The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I would say the Pack is Back!movingtarget said:Giants were very disappointing. Couldn't get the offense going. Beckham Jnr had an off day. Green Bay is looking good but I'm still not convinced they can win the Super Bowl.
I only watched the first half because of time difference and I had to wake up early today, but in that half their offense was actually pretty bad. They threw two td's in th last few minutes of q3 but that doesn't resemble their actual performance. Looking at the result I guess their offense became stronger in the 2nd half but still I think this first half wasn't very convincing and if another defense can stop rodgers like that for a whole game even the obligatory hail mary won't be enough.movingtarget said:Giants were very disappointing. Couldn't get the offense going. Beckham Jnr had an off day. Green Bay is looking good but I'm still not convinced they can win the Super Bowl.
This is why I love the NFL, teams can go from being capable of winning the Super Bowl to looking like the Cleveland Browns scrimmage team in the blink of an eye....Alpe d'Huez said:I wasn't entirely kidding when I said the Giants could win the SB. If you look at who they will likely play, almost every matchup favors them. First, they play Green Bay, and we discussed why earlier. They have also beaten the Packers twice in Lambeau on their way to SB runs, including the year the Packers were 15-1. Then, they'll likely go to Atlanta, where I think they match up even better than they do against Green Bay, for the same reason. Presuming the Giants win that game, they go to Dallas, whom they beat twice this season. Then, the most likely team they'd play in the Super Bowl is New England, who they beat twice under similar circumstances. Having said that, this is not thinking objectively, it's 2017, not 2007 or 2011.
As to Cook, if there's one positive, it's that there's almost zero film on him in the NFL. Some very conservative play last week with almost no prep. Who knows what Oakland will try to do with him. An equally big loss, as I noted, was Donald Penn is out. He was one of two OT's with 400 or more pass blocks and just one sack allowed all season. Remarkable, actually.
Bleacher Report gave picks from their 12 experts. They are as follows.
Houston 7-5 over Oakland.
Seattle 12-0 over Detroit.
Pittsburgh 12-0 over Miami.
Green Bay 9-3 over New York.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2684952-bleacher-reports-expert-consensus-wild-card-picks
Alpe d'Huez said:Well, Rodgers definitely improved over the course of the game. It was extremely impressive the way the Packer passing game was completely stifled in the first quarter, got lucky (to a degree) on the hail mary to be ahead at the half, then even after not getting the 4th and 1, still improved. By the 4th quarter Rodgers was shredding their secondary almost at will. Night and day from the 1st quarter. I can't recall too many games where I've seen a QB do this. The real problem though was the Giants offense. Not just the dropped balls, but inability to string much of anything together.
I agree with the others, that this doesn't mean Green Bay will waltz right through Dallas. They may put up 30+ points on the Dallas defense, but Dallas offense is a much stronger machine than the Giants, and I can easily see them putting up 30+ points on the Packers.
In case you hadn't heard, Jordy Nelson's injuries are not good. It looks like two broken broken ribs, a partly collapsed lung, and a lacerated spleen. Mike McCarthy is giving a conference at 2:30, and will likely address it then, but I can't see him back until maybe the Super Bowl at the soonest. Having said that, the Packers have proven they can win without him. This also shows why the NFL is coming down hard on hits by players leading with the crown of their helmet.
In other games, I like Seattle's chances against Atlanta, though if Atlanta gets moving on offense, they can score.
New England will easily beat Houston by double digits.
The most interesting game is Pittsburgh at Kansas City. They played in week 4 and the Steelers blew them out 43-14 (up 36-0 at one point), but this was a week after the Steelers were blown out by the Eagles, 34-3. A week later the Chiefs dominated the Raiders, in Oakland. I think all of these games should be dismissed. The first Pitt-KC game was fairly close at almost all the numbers, yards, time of possession, more, except the scoreboard, and I fully expect this to be a close contest.
Early picks are, for me: Dallas, Seattle, New England, and Pittsburgh.
No offense taken. After all, the Giants did look like they could win the SB in their game against Green Bay...for one quarter.Irondan said:I'm not picking on what you said Alpe, I enjoy reading your commentary in this thread. That statement just jumped out at me this morning after watching the Pack completely dismantle the Giants in the second half yesterday.
BullsFan22 said:Falcons are the favorites going against the Seahawks, but as i've said before, this is a preferred (I am guessing) matchup for the Hawks than either the Packers or Cowboys or for that matter the Giants, so them being on the other side of the bracket is good for them, despite not having home field. If Atlanta comes out firing the first quarter or so, it's going to be hard for Seattle. They need to slow things down and run the ball. I also think Graham will be a key player in this game. Also, if their defense plays well early on, and is able to pressure Matt Ryan and force the Atlanta offense into rushing and making some errors, then they have a very good chance. That's what the Hawks were doing two, three years ago when they made back to back SB runs.
On current form, I like the Packers over the Cowboys. Rodgers is just on fire now and I am not sure the Cowboys defense is going to be able to cope with him. They've been solid for most of the year, but Rodgers is on a roll. We'll see how Prescott performs in this big match up. It helps Dallas they are at home, but I'd give the Packers more of a chance on the road than I would the Cowboys if they were in Green Bay.
I think in the AFC it'll be NE vs KC in the championship. The Texans have little to no chance and the Steelers aren't convincing to me. This might be the year that KC breaks through. They have to go through NE to make the SB, but they may be just the team in the AFC to beat NE.
on3m@n@rmy said:Normally I don't care or follow the coaching carousel. But the Rams selection of Redskins OC Sean McVay for their new HC was interesting. McVay is a 30-year-old and youngest HC in NFL history. I just wonder how he can possibly work out with such a short amount of experience. He's a reported workaholic, which might propel him to success, but for how long? How long will he be able to keep that pace?
Regardless, his grandfather John was a top executive for the 9ers for 19 years having worked with Bill Walsh to put together Superbowl runs, and father Tim was a former college player. Sean played QB in high school and then WR in college (Miami of Ohio). So Sean has been exposed to football his entire life, and likely knows a lot about hard work.
Here is a look at McVay's resume:
- 2008, one year out of college, starts NFL coaching career as assistant WR coach with Tampa Bay (Jon Gruden was the Bucs HC, and Kevin Demoff was in the Bucs front office). Gruden has continued to support McVay. And Demoff, now as Chief Operating Officer of the Rams, oversaw the Rams coaching search this month. Demoff must have been impressed.
- 2009, WR/quality control coach for the Florida Tuskers (United Football League)
- 2010 (age 24), joins Washington as assistant TE coach
- 2011 to 2013 (age 27), Washington TE coach
- 2014 to 2016 (age 30), Washington OC
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...atest-contract-details-comments-and-reaction#
Yeah, ya know, the game this week can possibly be much different from the game these two teams played October 16 in Seattle. Offensively, Atlanta does everything well. But defensively Seattle will have to stop the run and force Atlanta into some third and long situations. On October 16 Seattle was without Kam Chancellor (SS) and Mike Morgan (SAM). The presence of Kam for this week will be huge for Seattle to defend the run, and the same goes for Morgan, who as the SAM does not have to do too much, but primarily Morgan is good at containing and defending the perimeter. And he is pretty good at underneath outside coverage. Morgan's replacements are not nearly as good at either of those. Then if Seattle can get Atlanta into some 3rd and longs, then they need to step up the pass rush. Two SEA defenders who can help, besides the usual Bennett/Avril combination, are DE/DTs Frank Clark and Cass Marsh. Those two can spell Bennett and Avril, or line up inside. But it not just who, but how. SEA will need to do some line stunting and use some blitz packages to get pressure on Ryan. Ryan will pick them apart if SEA gets conservative and does not try some of those things to get pressure on Ryan.BullsFan22 said:Falcons are the favorites going against the Seahawks, but as i've said before, this is a preferred (I am guessing) matchup for the Hawks than either the Packers or Cowboys or for that matter the Giants, so them being on the other side of the bracket is good for them, despite not having home field. If Atlanta comes out firing the first quarter or so, it's going to be hard for Seattle. They need to slow things down and run the ball. I also think Graham will be a key player in this game. Also, if their defense plays well early on, and is able to pressure Matt Ryan and force the Atlanta offense into rushing and making some errors, then they have a very good chance. That's what the Hawks were doing two, three years ago when they made back to back SB runs.
Can looks be deceiving?movingtarget said:New Coaches
HIRED
Los Angeles Rams
» The Rams have hired former Redskins offensive coordinator Sean McVay as their next head coach, the team announced.
I LIKE THE NEW CHARGERS LOGO:movingtarget said:On another note it seems that the Chargers are going to LA which could be interesting as many people reckon LA can't support two teams as a fanbase. Still talk about the Raiders going to Las Vegas.
on3m@n@rmy said:Yeah, ya know, the game this week can possibly be much different from the game these two teams played October 16 in Seattle. Offensively, Atlanta does everything well. But defensively Seattle will have to stop the run and force Atlanta into some third and long situations. On October 16 Seattle was without Kam Chancellor (SS) and Mike Morgan (SAM). The presence of Kam for this week will be huge for Seattle to defend the run, and the same goes for Morgan, who as the SAM does not have to do too much, but primarily Morgan is good at containing and defending the perimeter. And he is pretty good at underneath outside coverage. Morgan's replacements are not nearly as good at either of those. Then if Seattle can get Atlanta into some 3rd and longs, then they need to step up the pass rush. Two SEA defenders who can help, besides the usual Bennett/Avril combination, are DE/DTs Frank Clark and Cass Marsh. Those two can spell Bennett and Avril, or line up inside. But it not just who, but how. SEA will need to do some line stunting and use some blitz packages to get pressure on Ryan. Ryan will pick them apart if SEA gets conservative and does not try some of those things to get pressure on Ryan.BullsFan22 said:Falcons are the favorites going against the Seahawks, but as i've said before, this is a preferred (I am guessing) matchup for the Hawks than either the Packers or Cowboys or for that matter the Giants, so them being on the other side of the bracket is good for them, despite not having home field. If Atlanta comes out firing the first quarter or so, it's going to be hard for Seattle. They need to slow things down and run the ball. I also think Graham will be a key player in this game. Also, if their defense plays well early on, and is able to pressure Matt Ryan and force the Atlanta offense into rushing and making some errors, then they have a very good chance. That's what the Hawks were doing two, three years ago when they made back to back SB runs.
For Seattle, the other factor different from the October 16 game is the RB position. SEA was without Rawls and Prosise. Instead there was CJ Spiller and Michael, both not with the team now. Defensively, Atlanta is kind of in the middle of the NFL pack, so if SEA can block as well as they did last week (which was not anywhere near great) then SEA has a chance.
This whole thing is plain egregious; 55 years of tradition in SD, and all is lost because these Billionaire owners can't figure out how to finance a stadium without having to prey on the taxpayers for financial support of these ridiculous mega-stadiums. And now a strong possibility of the Raiders moving to Sin City, again, because rich kid Davis doesn't want to keep in them Oakland without taxpayers help to finance a stadium. And these owners now all seem to want keep up with the Jones' (no pun attended) when it comes to these playland mega-stadiums. And fans are getting wimpy too...they want these retractable roof super-stadiums so they don't get too cold, too wet, too hot, etc, etc, etc. Next they're going to want reclining "extra-large" leather seats and escalators along side their seating row so they don't have to walk too far to get their fattening snacks and sugar-laden drinks...pathetic. Next thing you know they'll build amusemement parks attached to the mega-stadiums and make it one big happy family fun-center...rainbows & marshmellows.on3m@n@rmy said:I LIKE THE NEW CHARGERS LOGO:movingtarget said:On another note it seems that the Chargers are going to LA which could be interesting as many people reckon LA can't support two teams as a fanbase. Still talk about the Raiders going to Las Vegas.
BUT SOMEBODY HAS BEEN UP TO NO GOOD:
Nomad said:Next they're going to want reclining leather seats and escalators along side their seating row so they don't have to walk too far to get their fattening snacks and sugar-laden drinks...pathetic.
Nomad said:This whole thing is plain egregious; 55 years of tradition in SD, and all is lost because these Billionaire owners can't figure out how to finance a stadium without having to prey on the taxpayers for financial support of these ridiculous mega-stadiums. And now a strong possibility of the Raiders moving to Sin City, again, because rich kid Davis doesn't want to keep in them Oakland without taxpayers help to finance a stadium. And these owners now all seem to want keep up with the Jones' (no pun attended) when it comes to these playland mega-stadiums. And fans are getting wimpy too...they want these retractable roof super-stadiums so they don't get too cold, too wet, too hot, etc, etc, etc. Next they're going to want reclining "extra-large" leather seats and escalators along side their seating row so they don't have to walk too far to get their fattening snacks and sugar-laden drinks...pathetic. Next thing you know they'll build amusemement parks attached to the mega-stadiums and make it one big happy family fun-center...rainbows & marshmellows.on3m@n@rmy said:I LIKE THE NEW CHARGERS LOGO:movingtarget said:On another note it seems that the Chargers are going to LA which could be interesting as many people reckon LA can't support two teams as a fanbase. Still talk about the Raiders going to Las Vegas.
BUT SOMEBODY HAS BEEN UP TO NO GOOD:
Greedy owners, spoiled management, wimpy fans...not the same product anymore
on3m@n@rmy said:I LIKE THE NEW CHARGERS LOGO:movingtarget said:On another note it seems that the Chargers are going to LA which could be interesting as many people reckon LA can't support two teams as a fanbase. Still talk about the Raiders going to Las Vegas.
BUT SOMEBODY HAS BEEN UP TO NO GOOD:
For sure there's no replacing Earl. But if there's a silver lining about Earl being out, it's that Earl has missed so many games the defense will have adjusted to it as much as possible.BullsFan22 said:This is a type of game where Earl Thomas's absence will be felt. Seattle is still one of the top defenses in the league, but without him there, it's been noticeable. Even with him, they are not quite as good as they were 2-4 years ago. A positive is that Wilson said his legs feel 'great.' He'll need those legs this weekend. The OL is suspect and he won't have much time so he should be expecting a lot of pressure.