• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

National Football League

Page 401 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Brees with a thumb ligament injury. Not a short term fix. Foles with a broken clavicle. Big Ben with a season ending elbow injury. Jets down to their third third string QB already. Could there be a worse start to the season for those teams ? And Miami continue to play like they are injured, or are desperate for a QB in the next draft................
 
re Antonio Brown.
To the poster who said the accuser is full of schit, go to Deadspin dot com and read the text Antonio sent to her after the initial incident. Then come back and tell us what you think about a complete stranger.
She accuser is going to have a hard time proving here case, mainly because she went back to him after he did things to her--things which he basically admitted to in the text message, and things I don't wish to repeat--but those "things" are part of her case.
Let's say he is acquitted of the charges -- which is pretty likely--after reading the text message he sent to her, would you sign him to a contract?

Edited to add "The" not "She"
Her, not here. Sorry for the typos.
The text message sounds like it comes from a fight or disagreement they had. It is extremely illiterate but maintains sentences that are important in the context of what he is talking about. The two texts are also 2 hours apart, who knows what was said in between them. This opinion I have comes from the text message, her court documents, his statement, and now news of the settlement.

The text message never has him state he raped her or had sexual relations without her knowing. He admits to ejaculating on her back and that they slept together in bed. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe someone was THAT OBLIVIOUS to someone masturbating directly behind them. The "f* your knowledge b**" can be thought of as rape by itself but he follows it up with "i been all pro before i even knew u!" in the same sentence. He then stated "u hit me up online b**** crying I didnt hit you up!" She stated he came to her to hire her, by his text he is stating he never needed or was interested in her professional services. Most likely he was interested romantically in her, she probably knew that. In his own statement he stated she contacted him after he signed his huge contract in 2017.

The next part is him stating she stayed at his house and his baby mama tricked Taylor. No idea what he means by that. Tells Taylor she is a failure and doesn't own a gym (which comes up later) tells her not to write him, and that Taylor was looking for a come up and the very next sentence states her and her mother were looking for a come up. Now I don't know what you define as "come up" but I think of it as someone finding easy money/gaining money. Which is supported in way by Urban Dictionary's top definition "A bargain, or a found item that is of value to the finder." According to Brown, Taylor asked him for money. He then states he and his baby mama controlled Taylor for 3 weeks. Again, don't know what that means. Maybe a three way relationship, who knows but it implies Brown's baby mama knew about Taylor. He then AGAIN says Taylor and her mother were trying to get a come up and should pick a better/easier man (in a lot more colorful language). Brown finishes that train of thought stating Taylor's mother is controlling her because she thinks she will get a come up as well.

He then states she is a failure of a gymnast (his opinion, why would he hire someone he thinks of as a failure). It then sounds like he states he told his friend about ejaculating on Taylor and that he'll let his friend hit Taylor up. Again states she is a failure gymnast and that she lives with her mother. Says Taylor is lucky he showed her around town. Brown finally finishes the text message with the statement "my baby mama know a weak b**** when she spot one u played yourself". Again, no idea what Brown's baby mama had a part in all of this but his last statement of you played yourself corroborates his statement of a come up.

Brownxs statement via his attorney states Taylor contacted Brown AFTER he signed his contract in Pittsburgh making him the highest paid reciever, not that he went to her. “At that time, Mr. Brown was asked to invest $1.6 million in the accuser’s business project. Mr. Brown was not informed by his accuser that she had just been levied with a $30K IRS tax lien or that $300K of the $1.6 million so called “investment” was to be used to purchase property already owned by the accuser and her mother.” Again, this supports his statement of Taylor coming to him for money about a gym.

On the settlement, who knows what the asking prices were in all of the mediation and settlement hearings. The articles I've seen have all been around $2 million with one stating Taylor asked for $10 million before dropping down to $2 million as the finale settlement. Those hearings can be used as a good baseline for one's case. For whatever reason, Brown declinded the settlement with the knowledge she will sue him and all of this will go public.

MI made a good post about this previously and I agree with it. I won't repeat what he said. I'll go one step further and dang it KB if this post ages bad then it does but that's my opinion. I believe in college Brown was attracted to Taylor and she knew it. Once Brown signed the contract with Pittsburgh she reached out to him for a consensual relationship. He accepted and she tried using her body in order to gain money from Brown. Taylor has absolutely no reason to not inform police after any of the three alleged rapes, to come back to Brown the second and third time if his sexual advances were not welcome, go back to his home by herself in the middle of the night to get her things after he allegedly raped her, and/or to stay at his house after two of the occurrences. Who the heck will sleep in someone's home after they ejaculated on your back without your permission. They probably had sex on multiple occasions, one or more of which he ejaculated on her back. At some point they have a huge fight about Brown not giving Taylor the money which led to the texts. Taylor made up the rape in order to gain money from Brown, bottom line.
 
Well, the part about other women coming forward is aging very well:


But I guess we will have to wait to see if the one paragraph out of six that you and jm apparently object to is validated. You're always going to get severely criticized in an Internet forum if someone doesn't agree with 15% of what you say.
You must be aware that victims get demonized more than accusers. "one of your six" paragraphs does just that. I'll criticize that whether its 1% or 100% or what your type. Could she be full of crap, sure, but you clearly didn't read what I typed.
 
Well, the part about other women coming forward is aging very well:


But I guess we will have to wait to see if the one paragraph out of six that you and jm apparently object to is validated. You're always going to get severely criticized in an Internet forum if someone doesn't agree with 15% of what you say.
When you jump to the defence of a rich sportsman and pile on with a load of pseudo-victim-blaming in a rape case you might find that people will object to it. Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that would be surprising?
 
Very high. They might not beat anyone besides Jets or Bills in Miami.

Why the "hate" KB? :sweatsmile:
No hate, I just think in cases like this its always best to wait until everything has been resolved through the courts etc. and then a discussion can at least happen with most of the facts. If you're interested, look into the history of rape cases re reporting and convictions and you'll find out why myself and jmdirt feel the need to call out such posts.
 
When you jump to the defence of a rich sportsman and pile on with a load of pseudo-victim-blaming in a rape case you might find that people will object to it. Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that would be surprising?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I made it very clear that I thought Brown was guilty of virtually everything he was accused of, that the only question was to the extent the law--not me, something you don't seem to understand--would consider the relationship consensual. Raising questions about her motives, and how the law would see them, is not pseudo-victim blaming. She did make the decision to return to working with him after incidents that would have been enough for most women to break off permanently. Why? This is not some spousal abuse situation, where the woman may have nowhere else to go. She didn't need him to be a client to survive, so why would she restart the relationship? You may differ, but I think that's a very reasonable question to ask. Your answer seems to be, she just felt sorry for him, and wanted to give him another chance. I'm thinking it was more about money. Again, that doesn't mean he didn't rape her and that she doesn't deserve justice. But it does raise legal questions.

You must be aware that victims get demonized more than accusers. "one of your six" paragraphs does just that. I'll criticize that whether its 1% or 100% or what your type. Could she be full of crap, sure, but you clearly didn't read what I typed.
What you typed was:

What if she was going to the police and ab's teams said 'please don't, it will destroy his career, we'll pay you off.'? If he raped her, she should get some of his money.
In other words, what if she agreed to a bribe? Isn't reporting a crime more important than getting paid for not reporting it? Not that those are exclusive options. She could have reported him to the police, then filed a civil case. Of course, if she did report to the police, and Brown lost his job, he might not have as much money to give her, but this just underscores the argument that this was more about getting money than criminal justice, doesn't it?

You and KB don't seem to understand that a woman can be genuinely raped, and still be questioned about why she didn't report it. Many women are inhibited from doing this, but very few at the same time ask for money to be quiet. Christine Blasey Ford didn't come out with her rape allegations for many years, but she never approached Kavanaugh and asked for a financial settlement.

Check out the Sports Illustrated piece that goes far beyond the rape allegation. At least a dozen people who have been involved with him in various capacities are interviewed, and he comes across as a total nut job. There are too many examples to mention here, but it is abundantly clear that the guy has serious mental health issues and is a dangerous person.
Definitely. It doesn't look good at all for NE to keep him in light of all this, but I'm sure they will until/unless he's convicted or at least formally charged with rape.

Proving rape in court is extremely hard to do. There is a high burden of proof that needs to be met. That does not mean it didn't happen.
I agree, but being unable to prove criminal charges does not affect a civil case. OJ is a good example of that. If she had filed criminal charges in the beginning, she might well have lost, for some of the reasons I've mentioned, but the burden of proof in a civil case is just preponderance of evidence, where she would seem to have a very good claim, based on the emails or texts. One of my central points is that if she had done this at the outset, she would be in a better legal position than she is now. She could still file criminal charges and win the case, or she could just win a civil case, but both claims would have been stronger if they had been made sooner, at the time at which she was clearly willing to go to him and ask for a financial settlement.
 
Last edited:
Shadow93:
I appreciate the lengthy reply, but I already said she will have a hard time proving her case. My question was: Would you sign him to a contract?
Check out the Sports Illustrated piece that goes far beyond the rape allegation. At least a dozen people who have been involved with him in various capacities are interviewed, and he comes across as a total nut job. There are too many examples to mention here, but it is abundantly clear that the guy has serious mental health issues and is a dangerous person. Proving rape in court is extremely hard to do. There is a high burden of proof that needs to be met. That does not mean it didn't happen.
Read the SI article if you have a chance to do so. It is both illuminating and very disturbing.
 
New England's blowout of Miami wasn't as bad as 43-0 sounds. The Pats D was superb, but they were inconsistent for much of the game on offense. AB did catch some nice throws, Michel got on track, but their line was missing guys, and at times their drives fell flat with mistakes. Of course, this is potentially scary for the rest of the league if a sloppy Patriots can beat any NFL team 43-0. Pats get Jets next, with who knows at QB. May start the season well over +100 in point differential, after just three games!

I think the Dolphins aren't likely to go 0-16. Though they may be lucky to beat Buffalo, even in Miami. As I said earlier, the Bills have an outside chance of making the playoffs. Their D is very good, and Allen, if he can keep his mistakes down, looks like the real deal. They host the Bengals on Sunday. A win would put them at 3-0. The week after is the acid test, hosting the Pats.

In preseason I said I thought the Steelers could rebound to win the division. With Ben out, I no longer believe that. Actually, Ben hadn't played well at all this year, so they probably wouldn't have anyway. Everyone loves Baltimore, and I agree Jackson is playing well, but let's see them take on some quality teams, like, KC next week. Really nice win for Seattle over Pitt, never the less. Put the ball in Russell's hands more, Pete!

As to NO, my thought is this: When Bridgewater was at his best (in Minn), he played all over field. That is, he threw short, deep, wide, scrambled, kept plays alive, and often winged it. But he didn't make bad mistakes while winging it. If NO has any chance, they simply cannot have him dink and dunk his way like they did on Sunday. It won't work. They'll go maybe 2-4 without Brees, and struggle to make the playoffs. They have to let Teddy play at his full potential, and make a few mistakes to get there. The rust is getting off, let Teddy play Sean! NO@SEA next week.

I was big on Houston, but them barely beating Jax, with some unknown at QB, is a concern. The same goes for the Chargers losing to Detroit. They get the Texans next.

Are the Packers going to win the NFC North, and look like the team everyone thought they'd be a couple seasons ago? If Rodgers can get in sync with the rest of the offense, it looks like it may be, with two big wins over division rivals.

Ok, they beat Cincy and TB, but both were on the road. At 2-0 are the 49ers for real? Cool to see three 2-0 teams in that division, with both SF and Seattle playing better than expected, and the Rams perhaps, maybe, a step off from last year. Rams @ Sea on thurs, Oct 3rd. SF @ Rams on Oct 13th. LAR travels to Cleveland on Sunday night.

Atlanta's win over Philly showed two messy teams, but was a good win. I still like their chances in that division. All four teams in the NFC south have negative point differential (so far).
 
Reactions: jmdirt and SHAD0W93
Shadow93:
I appreciate the lengthy reply, but I already said she will have a hard time proving her case. My question was: Would you sign him to a contract?
Check out the Sports Illustrated piece that goes far beyond the rape allegation. At least a dozen people who have been involved with him in various capacities are interviewed, and he comes across as a total nut job. There are too many examples to mention here, but it is abundantly clear that the guy has serious mental health issues and is a dangerous person. Proving rape in court is extremely hard to do. There is a high burden of proof that needs to be met. That does not mean it didn't happen.
Read the SI article if you have a chance to do so. It is both illuminating and very disturbing.

Sorry, I glossed over that part. Would I, no I don't think so if I was in that position knowing all of this information. I said on one of my posts I don't like him. I also said he should be allowed to play until facts come out he did it and then be punished for it by everyone (civil lawsuit, ciminal, and NFL). I always thought of him as a drama queen with Pittsburgh and it only got worse towards the end of 2018. His Raiders actions I thought was ludicrous and his brain damaged from VB hit since he's been acting a little different since. On the other legal things it sounds like he's a huge punk, which he probably is. Punk that can rape someone, I don't know. For this case as of now I don't think so, could he have done it to someone else like MI pointed too (and he very well could have settled with the parties like an article I read says he loved to do? or did advances that weren't welcome like his stepfather stating he was abusive (I think was the word used).

As of now AB is a huge punk as we can all see, but not a guilty rapist punk.
 
To your point MI about report, anything in the criminal case can only help her civil lawsuit. Even if the criminal case he is judged not quilty she can still sue in civil court and use evidence from criminal because it is a preponderance of evidence compared to 100% he did it (the proper word escapes me right now). All of this happened after he signed the Steelers huge contract so he definitely had money that she can show the civil court he had. Which is why I said before that she was waiting until Brown received money from either the Raiders or Patriots so she can show he JUST received money and can't blow it all or hide it.

Then if he is in jail she can still garnish his bankout for the money every week/month depending on state law.
 
No hate, I just think in cases like this its always best to wait until everything has been resolved through the courts etc. and then a discussion can at least happen with most of the facts. If you're interested, look into the history of rape cases re reporting and convictions and you'll find out why myself and jmdirt feel the need to call out such posts.
That's why I had hate in quotations. I agree, I was originally posting because I didn't like the fact people were acting as if he was already proven guilty when he isn't yet. Then it snowballed (as debates do) into this. We all have opinions, most think he did it, I think it was consensual. We'll see when it's over.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about. I made it very clear that I thought Brown was guilty of virtually everything he was accused of, that the only question was to the extent the law--not me, something you don't seem to understand--would consider the relationship consensual. Raising questions about her motives, and how the law would see them, is not pseudo-victim blaming. She did make the decision to return to working with him after incidents that would have been enough for most women to break off permanently. Why? This is not some spousal abuse situation, where the woman may have nowhere else to go. She didn't need him to be a client to survive, so why would she restart the relationship? You may differ, but I think that's a very reasonable question to ask. Your answer seems to be, she just felt sorry for him, and wanted to give him another chance. I'm thinking it was more about money. Again, that doesn't mean he didn't rape her and that she doesn't deserve justice. But it does raise legal questions.



What you typed was:



In other words, what if she agreed to a bribe? Isn't reporting a crime more important than getting paid for not reporting it? Not that those are exclusive options. She could have reported him to the police, then filed a civil case. Of course, if she did report to the police, and Brown lost his job, he might not have as much money to give her, but this just underscores the argument that this was more about getting money than criminal justice, doesn't it?

