Got it. Actually, I think that's a good rule. Not just because of this game.Amsterhammer said:Both teams get one posession unless either the team with first posession scores a TD, OR the defense scores.
Absolutely (in Lance´ words )Alpe d'Huez said:Not sure why I get thanks.....Though I guess I did say I didn't see the Steelers getting very far.
I picked the Steelers because, like everyone else, I actually thought that they would win, not because I wanted them to. I never expected the Broncos to be able to score the points they did.Alpe d'Huez said:You are aware that he through for a divine 316 yards, right?
I can't say I expected Denver to win. No, I picked Pittsburgh. I just didn't think the Steelers would blow them out, or get far in the playoffs. 50/50 to beat NE if they won today. I don't think they could have beaten Houston, and I'm all but certain they would have lost to Baltimore. But today, this game was something. Probably the game of the year (so far).
Totally agree!Alpe d'Huez said:I too am glad the Steelers are done. I'm tired of them winning with help, tired of them period, and can't stand Roethilesberger. Plus I admire Tebow. Great or not, he's got a lot of guts and I like the kid.
Totally agree!FoxxyBrown1111 said:It´s been just a great WC weekend. I am very happy
I was watching No Huddle last week on the NFL Network. Jamie Dukes thought a Broncos win was possible. Not very probable, but possible.FoxxyBrown1111 said:Actually... i am still touched. NOBODY in the world expected something like this. We all, around the whole world, had the Broncos at 3- max. 10 points. And then this guy completes every long pass like nobody else did ever before?!? OMG
So what you're saying is, that the Steelers 'out-complicated' themselves on defense and essentailly lost because they didn't keep it simple?Alpe d'Huez said:Well, as I mentioned about 20 posts ago. Shannon Sharpe actually said he thought Denver could win. He got some looks too and people accepted that he's a homer, having played many years in Denver. But his analysis was spot on. He said the Steelers run a lot of exotic zone-blitz defenses used to trip up the QB. That type of style isn't necessary, or even good against a straight forward QB like Tebow. You want to beat him on a conservative, containment type defense. But as Sharpe said, you dance with the lady you brought to the ball, and it wouldn't be easy for the Steelers to change their style. They couldn't, and I think it was most indicative on that last play, with Polamalu crowding the line instead of back where a traditional or conservative safety is. He was protecting the run, and your typical short slant that someone like Brady or Brees throws (and Tebow rarely does). This left the Broncos best receiver in a 1 on 1 situation on a mid-deep post over the middle, and Tebow hit him perfect in stride. Game over. Season over.
Pitt likes to play aggressive defense. Against Denver putting 8 in the box looked to me like they were trying to stop Denver's run options or to put pressure on Tebow, gambling or daring Tebow to beat them long against the man to man coverage. Most teams have 2 play action options; hand off to the RB, or fake the hand off and pass. Denver has 3 play action options; 1) hand off to the RB, 2) Tebow keeps and runs, and 3) pass. Seems Pitt was locked into stopping 1) and 2), hoping man coverage would stop the pass. Denver just had the right offensive call at the right time for that strategy.Amsterhammer said:So what you're saying is, that the Steelers 'out-complicated' themselves on defense and essentailly lost because they didn't keep it simple?
I was surprised that they persisted with a partially mobile Big Ben. As the game developed, I was far more interested in seeing the Steelers lose than I was in getting my pick right, so them shooting themselves in the foot worked for me.
Are you kidding me? I was just thinking maybe Al had settled down finally because the Raiders seem to be on the rise. But I had no idea there was a mini-Al (Mark) in the picture. Man, Oakland is as unstable as the San Andreas. And we are talking "thee" ex-Bills OL Reggie McKenzie? Well, I guess I'm glad I'm not a Raider fan, and they can keep making crazy moves as long as it benefits Seattle (e.g. Cable).Alpe d'Huez said:NFL.com reports that the Raiders hired Reggie McKenzie as GM, and he promptly fired Hue Jackson. I'm completely baffled by this. How can the Chargers keep Norv Turner and the Raiders fire Jackson??? This sounds as bad, or worse than some of Al Davis firings (Tom Cable, Art Shell anyone?), it's like Mark Davis took over right where his dad left off, though I guess this was McKenzie's doing not Davis, Mark still had to give the OK. The players liked Jackson, he had a decent year after losing some guys and having to switch QB's mid-season. Their defense underperformed, but the team did okay considering everything, and had some hope with Hugh leading them into the future. Now, who are they going to get to replace him? At least Turner isn't available.
You sound like a believer to me!?!Tank Engine said:
I am also glad my only wrong pick was the DEN-PIT game. I am still happy about that.... and again in the middle of the Tebow-HypeFoxxyBrown1111 said:6. DEN
They are the Seahawks of 2011. This team don´t belong into the playoffs. They get out-scored, out-passed and depend on pure luck when winning. I hope for one more win like this (vs. PIT), but it´s unrealstic to think it will happen.... I got caught in the Tebow-Hype and made one of the stupidest bets of all time (not here at cycnews, but in "my" NFL-Sports-Bar after too many beers).
My picks for the weekend:
CIN 13, HOU 21
DET 24, NO 38
ATL 20, NYG 24
PIT 20, DEN 10
Well, well.... we should have had our bet on this one.on3m@n@rmy said:I like your predictions for the games this week except ATL 20, NYG 24. I think the weak pass D of NY is going to get picked on by the strong passing game by ATL. Then as a result, pass sets up the run for ATL. I'm taking ATL ftw.
Yes, yesAmsterhammer said:Alright baby!
Love seeing the Steelers lose like that!
I was worried too.In the 1st milli second the call (backward fumble) was not reversed, i had Vegas/Mob in my mind. I thought: No, no, not again like PIT-ARZ & PIT-SEA...Alpe d'Huez said:Wow! Was worried about some of those calls, but damn if that wasn't an impressive performance from Tebow and the Broncos.
Well. We shouldn´t criticise the man coverage too much. I think PIT had the right tactics, otherwise DEN would have run over them 60 times.Bag_O_Wallet said:He figured the Pittsburgh Corners wouldn't be great in single coverage, and that the Steelers offence - with an immobile Ben - would have a hard time getting much more than 17 points on the board.
The other guys, and me at home, looked at him like he had two heads.
I think it was a great game plan by DEN "to dull" PIT into thinking run on every first down.* And then boom, the OT-Pass came absolutely unexpected.on3m@n@rmy said:Well, well, well. Pitt got Tebowed. I'm glad for Denver, but not unhappy for Pitt.
I too had picked Pitt to win this, but realized a Denver win was possible. Especially considering not only Ben hobbled, but starting C Pouncey OUT, and starting RB Mendenhall OUT. The backup RB did a nice job though in place of Mendenhall.
But now we have all seen in detail how Denver does it and why it works. My only question is (forget the game clock for a moment) why doesn't Denver run plays like that last TD more often, instead of running on 1st and 2nd downs most of the time? It seems if they mixed it up a little more they might get more consistent results... like at least moving the yardsticks more frequently. I have to admit though, that run-run-pass tendency sure set up Pitt for that final dagger of a play, and they bit on it. Booyah!
Here i go with the Pats too. And at least Alpe knows i didn´t like NE b/c of Beli-Cheat and the handed SB in 2001. But NE´s style is so beautiful since 2007, i can´t do anything else but to sheer for them against DEN.Tank Engine said: