Official American Football Thread

You are correct!  I didn't expect to see that.  In other news, the IA Hawkeyes went from Rosebowl hopeful to a goat with the loss of Ricky Stanzi. 
 
Yesterday's Ravens vs. Browns game was one of the most boring football games I've ever seen. Both teams pretty much played poorly, Ravens had 5 minutes of brilliance in the 3rd quarter and hence the score.
On another note, the game on Sunday between the Pats and Colts was riveting although I can't say I'm a fan of the score.
I'll be rooting for the Saints to get to the Superbowl this year, I just feel like they deserve it. Obviously I'd want the Pats to do well as well...

Speaking of college football, I think the Gators are over-rated this year. And please, no second Heisman for Tebow, there are other more talented people out there...and besides, why does it always seem like a quarterback race?
 
Agreed!  With pretty much all of that.  Colts/Pats game was pretty good.  And, I'm a huge Drew Brees fan, so I'd love to see the Saints do well-- especially since the Chiefs are a decade away from playoff contention.
 
The Canadian football season is now over.  The Montreal Alouettes have won the Grey Cup 28-27, scoring a field goal for 3 pts. on the final play of the game.

BUT GET THIS.

Originally they missed the field goal from 43 yard, but then Saskatchewan took a penalty on the play...for too many men.  They had an extra player on the field.  On the second attempt from 33 yards, the kicker put the ball away for the dramatic win.

Saskatchewan went up 17-3 in the first half, prompting Montreal to put on a fourth quarter comeback the likes of which is rarely seen and what played out in dramatic fashion with several close calls, reviewed plays, and tension-filled moments.  An instant classic in Grey Cup games.
 
Well, the Jets beat the Bungles, the Eagles dropped another one, letting the Cowgirls win a playoff game for the first time in 13 years.  Let's see what is in store today-- two games that could be pretty brutal.  AZ v Greenbay.... that could be a high scoring shootout, or it could be a sucky shootout....  Biggest hope:  Ravens taking out the Patriots.
 
Any thoughts on this weekend's games?  Last week was a snoozefest until the Packers/Cardinals game, which was awesome.  I like the Ravens (my Super Bowl dark horse) in an upset over the Colts, the Chargers to absolutely crush the Jets, Saints over Cardinals, and Vikings vs Cowboys is pretty much a toss-up, though I'm leaning toward Minny simply because it's the home team.  Other than Chargers/Jets, I think we'll have some great games.  I love playoff football. 
 
I love it too, some of my favorite games.  I think the Saints could put up an easy 50 on the Cards D.  Hell, maybe in the first half.  I'm with you, I think the Colts will lose to Baltimore, and the Chargers over NYJ.  Vikings/'Boys is kinda difficult, but I think that the Vikes are a more difficult task than the Eagles.  I'm saying Vikes by 3.
 
I hope the Colts lose, but I don't expect it.

If the Colts lose, it helps destroy the argument that sitting your starters is good prep for the playoffs. And that's an idea I'd like to see go away. No one but the coach likes that - not even the players who are being "protected".
 
I read that, during Peyton Manning's career, the Colts are 0-3 in divisional games when they had a first-round bye in the playoffs.  (This despite the fact that, over the years, home teams who had a first-round bye the previous week won nearly 75% of the time in NFL divisional games.)  Makes the Colts' decision to sit the starters and deliberately lose the last two weeks of the season even more puzzling, doesn't it? 

Plus, I still think it would be karma for Baltimore to beat the Colts, after what the Colts did to that city -- i.e., betraying their fans and abruptly moving to Indianapolis in the middle of the night.  (It's like if you were to wake up one morning to discover that your wife has taken the kids, drained the bank accounts and moved in with her personal trainer.  Evil.)  Even though it happened many years ago, payback is still a bitch. 
 
But sitting your starters *is* a good idea. If you already have your spot clinched, there's no reason to play your most valuable players. The risk of injury is far too great. Plus, giving a full game to your second string totally increases their value as players - experience is very important for them, as well as very rare.
 
I'd agree-- look at what happened to the Patriots-- they didn't have much on the line, a win in the last game of the season didn't mean much to them at that point.  However, they played their starters, and Wes Welker got injured (out til next season).  Did that impact the way they started the game?  Hard to say, but they wouldn't have played worse with Welker in. 

I think the Colts haven't played well in the Post-Season since the Super Bowl win they had (I don't have the stats off the top of my head).  The thing is this, the Ravens offense isn't better than the Colts defense-- Flaco's 38 yards in the air just wouldn't be enough.  If Indy can keep the Ravens off the board early, it probably does favor the Colts.  I still see the Ravens in a close game, though.  Manning seems to lack a post season resume.  Now, if Kurt Warner were the QB of the Colts?  Yeah, super bowl bound.
 
I saw that the Saints just re-signed RB Deuce McAllister, who hasn't played a down of football all year, and that he may even play this weekend against Arizona.  A couple thoughts?  1.  This smacks of desperation.  2.  Shouldn't there be a rule against this?  Shouldn't a team's playoff roster consist of players who actually played for that team in at least one regular-season game??
 
Yeah, I saw that too.... weird move.  I think they are limited to a 48 man roster for the playoffs--- I don't know how the NFL works, but I thought that some leagues required a 'roster list' that wasn't changeable once the playoffs started.  I'm not sure what to think about this move.  I thought their running game was doing ok.
 
LooseCannon said:
But sitting your starters *is* a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. But it's no good for the fans. They paid to see the stars play. And ultimately, the NFL is a business.

Plus, the NFL is a copycat league. If teams sit then lose, then other teams will be less likely to do it even if it's a theoretically smart move.
 
The NFL is a business. People will pay more money for more playoff games. If sitting your starters makes you more likely to win the next series of games, it equals significantly more money for the team.

Plus, how many people actually don't show up for a football game? There's only 16 of them per year.
 
I read somewhere that there is an NFL by-law that says a team must actually try its best to win in a game that affects the standings.  Thus, by deliberately losing to the Jets in their penultimate game (and no amount of persuading will convince me that they didn't deliberately lose), the Colts arguably violated that rule, because the game definitely affected the Jets' playoff chances.  Ironically, that rule would NOT have applied to the last game the Colts played against the Bills, as the game affected no one's playoff chances. 

Speaking of the Jets, I sure as hell didn't see that coming!  In retrospect, I probably should have -- the Chargers can't/don't run, relying instead on the long pass, and no one stops the long pass offense better than the Jets.  Darrelle Revis is the best cornerback I have seen in years -- and that includes this year's "official" Defensive MVP, Charles Woodson.  Revis should have won that honor, but a spot in the AFC Championship Game is a nice consolation.  He also has the coolest nickname in football right now:  Revis Island. 
 
Because I have nothing better to do I am watching the Super Bowl and mainly because I am a TV ad junkie and the new ads are always something to look forward to. At any rate, cool and funny ads aside, I have this question. Why is the NFL going older and older in their half-time shows? Last year or so it was Bruce Springsteen and now The Who? It's not like the old are not scandalous (people did not appreciate Bruce's crotch shot), so what's with the "retro" movement? And what is up with no porn in this super bowl? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top