You and KB don't seem to understand that a woman can be genuinely raped, and still be questioned about why she didn't report it. Many women are inhibited from doing this, but very few at the same time ask for money to be quiet. Christine Blasey Ford didn't come out with her rape allegations for many years, but she never approached Kavanaugh and asked for a financial settlement.



Definitely. It doesn't look good at all for NE to keep him in light of all this, but I'm sure they will until/unless he's convicted or at least formally charged with rape.



I agree, but being unable to prove criminal charges does not affect a civil case. OJ is a good example of that. If she had filed criminal charges in the beginning, she might well have lost, for some of the reasons I've mentioned, but the burden of proof in a civil case is just preponderance of evidence, where she would seem to have a very good claim, based on the emails or texts. One of my central points is that if she had done this at the outset, she would be in a better legal position than she is now. She could still file criminal charges and win the case, or she could just win a civil case, but both claims would have been stronger if they had been made sooner, at the time at which she was clearly willing to go to him and ask for a financial settlement.
I don't disagree that accepting a 'bribe' creates its own questions, but my point was that you made it seem like she started out looking for money, when that might not have been the case. That paragraph stank of "she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking to get raped".

I have never been a woman nor have I been raped so its easy for me to question things, but as I typed earlier, you can't question the emotions of a victim.

Anyway, we'll see how it plays out...
 
Reactions: Merckx index
New England's blowout of Miami wasn't as bad as 43-0 sounds. The Pats D was superb, but they were inconsistent for much of the game on offense. AB did catch some nice throws, Michel got on track, but their line was missing guys, and at times their drives fell flat with mistakes. Of course, this is potentially scary for the rest of the league if a sloppy Patriots can beat any NFL team 43-0. Pats get Jets next, with who knows at QB. May start the season well over +100 in point differential, after just three games!

I think the Dolphins aren't likely to go 0-16. Though they may be lucky to beat Buffalo, even in Miami. As I said earlier, the Bills have an outside chance of making the playoffs. Their D is very good, and Allen, if he can keep his mistakes down, looks like the real deal. They host the Bengals on Sunday. A win would put them at 3-0. The week after is the acid test, hosting the Pats.

In preseason I said I thought the Steelers could rebound to win the division. With Ben out, I no longer believe that. Actually, Ben hadn't played well at all this year, so they probably wouldn't have anyway. Everyone loves Baltimore, and I agree Jackson is playing well, but let's see them take on some quality teams, like, KC next week. Really nice win for Seattle over Pitt, never the less. Put the ball in Russell's hands more, Pete!

As to NO, my thought is this: When Bridgewater was at his best (in Minn), he played all over field. That is, he threw short, deep, wide, scrambled, kept plays alive, and often winged it. But he didn't make bad mistakes while winging it. If NO has any chance, they simply cannot have him dink and dunk his way like they did on Sunday. It won't work. They'll go maybe 2-4 without Brees, and struggle to make the playoffs. They have to let Teddy play at his full potential, and make a few mistakes to get there. The rust is getting off, let Teddy play Sean! NO@SEA next week.

I was big on Houston, but them barely beating Jax, with some unknown at QB, is a concern. The same goes for the Chargers losing to Detroit. They get the Texans next.

Are the Packers going to win the NFC North, and look like the team everyone thought they'd be a couple seasons ago? If Rodgers can get in sync with the rest of the offense, it looks like it may be, with two big wins over division rivals.

Ok, they beat Cincy and TB, but both were on the road. At 2-0 are the 49ers for real? Cool to see three 2-0 teams in that division, with both SF and Seattle playing better than expected, and the Rams perhaps, maybe, a step off from last year. Rams @ Sea on thurs, Oct 3rd. SF @ Rams on Oct 13th. LAR travels to Cleveland on Sunday night.

Atlanta's win over Philly showed two messy teams, but was a good win. I still like their chances in that division. All four teams in the NFC south have negative point differential (so far).
Eli at QB for MIA! :)
 
I don't disagree that accepting a 'bribe' creates its own questions, but my point was that you made it seem like she started out looking for money, when that might not have been the case. That paragraph stank of "she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking to get raped".
No, what I actually said was (and I know you saw this, because you replied to that post):

My best half-a$$ guess is that she wanted a personal relationship with him, but resisted his sexual advances for (justifiable) fear of just being used and tossed aside (they met at some college Christian group, and my impression of her is that she would refuse to have sex with him without a long-term commitment). If she also asked for money for her business, as Brown alleges, that obviously is also very damning. Still, after saying all this, it sounds like rape by the current definition probably did occur. Her case would be much better if she filed a criminal rather than civil suit. She could do both, of course, but if she really was raped, plus the harassment that Brown basically admits, she should have filed criminal charges first.
I did say that if she asked him for money it would hurt her case, which is simply the truth. I didn't say she started out looking for money, though, yes, I did say tha fact that she tried to push a financial settlement without filing criminal charges does indicate, to me, that by that point money washer main interest. As a simple fact, not an opinion, she was more interested in money than in filing criminal charges. AFAIK, this is quite unusual in such cases. The me too movement is all about identifying sexual harassment or rape perpetrators, and bringing them to justice, not about settling with the financially in private.
 
Last edited:
Actually MI, raising questions about her motives is pseudo-victim-blaming. The absolute arrogance of someone to think that they can completely understand anyone’s psychological state while going through something like that and post things like she doesn’t care about criminal justice is utterly astounding.



If Brees is gone for a while that could be NO’s season over already. Ben out too, could be 2 (maybe 3 with Brady) big name QBs walking away at the end of the season.
 
Eli at QB for MIA! :)
For Eli's sake I hope not. That's an injury waiting to happen behind that oline and with the team in shambles like that. He should try helping Jones and retire at the end of the year. Unfortunate for Brees and the Saints as I like him and have been hoping for a Brady v Brees Super Bowl. Bridgewater should get some wins for the Saints but who knows if Brees will be the same. This is probably the end of Ben, especially with him openly thinking of retirement. If no injuries, I think Brady will play one more year.
 
Hey Shadow93. I don't mean to put you on the defensive and assume you think he is innocent. You bring up a lot of good points.
I guess what I'm trying to say is when you put everything into perspective, he seems to be deranged. Not well in the brain, if you know what I'm saying. Of course that doesn't mean he raped someone, but given the allegation and his previous history, I think it's fair to conclude that something is amiss.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Just saw ending of Broncos and Bears.

its a pet peeve of mine that coaches go for the 2 pointer instead of tying the game when there is still 30 seconds left in the game, and think they are being clever.

Considering that 2 pointers have less than a 50% chance of being successful, but there is still 30 seconds left for the other team if you succeed, the math makes it an idiotic decision. If you dont make the conversion, you definitely lose. But if you do make it, you don't definitely win. In fact the odds say you only win 70% of the time, even if you make it.

So by going for the 2 point conversion instead of the tie, with time still on the clock, you are choosing to give your team a 1 in 3 chance of winning the game and 2 in 3 chance of losing.

But the coaches think they are being ballsy and the commentators always oblige about how they are "playing for the win".
 
Actually MI, raising questions about her motives is pseudo-victim-blaming.
Actually, implying that she is a victim, rather than an alleged victim, is assuming a certain outcome of the process before it happens. I believe she was a victim of his behavior as she claims, but I don’t know any of this for certain, nor do you. That being the case, her own behavior, as far as has been reported, is highly relevant to speculation of what happened.

Any one who has been charged with a crime—or who is alleged by someone, and thought by many, to have committed a crime—has a right to defend himself, and it’s pretty difficult to do that without discussing the behavior of the person making the charge. I think the fact that Brown has been accused of harassment by another woman is relevant to Taylor’s case against him. But by the same token, I believe the fact that she returned to him after the first incident, and that she never reported anything to the police, are also relevant. Brown really hasn't denied much of what she said happened, except to insist it was a consensual relationship. Whether it was or not, he certainly has a right to make that case, and these facts--not opinions, not assumptions about her psychological state--are relevant to doing that.

The "short skirt" point that jm made, and which you seem to support, is totally off base here. This was not some woman he picked up at a party or at a bar. They've known each other for years, and the professional relationship went on a long time. AFAIK, Brown has not specifically claimed she came onto him, or flirted with him, or used her body to get money from him. Shadow seems to believe that, I don't.

The absolute arrogance of someone to think that they can completely understand anyone’s psychological state while going through something like that and post things like she doesn’t care about criminal justice is utterly astounding.
Obviously I never claimed to understand completely her or anyone else’s psychological state. I made that abundantly clear when I said I could only guess how this relationship began and evolved. However, that she sought a financial settlement without reporting criminal behavior is a fact, and it requires no assumptions about her psychological state to conclude that money was more important to her than criminal justice. Her psychological state would be relevant to why she felt that way, but not to the fact that she did.

its a pet peeve of mine that coaches go for the 2 pointer instead of tying the game when there is still 30 seconds left in the game, and think they are being clever.

Considering that 2 pointers have less than a 50% chance of being successful, but there is still 30 seconds left for the other team if you succeed, the math makes it an idiotic decision. If you dont make the conversion, you definitely lose. But if you do make it, you don't definitely win. In fact the odds say you only win 70% of the time, even if you make it.

So by going for the 2 point conversion instead of the tie, with time still on the clock, you are choosing to give your team a 1 in 3 chance of winning the game and 2 in 3 chance of losing.
5-38 agrees with you, but not to the extent that the decision is idiotic. In the first place, some teams have a > 50% chance of making the two point conversion. In the second place, under the new rules, kicking the point is not automatic, it's about 95%. In the third place, if you take the lead with 30" left, you have more than a 70% chance of winning. According to one site, the odds of scoring a FG with 30" left and the ball on your own 20 are only 7%.

So going for the tie is probably better, but not by much.

 
Last edited:
Reactions: SHAD0W93
I wonder what the percentage is of teams who kicked the extra point to tie the game and they lose in overtime is.
The site advancednflstats.com has a win probability calculator, where you can plug in various game factors like score differential, time left, where the ball is, etc. But I can't access it. Another site that used that calculator said it came up with a 7% chance of winning if trailing by 1 on its own 20 with 30" left.

However, Football Reference also has a calculator, and it says the WP for.a team trailing by 1 with the ball on its own 20 with 30" left is about 22-23%. I don't know why the discrepancy, but this is closer to what Hitch says. Since the average starting position following a KO is the 25, we could use that, and the probability rises slightly, 24-25%. For a 30% chance of winning, i.e., the team that made the two point conversion has a 70% chance to win, the receiving team has to start at its own 42.


So, if you go for two, and are an average team, you have a 48% chance of making it, and let's say a 75% chance of holding the lead: so only a 36% chance of winning. If you kick, you have a 95% chance of tying. But the other team still has a 25% chance of winning, same as if you made the two points, so you have 71% chance of going into OT. If the odds are 50% of winning in OT, your overall chances of winning if you kick are 36%. It's basically a tossup, and probably comes down to contingencies like your team's defense, etc.

What Hitch missed is that if you kick and tie the game, you don't automatically go into OT. Whatever probability the other team has of coming back to win after a 2-point conversion also holds if the game is tied. Maybe the other team will be a little more conservative, but it won't just capitulate if it has a chance to win in regulation.

By the way: Remember how Pete Carroll was ridiculed for passing from the 1 yard line in the SB? Using that same calculator, Seattle's WP before that play--26 seconds left, first and goal from the 1: was 46-47%. IOW, scoring a TD and winning the game was not a slam dunk. Even if SE had scored, NE would have had about a 15% chance of coming back with a FG to tie the game, and about a 10% chance of winning (most likely in OT, but also a small chance in regulation).
 
Last edited:
What is the age threshold for a good coach -quarterback relationship? I really hope that the staff at Pittsburgh looked at Big Ben and knew that second and third string guys better be taking some snaps. NY Giants? Not saying Manning has been suckin' on lifesavers for a few seasons but come on..they didn't see this coming? Brady and Brees are good players but if you believe in any version of money ball this body of a 20yo thing doesn't hold up.
are all current starters such queens that they would be overly insulted if the coaches have an elaborate contingency plan?
I really don't see how the teams could be negatively impacted by not having Manning or Rothlesburger on the field..
Andrew Luck is the only real surprise.
 
However, that she sought a financial settlement without reporting criminal behavior is a fact, and it requires no assumptions about her psychological state to conclude that money was more important to her than criminal justice. Her psychological state would be relevant to why she felt that way, but not to the fact that she did.
Is it possible that the decision to go civil and not criminal, could be on the advise of some friend/attorney/lawyer? One that believes she may have little to no chance of the criminal charges succeeding, but the civil one having the better chance?
 
New England's blowout of Miami wasn't as bad as 43-0 sounds. The Pats D was superb, but they were inconsistent for much of the game on offense. AB did catch some nice throws, Michel got on track, but their line was missing guys, and at times their drives fell flat with mistakes. Of course, this is potentially scary for the rest of the league if a sloppy Patriots can beat any NFL team 43-0. Pats get Jets next, with who knows at QB. May start the season well over +100 in point differential, after just three games!

I think the Dolphins aren't likely to go 0-16. Though they may be lucky to beat Buffalo, even in Miami. As I said earlier, the Bills have an outside chance of making the playoffs. Their D is very good, and Allen, if he can keep his mistakes down, looks like the real deal. They host the Bengals on Sunday. A win would put them at 3-0. The week after is the acid test, hosting the Pats.

In preseason I said I thought the Steelers could rebound to win the division. With Ben out, I no longer believe that. Actually, Ben hadn't played well at all this year, so they probably wouldn't have anyway. Everyone loves Baltimore, and I agree Jackson is playing well, but let's see them take on some quality teams, like, KC next week. Really nice win for Seattle over Pitt, never the less. Put the ball in Russell's hands more, Pete!

As to NO, my thought is this: When Bridgewater was at his best (in Minn), he played all over field. That is, he threw short, deep, wide, scrambled, kept plays alive, and often winged it. But he didn't make bad mistakes while winging it. If NO has any chance, they simply cannot have him dink and dunk his way like they did on Sunday. It won't work. They'll go maybe 2-4 without Brees, and struggle to make the playoffs. They have to let Teddy play at his full potential, and make a few mistakes to get there. The rust is getting off, let Teddy play Sean! NO@SEA next week.

I was big on Houston, but them barely beating Jax, with some unknown at QB, is a concern. The same goes for the Chargers losing to Detroit. They get the Texans next.

Are the Packers going to win the NFC North, and look like the team everyone thought they'd be a couple seasons ago? If Rodgers can get in sync with the rest of the offense, it looks like it may be, with two big wins over division rivals.

Ok, they beat Cincy and TB, but both were on the road. At 2-0 are the 49ers for real? Cool to see three 2-0 teams in that division, with both SF and Seattle playing better than expected, and the Rams perhaps, maybe, a step off from last year. Rams @ Sea on thurs, Oct 3rd. SF @ Rams on Oct 13th. LAR travels to Cleveland on Sunday night.

Atlanta's win over Philly showed two messy teams, but was a good win. I still like their chances in that division. All four teams in the NFC south have negative point differential (so far).
People forget how good Bridgewater was before his leg injury. The 49ers meet the Steelers next week and have to like their chances of going 3-0 for the season so far although Staley's injury won't help their O Line. Been a while since the 49ers had such a good start to the season but their schedule for the second half off the season is very hard and the NFC West is very competitive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts