# National Football League

Page 402 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

#### Oldermanish

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).
Please don't ever bring that up again. Marshawn said it best in the Corona commercial: " just hand it to me...I'm right here"

That was a call that broke a team. Thank you for being kind in the future.

#### The Hitch

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).
I took 30% because at the end of the game, on red zone, the commentator went through the probability shifts and said that it went from 90% Bears win or whatever(after Flacco INT) to 70% Broncos win - after the 2 pt conversion.

Remember that they were at mile high, while the probability calculator probably just has a generic ground. Denver is the friendliest kicking ground in the league, you don't need to go as far up the field to try. So probability increases.

I didn't miss that teams can still march down the field if you kick the 1pt.
I just think its such a big difference in attitude.
Unless you have Mahomes or prime Brett Favre you take it easy there if the game is tied. No risky throws. No 4th downs. No holding on to the ball until a receiver is free risking the strip sack.

Even the 2016 Atlanta Falcons which was a very high powered offense. with the MVP and a team willing to take risks, in a high scoring game, played it safe in the superbowl in that situation with even more time on the clocl.

Similarly the defense will play differently, knowing you HAVE to get into field goal territory, or knowing you will just try and punt on 4th down.

After seeing the ease with which Saints marched down the field last week, and Houston 30 seconds before that, or countless other examples in recent years of half minute drills becoming the new 2 minute drills, as offense continues to dominate defense more and more every year, I certainly thought Bears had a good chance. Add in a ref error (more probable than not at this stage) and bobs your uncle.

The final factor in the game on Sunday was that for the conversion, Denver was going up against the best defense in the league from last year. With a mid level at best offense of their own. On the flip side Bears have to get the FG against the Denver defense, but it did make the 2 pt conversion less than 50% imo.

Say overtime your probabilities are 40 40 and 10( draw)

Well i feel that the decision Denver took gave them a lower probability than that to win.
Sure in over time you can also lose but your chances are better.

So they deliberately took the lower chance to win for the team and.... lost.

I remember feeling the same way last year (or 2 years ago cant remember) in a televised game when Cam went for the 2 pointer with Carolina with 40 seconds left. There they didn't get it. And they also lost. On the contrary when Steelers went for it with Bell with 2 seconds left on the clock, there I agree - GO FOR IT.

But with time left, It just feels like the wrong choice to take. A coin flip where its heads you lose but tails - you don't necessarily win.

#### The Hitch

Please don't ever bring that up again. Marshawn said it best in the Corona commercial: " just hand it to me...I'm right here"

That was a call that broke a team. Thank you for being kind in the future.
Sorry for temporarily breaking your wishes but my biggest peeve in NFL history is this "they should have gave it to Lynch" narrative.

From everything have seen, Pete made a good decision. The "Marshawn would have won us the SB" view seems to be very emotional. IIRC the reality was that Marshawn had failed rushes from the 1 yd line even if he was a beast from elsewhere. Including the game before at SF.

The pass was less expected and would also stop the clock so Marshawn could also rush it in when it failed.

And I am also upset by the result as in the *** up world of NFL analysis, it was that great play from Butler that turned Brady from a 3-3 superbowl qb to "GOAT" (even though he had nothing to do with the play)

#### King Boonen

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?
You'd think it was fairly obvious to anyone who even had a passing knowledge of how rape cases have been historically handled wouldn't you? You'd think someone commenting on it and making assumptions might bother to consider this and take a moment to reflective before proclaiming to know what people think and why...

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.
I took 30% because at the end of the game, on red zone, the commentator went through the probability shifts and said that it went from 90% Bears win or whatever(after Flacco INT) to 70% Broncos win - after the 2 pt conversion.

Remember that they were at mile high, while the probability calculator probably just has a generic ground. Denver is the friendliest kicking ground in the league, you don't need to go as far up the field to try. So probability increases.

I didn't miss that teams can still march down the field if you kick the 1pt.
I just think its such a big difference in attitude.
Unless you have Mahomes or prime Brett Favre you take it easy there if the game is tied. No risky throws. No 4th downs. No holding on to the ball until a receiver is free risking the strip sack.

Even the 2016 Atlanta Falcons which was a very high powered offense. with the MVP and a team willing to take risks, in a high scoring game, played it safe in the superbowl in that situation with even more time on the clocl.

Similarly the defense will play differently, knowing you HAVE to get into field goal territory, or knowing you will just try and punt on 4th down.

After seeing the ease with which Saints marched down the field last week, and Houston 30 seconds before that, or countless other examples in recent years of half minute drills becoming the new 2 minute drills, as offense continues to dominate defense more and more every year, I certainly thought Bears had a good chance. Add in a ref error (more probable than not at this stage) and bobs your uncle.

The final factor in the game on Sunday was that for the conversion, Denver was going up against the best defense in the league from last year. With a mid level at best offense of their own. On the flip side Bears have to get the FG against the Denver defense, but it did make the 2 pt conversion less than 50% imo.

Say overtime your probabilities are 40 40 and 10( draw)

Well i feel that the decision Denver took gave them a lower probability than that to win.
Sure in over time you can also lose but your chances are better.

So they deliberately took the lower chance to win for the team and.... lost.

I remember feeling the same way last year (or 2 years ago cant remember) in a televised game when Cam went for the 2 pointer with Carolina with 40 seconds left. There they didn't get it. And they also lost. On the contrary when Steelers went for it with Bell with 2 seconds left on the clock, there I agree - GO FOR IT.

But with time left, It just feels like the wrong choice to take. A coin flip where its heads you lose but tails - you don't necessarily win.
It's a moot point since Denver lost the game anyway. And there is the irony; if the Broncos failed the 2 pt conversion, then all the pundits would have been all over Fangio for making a stupid decision to go for two. If the Broncos hold Chicago and win the game, then Fangio is praised at making a "gutsy" call to go for two. And if Fangio just played it safe and kicked, Chicago isn't going to just sit on the ball and play for OT with 31 ticks and a TO left against a less than stellar Denver defense that day.

And as it turn out, Trubisky got the job done and put his team in a position to win. Of course, Denver had a costly penalty with Chubb's PF-roughing on Trubisky. But with 4th & 15 at the Chicago 40 and Denver in a prevent defense, Trubisky hits a 25 yd strike over the middle to Robinson who brilliantly falls down with 1 second left and the TO called. And the "new" kicker Eddy Pineiro is "money" from the 53 and game over. So, I don't think you have to be a Mahomes or Brady to move your team downfield in the closing seconds of a game and put your team in a position to win or tie. This is what these high-draft pick QBs are paid to do. The NFL is a results orientated league - especially with the QBs. Get the job done or they'll find someone else to do it. That's why after just 2 games Manning is being benched and done at New York. That's why Alex Smith was run out of KC and Flacco out of Baltimore. And speaking of Elway's "lead us to promise land" QB, he throws a stupid pick near the goal line late in the 4th intended for Sanders who is covered like a blanket on a cold winter day. A SB winning seasoned-veteran QB making an ill-advised pass that you see rookies make. Without that pick, Denver gets at least a FG and the complexity of the game is changed. And only three 3rd down conversations and 14 pts says it all for this anemic offense.

Here's something interesting for those keeping track of 0-2 teams:

"Since the NFL adopted its current 12-team playoff format in 1990, there have been 160 clubs that began a year with a 0-2 record. Only 22 of those teams, just 13.75 percent, became playoff entries. The odds are even poorer in the past decade, with only 10.8 percent of the 0-2 teams recovering. There were no such clubs in five of the past 10 seasons and, since 1991, no more than three in a year."

movingtarget

#### Merckx index

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?
Of course one has a better chance of winning a civil case than a criminal case. The standard is preponderance of evidence, rather than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (though in a criminal case, unlike a civil one, the plaintiff does not have to prove that harm was done). But it’s possible to pursue both types of cases simultaneously—though usually the civil case has to wait till the criminal one is finished—and failing to win the criminal case does not affect the chances of the civil case, unless some evidence appears in favor of the defendant that would also have favored him/her in the civil case.

A sexual assault defendant can be tried in civil court by an accuser even if a criminal court declared the defendant innocent of a crime, and an accused person can be charged criminally regardless of the outcome of a civil case.
https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/the-difference-between-civil-sexual-assault-and-criminal-sexual-assault/

Also, as Shadow pointed out, the findings of a criminal case, even one that the plaintiff loses, can be used in the civil case.

The findings in a criminal case (a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, a plea agreement, and any “findings of fact”) can usually be used as evidence in a civil case under a doctrine called "collateral estoppel," a complex rule that determines whether criminal findings can be used without having to prove everything a second time in the civil case. It's difficult for even highly-skilled attorneys to predict how a judge might apply collateral estoppel, but the general rule is that if the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to plead his or her case in the criminal trial, the results from the criminal trial will likely be applied in the civil court case.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/civil-case-criminal-case-after-assault.html

I will grant that a woman is under no obligation to file criminal charges, and not doing so doesn’t necessarily mean she’s only interested in money. In Taylor’s case, maybe she thought she couldn’t win, and didn’t want to experience the pain of losing. OK, that's fair enough. I will yield on that.

But my other main point was that regardless of her motives, not reporting to the police doesn't particularly help her case. The police can frequently obtain evidence that’s very useful for the civil case, and the fact that a woman does report to the police increases her credibility for a civil case. Also, filing a civil case can be very expensive, since the plaintiff basically takes complete responsibility for it, whereas criminal cases are prosecuted by the government. IOW, even if the woman loses the criminal case, she still gets, in effect, a lot of free help for a subsequent civil case. And finally, as noted in the quote above, even if she loses the civil case, she could still win a criminal case. She could do this because the standard in the latter is liability, rather than harm.

Where is Chewy? I would like to hear his input into this.

Last edited:

#### Oldermanish

Sorry for temporarily breaking your wishes but my biggest peeve in NFL history is this "they should have gave it to Lynch" narrative.

From everything have seen, Pete made a good decision. The "Marshawn would have won us the SB" view seems to be very emotional. IIRC the reality was that Marshawn had failed rushes from the 1 yd line even if he was a beast from elsewhere. Including the game before at SF.

The pass was less expected and would also stop the clock so Marshawn could also rush it in when it failed.

And I am also upset by the result as in the *** up world of NFL analysis, it was that great play from Butler that turned Brady from a 3-3 superbowl qb to "GOAT" (even though he had nothing to do with the play)
I mention it tongue in cheek and, as you noted; there was potential for success both ways. I just liked the beer commercial as Marshawn is a total icon in Seattle.
I also share the sentiment about Brady. Russell Wilson played at his equal in that game so it should be chalked up to Butler's play, for sure.

In Pennsylvania the police reached out to Taylor for the first allegation but they say there is a statue of limitations. Just the two in Florida can apparently be prosecuted but haven't seen anything from them.

#### The Hitch

It's a moot point since Denver lost the game anyway. And there is the irony; if the Broncos failed the 2 pt conversion, then all the pundits would have been all over Fangio for making a stupid decision to go for two. If the Broncos hold Chicago and win the game, then Fangio is praised at making a "gutsy" call to go for two. And if Fangio just played it safe and kicked, Chicago isn't going to just sit on the ball and play for OT with 31 ticks and a TO left against a less than stellar Denver defense that day.

And as it turn out, Trubisky got the job done and put his team in a position to win. Of course, Denver had a costly penalty with Chubb's PF-roughing on Trubisky. But with 4th & 15 at the Chicago 40 and Denver in a prevent defense, Trubisky hits a 25 yd strike over the middle to Robinson who brilliantly falls down with 1 second left and the TO called. And the "new" kicker Eddy Pineiro is "money" from the 53 and game over. So, I don't think you have to be a Mahomes or Brady to move your team downfield in the closing seconds of a game and put your team in a position to win or tie. This is what these high-draft pick QBs are paid to do. The NFL is a results orientated league - especially with the QBs. Get the job done or they'll find someone else to do it. That's why after just 2 games Manning is being benched and done at New York. That's why Alex Smith was run out of KC and Flacco out of Baltimore. And speaking of Elway's "lead us to promise land" QB, he throws a stupid pick near the goal line late in the 4th intended for Sanders who is covered like a blanket on a cold winter day. A SB winning seasoned-veteran QB making an ill-advised pass that you see rookies make. Without that pick, Denver gets at least a FG and the complexity of the game is changed. And only three 3rd down conversations and 14 pts says it all for this anemic offense.

Here's something interesting for those keeping track of 0-2 teams:

"Since the NFL adopted its current 12-team playoff format in 1990, there have been 160 clubs that began a year with a 0-2 record. Only 22 of those teams, just 13.75 percent, became playoff entries. The odds are even poorer in the past decade, with only 10.8 percent of the 0-2 teams recovering. There were no such clubs in five of the past 10 seasons and, since 1991, no more than three in a year."
I said that only a Mahomes type player might move their team down the field with the game tied in the last minute.

You said yourself Trubitsky went for it on 4th down. Because they were losing and had to. If it was a tie they would never have got near the field goal.

That's my whole point. "going for the win", when there is still time left on the clock, isn't really going for the win, because you are forcing your opponent to fight to the death before overtime, rather than shake your hand and take the 50 50 shake.

But commentators and apparently coaches seem to think that going for 2 with 0 seconds left and with 30 seconds or a minute left, is the same.

#### Merckx index

That's my whole point. "going for the win", when there is still time left on the clock, isn't really going for the win, because you are forcing your opponent to fight to the death before overtime, rather than shake your hand and take the 50 50 shake.

But commentators and apparently coaches seem to think that going for 2 with 0 seconds left and with 30 seconds or a minute left, is the same.
But again, the difference is not that much. According to the WP calculator, if the score is tied, and a team is on its own 25 with 30" remaining, it has a 57.6% chance of winning. So if a team trailing by 7 scores a TD with 30" left, and decides to kick, it has a .95 x (1 - .576) = 40% chance of winning.

if a team is down by 1 point with 30" left, and on its own 25, it has a 24% chance of winning. So in the same scenario, if a team decides to go for two, it has a .48 x (1 - .24) = 36% chance of winning. That's a significant difference, but it really depends on how good the team going for two is. If it has a 52.5% chance of making two, then it has a 40% chance of winning, same as by kicking. And for a team that has a 55% chance of making the two, the odds of winning are better than kicking.

Another factor results from the risks that a team that is trailing will take. As you note, a team that is tied will play more conservatively, while a team that is trailing by one point has nothing to lose and will go all out. But this means that the team is less likely to accept a touchback, and instead will run out a KO that goes into the EZ. In these circumstances, the odds are that it will start from deeper in its own territory than the 25, which reduces its odds of winning even further. E..g., if the team starts from its own 15 instead of its own 25, its odds of winning are about 16.5%. This means that if the other team has an average 48% chance of making two, it has a 40% chance of winning the game, same as by kicking. It would be interesting to see what the average starting field position of a team is when it's trailing with little time left.

There are other factors that can come into play. If the team kicks the point, it can only win by going into OT (barring a turnover in the final 30", which is very unlikely). OT means more wear and tear on the players, and could impact the following game. Going for two ensures that, win or lose, OT will be avoided.

One thing WP does imply is that going for two is only advisable if there is very little time left. If there is 1 minute or more left, the WP of the trailing team goes up very significantly, while there is little effect on the outcome if the game is tied.

Last edited:

#### Archibald

Of course one has a better chance of winning a civil case than a criminal case. The standard is preponderance of evidence, rather than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (though in a criminal case, unlike a civil one, the plaintiff does not have to prove that harm was done). But it’s possible to pursue both types of cases simultaneously—though usually the civil case has to wait till the criminal one is finished—and failing to win the criminal case does not affect the chances of the civil case, unless some evidence appears in favor of the defendant that would also have favored him/her in the civil case.

https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/the-difference-between-civil-sexual-assault-and-criminal-sexual-assault/

Also, as Shadow pointed out, the findings of a criminal case, even one that the plaintiff loses, can be used in the civil case.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/civil-case-criminal-case-after-assault.html

I will grant that a woman is under no obligation to file criminal charges, and not doing so doesn’t necessarily mean she’s only interested in money. In Taylor’s case, maybe she thought she couldn’t win, and didn’t want to experience the pain of losing. OK, that's fair enough. I will yield on that.

But my other main point was that regardless of her motives, not reporting to the police doesn't particularly help her case. The police can frequently obtain evidence that’s very useful for the civil case, and the fact that a woman does report to the police increases her credibility for a civil case. Also, filing a civil case can be very expensive, since the plaintiff basically takes complete responsibility for it, whereas criminal cases are prosecuted by the government. IOW, even if the woman loses the criminal case, she still gets, in effect, a lot of free help for a subsequent civil case. And finally, as noted in the quote above, even if she loses the civil case, she could still win a criminal case. She could do this because the standard in the latter is liability, rather than harm.

Where is Chewy? I would like to hear his input into this.
rape trials can be extremely savage on the victim, so I completely get a victim not wanting to go through it twice, thus choosing the "easier" of the two. Also, lawyers don't like going to trial on dice rolls, or from an uncertain/bad position.
Agree that the non-reporting to the police wouldn't help, and does seem odd. But, then again rape victims aren't necessarily in the best of minds right after experiencing the trauma they've just endured, and can do some things that to us 'Monday quarterbacks' (who have the clarity of hindsight to) think really odd...

Unfortunately, KB, the only obvious thing about rape cases, from their history, is just how much they're skewed in favour of men, and how hard they are for the victim to win

#### King Boonen

rape trials can be extremely savage on the victim, so I completely get a victim not wanting to go through it twice, thus choosing the "easier" of the two. Also, lawyers don't like going to trial on dice rolls, or from an uncertain/bad position.
Agree that the non-reporting to the police wouldn't help, and does seem odd. But, then again rape victims aren't necessarily in the best of minds right after experiencing the trauma they've just endured, and can do some things that to us 'Monday quarterbacks' (who have the clarity of hindsight to) think really odd...

Unfortunately, KB, the only obvious thing about rape cases, from their history, is just how much they're skewed in favour of men, and how hard they are for the victim to win
Yeah, that's kind of my whole point in this discussion, along with the way many will jump to defend accused rapists as soon as it comes out and try and destroy the victims character, usually men. Even a 5 minute internet search will provide enough information to see that this is the case.

#### on3m@n@rmy

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).
No stopping NE for now or for a while. As for Jets, unless they sign someone off the couch (Kaep still in mind) or practice squads, their opponents will likely face 2nd year journeyman Luke Falk. I think Falk will be better than the injured Trev Siemien would have been though. Not sure how many of the 7 Jet starters who missed last week with injury are still out this week. Last I heard Darnold was going to miss 2 weeks.

Go Bills! Someone has to make that division a challenge!

I think Pittsburgh is going to be better with Mason Rudolph at QB than many think. But as you said, probably not enough to take the division.

As to Seattle, putting the ball in the hands of Wilson would appear to make sense. But their OL is built to run, and the run threat opens up their passing and takes some pressure off their pass blocking. If opponents get a sniff that Seattle's identity has shifted to pass orientation, that will put added pressure on their pass blocking, which they are weaker at. Topping that off, Fluker & Pocic are hurt and may not play this week. But how does Seattle not take advantage of the over-the-top deep threat DK Metcalf poses?

My jury's out on Houston. But that unknown Jags QB Gardner Minshew is pretty well known in the PNW. He's decent and is a serious student of the game. Watch out if his OL can protect him, which they are kinda failing at so far.

Agree NO needs to go over-the-top some, let TB play, & dinking won't work.

Yep, the battle for 2nd place in the NFC West is definitely on. Or even for 1st.

What the heck team cancelled practice Wednesday because of too many injuries? Was that true? What the he!! is going on out there? I'm tapping out.

#### Oldermanish

Yeah, that's kind of my whole point in this discussion, along with the way many will jump to defend accused rapists as soon as it comes out and try and destroy the victims character, usually men. Even a 5 minute internet search will provide enough information to see that this is the case.
We have a President that is the Poster Boy for this scenario. Like the whole country's evolution stepped back 50 years....

#### Alpe d'Huez

...2nd year journeyman Luke Falk. ...I think Pittsburgh is going to be better with Mason Rudolph at QB than many think... Jags QB Gardner Minshew is pretty well known in the PNW...
All of these guys remind me of Nick Mullens, of SF. Can he play in the NFL? Yes, it appears so, even though none were that big of names in college. Can the team win games with him? Probably, it's a team game. Is this guy going to take you into the playoffs? Probably not, unless the rest of the team plays superb. Win playoff games? Highly unlikely. But as others noted, Rudolph actually played better than Ben, who has definitely slipped and should I think retire.

Daniel Jones getting the start over Eli Manning, who hasn't had a good game in aeons and in my opinion is the most overrated QB in memory. Part of my opinion is shaped by all the NY media and fans that love him and constantly remind everyone of his two SB MVP trophies (in games where the Giant defense held Tom Brady and the Pats to 14 and 17 points), in playoff years they got some very fortunate bounces. He's gone 8-23 in his last 31 games. Oh, Eli's also still one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and made more money than any player in NFL history, a whopping \$252m. Yes, somehow it's true.

Jones outplayed Manning in the preseason, but wasn't asked to do a lot. I'm not sure he's really ready to take the team over, but Eli is finished, done. Was a few years ago, and never really that good, his name, team, and agent, got him where he was.

#### Oldermanish

We have a President that is the Poster Boy for this scenario. Like the whole country's evolution stepped back 50 years....
And now we have Nike dropping AB....do they know something no one else has seen?

#### on3m@n@rmy

The Mullens analogy is a good one. But I feel like generating some snickers, so I'll go out on a limb. Alpe, I propose a gentlemen's bet. I'll say Gardner Minshew will be the next mini-version of Tom Brady, although not with as many SB wins. But I will say GM, being a low round draft pick, will be able to take some NFL team to the playoffs and a SB. Maybe not with JAX, however, which is a team with too many holes right now. Problem is, might have to wait 5 to 10 years. That is an easy bet for you, cuz even if GM has the goods (I think he does upstairs), getting on the right team/situation has not happened yet. So ok?

#### Oldermanish

The Mullens analogy is a good one. But I feel like generating some snickers, so I'll go out on a limb. Alpe, I propose a gentlemen's bet. I'll say Gardner Minshew will be the next mini-version of Tom Brady, although not with as many SB wins. But I will say GM, being a low round draft pick, will be able to take some NFL team to the playoffs and a SB. Maybe not with JAX, however, which is a team with too many holes right now. Problem is, might have to wait 5 to 10 years. That is an easy bet for you, cuz even if GM has the goods (I think he does upstairs), getting on the right team/situation has not happened yet. So ok?
I hope your limb-walking pans out. Minshew was an amazing and intelligent college QB. He also had a bunch of fast and talented college receivers.
Most of all; he was self-effacing and had a sense of humor. That would be a double bonus for the NFL...and the porn industry.

#### movingtarget

And now we have Nike dropping AB....do they know something no one else has seen?
in the current political climate I'm not surprised by Nike's actions. AB has been building a catalogue of strange behavior that a lot of sponsors would probably at least question. The current allegations are damaging whether they are true or not and sponsors are not usually in the mood for giving the benefit of the doubt these days. They probably think they can find more engaging personalities who are more professional and with a lot less baggage............

#### movingtarget

Mariota will need an ice bath after that game.........

#### jmdirt

in the current political climate I'm not surprised by Nike's actions. AB has been building a catalogue of strange behavior that a lot of sponsors would probably at least question. The current allegations are damaging whether they are true or not and sponsors are not usually in the mood for giving the benefit of the doubt these days. They probably think they can find more engaging personalities who are more professional and with a lot less baggage............
Plus there are less serious accusations coming out from others: an artist who ab was inappropriate with, a doc who says AB kept farting in his face and never paid his bills,, maybe more to come. Some might say who cares if he farts in peoples' faces, but like you said sponsors don't want any of that stuff.

#### Merckx index

Plus there are less serious accusations coming out from others: an artist who ab was inappropriate with, a doc who says AB kept farting in his face and never paid his bills,, maybe more to come. Some might say who cares if he farts in peoples' faces, but like you said sponsors don't want any of that stuff.
More from the artist now. She claims that after the recent accusations were made public, Brown sent her an intimidating message with pictures of her children. I really don't see how he can be allowed to play after this.

Also, the unnamed woman added this:

“Our client ... is understandably frightened by these text messages, which are clearly intended to threaten and intimidate her,” the lawyer wrote. “While she certainly qualifies as a ‘starving artist,’ she has never approached Mr. Brown, nor will she, about seeking money to compensate her for his sexual misconduct, contrary to his allegations in the text messages.”

If Britney Taylor denies Brown's charge that she asked him for money for her business, that will certainly help her case.

Meanwhile, the discussion Hitch started about going for 1 or 2 in the final minute has proved to be very timely. An article on that :

Asked whether NFL teams should go for two or kick if they score a late touchdown to pull within one, Frigo says it’s a marginal decision that can lean in either direction depending on a number of factors. Chief among them: Extra-point and two-point conversion percentage, hypothetical overtime odds and – the variable most often overlooked by NFL coaches – time remaining.

The article basically covers all the points both Hitch and I were making, even as we were disagreeing somewhat with each other.

This reminds me of another pet peeve. Back in the 1980s, Nebraska lost a national championship game when it scored the tying TD late in the game, went for two, and failed. They gambled and lost, and deserved to lose the game, fair enough. But they also lost their no. 1 ranking. Everyone knows (or certainly assumed at that time, when WP was not well established) that if they had kicked, the game would have ended in a tie, and if it had, Nebraska would have retained its no. 1. That was a given, because Nebraska came into the game undefeated, while Miami had lost one game. So Nebraska basically got jobbed for playing to win. They could have played for a tie, retained an unbeaten season, and finished no. 1.

N.B.: there was no OT in those days. IF Nebraska had kicked successfully, and Miami hadn't scored, the game would have ended in a tie. I'm not sure how much time was left, but apparently less than a minute. Also not certain how many risks Miami might have taken in a tie game. They would have to win the game to win the national championship, so they didn't have much to lose, other than the status of tying the no. 1 team.

Last edited:

#### Unchained

There is nothing political about rape or sexual assault.
Nike and others play both ends against the middle. During and after the national anthem controversy Nike kept making money. The sponsorship from the big players is so broad that damage control is built in..the Nike ,Reebok,Adidas sponsorship almost guaranteed that someone from the big three American sports who gets into legal issues will be wearing a logo when it hits the fan.
You don't read too much about slave or child labor. Almost no coverage on working conditions or environmental impact..so Nike seeing AB as a start is not much.