National Football League

[Amsterhammer]

I watched the first quarter, then gave up in disgust. I'm sure it's great fun for the people sitting there in the sun, but as a tv viewing spectacle it sucked big time.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What should i write about this farce?

Well, maybe they shall do something like MLB (HR-Contest) or NHL (various skill competitions)...

 

[Amsterhammer]

What should i write about this farce?

Well, maybe they shall do something like MLB (HR-Contest) or NHL (various skill competitions)...

It is quite amusing to listen in on the huddle...though all the snaps were "on one".

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Since this game is a farce and no one tries that much, I think what they should do is have an all-star game between college players headed to the draft, and NFL players. Granted, in normal situations the NFL guys would kill them. But considering this is exhibition style anyway, it would be fun to watch. The college players would be doing their hardest, while the NFL guys could have some fun. People forget the NFL and College used to play exhibition games in the 70's. The college even won a few. Though the NFL guys weren't trying, and numerous 2nd and 3rd string guys were playing.

Or they could ship about 25 NFL players to Hawaii, putting them on the field, getting two ex-coaches, and have them analyze what might happen in the Superbowl, and have the players demo the plays for us and give us other insight. Granted, that much analysis would bore a lot of people, but it would be better than the garbage they're feeding us now.

The other option would be to go back to the 70's and have a college team take on an NFL team

 

[Amsterhammer]

I mean FFS, "tweeting stations"?

On a football field? Because they have to tell their world immediately that they've just caught/thrown a TD or did something of note?

Tweeting stations....what have we come to?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

tweety birds

(I know... lame joke)

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Since this game is a farce and no one tries that much, I think what they should do is have an all-star game between college players headed to the draft, and NFL players....

The other option would be to go back to the 70's and have a college team take on an NFL team

that might inspire some fire.

Another idea would be to cancel the Pro Bowl altogether, call the NFL Pro Bowlers the NFL 2011 All Pros (or insert current year, like an annual all Pro selection), make the annual All Pro one of the prerequisites for future consideration to the NFL Hall of Fame (like having to make at least 5 or so annual All Pros to get a shot at Hall). Since the Pro Bowl (annual All Pros) is a fan-based selection, the prerequisite number of selections required for consideration to the Hall would have to be low enough to remove obscene fan bias, but high enough to be meaningful.

Or, this one I really like, having the NFL Pro Bowlers square off in a game of rugby vs the Rugby League European Cup Champs.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Here is my complete prediction (as summary of my previous posts)
1. NE will run a lot on passing formations, thus leaving the NYG front four over pursuing in their attempts to pressure/sack Brady. Their arrogant behaviour ("we are here to win, we´ll win, we are confident... blablabla") and those of their fans ("we are better, we should be favourite...blablabla") are not helping either. Pride comes before a fall! It seems they all forgot that the Giants are an average team which happened to reach the SB on another tremendous luck streak since december.
2. NE will surprise NYG in short situations with a lot of play fakes, thus leaving Branch as surprise MVP by catching 4 long passes for 130 yards and 2 TDS.
3. Bill Belichick is relaxed, dressed good all of a sudden, making jokes nowadays. In short, he don´t need to pose, b/c he knows something: He made a great defensive game plan which will expose Mannings weaknesses (arm strength, accuracy, decision making under pressure). Belichick will come up with lots of different formations, but he´ll not make the Williams mistake of all out blitzing. Manning will have his share of big yardage (since the NE DB´s are not really the cream of the NFL), but he´ll be forced into some true bad throws/decisions.
4. NYG will throw a lot (they´ll come out throwing from the start), their running game will not be a factor (as usual), especially when they fall behind and need another comeback by passing all day.

Final: NE will built a big lead and then hang on to prevail by NE 31, NYG 24.

Brady goes 20/28 245, 3 TD´s, no Int´s, no sacks,
NE rushes 42 times for 180 yards = NE with 70 plays for 425 net yards.

Manning goes 28/45 350, 2 TD´s (Manningham and Cruz), 2 devastating Int´s, 3 sacks for minus 20 yards,
NYG rushes 12 times for 50 yards (including one or two long gains by Manning avoiding a sack) = 60 plays for 380 net yards.

NE will win in the two most important parts of the game: Passing efficiency (8,8 Y/PP vs. 6,9) and turnovers (at least + 2).

Finally: I hope i am right by at least 50%, which still would be enough for a well earned NE win.

GO PATS !!!

And if all goes wrong, i still have my insurance bet on the Giants which i´ll immediately invest in some killer drinks to forget.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

The clear difference between you and me Foxxy, is while you are willing to bet on the lesser team (NY) to win, you want the better team (NE) to win. On the other hand, I generally want the underdog to win. In this case, that be NY. That's not a bad difference. It just is.

So. GO GEEEE-MEN!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

But in the end i am in a win-win situation, while you are gambling with your feelings with the chance of losing.

PS: Thanks Alpe. You are the reason i made the NYG-Bet by following your advice.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Just don't blame me if you lose your money!

Agree with what you say Foxxy on the Giants seem to be overconfident, while the Pats are surprisingly quiet. It's like the Giants are just assuming they're going to get to Brady easily, march down the field every possession and win easy. They need to be very careful here and Coughlin needs to get them in line. This is how a lot of teams in the past have lost.

Agree that they may have no ability to stop Jarvis Green Ellis and the Pats running, IF the Pats execute correctly, the Giants may have a very hard time stopping them.

Re. Peyton Manning: I only watched about four plays in the ProBowl, but before the game started I thought two things were interesting. First was Tony Dungee saying he didn't think Peyton would ever play for another team. The other was Peter King saying that Manning's throwing motion was still not good because of his neck, and several people think he's going to retire. If this is true it would really suck, but I could see why he would make that decision. He has to have plenty of money, and there's no reason to risk a major neck injury just to play another couple years.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Just don't blame me if you lose your money!

No actually i´d love it. Not that you think i have tons of money to throw around. It just expresses how much i am tired of Giants winning with average teams somehow at least once in every decade...

Agree with what you say Foxxy on the Giants seem to be overconfident, while the Pats are surprisingly quiet. It's like the Giants are just assuming they're going to get to Brady easily, march down the field every possession and win easy. They need to be very careful here and Coughlin needs to get them in line. This is how a lot of teams in the past have lost.

Oh yes, many of them lost that way. In this second it reminds me of our greatest squad (back then, when i was young and big time soccer fan) we´d ever had in the world cup. 1982 it was. First "we" lost sensationally to Algeria, then played the shame of Gijon, botched trou the 2nd round and arrogantly stepped on the field for the final... and lost. Many similarities to this years Giants. Only difference is, i still think 1982-Germany was the best ever soccer team talent wise (better than Brasil in the same year, b/c they played w/o defense).

Re. Peyton Manning: I only watched about four plays in the ProBowl, but before the game started I thought two things were interesting. First was Tony Dungee saying he didn't think Peyton would ever play for another team. The other was Peter King saying that Manning's throwing motion was still not good because of his neck, and several people think he's going to retire. If this is true it would really suck, but I could see why he would make that decision. He has to have plenty of money, and there's no reason to risk a major neck injury just to play another couple years.

You might remember that´s what i thought some months (?) ago. It would be wise to retire with that much wealth as security. No fooling around with neck injuries. As i said, the only reason to continue must be greed. And i gave examples that P. Manning is indeed greedy...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think Dungee may be wrong. I do think if Manning feels he's healthy enough, and a team where he thinks he can win in the next 2-3 years offers him a big check, I think he'll sign. But if he really is hurt and can't heal properly, he may call it a career. That would be the wise thing to do. It just has to be burning him up to have missed this entire season the way he did.

Just glace at this article if you want to know what I mean when I say I fear the Giants may be overconfident. This is one of many similar articles, with many similar quotes. I still think Coughlin has to be reminding them of 2008 when the were the #1 seed and got knocked off by an experienced Eagles team.

