball when SEA had 2 D-Backs (Thomas and Sherman) each playing with essentially one arm that GB maybe should have targeted at least once to see if their injuries would affect their play.

In spite of that new information on the "20", it still should not change your conclusion that it would have been better to attempt going for the TD one or more times. If SEA had been in that position on the 1 yard line or 1/2 yard line, I would hope that SEA would have gone for it IF the game situation called for it (e.g. NOT when there are only a few seconds left in the game and all you need is 3 points or less to win).

But, and I have said this before here (why do I try to argue the HC's case?) GB's inability to punch the ball in on 3 attempts from the 2 yard line, and the way SEA plays (e.g. with serious contributions from the secondary and LBs vs the run) may have intimidated (hence coward, right?) McCarthy into kicking the FG instead of going for the TD. I am just saying their is a rationale for McCarthy making the decision he did.

What I think Alpe meant by "Say what you want about McCarthy..." is that some plays (the 2-point conversion, the onside kick) had a very real potential to change the outcome of the game, and McCarthy should not be to blame for those mistakes.

*************
But were those 2 plays (the 2-pt conversion, onside kick) really mistakes that should have been avoided? Take the 2-pt conversion for example. That was a desperation throw by Wilson, or it appeared as desperation because he was flushed to the right and ended up throwing back left. But the defender Dix was in position to cover the back middle to left side of the end zone in case one of the 3 SEA WRs lined up right ran a crossing route. That left the 6'-5" TE Willson almost all alone vs the 6'1" Dix. So it was a jump ball that the athletic Willson (runs 4.5 40) should have won vs the smaller Dix. Advantage SEA on that play. I can't say SEA executed well on that play. It was really a scramble, but Wilson does what he often does when he scrambles and the play essentially "resets". That is when Wilson is most dangerous.

And then the onside kick. Those are always a crap shoot. In the NFL, there is only a 26% chance of an onside kick being successful (LINK). So the success rate should favor the receiving team. But on that rainy day, with a wet, slightly heavier oblong object we call the ball it is a much more difficult task to corral it. As Foxxy said, "That is football" is very true. On the SEA recovery, there was some luck for sure, but there were also 2 clutch plays made by 2 SEA players on that onside attempt.
1. Kicker Haushka put the ball in absolute perfect position. That was clutch.
2. 6'-5" WR Chris Matthews, who recovered the ball for SEA, on that play was the knock-off man, meaning his sole role was to hit the would be receiving Packer "knocking him off the ball", allowing trailing SEA good-hands guys to recover the ball. But on seeing the ball careen off of Bostic's helmet he made a split second reaction to recover it himself. That was clutch too, especially considering players are taught in no uncertain terms "JUST DO YOUR JOB".
So, advantage should have been for GB on the onside kick, but one player did not execute and two other players executed.

So, where I am going with this is we often hear/read about one team or another being undeserving of the win, in this case some say SEA was undeserving of the win. If you consider the first half only, I totally agree SEA's sloppy (turnovers in the red zone or their end of the field!!!), undisciplined play (penalties), inaccurate passes, sloppy receiving technique, and not protecting the ball was reason to say that SEA "is not deserving of the win... yet". That's what I said at the half. But I said "yet" because you have to play ALL 60 minutes, you have to finish, and more important is to finish. GB did not do either. SEA did the latter.

Still, I consider the final outcome a miracle of sorts. And I will say it for Wilson, "Praise the Lord". Maybe there was some angel kissing going on. ;)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Let Deflategate begin!
Good ol Beli-Cheat ;) ... as I said he must do more than the cheating opponents. Old LA law for success.

But I truly wonder how he is going to overcome the miss-match between his receivers vs SEA pass defense.

Ok, he could call for 20-25 Gronk plays. Crazy, but why not? Sounds good to me. Throw to him until they stop him...

Oldman said:
Your history is purely imaginary. How many points did the defense score against your beloved Broncos in the last Suckerbowl? I guess Elway spotted the Seahawks the rest?
But you realize that + 4 in turnovers and good field position had a great deal in SEAs success.

A team gaining 340 yards on total offense isn´t going to score 48 (but more like 20) unless you got a monster defense setting most of this points up...

Oldman said:
Come on; it's just possible they are a good team and you just lost your will/money along with Peyton. Oh wait, Peyton didn't lose his money.
Didn´t you know I always bet against PM in the playoffs? Didn´t help me last year, because my anger was/is deeper than the money won which is already spend a thousand times and more...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Slight correction is needed there Foxxy (maybe because of the translation) on the "20"... McCarthy did not say 20 POINTS. He said 20 RUNNING PLAYS... that his intent in the game plan was to "run the ball at least 20 times in the second half". McCarthy's response was to address questions about why he got conservative late in the second half by running the ball when SEA had 2 D-Backs (Thomas and Sherman) each playing with essentially one arm that GB maybe should have targeted at least once to see if their injuries would affect their play.

In spite of that new information on the "20", it still should not change your conclusion that it would have been better to attempt going for the TD one or more times. If SEA had been in that position on the 1 yard line or 1/2 yard line, I would hope that SEA would have gone for it IF the game situation called for it (e.g. NOT when there are only a few seconds left in the game and all you need is 3 points or less to win).

But, and I have said this before here (why do I try to argue the HC's case?) GB's inability to punch the ball in on 3 attempts from the 2 yard line, and the way SEA plays (e.g. with serious contributions from the secondary and LBs vs the run) may have intimidated (hence coward, right?) McCarthy into kicking the FG instead of going for the TD. I am just saying their is a rationale for McCarthy making the decision he did.

What I think Alpe meant by "Say what you want about McCarthy..." is that some plays (the 2-point conversion, the onside kick) had a very real potential to change the outcome of the game, and McCarthy should not be to blame for those mistakes.
Ok, then I understood it wrong. But it doesn´t change a thing. How stupid must one be to go for 20 carries no matter of the defense scheme. Is he a football coach or a dumb dumb dumb monkey? That was rhetorical.

Ok, if this coward don´t think his offense can gain 1 yard on three different occasions, then he shall exchange the whole offense. Sounds absurd? OFC it is. All he showed his players was that he is afraid (not the first time; his coward style did cost GB 3 wins at least in the 10-6 SB season), don´t trust his offense, has no clue about calling 4th down plays (what is he prepairing before game day one might ask)... Good coach? Again rhetorical..

About the plays in question: I havn´t seen them. But it doesn´t matter. The football bounces wrong or right for you... But what you can control is play calling and formations. If you fail there, it´s all blame to the coach. Especially if he earnes millions for being a coach.

Again: GB had it coming. As Norv the smurf always had, and as Andy the fat monster lottery winner Reid always had...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
But I truly wonder how he is going to overcome the miss-match between his receivers vs SEA pass defense. Ok, he could call for 20-25 Gronk plays. Crazy, but why not? Sounds good to me. Throw to him until they stop him...
That's what I almost expect. A lot of Blount between the tackles, and a lot of passes over the middle or in the flats to Gronk, forcing the Seattle linebackers to quickly pick one or the other - stay in the middle to stop Blount, or double up Gronk on the outside. That may be a real key to NE's ability to move the ball. Because Josh McDaniels and Tom Brady may say they like their receivers, but they are going to have a very difficult time getting much yardage on their typical short passes. Seattle has been very strong against this for two years solid now, against every QB and every team.

As an aside, Richard Sherman's elbow is only a sprain, and he says he'll be completely ready. Earl Thomas shoulder was dislocated, but he says the swelling wasn't even bad, and he expects to be fully taped up and ready to play like normal. "Don't waste your time on the story." Short link here.

While I do think Green Bay should have won the game the way they were playing, I do agree with you Foxxy on risk taking. Even Aaron Rodgers has seemed frustrated at times with Mike McCarthy's playbook. We saw this last year when the Packers got beat by the 49ers with them jawing a little at each other. When you are at this level, deep in the playoffs, you simply must play the game to win. That is what Seattle did with the fake FG. And that right there, is probably what you mean when you see the difference in the game. Pete Carroll played the game to win, and he won.

If there is one good thing about this SB is that both coaches do play to win. We just saw it with Carroll, and I'm pretty sure Belicheck goes for it on 4th down more than any coach in the NFL (maybe in NFL history).

There is no possible way Seattle plays this bad in the Super Bowl. Wilson may have another few bad throws, or quarters, and the Pats may contain him the way the Packers did from big runs. But the game will be in the dry Arizona air, and the stupid penalties Seattle repeatedly made was a rarity no one should expect to happen again.

IF sources are correct, Oakland has hired Bill Musgrave as their OC. While Musgrave has a lot of coaching experience, I am guessing the overriding reason for the choice is to continue to develop, and build around Derek Carr. Musgrave has been both an OC and QB coach, he played in the NFL as a QB years ago, and coached under Chip Kelly in Philadelphia. He also has worked with Jack Del Rio in the past in Jacksonville, and apparently that was another factor why he was chosen over Mark Trestman. As a Raider fan, I'm good with this choice as well, though time will tell. Though it's blatantly obvious the Raiders badly need help on both lines, my gut tells me they're going to start with the OL in both the draft, and FA this off-season. Early guess at DC may be Eric Mangini, who has a lot of experience as well, both as a HC, coordinator, and more. We'll see...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Even Aaron Rodgers has seemed frustrated at times with Mike McCarthy's playbook.
That I always wonder. Guys earning 20 mil per year but never have the guts to say things that should be said. BigMc was a guy like that, having shouting matches with Ditka, insulting McCaskey (rightfully), and Grossman spoke out.

Now you got pampered players afraid to talk.

If I was the 20 mil QB, I´d step up and say it to the world: "WTF, our play calling was timid. We should have gone for it at least once. I give my all week in week out, and then we lose like this every year in the playoffs. I risk my health to come up short again and again. Disgusting. And I don´t care how much coach fines me now. This had to be said. I am just tired of anxious play calling. Good night, no more questions"...

What would he risk? Nothing! No owner would release the reason (QB) why tickets are sold (ok technically GB has no owner, but lets assume for the sake of the argument). And no owner would realease such a QB since he already threw the signing bonus after him.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
That I always wonder. Guys earning 20 mil per year but never have the guts to say things that should be said. BigMc was a guy like that, having shouting matches with Ditka, insulting McCaskey (rightfully), and Grossman spoke out.

Now you got pampered players afraid to talk.

If I was the 20 mil QB, I´d step up and say it to the world: "WTF, our play calling was timid. We should have gone for it at least once. I give my all week in week out, and then we lose like this every year in the playoffs. I risk my health to come up short again and again. Disgusting. And I don´t care how much coach fines me now. This had to be said. I am just tired of anxious play calling. Good night, no more questions"...

What would he risk? Nothing! No owner would release the reason (QB) why tickets are sold (ok technically GB has no owner, but lets assume for the sake of the argument). And no owner would realease such a QB since he already threw the signing bonus after him.
Aaron Rodgers basically said he was cool with strategy. Felt they played good enough to win (so does most of the world) but for a few plays....
That will make for a long offseason for the NFLs best QB. It didn't sound like he specifically doubted some 4th and short calls. He was there and knows what happens when easy points are passed by and then you get stuffed. SEA had them in that position, hard.
 
burnett really should have taken this one a bit further:



avoid an O-line fattie or two and they could have been in field goal range, instead he (and the rest of the team) took a dive. .


and we all know what happened next.

 
Alpe d'Huez said:
When you are at this level, deep in the playoffs, you simply must play the game to win. That is what Seattle did with the fake FG. And that right there, is probably what you mean when you see the difference in the game. Pete Carroll played the game to win, and he won.
And last year. Remember, that NFC championship turned when SE, trailing with 4th down on the 49ers 35, not only went for the first down, but went for the TD. And got it.

Oldman said:
He was there and knows what happens when easy points are passed by and then you get stuffed. SEA had them in that position, hard.
A couple of years ago, Oregon went for it on 4th down deep in Stanford territory, early in the game, instead of taking the sure FG. They didn’t make it. The game ended tied, and Oregon lost in OT. Because of that loss, they didn’t play for the national championship. So one could say going for it on that play might have cost them the national championship.

The last time Wilson lost a fumble, on their first possession in that championship last year, the 49ers took the FG rather than going for it on fourth down. Was it the right call? If they had gone for it and scored the TD, they would have been in position to win the game with a FG late in the 4th quarter. OTOH, if they went for it and didn't make it, they wouldn't have even been in position to win with a TD at that point.

The Rams played the Vikings in an NFC championship back in the 70s. On their first possession, they drove to the Viking 1, and decided to take the FG. The kick was blocked, and run back for a TD, a ten point swing. They lost the game by 11, and it would have been ten if their kicker hadn't also missed an extra point.

It’s a tough call, but when you have three opportunities like that, I think you have to go for it at least once. And fourth and goal from the one is a good place to go for it, because even if you don’t make it, you have the other team in a bad position. You have a good shot at a safety, and even failing that, if you hold them, you get the ball back in good field position. I’d like to see stats on how often a team scores on its next possession after unsuccessfully going for it on fourth and goal from inside the five.

leftover pie said:
burnett really should have taken this one a bit further:
A lot of people have said that. But go back to 2006-07, NE at SD in a divisional game. SD leads by 8 points late in the fourth quarter, with NE in SD territory. Marlon McCree picks off Brady, and starts running with the ball. He’s stripped of it, NE recovers, and scores a TD and two point conversion to tie the game. Then a FG to win it.

McCree came under heavy criticism after the game for not just hitting the turf when he had the ball. SD almost certainly would have won if he had, and they had only a one possession lead, not two, like GB. You play to win, but when you have a twelve point lead with five minutes to go, and the ball, and field position, you think you’ve done everything you need to win. Remember, fans were leaving the stadium at that point.

I didn’t realize, though, that such a high % of onside kicks succeed. 25%!? I thought it was more like 10-15%. If I were a coach of a team with a strong defense and weak offense (Carolina or late season AZ, say), I might consider onside kicks occasionally. Of course, if you can't score, you only get one chance to try it in a game. :)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Oldman said:
Aaron Rodgers basically said he was cool with strategy. Felt they played good enough to win (so does most of the world) but for a few plays....
Diplomatic speech. Players nowadays say nothing when they talk. Same like coaches "To win this game we need to win the turnover battle and make some big plays". Wow what news. :rolleyes:

I guess Rodgers knows football, so he must burn inside of the missed chances...

Merckxindex did some cherry picking (showing the 4th and ones that gone badly wrong), so lets examine the botched calls one by one:

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=01182015_GB@SEA&playid=20150118026576
the coach may have made the right decision if he thought there was less than a 34% chance of succeeding. But keep in mind, plays like this succeed about 55% of the time.

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=01182015_GB@SEA&playid=20150118026738
the coach may have made the right decision if he thought there was less than a 34% chance of succeeding. But keep in mind, plays like this succeed about 55% of the time

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=01182015_GB@SEA&playid=201501180261419
In this case, teams who attempt a field goal would be more likely to win. This doesn't mean this is absolutely the right call in every situation. But on average, in situations like these, I recommend doing what the coach did: attempt a field goal!

(going for it gives a 90% winning chance, letting the leg swinger on the field gives a 92% winning chance. Close call, but me I´d take the risk. No doubt about it: Coach how thinks his high powered offense can´t gain one yard is no coach...)

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=01182015_GB@SEA&playid=201501180262312
In this case, teams who go for it or punt would be more likely to win. This doesn't mean this is absolutely the right call in every situation. But on average, in situations like these, I won't disagree with the coach’s call: punt!

(going for it gives a 92% winning chance, letting the leg swinger on the field gives a 92% winning chance. Close call, but me I´d take the risk. No doubt about it: Coach how thinks his high powered offense can´t gain one yard is no coach, especially doing the timid thing 4 times in a row now. What a PHUCKING COWARD!!! ...)

http://nyt4thdownbot.com/play.html?gameid=01182015_GB@SEA&playid=201501180263105
According to my calculations, teams who punt would be expected to win slightly more often than teams who field goal try, but the difference is small enough that I won’t make a fuss

(close call, punt, going for it, or FG gives circa the same winning chance. And what did the biggest coward since Norv the smurf do? Doing the thing it always has been done. No creative thinking, nothing... like a fake, reverse, whatever... something to surprise the opponent... no need to ask me: At least now, the 5th time for a high winning percentage conversion chance, I´d have gone for it, being tired of kicking FGs which is a sure way to lose in the NFL nowadays. I´d have thought about how NYJ kicked their win away vs NE doing the same "tactic" just a couple of months ago. If I lose, I lose with pride. Not as a coward)

... and here you can use the 4th down calculator:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/tools/4th-down-calculator
 
I hate to change the subject. No Really. Deflategate. I kind of had been brushing off accusations against the Pats for deliberately underinflating balls. I also did not expect findings to be reported so soon. But it has now been reported by the NFL that 11 of the 12 balls used by the Pats were underinflated by 2 PSIG each (LINK). For each to be underinflated by that amount implies a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage, no matter how slight. I do not think the softer balls would have changed the outcome of a 45-7 final score, but it could have mattered in a close game. This does not put the Pats organization and the coaching staff in a good light. I also don't think it is good news for the NFL or the upcoming Super Bowl to have this kind of negative distraction going on. It denigrates the game. :mad:

So if these findings are really true, how do you punish a repeat cheat like Bill? Or was Bill unaware of the decision to underinflate balls? One thing for sure, I want SEA to play the best team from the AFC, and I don't think this situation would be the fault of any Pats players, and so I would not want to see the players punished. Whoever is responsible should suffer some consequences. And since Bill is captain of the ship, aware of any wrongdoing or not, he could be hit hard, not excluding a long-term ban from coaching.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Merckxindex did some cherry picking (showing the 4th and ones that gone badly wrong), so lets examine the botched calls one by one
Yes, I did, but I don’t disagree with this analysis. They concluded GB should have gone for it on 4th and 1 from the 1 both times, while taking the FG when at the 22. Don’t have a problem with that. Actually, I think Oregon had a fourth and three in that game, and the ball was not in the RZ, at least not near the goal line.

on3m@n@rmy said:
I do not think the softer balls would have changed the outcome of a 45-7 final score, but it could have mattered in a close game.
Like NE 35 - BAL 31?

Adding to the story, CBSSports.com's Jason La Canfora reported that in the Baltimore Ravens-Patriots divisional playoff game, some of the Ravens believed the kicking balls used in the game were under-inflated.
So if these findings are really true, how do you punish a repeat cheat like Bill?
With a draft pick. I bet cyclists would like to ride under NFL rules. If you’re caught cheating, the team can’t sign some new rider, but the results of the race stand.

And you wonder why HFA is so important in the NFL? :)

According to NFL rules, the home team in NFL games makes 12 primary balls and 12 backups available for testing by the referee two hours and 15 minutes before kickoff. In addition, the visiting team can bring 12 backup balls in games played outdoors.
Thing is, why didn't the referees actually test the balls before the game? Or at least notice they felt soft?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
LOLZ....

Yeah, that´s HFA. ;)

Beli-Cheat, well, well... :rolleyes: The LA of the NFL. If others cheat, we have to cheat more.
If he gets banned, or NE gets thrown out of the SB, Beli-Cheat is still the GOAT since others use dirty tricks too (see Bounty-Gate, see spying not only by NE, but it goes on since decades, confer to Tim Greens book, see the story of the NYG leaving all stadium gates open when the opponent had to kick, and more). The bad thing: this might be a big distraction from gameday. Thus my pick for SEA goes from 17-3 to 24-3... Will be a dull SB. :eek:
And I highly doubt the NFL would NE allow to win this SB. They denied them since "Spy-Gate", they denied the Raiders since Al Davis went to war, so I see no reason the NFL would let a two time offender get away with it. The game is done before it´s played. I´ll watch anyway. Hope I am totally drunk by HT so that the suffering doesn´t feel too bad...

BTW: I LOVED to throw soft footballs. My hands are rather small... Had great touch and grip with softer balls. This balls left my hand in awesomeness with beautiful tight spirales.

For kicking OTOH, I think that´s a great disadvantage. Couldn´t get any distance with softer balls.
 
Great link. I heard on the radio last night that the Colts specifically handed at least two balls directly from play to officials believing they were underinflated. I also agree, what is to make one think that this is the only game the Pats have done this? I imagine Belicheck (or his tricky staff) has been doing it off and on for some time. So why not in the Baltimore game as well? Brady is already on record saying he likes a ball that is inflated less, and it would take some distance away from Joe Flacco's big throws.

Thanks for those links Foxxy. Here is the exact article by Brian Burke on going for it on 4th down. Takes a bit of an analytical mind to read, but his thinking is what the bot Foxxy referenced in it's analysis.

Merckx index said:
Go back to 2006-07, NE at SD in a divisional game. SD leads by 8 points late in the fourth quarter, with NE in SD territory. Marlon McCree picks off Brady, and starts running with the ball. He’s stripped of it, NE recovers, and scores a TD and two point conversion to tie the game. Then a FG to win it.
This is the game, and arguably play, that got Marty Schottenheimer fired, after a 14-2 season. The brilliant owners of the Chargers didn't like that Marty didn't win a playoff game (yet) with that team. So they handed the team over to Norv Turner, whom Foxxy can tell you all about. That is what doomed the San Diego Chargers for seasons, not McCree fumbling.

Here's the 4th quarter of that game, in case anyone wants to watch. The play is in there somewhere.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS