National Football League Thread

[acasser]

You ever watch two kids fight over a toy, screaming "Mine! Mine!" all the while?  That's how I felt watching the Jets/Jags game this afternoon.... only the two teams were vigorously trying to give the game away.  An ugly, ugly win.... but I'll take it.  Especially given the Jets were down a safety, their #2 cornerback (even if he sucks), two offensive linemen, their kicker, and their QB is playing with a torn ligament in his left thumb.

 

Who else had a bad game today at the Meadowlands?  CBS did -- so many of their televised graphics were simply wrong and full of misinformation.

[Zio_Sam87]

Sooooooo Gabbert won this one, even with that late interception that could cost the game. Don't know why Quinn didn't go for it and kicked the FG...

 

And someone could explain me what the hell was that call before the game started?!? Commentators said something about center took the ball before the snap, but I haven't a clue...

[skidmarkgn]

Broncos seriously shot themselves in the foot.  Talib must be one of the stupidest players in the league poking that guy in the eye and extending the drive, he's giving Suh a run for his money in the dirtiest player department as well.  Oh well, one less undefeated team out there.  Now, will someone please put a checkmark in the loss column for the Pats!!  I, like everyone else, expect them to be in the Superbowl again because of their piss easy schedule but it would be really nice if it wasn't as an undefeated team.  Too many asterisks next to their legacy for them to have the potential honor of an undefeated season.

[Conker]

Oh wow. Wasn't aware of that. I do know that MGO2 has a very dedicated fan base though. I think we can both agree it is very unlikely to happen with GCI.

Well just want to say I picked the panthers

And another loss for my Cowboys play much better and still lose, 6 losses in a row I wonder if garrett will get fired if we Can't miraculous turn this around

Seriously this bad without romo.....

Also great win to the Titans and the 49ers

Edited November 9, 2015 by Judge Judy

[Nihiris-]

At this point, Cowboys should just keep Romo off the field for the rest of the season and just tank it to get some good picks next year, because they're going to desperately need a quarterback. I don't even want to know what it's going to be like when Romo retires. I'm expecting a lot of cuts in the off season with the defense, Sean Lee can't stay healthy for shit... 

And another loss for my Cowboys play much better and still lose, 6 losses in a row I wonder if garrett will get fired if we Can't miraculous turn this around

 

I don't think they will because it's not just Garrett, it's the entire coaching staff, special teams, defense, offense (for obvious reasons), etc. The constant shooting themselves in the foot with penalties, zero pass rush, and stupid plays have got to stop.

 

I know every Cowboys fan says it, but Jerry needs to get out of football and hire an actual GM because they will never see the Super Bowl again with Jerry controlling everything.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Death_Ninja

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

This day was kinda bad for trying to watch the games on tv. Normally you'd get to see a few of the games at each time slot. Today though only 1 game was watchable at each time slot. Decided the Pats game wasn't really worth watching at half time. Took a nap to see if I could rid myself of a headache. Didn't work lol. Watched the Broncos/Colts game until the last few minutes of the 4th quarter...headache again made me have to sleep a little. Missed the Eagles/Cowboys game. :'(

 

I wanted the Packers to win against the Panthers to be honest. Can't say I was surprised though.

I had a feeling the Broncos were going to lose this game.

Definitely surprised to see the Raiders give the Steelers a tough time.

Florida teams lost again. No surprise lol

[Conker]

So the Falcons how now lost 3 of there last 4, any cause for concern people?

[Lithium_Lemon]

So the Falcons how now lost 3 of there last 4, any cause for concern people?

Yes, it is a cause for concern. The Falcons started the season 5-0 against a not difficult, but not easy schedule. They now have blown the last 3 of 4 games due to absolutely despicable offensive performances from the vast amount of weapons they have. The Falcons defense is all that has been keeping them in games, without the defense they would be getting blown out by bad teams. The Falcons need to get it figured out and fast. If they playoffs were today they would be occupying 1 of the 2 NFC wild card spots along with Minnesota, but it won't last long. Seattle is gaining quickly and the Falcons could very well be out of playoff contention in another couple of weeks. With that being said they could still get a wild card spot since Minnesota may very well have the hardest remaining schedule in the NFL, even though I personally believe they are a better team. 

Since I was bored, I decided to do some early picks this week. 

 

Week 10 Picks:

 

Jets over Bills

Ravens over Jaguars

Browns over Steelers (Upset)

Panthers over Titans 

Rams over Bears

Cowboys over Buccaneers 

Packers over Lions

Eagles over Dolphins

Saints over Redskins

Vikings over Raiders (This one will be good)

Broncos over Chiefs

Patriots over Giants (Wont be close; 42-17)

Seahawks over Cardinals (Close game)

Bengals over Texans 

 

Side Note:

I am no Cowboys fan, but I just cannot help but think they are not dead yet. I don't know how, but if they win this week (They should, but it won't be pretty) Tony Romo just may be able to salvage this season. Love them or hate them, you have to acknowledge the team has a ton of talent. The remainder of their schedule includes tough teams, which are by no means easy wins. If they can somehow win all of their remaining games despite 1 loss at most, they may just be able to sneak into the playoffs. RGIII and the Redskins went from 3-6 to the playoffs in his rookie season, so it can be done. If a 100% healthy Cowboys team so much as sneaks into the playoffs on any kind of roll, we better watch out. Lets be clear, the chances of this happening are incredibly slim, but possible. IF the Cowboys lose a game before they vs. Carolina on Thanksgiving, its over. 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Lithium_Lemon

[acasser]

I am no Cowboys fan, but I just cannot help but think they are not dead yet. I don't know how, but if they win this week (They should, but it won't be pretty) Tony Romo just may be able to salvage this season. Love them or hate them, you have to acknowledge the team has a ton of talent. The remainder of their schedule includes tough teams, which are by no means easy wins. If they can somehow win all of their remaining games despite 1 loss at most, they may just be able to sneak into the playoffs. RGIII and the Redskins went from 3-6 to the playoffs in his rookie season, so it can be done. If a 100% healthy Cowboys team so much as sneaks into the playoffs on any kind of roll, we better watch out. Lets be clear, the chances of this happening are incredibly slim, but possible. IF the Cowboys lose a game before they vs. Carolina on Thanksgiving, its over. 

 

Sorry, but the Cowboys are dead at this point.  Not in the literal/mathematical sense, but for all practical purposes.  They're two back in the loss column and they probably won't have any of the tiebreaks at the end of the season.  Their schedule isn't particularly friendly, especially when compared to the teams they'll be fighting for the division title -- in particular, I believe Philadelphia has a schedule that can allow them to get on a roll if they can straighten themselves out.

 

Dallas has been courting disaster for years with their inattention to the backup quarterback position.  It's cost them several times in years past, and it really pummeled them this year.  Perhaps Dallas needs to invest a high draft pick (a 2nd, not a 1st) for a good developmental quaterback prospect so that they're not obliged to use patzers like Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassell, Kyle Orton, John Kitna, et cetera, et cetera when Tony Romo inevitably gets injured.

[Nihiris-]

Talib got suspended for one game for his stupid 3 Stooges eye poke stunt lol

 

Edit: And Wes Welker is going to sign with the Rams apparently.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Death_Ninja

[Lithium_Lemon]

Sorry, but the Cowboys are dead at this point.  Not in the literal/mathematical sense, but for all practical purposes.  They're two back in the loss column and they probably won't have any of the tiebreaks at the end of the season.  Their schedule isn't particularly friendly, especially when compared to the teams they'll be fighting for the division title -- in particular, I believe Philadelphia has a schedule that can allow them to get on a roll if they can straighten themselves out.

 

Dallas has been courting disaster for years with their inattention to the backup quarterback position.  It's cost them several times in years past, and it really pummeled them this year.  Perhaps Dallas needs to invest a high draft pick (a 2nd, not a 1st) for a good developmental quaterback prospect so that they're not obliged to use patzers like Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassell, Kyle Orton, John Kitna, et cetera, et cetera when Tony Romo inevitably gets injured.

 

I agree with the draft pick thing, they really need a backup quarterback who they can rely on. The reason I say they are not dead is because I have seen way stranger things happen in the sport. To say the Eagles could win the division I am not certain about that. I see the Eagles losing to New England for certain, probably the Cardinals, and then one of these games: Bills or Giants. That would put them at a record of 9-7. I see the Giants losing to New England this week for sure, possibly the Jets, possibly the Panthers (Im still not sold on them), the Vikings, and possibly the Eagles. So that would put them anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7 (9-7 is stretching it.).  With that being said I can see the Cowboys win 7 out of their 8 last games (A long shot, BUT possible). If the Eagles and Dallas both ended up with a 9-7 it would come down to who has the best record in the division (They are both 2-2 right now). With that being said there is probably about a 5-10% chance Dallas can do that because Tony Romo is no savior, I just have even less faith in the other divisional teams.  

Talib got suspended for one game for his stupid 3 Stooges eye poke stunt lol

 

Edit: And Wes Welker is going to sign with the Rams apparently.

Wes Welker already officially signed.

 

As for Talib, a suspension? Really? A couple weeks ago Adam Jones slammed Amari Coopers head down on his helmet after a play but only got a fine of 35k? Im all for the suspension, but the punishments are so inconsistent in the NFL. Josh Gordon smokes pot, gets suspended 1 year ( I know its his 3rd or 4th offense). Greg Hardy gets a 4 game suspension for beating his girlfriend/wife but Adrian Peterson has to sit a whole year for his violation? I mean come on. All suspended players in the NFL right now should get immediate reinstatement because of how laughable to justice process in the NFL is with Rodger Goodell in charge. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by Lithium_Lemon

[Nihiris-]

As for Talib, a suspension? Really? A couple weeks ago Adam Jones slammed Amari Coopers head down on his helmet after a play but only got a fine of 35k? Im all for the suspension, but the punishments are so inconsistent in the NFL. Josh Gordon smokes pot, gets suspended 1 year ( I know its his 3rd or 4th offense) but Greg Hardy gets a 4 game suspension for beating his girlfriend/wife but Adrian Peterson has to sit a whole year for his violation? I mean come on

 

He's appealing it. But I agree with at least one game, because it definitely looked deliberate at least to me.

 

But I totally agree on the inconsistency of handing down punishments in the NFL. They need to give this yet another look at in the offseason...again.

 

I'm just waiting to see if Lamarcus Joyner gets any suspension time for knocking out Bridgewater in the Minnesota game. I'm expecting a hefty fine as well.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Death_Ninja

[Conker]

Talib got a week, hopefully that'll teach him not to do that

Rams getting Welker is huge if he can still be as good as he has been in his career, I just hope he has no more concussions

[Matto_lsi]

Broncos seriously shot themselves in the foot.  Talib must be one of the stupidest players in the league poking that guy in the eye and extending the drive, he's giving Suh a run for his money in the dirtiest player department as well.  Oh well, one less undefeated team out there.  Now, will someone please put a checkmark in the loss column for the Pats!!  I, like everyone else, expect them to be in the Superbowl again because of their piss easy schedule but it would be really nice if it wasn't as an undefeated team.  Too many asterisks next to their legacy for them to have the potential honor of an undefeated season.

 

So mad about this.  I love the Colts and Peyton, and since the Colts were sucking, I was hoping the Broncos would carry an undefeated record into the Pats match-up in a couple weeks.  Now all I get to hear is how Peyton can't handle pressure and how the Pats will smoke him in his own house, blah blah blah.  I would love for the Broncos to destroy them, but with players like Ware being hurt and not expected back before that game, and the D crumbling at the worst times, who knows.  I can't stand the idea of the Pats having another undefeated regular season, SB or not.  I was really hoping they'd lose to the Broncos and then we'd get a miracle, 2 14-0 teams playing in week 16 (Broncos and Bengals), but that won't happen.  We won't even have 2 undefeated teams playing at 10-0 now.  And the thing is, yeah, Peyton threw a bad pick, but at the same time, his D threw the came away on bad penalties and allowing the Colts to get 27 points in the first place.  It never should have been 17-0 from the start, especially considering how badly the Colts have performed this season.  Oh well, good for the Colts, but they're going nowhere this year.  Hopefully the Broncos D can get on track and do to Brady what they did to Rodgers last week.

 

Also, I agree about the asterisks, as does anyone who isn't a Pats fan.

 

I don't agree about Talib.  I never much cared for him, but I've never seen him be a dirty player.  Maybe the eye poke was intentional, maybe not.  Go ahead and fine and suspend him a game, but I won't consider him as dirty as Suh just cause of that one move.  Don't forget that Suh has stomped the arm, leg, and head of 3 different players, 2 of which were QBs already on the ground.  He's in a different league of shithead player than pretty much anyone else in existence, even Joyner who knocked Bridgewater unconscious on purpose and cheered about it when he got up.

[Lithium_Lemon]

So mad about this.  I love the Colts and Peyton, and since the Colts were sucking, I was hoping the Broncos would carry an undefeated record into the Pats match-up in a couple weeks.  Now all I get to hear is how Peyton can't handle pressure and how the Pats will smoke him in his own house, blah blah blah.  I would love for the Broncos to destroy them, but with players like Ware being hurt and not expected back before that game, and the D crumbling at the worst times, who knows.  I can't stand the idea of the Pats having another undefeated regular season, SB or not.  I was really hoping they'd lose to the Broncos and then we'd get a miracle, 2 14-0 teams playing in week 16 (Broncos and Bengals), but that won't happen.  We won't even have 2 undefeated teams playing at 10-0 now.  And the thing is, yeah, Peyton threw a bad pick, but at the same time, his D threw the came away on bad penalties and allowing the Colts to get 27 points in the first place.  It never should have been 17-0 from the start, especially considering how badly the Colts have performed this season.  Oh well, good for the Colts, but they're going nowhere this year.  Hopefully the Broncos D can get on track and do to Brady what they did to Rodgers last week.

 

Also, I agree about the asterisks, as does anyone who isn't a Pats fan.

 

I don't agree about Talib.  I never much cared for him, but I've never seen him be a dirty player.  Maybe the eye poke was intentional, maybe not.  Go ahead and fine and suspend him a game, but I won't consider him as dirty as Suh just cause of that one move.  Don't forget that Suh has stomped the arm, leg, and head of 3 different players, 2 of which were QBs already on the ground.  He's in a different league of shithead player than pretty much anyone else in existence, even Joyner who knocked Bridgewater unconscious on purpose and cheered about it when he got up.

 

Let me start off by saying I agree with your statement on Talib. One dirty play doesn't make you a "stupid" player as skidmarkgn mentioned earlier. He got caught up in the spur of the moment and there was probably an absurd amount of trash talk going down between the teams. I agree he should have controlled himself better. He probably usually does because I am sure trash talk goes down every game, so this was just one of those days. As for Joyner thats a different story as you already have said. 

 

By the way not that you did this specifically, but if I hear one more Broncos fan talk shit about their defense because they gave up 27 points and had a couple of bad penalties I am going to flip. They won you guys the Vikings game, the Browns game, and the Raiders game without the help of an offense. Be thankful your not 4-4 right now.  

Broncos seriously shot themselves in the foot.  Talib must be one of the stupidest players in the league poking that guy in the eye and extending the drive, he's giving Suh a run for his money in the dirtiest player department as well.  Oh well, one less undefeated team out there.  Now, will someone please put a checkmark in the loss column for the Pats!!  I, like everyone else, expect them to be in the Superbowl again because of their piss easy schedule but it would be really nice if it wasn't as an undefeated team.  Too many asterisks next to their legacy for them to have the potential honor of an undefeated season.

 

That last sentence was enough for me to write all of this. 

 

Honestly, I don't see asterisks at all. I don't and never did see Deflate-gate as legitimate since day one. A deflated football wouldn't have helped Blount run all over the Colts for what? 200 yards and 3 touchdowns? A deflated football wouldn't have changed Andrew Lucks terrible decision to simply lob a pass near Darrelle Revis. Plus even if the balls were deflated and Tom Brady is guilty, there simply isn't enough evidence to say so definitively, so that cannot be held over the Patriots' head in any form. However, Spygate was legitimate. It did happen and it was proven by EVIDENCE. This is where things get unclear for me and I don't want to look it up. But wasn't there no rules against taping opponents before the 2007 season? I mean the Patriots were caught only in game 1 of the 2007 season taping the Jets play calls. How did they win the rest of the 15 games to go 16-0? To discredit their 16-0 season because of cheating in one game is disgusting. Instead why not contribute it to the fact that arguably the best quarterback of all time (Tom Brady) was on the same team as THE greatest wide receiver of all time in Randy Moss? Those two are a superpower combo the NFL hasn't ever seen replicated. They were an unstoppable force. If your going to discredit the Patriots' legacy because of "cheating", then I guess you discredit all the Superbowl wins, playoff wins, yardage record, receiving touchdown record, and catch record Jerry Rice had in his career since he used stickum on his gloves? Do you put an asterisk next to Seattle's recent Super Bowl victory since under Pete Carroll they lead the league in PED use violations? Do you discredit the Saints Super Bowl victory in 2009 because of the bounty program? Who knows maybe they hurt a key player that would have decided the overall outcome of the playoff games or Super Bowl. I find it disgusting you or anyone else for that matter would even say such a thing. Why not give credit where credit is due. The Patriots prepare for their opponents and expose their weaknesses week after week. They were specifically prepared for that play at the goal line in the Superbowl last year, even though they suspected it wouldn't come up. (You can see them run it and talk about it in practice with a video on a documentary on youtube) They are ready for everything at all times. Bill Bellichick and Tom Brady have football I.Q's beyond recognition, and most importantly the players play with emotion and play hard, even if they are not great. We don't see Patriots players give 50% effort half the time like Suh or Jay Culter.  

Edited November 10, 2015 by Lithium_Lemon

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

That last sentence was enough for me to write all of this. 

 

Honestly, I don't see asterisks at all. I don't and never did see Deflate-gate as legitimate since day one. A deflated football wouldn't have helped Blount run all over the Colts for what? 200 yards and 3 touchdowns? A deflated football wouldn't have changed Andrew Lucks terrible decision to simply lob a pass near Darrelle Revis. Plus even if the balls were deflated and Tom Brady is guilty, there simply isn't enough evidence to say so definitively, so that cannot be held over the Patriots' head in any form. However, Spygate was legitimate. It did happen and it was proven by EVIDENCE. This is where things get unclear for me and I don't want to look it up. But wasn't there no rules against taping opponents before the 2007 season? I mean the Patriots were caught only in game 1 of the 2007 season taping the Jets play calls. How did they win the rest of the 15 games to go 16-0? To discredit their 16-0 season because of cheating in one game is disgusting. Instead why not contribute it to the fact that arguably the best quarterback of all time (Tom Brady) was on the same team as THE greatest wide receiver of all time in Randy Moss? Those two are a superpower combo the NFL hasn't ever seen replicated. They were an unstoppable force. If your going to discredit the Patriots' legacy because of "cheating", then I guess you discredit all the Superbowl wins, playoff wins, yardage record, receiving touchdown record, and catch record Jerry Rice had in his career since he used stickum on his gloves? Do you put an asterisk next to Seattle's recent Super Bowl victory since under Pete Carroll they lead the league in PED use violations? Do you discredit the Saints Super Bowl victory in 2009 because of the bounty program? Who knows maybe they hurt a key player that would have decided the overall outcome of the playoff games or Super Bowl. I find it disgusting you or anyone else for that matter would even say such a thing. Why not give credit where credit is due. The Patriots prepare for their opponents and expose their weaknesses week after week. They were specifically prepared for that play at the goal line in the Superbowl last year, even though they suspected it wouldn't come up. (You can see them run it and talk about it in practice with a video on a documentary on youtube) They are ready for everything at all times. Bill Bellichick and Tom Brady have football I.Q's beyond recognition, and most importantly the players play with emotion and play hard, even if they are not great. We don't see Patriots players give 50% effort half the time like Suh or Jay Culter.  

 

lol I wasn't going to but...

You can't bring up the dirty history of other teams. Only the patriots cheat and everyone knows it hurr durr. Even if other teams have cheated/played dirty their names aren't The Patriots so they get a pass to all NFL fans hurr durr. Deflated footballs are more serious than woman beating and head hunting hurr durr. More dangerous than PED use and outright trying to cripple players hurr durr.

 

Obviously sarcasm shouldn't even need to be pointed out but no other team in the history of the sport until now or probably until the end of the NFL will garner as much hatred as the patriots. Most times I see hatred due to stupid things like "pride in my hometown dictates I hate them" but most people just hate Tom Brady. Good reason? I'm sure some do. Priority over asshole animal players like Suh? lmfao no. 

[acasser]

I agree with the draft pick thing, they really need a backup quarterback who they can rely on. The reason I say they are not dead is because I have seen way stranger things happen in the sport. To say the Eagles could win the division I am not certain about that. I see the Eagles losing to New England for certain, probably the Cardinals, and then one of these games: Bills or Giants. That would put them at a record of 9-7. I see the Giants losing to New England this week for sure, possibly the Jets, possibly the Panthers (Im still not sold on them), the Vikings, and possibly the Eagles. So that would put them anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7 (9-7 is stretching it.).  With that being said I can see the Cowboys win 7 out of their 8 last games (A long shot, BUT possible). If the Eagles and Dallas both ended up with a 9-7 it would come down to who has the best record in the division (They are both 2-2 right now). With that being said there is probably about a 5-10% chance Dallas can do that because Tony Romo is no savior, I just have even less faith in the other divisional teams.  . 

 

I'm sorry, but this is the fanboy in you speaking.  Dallas has a whole host of problems that are difficult to overcome in anything but a Polyanna scenario:  (1) they trail three teams in the standings, (2) they trail the leaders by multiple games, (3) those teams all play some head-to-head meaning some of them are going to win a bunch of games, and (4) Dallas isn't going to have any tiebreaks because their best scenario vis-a-vis the leaders (Philly/NYG) is that Washington wins a bunch of games.... only Washington is already ahead of Dallas and winning a bunch of those h2h games means Washington would have most of the tiebreaks.

 

Dallas isn't winning any ties.  If they miraculously get to 9-7, and that's a real longshot given how they've played so far this season, they're still going to need Philly to lose (at least) 4 games, the Giants to lose (at least) 4 games, and Washington to lose (at least) 3 games.  Maybe that all happens anyhow, but I wouldn't be wagering anything I cared to lose on Dallas winning 7 of 8.  Not with that remaining schedule and the number of teams that are either very good or at least fighting for playoff spots.  Not with the road-heavy nature of that schedule.  And not with the likelihood that Dallas is going to have more injuries at some point, because seasons like last year when they were spectacularly healthy are very few and far between.

 

The other teams aren't anything worth writing home about, but Dallas has already dug themselves too deep a hole.

[Matto_lsi]

By the way not that you did this specifically, but if I hear one more Broncos fan talk shit about their defense because they gave up 27 points and had a couple of bad penalties I am going to flip. They won you guys the Vikings game, the Browns game, and the Raiders game without the help of an offense. Be thankful your not 4-4 right now. 

 

I think Denver has a great defense, and I'm actually a 49ers fan, but I have my varying loyalties (they're complicated, but basically I also root for Denver and Indy, and various other teams depending on match-ups), and while I think we're on the same page I do want to clarify this point.  Denver's D has been great and has won them games this year where the offense struggled.  Something that annoys me is that all the offensive blame is always on Peyton.  I've watched most of their games this year and every game Peyton is under intense pressure on almost every play.  Whenever he has a second to think while in the pocket he usually throws a spot on 30+ yard pass, but usually he's got less than 2 seconds and throws within milliseconds of being hit.  I'd like some of his 'less than godly' performance this year to be blamed on his O-line not doing an adequate job (just like in the SB 2 years ago) and maybe his coordinator can assign the right number of blockers for the pass rush.  I'm sure that's help a little.

 

But as far as the defense goes, they are great.  What I was specifically pointing out is that while they have been clutch, they just did in this Indy game what they famously did the last couple seasons in big games, which is crumble when they are needed to be at their best.  The only drive in the entire game where they needed to force Indy into a 3 and out was that final drive, yet they played off receivers and let Indy go the length of the field, down inside the 5, and then commit multiple penalties that ended the game.  This was after 2 straight Indy drives where they played 5-10 yards off the receivers the whole time and allowed Luck to complete all the 3 and 'whatevers' he needed to.  They have a habit of doing this, at least the last couple years, once the season starts winding down, and I'm afraid we're going to see it again this year.  And a lot of defensive players went down in that Indy game.  Ware, Harris, Wolfe, etc... and we already know Ware will miss at least 2 games and Talib is suspended for 1, so that's not going to help going forward.  I'm hopeful for Peyton to get back to the SB one last time, but he's not been his best, the offensive players around him have not been consistent, and now we're starting to see wrinkles in the defense.  For a D that hasn't allowed a first quarter TD to allow 10 points in the first quarter and 17 in the first half isn't great, but considering the Colts have no first half points in half their games this year makes that 17 points seem like a lot more than it is.  Maybe they can work all this out and dominate going down the stretch.  Well see....

[skidmarkgn]

Let me start off by saying I agree with your statement on Talib. One dirty play doesn't make you a "stupid" player as skidmarkgn mentioned earlier. He got caught up in the spur of the moment and there was probably an absurd amount of trash talk going down between the teams. I agree he should have controlled himself better. He probably usually does because I am sure trash talk goes down every game, so this was just one of those days. As for Joyner thats a different story as you already have said. 

 

By the way not that you did this specifically, but if I hear one more Broncos fan talk shit about their defense because they gave up 27 points and had a couple of bad penalties I am going to flip. They won you guys the Vikings game, the Browns game, and the Raiders game without the help of an offense. Be thankful your not 4-4 right now.  

 

That last sentence was enough for me to write all of this. 

 

Honestly, I don't see asterisks at all. I don't and never did see Deflate-gate as legitimate since day one. A deflated football wouldn't have helped Blount run all over the Colts for what? 200 yards and 3 touchdowns? A deflated football wouldn't have changed Andrew Lucks terrible decision to simply lob a pass near Darrelle Revis. Plus even if the balls were deflated and Tom Brady is guilty, there simply isn't enough evidence to say so definitively, so that cannot be held over the Patriots' head in any form. However, Spygate was legitimate. It did happen and it was proven by EVIDENCE. This is where things get unclear for me and I don't want to look it up. But wasn't there no rules against taping opponents before the 2007 season? I mean the Patriots were caught only in game 1 of the 2007 season taping the Jets play calls. How did they win the rest of the 15 games to go 16-0? To discredit their 16-0 season because of cheating in one game is disgusting. Instead why not contribute it to the fact that arguably the best quarterback of all time (Tom Brady) was on the same team as THE greatest wide receiver of all time in Randy Moss? Those two are a superpower combo the NFL hasn't ever seen replicated. They were an unstoppable force. If your going to discredit the Patriots' legacy because of "cheating", then I guess you discredit all the Superbowl wins, playoff wins, yardage record, receiving touchdown record, and catch record Jerry Rice had in his career since he used stickum on his gloves? Do you put an asterisk next to Seattle's recent Super Bowl victory since under Pete Carroll they lead the league in PED use violations? Do you discredit the Saints Super Bowl victory in 2009 because of the bounty program? Who knows maybe they hurt a key player that would have decided the overall outcome of the playoff games or Super Bowl. I find it disgusting you or anyone else for that matter would even say such a thing. Why not give credit where credit is due. The Patriots prepare for their opponents and expose their weaknesses week after week. They were specifically prepared for that play at the goal line in the Superbowl last year, even though they suspected it wouldn't come up. (You can see them run it and talk about it in practice with a video on a documentary on youtube) They are ready for everything at all times. Bill Bellichick and Tom Brady have football I.Q's beyond recognition, and most importantly the players play with emotion and play hard, even if they are not great. We don't see Patriots players give 50% effort half the time like Suh or Jay Culter.  

I stand corrected on Talib.  I got mixed up in the Welker/Talib block from last year and reversed who hit who.  My bad on that one.  

 

As for the asterisk's and "discrediting" the Patriots.  I'm gonna stand by that one.  Spygate may not have been the sole reason for the Pats season, but it was a thing and dings their legacy.  The tuck rule was a thing and dings their legacy.  Deflate gate didn't affet the game against the Colts but it shows that their willing to break off-the-field rules to gain an advantage and, yup, dings their legacy.  They're obviously the top team in the league and have players who will be in the hall of fame but, like it or not, there's always going to be a "but" when their legacy is being discussed.  The same way people are always going to bring up PED's when Seattle's discussed.  As a Seattle fan, I've made peace with that, you should also accept that the Pats (and their fans) are going to have to deal with it too.

Edited November 10, 2015 by skidmarkgn

[Lithium_Lemon]

I'm sorry, but this is the fanboy in you speaking.  Dallas has a whole host of problems that are difficult to overcome in anything but a Polyanna scenario:  (1) they trail three teams in the standings, (2) they trail the leaders by multiple games, (3) those teams all play some head-to-head meaning some of them are going to win a bunch of games, and (4) Dallas isn't going to have any tiebreaks because their best scenario vis-a-vis the leaders (Philly/NYG) is that Washington wins a bunch of games.... only Washington is already ahead of Dallas and winning a bunch of those h2h games means Washington would have most of the tiebreaks.

 

Dallas isn't winning any ties.  If they miraculously get to 9-7, and that's a real longshot given how they've played so far this season, they're still going to need Philly to lose (at least) 4 games, the Giants to lose (at least) 4 games, and Washington to lose (at least) 3 games.  Maybe that all happens anyhow, but I wouldn't be wagering anything I cared to lose on Dallas winning 7 of 8.  Not with that remaining schedule and the number of teams that are either very good or at least fighting for playoff spots.  Not with the road-heavy nature of that schedule.  And not with the likelihood that Dallas is going to have more injuries at some point, because seasons like last year when they were spectacularly healthy are very few and far between.

 

The other teams aren't anything worth writing home about, but Dallas has already dug themselves too deep a hole.

 

Again, I respect your opinion. I just cannot proclaim they are "dead" quite yet. Enough of that conversation. You know what the funny part is? The fact we are sitting here discussing if a 2-6 team is going to make the playoffs. Its a testament to how bad the divisional playoff system in the NFL actually is. I would much rather prefer an East and West separation, just like in the NBA. That way, the six BEST teams from each conference get their opportunity in the playoffs. I remember a year or two back (Im going off my head here, I didn't research this) when a 10-6 team, I believe it was the Cardinals were held out of the playoffs because the 49ers were 12-4 and Seattle was 11-5. In their place something like a 7-8-1 Falcons or Panthers team took the fourth seed. Really? Thats fair? I don't know exactly what changes would need to be made in the scheduling of games, but its clear to me theres something wrong. Im sure the NFL executives that get paid millions could figure something out. Think about it this way. Think of an NBA team that is 9-32 (Halfway point through the season, with nearly the same win pct. as Dallas atm) who would be discussing if they were a playoff contender? Nobody. I know its not quite the same due to the amount of games in an NBA season but still.  

I stand corrected on Talib.  I got mixed up in the Welker/Talib block from last year and reversed who hit who.  My bad on that one.  

 

As for the asterisk's and "discrediting" the Patriots.  I'm gonna stand by that one.  Spygate may not have been the sole reason for the Pats season, but it was a thing and dings their legacy.  The tuck rule was a thing and dings their legacy.  Deflate gate didn't affet the game against the Colts but it shows that their willing to break off-the-field rules to gain an advantage and, yup, dings their legacy.  They're obviously the top team in the league and have players who will be in the hall of fame but, like it or not, there's always going to be a "but" when their legacy is being discussed.  The same way people are always going to bring up PED's when Seattle's discussed.  As a Seattle fan, I've made peace with that, you should also accept that the Pats (and their fans) are going to have to deal with it too.

Again, your opinions valid and I'm not going to argue. The tuck rule thing though. First and foremost I know it won them the game and they later won the Super Bowl. How would there be an asterisk next to New England's legacy for that? The refs made the call which was actually correct based upon the rules. Actually the tuck rule wasn't completely abolished until 2013, after the penalty was enforced a variety of other times after 2002. Winning the game based on the rules created by the NFL does not in any way make their victory illegitimate. 

[Matto_lsi]

Again, your opinions valid and I'm not going to argue. The tuck rule thing though. First and foremost I know it won them the game and they later won the Super Bowl. How would there be an asterisk next to New England's legacy for that? The refs made the call which was actually correct based upon the rules. Actually the tuck rule wasn't completely abolished until 2013, after the penalty was enforced a variety of other times after 2002. Winning the game based on the rules created by the NFL does not in any way make their victory illegitimate. 

 

Actually it was not, the refs fucked that one up.  Read what the tuck rule says and then watch the tape.  It specifically says during the movement to throw the ball or bring it back into the body, but once the QB has re-established the ball in his hands after bringing it down, if he then drops it is a fumble.  If you watch the clip from the game Brady had brought the ball back in and was holding it with both hands when it was dislodged.  So even with the tuck rule applied, it WAS still a fumble.  The refs made the wrong call even with the rule considered, and that's what actually pisses most people off about it.  Even with the tuck rule in effect it was still a fumble with a clear recovery by the Raiders.  Also, I'm not into conspiracy theories, but a lot of talk back then was the towers had just been collapsed by terrorists and the nation wanted a symbol of solidarity, and what better than a team named the Patriots winning the SB?  Like I said, not into conspiracy theories, that was just a thing that was being said, however, I do believe the refs were pretty blind to not rule that a fumble.  The only other logical explanation is they did it intentionally.  Refs are pretty shit anyway, so I don't put it past them to just fuck that one up, but in the end, all things considered, it was actually a fumble, the refs got it wrong, and hid behind the tuck rule as the reason when that rule does not apply in this case.  The fact that it was ruled a fumble on the field and the ref watching the replay (with multiple angles and touch stop controls) reversed the call is appalling, and that's where the conspiracy nuts come in.  However you look at it, it was a terrible call, and yes, it WAS a fumble.  Did the Pats themselves cheat on that play?  No.  But they were the beneficiaries of probably the most blatant bad call by refs ever, short of maybe the Fail Mary (but that didn't have SB implications).  Even if you apply the tuck rule and say there was a fraction of a second before he got both hands on the ball when Woodson started knocking it out, it's quite obvious he had pulled the ball back in and it still should have been a fumble.  The rule was applied wrong, but even if you could find a way to apply it correctly, it's still an atrocious call.

 

Here's a video on it for reference: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113871/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Tuck-Rule

[Lithium_Lemon]

Actually it was not, the refs fucked that one up.  Read what the tuck rule says and then watch the tape.  It specifically says during the movement to throw the ball or bring it back into the body, but once the QB has re-established the ball in his hands after bringing it down, if he then drops it is a fumble.  If you watch the clip from the game Brady had brought the ball back in and was holding it with both hands when it was dislodged.  So even with the tuck rule applied, it WAS still a fumble.  The refs made the wrong call even with the rule considered, and that's what actually pisses most people off about it.  Even with the tuck rule in effect it was still a fumble with a clear recovery by the Raiders.  Also, I'm not into conspiracy theories, but a lot of talk back then was the towers had just been collapsed by terrorists and the nation wanted a symbol of solidarity, and what better than a team named the Patriots winning the SB?  Like I said, not into conspiracy theories, that was just a thing that was being said, however, I do believe the refs were pretty blind to not rule that a fumble.  The only other logical explanation is they did it intentionally.  Refs are pretty shit anyway, so I don't put it past them to just fuck that one up, but in the end, all things considered, it was actually a fumble, the refs got it wrong, and hid behind the tuck rule as the reason when that rule does not apply in this case.  The fact that it was ruled a fumble on the field and the ref watching the replay (with multiple angles and touch stop controls) reversed the call is appalling, and that's where the conspiracy nuts come in.  However you look at it, it was a terrible call, and yes, it WAS a fumble.  Did the Pats themselves cheat on that play?  No.  But they were the beneficiaries of probably the most blatant bad call by refs ever, short of maybe the Fail Mary (but that didn't have SB implications).  Even if you apply the tuck rule and say there was a fraction of a second before he got both hands on the ball when Woodson started knocking it out, it's quite obvious he had pulled the ball back in and it still should have been a fumble.  The rule was applied wrong, but even if you could find a way to apply it correctly, it's still an atrocious call.

 

Here's a video on it for reference: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113871/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Tuck-Rule

 

I see what your saying thanks for clearing that up. All conspiracy theories aside the reality is this rule was a joke. I honestly still am having quite a hard time understanding when it goes from a throw to a tuck. Your right it was a fumble clearly, but the reality is this rule shouldn't have existed in the first place. To me rules cannot be open to interpretation and this one was. It reminds me of the Dez Bryant catch. As a Packer fan upon immediate reaction, after looking at all the angles I believed it was a catch. I was wondering how Aaron Rodgers was going to run down the field and score before the end of the game. To this day I still believe it was a catch. He had the ball and made 2 steps before performing a football play with the ball. According to the ref reviewing the play, he didn't complete the process of the catch. Theres too many variables in rules like this which is why there needs to be clear black and white lines to every rule. Unfortunately most times rules don't get evaluated properly until a team gets screwed over. 

[Matto_lsi]

I see what your saying thanks for clearing that up. All conspiracy theories aside the reality is this rule was a joke. I honestly still am having quite a hard time understanding when it goes from a throw to a tuck. Your right it was a fumble clearly, but the reality is this rule shouldn't have existed in the first place. To me rules cannot be open to interpretation and this one was. It reminds me of the Dez Bryant catch. As a Packer fan upon immediate reaction, after looking at all the angles I believed it was a catch. I was wondering how Aaron Rodgers was going to run down the field and score before the end of the game. To this day I still believe it was a catch. He had the ball and made 2 steps before performing a football play with the ball. According to the ref reviewing the play, he didn't complete the process of the catch. Theres too many variables in rules like this which is why there needs to be clear black and white lines to every rule. Unfortunately most times rules don't get evaluated properly until a team gets screwed over. 

 

Yeah, you're right, and I feel like that's happened to a lot of rules.  They're all so ambiguous now that it makes being a fan hard cause I have no idea what they're going to call from one minute to the next.  The rules for the 'process of a catch' are so ridiculous at this point that I don't know how anyone catches a football.  Next you'll have to maintain possession all the way back to the huddle and personally hand it to the ref for it to count.  I miss the days when if you handle the ball with 2 hands it was a catch.  Didn't have to take 2-3 steps or make a football move or position the ball in the antecubital space, you just had to grip it with both hands.  For simplicity sake the rule should be changed back to that.  It's too subjective at this time.  I hate subjective sports.  I can't watch gymnastics during the Olympics anymore cause I feel like the judges pick favorites.  I don't need that kind of shit in my football games either.

[acasser]

Again, I respect your opinion. I just cannot proclaim they are "dead" quite yet. Enough of that conversation. You know what the funny part is? The fact we are sitting here discussing if a 2-6 team is going to make the playoffs. Its a testament to how bad the divisional playoff system in the NFL actually is. I would much rather prefer an East and West separation, just like in the NBA. That way, the six BEST teams from each conference get their opportunity in the playoffs. I remember a year or two back (Im going off my head here, I didn't research this) when a 10-6 team, I believe it was the Cardinals were held out of the playoffs because the 49ers were 12-4 and Seattle was 11-5. In their place something like a 7-8-1 Falcons or Panthers team took the fourth seed. Really? Thats fair? I don't know exactly what changes would need to be made in the scheduling of games, but its clear to me theres something wrong. Im sure the NFL executives that get paid millions could figure something out. Think about it this way. Think of an NBA team that is 9-32 (Halfway point through the season, with nearly the same win pct. as Dallas atm) who would be discussing if they were a playoff contender? Nobody. I know its not quite the same due to the amount of games in an NBA season but still. 

. 

 

The set-up is fine as it is.  Sure, you get the odd year where a 10-6 team gets left out for a team that hovers around the .500 mark -- and it's happened more than once that I can recall -- but it also places a premium on winning your division.  And given how the schedule is written, it SHOULD be that way.  Each team plays 12 common games with each of its division competitors plus the 2 head-to-head matchups, so there isn't an issue in that spot.  You win your division by playing better in your common games or head-to-head.  On the other hand, if it were just "best 6 records in the Conference", there are inequities created by unequal schedules.  For example, would it really be fair if the Jets made the playoffs this year because their division played the NFC East and the AFC South while Oakland gets kicked out because their division played the AFC North and the NFC North?

 

Divisional strength runs in cycles.  Rather than try and "fix" that, it's the sort of thing that balances out over time and shouldn't be the source of agita.  And the schedule is just fine the way it is right now.  There's balance when it comes to individual divisions because the teams you should be competing for in terms of playoff berths are playing similar schedules.  And there's balance in the sense that you play everyone over time.  The old system was royally fucked up.... think about it, Dan Marino and John Elway played ONE (1) regular season game against one another in their careers, an overlap of 16 years in the same Conference.  That shouldn't ever happen.

 

Some people have far too much of an urge to tinker with things that aren't broken.  There are plenty of things in the NFL that could be changed and should be changed, but this ain't it.

[Conker]

My Week 10 NFL Tips

Jets over Bills

Rams over Bears

Steelers over Browns

My Cowboys over Bucs

Packers over Lions

Panthers over Titans

Eagles over Dolphins

Saints over Redskins

Ravens over Jags

Raiders over Vikings

Broncos over Chiefs

Giants over Patriots

Cardinals over Seahawks

Bengals over Texans