Want to talk about overconfident teams? How about the 2007-2008 Patriots? Or last year's Patriots.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Just glace at this article if you want to know what I mean when I say I fear the Giants may be overconfident. This is one of many similar articles, with many similar quotes. I still think Coughlin has to be reminding them of 2008 when the were the #1 seed and got knocked off by an experienced Eagles team.

If the Giants become cocky then I will have to switch ships and go with the Pats. A certain amount of confidence is fine, but I don't appreciate cockiness. Below are the only 3 quotes from the article:

"We had a lot of hits on [Brady]," recalled Giants defensive end Justin Tuck, who amassed two sacks and a forced fumble to lead the aggressive onslaught. "Even when we didn't hit him, he didn't have the time to sit back there and allow some of the routes to develop."

"We have some good pass rushers. But Osi, he's a game changer," said Tuck, who came through with 1 1/2 sacks in the Giants' narrow overtime triumph over San Francisco in the NFC Championship. "He takes a lot of pressure off myself, the whole D-line, the whole defense, knowing that any play he can make one of those game changing plays."

"The way to kill the snake is to take off his head," said Tuck. "The way to kill an offense as potent as that one is making sure you take care of Brady. Our defensive front will put a lot of pressure on itself to make sure that we do our best to get after him."

IMO, none of those quotes are evidence of overconfidence. The first two quotes are what I'd call a statement of fact based on events that have already transpired. The last quote is a statement about what Tuck thinks they need to do defensively. It is clear he (they) is (are) acutely aware of that, and plan to prepare to do just that. To me, those are words of a guy who means business. There is confidence there, which you have to have, but not overconfidence.

Overconfidence on the other hand, (using Tuck's words) would be a statement that says what they are going to do, instead of what needs to be done. For example: "We are going to take the head off the snake and there is nothing they can do about it". OFC that would also be a foolish statement. Or "We are going to get all after Brady and force mistakes". That would be foolish to say publicly too and would be a huge dis to the Pats OL. However, that's a far cry from saying "we are going to do our best to get after Brady".

But even if a little overconfidence spilled out to the public, I would still probably not call it overconfidence when you think about what they do all week long. Coaches come up with the game plan, they practice it to death during the week before the game so they are all on the same page. And they are all convinced this is going to work. That is a mindset they must have to win. If they don't have that mindset they have already lost.

I can see why you might call it overconfidence, but I don't buy it.

If it's not overconfidence, does that improve NY's chances of winning? Nope. Bottom line is both teams still have to go out and execute.

Just for grins, let's say overconfidence might be an issue. I would think the Pats players, with a coach and reputed game planner like Bellichick, might be a bit more overconfident than the Giants. And the Giants knowing their opponent has Bellichick, might just be a little more motivated to show (among other things) that their coach is every bit as good as the great Bellichick. Like a "Miracle On Ice". Too bad for the NYG, that just might be the kind of thing it will take.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Actually, one could only say they may be outwardly overconfident. As I recall the Patriots didn't say much of anything in last year's divisional game, while the Jets and Rex with all of his hot air did all the talking. But when the game was over it was quite obvious that the Jets came prepared, while the Pats thought they'd just walk all over them, and, well, you know what happened in that one.

But as far as what's going on inside team meetings, we don't have any idea, it's only guesswork, interpretations of a few quotes, body language, etc. I just get the vibe that the Giants might think they have Brady and the Pats number.

Who here thinks that the Colts next year, with a new coach, new GM, and Andrew Luck will win more games than they did this year?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Who here thinks that the Colts next year, with a new coach, new GM, and Andrew Luck will win more games than they did this year?

New coach, new GM, and the offseason free agent frenzy has not started. Then there's the draft. So a lot of player moves could be made between now and the start of next season. Just look what Carroll did in Seattle his first year with new GM John Schneider. But right now the Colts still have a pretty good core of players. So yeah, I think they will win more games next year than they did this year. We won't know until sometime in April what their schedule will be for the 2012-2013 season, but it is pretty safe to say they should win more games next year after almost going Oh-fer this year.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think Pete Carrol had more tools at his disposal, and a more functional owner and management.

I'm predicting the Colts go 3-13. But once I see who they get, schedule, etc, I'll revise.

Meanwhile, sticking to my SB prediction. Either the Giants will win by a FG, or the Patriots will win 40-24, with Brady throwing for over 400 yards (because I dreamed this!).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Alpe you should not forget the regression to the mean. It´s much more likely the Colts improve than staying at the same low level. For more infos on that issue, go to advanced stats.

A lot of moral and luck is involved. Even Ditka mentioned this in his great drunken interview. He might not have been the brightest play calling wise, but surely understands football. The talent difference between the top and lowest in the NFL is very thin.

Conclusion: I would take any bet in any form or amount to top your predicted wins (= 4 or more), even if Luck plays and half of the roster gets injured. You take it?

In other news: Only 3 days to go to one of the 3 top sporting events this year (next to the Giro and TdF).

PS: "... or the Patriots will win 40-24, with Brady throwing for over 400 yards (because I dreamed this!)". Would be nice your dream comes trou. And if so, please tell me the next time when you dreamed about lottery numbers.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The talent difference between the top and lowest in the NFL is very thin.

Yes, I distinctly remember Brock saying this to me. He held his fingers up about an inch apart and said the difference between the Packers and Panthers is really about that little.

The odds would dictate the Colts finish about 6-10 I suppose. But there's not enough info right now. I'm reminded of when the Cowboys fired Tom Landry after a bad season, got Jimmy Johnson in there, they took Troy Aikman with the first pick in the draft, and promptly finished 1-15, Troy was actually 0-11 as a starter (Steve Walsh won that game. Makes me wonder if Johnson had traded Aikman instead of Walsh what would have happened?).

I don't know if it was Tim Hasselbeck or someone on Doug Gottleib on ESPN, but they were saying the reason why they were for the Patriots is that they are a more consistently good team through the year and last decade. He had a problem with a team that runs hot and cold, are sometimes one bad game from their coach getting fired, or every fifth game or so their QB has a game where he looks terrible, but then, the team gets hot and winning the SB. I think he has a good point and that's why I'm going to cheer for the Patriots, even though I don't like either team.

Just imagine how exciting a Saints-Texans SB would have been? Or Packers-Ravens? Or how about a Lions-Bengals game? Instead, same tired old teams I'm sick of seeing.

ESPN guys saying the one mistake the Pats made in 2008 was being too wound up, which is why Belicheck seems more calm these last few days, but they also mentioned the Patriots don't seem cocky at all. But you have to know with his scheming mind he's got something cooked up. Maybe he made a deal with Peyton and got him to install some tiny spy cameras to watch the Giants practice.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I'm predicting the Colts go 3-13. But once I see who they get, schedule, etc, I'll revise.

Meanwhile, sticking to my SB prediction. Either the Giants will win by a FG, or the Patriots will win 40-24, with Brady throwing for over 400 yards (because I dreamed this!).

And you're predicting this without knowing who the QB will be? Very bold of you. I ain't predictin' nothin' till I have some more facts at my disposal.

I've never done scores, so I won't start now. I hope that we will get a close and exciting game, and that the Giants will win in the end for the simple reasons that 1. I dislike them less than the Pats and 2. the Pats are the beneficiaries of my Ravens beating themselves in Foxboro.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sounds about as sensible as my reasons for "cheering" for the Patriots.

Even if Manning comes back next year and starts for the Colts, they have many other problems. New coach, new GM, owner who is losing his sanity, several aging players, many other gaps to fill. It's going to be a tough year for them.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yes, I distinctly remember Brock saying this to me. He held his fingers up about an inch apart and said the difference between the Packers and Panthers is really about that little.

The odds would dictate the Colts finish about 6-10 I suppose. But there's not enough info right now. I'm reminded of when the Cowboys fired Tom Landry after a bad season, got Jimmy Johnson in there, they took Troy Aikman with the first pick in the draft, and promptly finished 1-15, Troy was actually 0-11 as a starter (Steve Walsh won that game. Makes me wonder if Johnson had traded Aikman instead of Walsh what would have happened?).

Of course, some teams even get worse after HC changes. Otherwise i couldn´t have offered the bet to you. But the chance to improve is higher...

I don't know if it was Tim Hasselbeck or someone on Doug Gottleib on ESPN, but they were saying the reason why they were for the Patriots is that they are a more consistently good team through the year and last decade. He had a problem with a team that runs hot and cold, are sometimes one bad game from their coach getting fired, or every fifth game or so their QB has a game where he looks terrible, but then, the team gets hot and winning the SB. I think he has a good point and that's why I'm going to cheer for the Patriots, even though I don't like either team.

That is the same way i am thinking. It even transformed me from "hating" the Pats to cheer for them like i did for Ulle (... ok, not that much ).

Just imagine how exciting a Saints-Texans SB would have been? Or Packers-Ravens? Or how about a Lions-Bengals game? Instead, same tired old teams I'm sick of seeing.

I would take the first two every time. But Lions-Bengals? Not really... At least one team should play the SB who deserved it trou constant performance the whole season.

ESPN guys saying the one mistake the Pats made in 2008 was being too wound up, which is why Belicheck seems more calm these last few days, but they also mentioned the Patriots don't seem cocky at all. But you have to know with his scheming mind he's got something cooked up. Maybe he made a deal with Peyton and got him to install some tiny spy cameras to watch the Giants practice.

Yes. No posing, no Bündchen story or whatever. It´s a good sign. The Giants OTOH really need some a... kicking to come back to earth. It´s unthinkable to have a NFL-"Champ" playing like the Calgary Stampeders of 2001, but pretending they are like the 1985-Bears. It´s disgusting.

I've never done scores, so I won't start now. I hope that we will get a close and exciting game, and that the Giants will win in the end for the simple reasons that 1. I dislike them less than the Pats and 2. the Pats are the beneficiaries of my Ravens beating themselves in Foxboro.

I hope for a blow out.... All my predictions wrong, and Manning throws 5 Ints (instead of 2) like Gannon in 2002/03 SB. A 40-24 NE-Win like Alpe said would be perfect.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I hope for a blow out.... All my predictions wrong, and Manning throws 5 Ints (instead of 2) like Gannon in 2002/03 SB.

Ha! I'm hoping the Patriots win by a last second mistake or turnover by the Giants. It would just seem fitting in an odd way.

I have to wonder if Rich Gannon and Bill Callahan have ever been in the same proximity since that game. Or Gannon and Barret Robbins. Actually, he had an excuse as he suffered from severe manic-depression. Callahan has no excuse. Worst play calling and preparation in SB history.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I've been wanting to post this for a few days. HBO did a great documentary special on Joe Namath this past week. I remember as a boy my uncle telling me about great QBs of the past. He said Johnny Unitas could will his team to win, same with Bart Starr, and YA Tittle. But Namath was something else. Called him the perfect passing machine, and a lot tougher than people realized. Now that I've seen the video, I believe it. If he were drafted today, he'd be a phenom like never seen before. He had the perfect delivery, a cannon for an arm, and played like we see QB's play today. And he was mobile, until injuries took a big toll on his career, and admittedly a lack of focus at times (which essentially became alcoholism). But if he were playing the game today he'd rack up every possible record (provided he was on a good team and kept his head on straight!)

Here's a video clip of the HBO show.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

They just show "Any given sunday" on german (!) TV. Which brings me to this Question/Poll:

What´s your favourite football movie?

Mine is "North Dallas Forty" (based on the book of former NFL player Peter Gent) with a great acting "Tooz" Matuszak (ex Raider).