View Full Version : The Football Thread
I can't wait for this Sunday!
Sunday should be cool. The Cowboys are the NFLs version of "Glass Joe", tho...
How so?
Dallas is scoring about on par with New England, and the defenses have both given up 8 touchdowns to their opponents.
They are damn near equal. And they've practically played the same competition, so no one can fall back on the "Dallas hasn't played anyone" argument unless we can do the same for New England.
There are three reasons we can regard New England as better than Dallas:
1) Saying "the defenses have both given up 8 touchdowns" is highly misleading. That may be relevant when discussing Dallas' defensively, but not as a team. As a team, they've given up more points; points which count just as much as any other. Dallas is average defensively (13th) and New England is very good defensively (tied for 3rd).
2) They haven't really played the same competition, because AFC teams are obviously a bit better on average. New England hasn't played any very good teams, but you can't go by records alone. A slight bump has to be given to the AFC.
3) Dallas almost lost a game to a very poor team, and managed to win only on the strength of Buffalo's incompetence. New England hasn't come close to losing to anyone yet.
Also, anyone who says otherwise is a dirty evil liar.
Ðèstîñy
10-11-07, 12:59 PM
Otherwise!
They aren't even close to being equal. Not even close. Joe Montana was interviewed in the Herald yesterday, and he said that Brady is basically on course to have the best season any Quarterback has ever played. He came right out and said he may just be the best ever. He went on to say that, on both sides of the ball, The Pats are playing at a whole different level than the rest of the league right now, making it look easy, and dominating in EVERY facet of the game, from coaching to administration to team spirit and unity (something The Cowboys CLEARLY do not possess). Commentators are throwing around statements like "The best offensive unit ever," and "Perhaps the most cohesive football teams to play the game since it's been played."
Have you watched a Pats game? They do indeed make it look easy... On Monday night, The Cowboys just didn't look like a great football team, on both sides of the ball. Romo was awsul, and looked like a high-school kid stuck in a man's game. His expression was not one of a confident, experienced player. Please, try to defend his abysmal performance Monday night, I'd like to hear it.
Joe Montana "...about the Donte Stahlworth TD. Most people think this was all Stahlworth, and he did perform admirably, shedding defenders and slicing through to the endzone, but I disagree. Watch that play again, watch Tom Brady ignore pressure as his eyes calmly move over all his options...one, two, three, all covered, then....boom, he finds Stahlworth and drills an incredibly difficult to hit pass right to the guy. That is what makes an exceptional quarterback, that confidence... that level of understanding for the game. The guy is one of the best ever, if not the best. .. If he was as good looking as me, I would be worried. OK, He's got that covered, too..."
Goofy jokes aside, if you have Montana tooting your horn like that, it means something.
If they are about equal, why did The Cowboys have so much trouble with The Bills, a team The Pats rolled over like they weren't there.
But hey, who knows, Romo and company, playing at home, might click in and play like the Super Bowl team they clearly have the potential to be, and The Pats might not show up fully for the game, have an off day, and give one to The Cowboys. Alas, if both teams show up full of vim and vigor, focused to play... It's gonna be all Pats...
Me? I am hoping it IS an evenly matched, exciting game. Time will tell...
Please don't tell me we're going to start the "They beat this team, and they didn't, so this team is better" argument.
The 1992 Dallas Cowboys lost AT HOME to a 6-10 LA Rams team, 27-23. Earlier in the year, the Bills beat that same team 40-7.
Huh, guess Buffalo was better since they demolished a bad team and Dallas lost to them at home.
Oh, but let's not forget that Dallas beat the Bills in the Super Bowl later that year 52-17 and forced an unheard of 9 turnovers.
Is New England better? Of course they are...for right now.
But to call Dallas the Joe Glass of the NFL? You gotta be kidding me.
This is so reminiscent of last year when the 9-0 Indianapolis Colts rolled into Dallas and everyone was proclaiming them the greatest thing ever. People laughed at the possibility of Dallas beating Indy.
But they did it.
Here's how Dallas can beat New England.
- Terence Newman is a top 3 corner in the NFL. He has amazing coverage abilities and has given up 2 touchdowns in the last 35 games he's played. He'll be on Moss and it appears that he is finally 100%.
- Anthony Henry is our other corner. I actually see us putting Henry on Welker and not Stallworth. Welker is a small dude. Henry is a big corner. Welker is a really good player, so we're going to use Henry to abuse Welker in the size/weight matchup. I really think Henry will do a good job of containing him.
- Jacques Reeves will be on Donte Stallworth. Not a preferred matchup, but it's what we're stuck with. Reeves has this horrible tendency to play ten yards off of the opponent. I look for him to play closer this game and get safety help from Ken Hamlin. The key to this whole deal is Newman containing Moss. If he does that, we can afford to send the double to Stallworth and put Henry on Welker to abuse his size.
- Someone needs to be on Watson. I'm not sure if we'd put Ware or Williams on him. I'll guess we'll put a jam on him from a linebacker like Spencer and then have Williams cover him
- For the most part, I think everyone else blitzes straight up the gut. Not the edge. Spears, Canty, Ratliff, Ware, Spencer, James and Ayodele will all be coming straight up the gut. This will help us a lot in those iffy matchups of Newman/Moss and Williams/Watson. Hopefully it'll force Brady to make bad decisions. Teams have been afraid to go all out on the blitz against New England, and it's really the only thing nobody has tried. I think Dallas will do it on Sunday.
- On offense, we have Romo. The dude is resilient. I think Romo will go out and sling the ball like he did against New York in the opener. I look for one back most the game (I'm thinking this is where we finally stick Barber out there for most of the game) and then have Crayton and Hurd on the outside with Owens and Witten in the slots.
Continued...
Putting are two most dynamic receivers, Witten and Owens, in the slot, give them the entire field to work with and doesn't limit their space. It's much harder to cover. Crayton and Hurd are more than good enough to hold their own on the outside.
Barber is also a good back to dump the ball off to if the rush gets to be too much on Romo. He can dump it and Barber can shake his way through a defense covering 20 yards down field. And with the spread out offense, it opens things up through the middle for Barber to bull his way through.
Let's also not forget that the Dallas offensive line has been great this year.
All of these factors are key to Dallas winning the game and very realistic. So let's not make it sound impossible.
This is all accurate, but, it avoids my main point, which is that Dallas is clearly not gelling as well as they should be. I don't see any of The Pats throwing little hissy fits on the sidelines like TO was doing after the (many, many) interceptions Romo threw Monday night. This week is a great example, with Brady also performing under-par, but not to the extent Romo did. Brady was clearly off, and was also upset with his own performance, and was in a rough headspace from what I could tell. The difference is that the rest of the team did their jobs just like Brady was playing perfectly. Supportive comments and back slaps for 'ol Tom, while Romo was the recipient of icy stares from his receivers when he made a mistake, followed by TO whining on the sidelines.
That is my main point, they aren't as cohesive of a TEAM, regardless of individual talent, and in a hyped match like this, with as much talent on both teams as we see here, it will come down to who shows up playing well together.
I am not going to sit here and hack on The Cowboys for lack of talent, that would be silly, Whitten is the best TE in the league right now, hands down. TO is a monster, and an exceptional receiver, and we don't need to mention the ice water in Nick Folk's veins.
This is about Teamwork.
Mike, I don't know where you're getting that.
After every interception, Owens was upset, but that's because they were messing up. But then they would cut to Romo and Owens would be standing next to him and talking to him very calmly.
Plus, lets see how Moss would react if Brady turns the ball over 6 times. I bet he isn't as contained as Owens.
Honestly, commentators, writers and fans were praising Owens for keeping his cool and encouraging Romo. I don't know where you got the idea that he was whining.
By watching him on the screen, whining and shaking his head, while complaining to other players.
So, I'll ask it this way/
Do you think The Cowboys are as cohesive an organization as The Patriots?
Oh, and... Brady will never, ever throw 5 interceptions in a game. He's the best quarterback to play the game, and he just won't do something like that...
Moss would probably act out, tho, you are right about that.
By watching him on the screen, whining and shaking his head, while complaining to other players.
So, I'll ask it this way/
Do you think The Cowboys are as cohesive an organization as The Patriots?
Oh, and... Brady will never, ever throw 5 interceptions in a game. He's the best quarterback to play the game, and he just won't do something like that...
Moss would probably act out, tho, you are right about that.
Well, in the sense of the way they play, no. The Cowboys will probably never be as cohesive as the Patriots.
But off the field...the chemistry that resembles that of a family? I'd say Dallas goes unmatched. That's a tight group of people, they just don't play as cohesive a game as the Patriots.
And who's to say Brady will never throw 5 interceptions? He's thrown 4 interceptions 5 different times and once a year since he became a starter (Except the 2002 season)
That was Thom Brady, his evil twin. He kidnapped The real Tom and put him in a suspended animation in his haunted amusement park. If it wasn't for those meddling kids, we would still be watching pick after pick.
I wonder if Romo will have another 41 yard fun for a gain of 3... Now THAT was a well executed play!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NjplYy_zT0Y
Really though, kudos for getting positive yardage out of a bad snap. Clearly, the center blew this play, and Romo managed to pull them out of it. It does look funny, though!
Other than shaking the first tackler or two, Romo just got lucky that the ball fell where it did, away from all the other defenders. LOL
One more day until the big game... I am getting psyched!
Only a few more hours until kickoff. I can't wait any longer! I think this game will go to New England. It just seems like the kind of game to me where Dallas is trailing by 7-10 points the whole game and that they end out losing by that margin.
31-21 New England
I'll buy that. This won't be the typical NE blowout we have seen so far this year, but, Brady et al. will pull out the victory by a maximum of 13 points...
Meanwhile, my fantasy roster is back in shape this week, and I plan on having a fun day dorking out over stats as the teams play...
I'd have to agree. I hope I'm wrong, though. As a fan of one of the top AFC teams, I'd really, really like to believe the Pats have some vulnerabilities.
This Dallas defense will have it's collective hands full today. Moss is clearly a threat, but, as Bobby stated, the back covering him today is exceptional, so he may tie up Moss pretty well, but, then again, he may not. The Cowboy safety situation is where the trouble starts. These guys are weak, from what I have seen, and Watson and Welker, two dangerous weapons, will be in the slot snagging first down catches all day, too much for safeties of this caliber to handle. That would be enough, but the Pats have more with Stallworth and Gaffney in action as well. I have a feeling the Dallas D will perhaps get a good 9 minutes of decent defense in before Bellichick starts to pick them apart and the Pats start doing real damage. A quiet first quarter, but then, game on.
What a ridiculous offensive assault. Brady, Moss, Watson, Welker, Stallworth... Morris is having great games and Harrison is back in the lineup on D. Look for Samuel, Harrison, and Thomas to grab at least two picks today, and, as usual, Vrabel will pop in for a touchdown to make it 12 career receptions for 12 touchdowns...
Big day for Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth... An exciting game!
That was almost boringly predictable; not in the sense that the Pats won, but that looking at the two teams, this is exactly the kind of game we ought to have expected: very little rushing, Dallas scoring a reasonable amount of points, and New England torching the Dallas pass defense, which is very average.
That said, Dallas stayed in the game longer than I thought they would have. They needed one more big turnover, though; the fumble return for a touchdown struck me as a potential key to the game. When it happened, I said to myself "they'll need another play like that to have a chance." I think there are two ways to beat New England: big turnovers, and strong special teams (either with a big return, or consistently good field position). I don't see anyone trading punches with them, though. In other words, if the whole game is exchanging turns on offense and seeing who can drive down the field more often, New England'll win every time.
So, it was a big win for the Pats, but at the same time, I think they were exposed as a little below superhuman. Dallas stayed in the game and had a few convincing drives. I think the key is getting to Brady early and often; when they stopped pressuring him, New England ran wild. But they didn't, and New England kept the Dallas defense on the field forever.
Frankly, as a Steelers fan, this gives me a little optimism, as Pittsburgh specializes in pressuring the quarterback and controlling the time of possession. People like to talk about turnovers are the most important stat, and in a sense they're right, but turnovers are fickle and sometimes downright random. Time of possession -- wearing out the other team's defense and resting your own -- is highly underappreciated.
Great two-and-half quarters of football, though. If we learned anything about the Pats (other than the above), it's that you absolutely can contain Randy Moss, but that Welker and Stallworth are completely capable of stepping up in his place.
Holden Pike
10-21-07, 05:48 PM
Wow. Brady had another SIX TD passes today, giving him twenty-seven through the first seven games. He now has the remaining nine games to get the twenty-three more he'd need to break Manning's 2004 record. That's only averaging 2½ per game.
It'll be a very interesting story. The Patriots have a much tougher schedule coming up than the one they've had so far.
Still, after today, I have to think Brady is a bit more likely than not to break the record...except for the fact that, if and when they lock up home-field advantage, they might stop playing him for all four quarters. That's the real X-factor here.
Also, if you'll all allow me a bit of homerism, I think my Steelers are better-suited than most other teams to give the Pats a run for their money, primarily because we run well, and New England has, at times, struggled to stop the run. Especially today.
So, I certainly may be deluding myself here, but I'm excited and cautiously hopeful about how the Steelers will match up with NE.
Holden Pike
10-21-07, 06:33 PM
And if you'll allow me a Homerism (Homer Jay), "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
Holden Pike
10-22-07, 12:28 AM
So Yoda, you think the Steelers match up better against the Patriots than they do against the mighty Denver Broncos?
I think you better out a little more caution in your hopefulness.
So Yoda, you think the Steelers match up better against the Patriots than they do against the mighty Denver Broncos?
I think you better out a little more caution in your hopefulness.
It makes me wonder if the Steelers are as good as they've seemed, sure, but no, I still think they match up better against the Pats than most other teams do. Good teams beat themselves from time to time. It's not a good sign, but it's not the same as being outplayed; especially when it happens in a nailbiter.
'Course, people thought the way you do two years ago, too. The Pats were much hotter then, having won 30-odd regular season games in a row, and they lost -- badly -- at Heinz Field. If that shows us anything, it's that it's all about which team shows up. Pittsburgh didn't show up tonight until the second half, but it's quite an extrapolation to draw any conclusions about their long-term prospects as a result.
Austruck
10-22-07, 01:02 PM
You're right, though, Yods. They didn't show up last night till the second half, and even then I think the air was a bit thin for them and the temperature suddenly too low. ;)
Ack! Ronnie Brown out for the season!
Not that I already didn't have enough fantasy fball woes...
As of next week, I have to replace almost my entire team!
Austruck
10-22-07, 02:50 PM
Think of it as a fresh start, Sedai. ;)
I started off so well this season, too...
Meanwhile, last week the Vikings super rookie, Adrian Peterson, was in every paper. He had a ridiculous game, netting 361 combined yards and 3 TDs, one from 75 yards out and one from 65 yards out.
So, what do the Vikings do this week, when they traveled to face the NFC best Cowboys?
They barely use him, giving him 9 touches all day (1 for a TD), and calling inexplicable plays using their has-been half-back. I guess Chester Taylor was upset that he was being outshined by a rookie, and told them "put me in coach, I'll lurch and putter around the defensive line! That new kid is a fluke!"
Nope. They got owned. Taylor did jack squat, and the play calling was some of the wost I have ever seen on a professional team.
For instance:
Vikings get pinned at the one yard line. They sideline Peterson, and pass on first down. OK, a valid play, but the pass got dropped. Then the dunce caps went on. On 2nd and third down, they run. Not only do they run, they keep Peterson on the sidelines and ship the ball to Chester Taylor, who hobbles up the middle into 5 defenders for a gain or 2 inches. Thinking maybe they made a mistake using Taylor, they run AGAIN, this time using ... the fullback?? Who is this guy? He could barely move... Peterson watched stunned from the sidelines, and I sat in my chair thinking that yes, I can be an NFL coach after all...
But remember, we were wild cards two years ago. Anything can happen, and with the Steelers, that seems to be truer than I'd like sometimes!
Yeah, unfortunately it's all judged on the results, even though people who watch these sorts of games know better.
Same thing happened last year; if you didn't follow the Steelers, all you'd know was that they were 8-8, and you'd pick the Bengals or Ravens to take the divsion this year, as almost all analysts did. But anyone who watched last year's team knew they were still one of the AFC's best. Lo and behold, here they are, atop the division again.
Anyone catch The Patriots yesterday. In a supposed "trap game," lined up against the #1 ranked pass defense in the league, The Pats looked even more unbeatable. They had the usual onslaught of top notch receivers catching passes all over the field, and this week, Maroney came alive was rushing effectively.
Yes, the men 'ol Pats went for it on 4 and 2, with 11 minutes to play, up by 38. Running up the score? Maybe, but, wasn't this the team that supposed to shut The Pats down in a surprise upset?
Like the commentator said:
"If you feel like the Pats are running up the score, maybe think about the 3 hours your team had to do something about it. Stop whining, and start scoring."
Word.
Big win for Pittsburgh tonight, 38-7 over Baltimore. It was actually a good deal more lopsided than it sounds, though, as the Steelers opened up a 35-0 lead before halftime, and pretty much coasted through the second half. Roethlisberger was an absolute magician, slipping through the hands of defender after defender, often completing long passes afterwards. Though always hard to bring down, Big Ben has been phenomenal at alluding defenders this season. It's safe to say no one today does it better.
Anyway, when the dust had settled, he'd thrown 5 touchdowns by the end of the first half. Fantastic performance. Baltimore played terribly, gaining the fewest total yards in franchise history. They had themselves to blame for much of that, to be sure, but it's never easy to move the ball on what was the NFL's #1 defense even before tonight's shellacking.
And by the way...
Also, if you'll all allow me a bit of homerism, I think my Steelers are better-suited than most other teams to give the Pats a run for their money, primarily because we run well, and New England has, at times, struggled to stop the run.
...the fellas on Monday Night Football said the same thing tonight. Not that I'm a predicting a victory; not by any means. But if you had to build a team to match up with New England this year, they'd look a hell of a lot like this Pittsburgh team.
Big win for Pittsburgh tonight, 38-7 over Baltimore. It was actually a good deal more lopsided than it sounds, though, as the Steelers opened up a 35-0 lead before halftime, and pretty much coasted through the second half. Roethlisberger was an absolute magician, slipping through the hands of defender after defender, often completing long passes afterwards. Though always hard to bring down, Big Ben has been phenomenal at alluding defenders this season. It's safe to say no one today does it better.
Anyway, when the dust had settled, he'd thrown 5 touchdowns by the end of the first half. Fantastic performance. Baltimore played terribly, gaining the fewest total yards in franchise history. They had themselves to blame for much of that, to be sure, but it's never easy to move the ball on what was the NFL's #1 defense even before tonight's shellacking.
And by the way...
...the fellas on Monday Night Football said the same thing tonight. Not that I'm a predicting a victory; not by any means. But if you had to build a team to match up with New England this year, they'd look a hell of a lot like this Pittsburgh team.
:yup:
I only saw the second half (so I missed all the good stuff) oh well...
Yeah, they looked great last night, and, glad I have Pitt's Defense on my fantasy team, as they got me plenty of points. As for them being the number one defense, I think that is just in points allowed. Their secondary is rated a bit lower. That said, that is the perfect set-up against the Raven's, who have by far the worst passing in the game. Pitt clearly has the best defensive line right now, and they rolled right over the Raven's poor protection. The worst match-up for the Ravens, by far.
As for the Pats, this team will give them a run for the money, but, Brady has better protection, and he is a master at getting rid of the ball to a slot guy if needed. Pitt will need to get their secondary in line if they plan on challenging the Pats. The Pitt Offense is fine, and is clearly able to put up enough points to challenge The Pats.
Should be a good game!
They're #1 in points, total yards, and pass defense. #4 in rushing defense. The yardage total is the most impressive; most teams are bunched within 10 YPG of each other near the top, but Pittsburgh's given up a ridiculous 33 YPG less than the #2 team (Tennessee).
Hopefully they'll keep it up long enough that we'll have the #1 Pats offense against the #1 Pittsburgh defense. Think the networks'll be hyping that one a bit? :laugh:
Hmmm, I guess after two bad games in a row (one facing the Patriots), Washington's secondary slid all the way down to 8th...
Ha. Looks like Baltimore is #2. Too bad they lost not one, but two starting corners, so, they will slide fast from here on out...
The page I am looking at has Tenn at #3 (overall) after this week...
Peep it here... (http://www.coachescorner.com/n_input/nnweb/scores/header_nfl_def_rank.htm)
I was looking at ESPN's stats page (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=team&sort=ypg&pos=def&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2). It doesn't appear to have a "Last Updated" notice anywhere, but it lists Pittsburgh as having given up 98 points, which means it must include last night's game. So I'd guess the other one probably doesn't reflect this week's games yet.
Today is not a good day for the Steelers to be folding like a lawn chair...
Mrs. Darcy
11-11-07, 05:10 PM
Does anyone else here do the fantasy football? On the history forum I'm on, we have a team every year, and it never fails, the guys that were hot the previous year, suck this year.
My only star players this season are Clinton Portis and Torry Holt. Marvin Harrison was good until he got injured. My quarterbacks, Carson Palmer and Eli Manning, are not doing as well as I had hoped.
Next fall, maybe we can do a fantasy league here if there's interest and 12 members to join in.
Today is not a good day for the Steelers to be folding like a lawn chair...
They were never in terrible shape. They made some mistakes, but Cleveland's lead was pretty flukey; a long kickoff return, and a turnover deep in Steeler territory. I was watching the game with a Browns fan and even after the kickoff return for a touchdown to regain the lead he seemed convinced they'd lose. They were relying too much on the big plays, and couldn't sustain (or prevent) drives consistently.
Still, great game. As much as it pains me to say it, I think the Browns might make this a competitive rivalry again with the young core they've built.
Next fall, maybe we can do a fantasy league here if there's interest and 12 members to join in.
We'd talked about that in The Shoutbox a few weeks ago, and it sounds like there's some definite interest. I'd definitely be down, and I believe Sedai said he would, too. I'm guessing Bobby would be interested, but I don't know for sure. Assuming he is, and you are, that's four right there.
I think it'd be great fun. :) I've played a lot of fantasy baseball in my time, but no fantasy football yet. I nearly took the dive this year, but held off. I'd love to give it a try next year, though.
Dallas is playing so good right now. So good.
I think if I'm ranking NFL teams right now, it'd be...
1) Patriots
2) Cowboys
3) Colts
4) Packers
5) Steelers
We'd talked about that in The Shoutbox a few weeks ago, and it sounds like there's some definite interest. I'd definitely be down, and I believe Sedai said he would, too. I'm guessing Bobby would be interested, but I don't know for sure. Assuming he is, and you are, that's four right there.
I think it'd be great fun. :) I've played a lot of fantasy baseball in my time, but no fantasy football yet. I nearly took the dive this year, but held off. I'd love to give it a try next year, though.
Yep...I'd play.
Fantasy Football is better than any other fantasy game.
Pyro Tramp
11-12-07, 02:31 PM
Shouldn't thread be called 'American Football Thread'?
I opened it thinking it was about PROPER football.
Mrs. Darcy
11-12-07, 02:37 PM
Yes, props have to be given to rugby, it's a manly game...:D
Thursday Next
11-12-07, 05:13 PM
Shouldn't thread be called 'American Football Thread'?
I opened it thinking it was about PROPER football.
Oh well, about proper football (if you can call the Championship that;D), West Brom are currently thrashing Coventry City 2-0, after our best player was red carded in the first 10 minutes (not a good start...)
I am definitely down for a Fantasy Football League for MoFo...
Mrs. Darcy
11-12-07, 06:52 PM
Good! Slug is in too. (we're married, he has no choice.) That makes at least 5. We've got a year to round up some more MoFos for a league.
Thursday Next
11-13-07, 04:58 AM
Good! Slug is in too. (we're married, he has no choice.)
Shouldn't that make you Mrs. Slug...? :)
Meanwhile, who is playing this year? Shall we post our current rosters for a little fun?
Little Miss Diva
11-18-07, 09:52 PM
I am sad cuz the Chargers lost. :(
Hmmm, I'll stick with Moss...with the caveat that he's only as good as he wants to be. He won't necessarily play hard for a bad team. He needs a good supporting cast to be effective.
Upsetting loss for Pittsburgh today. Another one of those games where the team more or less beats itself. Hard to know what to think as a Steeler fan, as this team is easily as talented as the team that went 15-1 three years ago, or won the Super Bowl the year after. The offensive live just doesn't show up some games, and this was one of those games.
We Steeler fans are spoiled by our team's perpetual competitiveness, though. Most other fans would allow for some sort of grace period for a new coach, but not Pittsburgh fans. Perhaps we should feel fortunate that a first-year coach is likely to win 11 or 12 games out of the gate. But, of course, we probably won't. ;)
The one bright spot is that the defense continues to dominate. It came up with two huge goal line stands. They were on an historic pace through their first 8 games, but have let up a little, and now are on pace to be the third-best defense (in terms of points allowed) in the last six seasons. Whether a great defense and an inconsistent offensive line can win in the playoffs, we'll have to see. History suggests it can, but obviously their odds would be a lot better with all facets clicking.
T.O. > Moss
Maybe.
Not according to the rest of the world, who says Moss is the best NFL player right now. I heard that multiple times in multiple reports after and during last night's game.
Meanwhile, TO is a MONSTER, and is definitely on the same level as Moss. The guy is sick, and is just as hard, if not harder, to cover. Moss clearly has better hands and ridiculous vertical play, but TO is just as impressive to watch. If he would just start putting super glue on his gloves, like Moss, he can bring his completion percentage up to that of Moss. ;)
Regardless, clearly the two best wides playing right now...
Partimus
11-19-07, 04:15 PM
Hmmm, I'll stick with Moss...with the caveat that he's only as good as he wants to be. He won't necessarily play hard for a bad team. He needs a good supporting cast to be effective.
Upsetting loss for Pittsburgh today. Another one of those games where the team more or less beats itself. Hard to know what to think as a Steeler fan, as this team is easily as talented as the team that went 15-1 three years ago, or won the Super Bowl the year after. The offensive live just doesn't show up some games, and this was one of those games.
We Steeler fans are spoiled by our team's perpetual competitiveness, though. Most other fans would allow for some sort of grace period for a new coach, but not Pittsburgh fans. Perhaps we should feel fortunate that a first-year coach is likely to win 11 or 12 games out of the gate. But, of course, we probably won't. ;)
The one bright spot is that the defense continues to dominate. It came up with two huge goal line stands. They were on an historic pace through their first 8 games, but have let up a little, and now are on pace to be the third-best defense (in terms of points allowed) in the last six seasons. Whether a great defense and an inconsistent offensive line can win in the playoffs, we'll have to see. History suggests it can, but obviously their odds would be a lot better with all facets clicking.
I agree, as a Steeler fan, it is hard to watch when the whole team doesn't play to it's potential. I will, however, cut a little slack for the first year coach :D
After more accusations of "running up the score", I thought this tidbit from a Bills player was pretty cool:
"I don't feel bad about it," echoed Buffalo strong safety Donte Whitner. "This is football. Our job is to stop it if they want to go for it. There's nothing against them. They play hard, they play the whole game. I don't begrudge them. You have to stop it."
and another Bills player:
"Sure, it gets to you," Bills free safety George Wilson said. "There was a situation like this against the Redskins a few weeks ago and some spoke up. I'm not going to do that. This is a 60-minute game and if they want to go for it on fourth down you've got to strap it up and stop it. This ain't no pity party. In this league there is no remorse."
GRAYMATTER
11-19-07, 05:40 PM
as a raider fan i won't even comment. all i know is every sunday instead of watching the raider game i should just let someone beat me to death with a stick.
Mrs. Darcy
11-19-07, 08:20 PM
A Raiders fan? I think we need to do an intervention here, MoFo'ers...
That said, did anyone catch Soup Bowl 2007 last night?
You know I did. :) Crazy game. They were saying a rainstorm was the absolute worst thing that could have happened to the new sod they'd just laid.
Heinz Field is notorious for its tricky playing surface, partly because a ton of different teams play on it, including the Pitt Panthers and, over this past weekend, several high school teams. It's quite cool of a pro team with such a nice stadium to let high schoolers play on it, but it came at a price this time.
Say a prayer for Sean Taylor's family.
The NFL has lost the best safety in the game, and a one year old girl has lost her father.
I surely will; I was praying for his recovery. It's such a shame.
I'm still curious as to whether or not it was just a break-in. I recall some claims yesterday that it was "deliberate," though I'm not quite sure what's meant by that.
It's a terrible thing Bobby. Just when Taylor was really getting his shit together, both on the field and off.
So, now that my respects have been piad, I wish to comment on your other point, about the best safety in the NFL.
I would rank them thusly, top 5:
Harrison
Williams
Polamalu
Taylor (RIP)
Dawkins
Taylor is a definitely a top 5 safety, as far as ability is concerned, but the guy blows formation sometimes and gets burnt. It's weird, after about 4 games this season, I had Washington's secondary pegged as the coverage to beat, but they sort of fell apart after that, and slid down the rankings. Not sure what happened there. Harrison is the MAN.
Come on Bobby, What about Roy Williams? The guy has it all...
Harrison #1? Hm, I dunno. Philly picked on him pretty effectively.
I'm a big Polamalu fan, for obvious reasons. I wouldn't rank him as the best, but I will say that no one else can play the role he does in the Pittsburgh D. Which ties into the Harrison thing: how good would each of these guys be in a lesser system?
The Gnat
11-27-07, 05:17 PM
I surely will; I was praying for his recovery. It's such a shame.
I'm still curious as to whether or not it was just a break-in. I recall some claims yesterday that it was "deliberate," though I'm not quite sure what's meant by that.
Somewhere I heard reported that the phone line was cut. I don't know if that is standared for burglers (probably should be), but if it isn't something that is all that normal, there might have been more intent then just burglery. And I've only seen/heard this one place, so I don't know how credible it, or most details surrounding this are so far.
Roy Williams is one of the 10 worst starting safeties in the NFL.
No lie.
Williams can't cover worth a flip and his tackling as taken a significant hit ever since he decided to tackle with his shoulders only.
BIG WIN for Dallas!
I am so pleased with this team right now, and I really hope we get another shot at New England.
In other news...
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d804a3f24&template=without-video&confirm=true
Dallas, currently, has 10 players leading at their positions in the Pro Bowl voting (Terrell Owens, Jason Witten, Flozell Adams, Leonard Davis, Andre Gurode, DeMarcus Ware, Roy Williams, Mat McBriar, Nick Folk and Keith Davis)
If that continues, and Dallas gets more player and coach votes, the Cowboys have an outside shot at sending more than half of their starters (14, with Romo, Barber, Ellis and Newman having possibilities) to the Pro Bowl this year.
Congrats to the Cowboys on a good win. Shame Favre went down, but I do think they're a better team than Green Bay. Not scads better, but certainly better.
New England won again since I last posted here, but it was a nail-biter. Philly didn't just come close; you could go as far as saying they kind of blew it at the end there. I don't buy that the Pats have been suddenly exposed, because I didn't think they were genuinely invincible to begin with, but I do think the game against Philadelphia made the chinks in their armor a little clearer. For one, you can score on them. It's as simple as that. Their defense is aging and puts up some pretty good numbers, but it's not reliable, and good offensive teams can really light them up at times. Every now and then, someone runs all over them.
The offense is pretty hard to supress, but any team that can get consistent pressure on the quarterback has a fighting chance against them. You're not going to hold them to 17 points or anything, but you might hold them to 21-30, and if you keep that aging defense out on the field and light them up a few times, that might be enough.
BTW, Bill Simmons (known as the "Sports Guy" and a big Pats fan) recently said in his record-breaking marathon chat session on ESPN that he is "extremely worried" about their game with the Steelers.
Again, not predicting a victory, but if you'll allow me some analytical gloating: several prominent commentators have now echoed my statement from October that the Steelers are better-suited to than most other good teams to take on the Pats. It's pretty self-evident, I think, though I'd feel far better about the game if it were being played in Heinz Field.
Either way, we're almost certainly going to be looking at the NFL's #1 offense against the NFL's #1 defense. That's quite a hook. We had IND/NE a few weeks ago and DAL/GB last night. I'd say this will complete the uber-hyped trifecta of regular season matchups.
Favre's injury pretty much ended my fantasy season, as he is my starting Q, and a big part of my winning record. If he played the entire game, even looking as "off" as he did, he would have at least netted me SOMETHING in the way of points, instead of a big 0 (his interceptions offset his few passing yards early).
That said, Dallas looked great, and TO had a big yardage day.
Looking forward to the big games to come... I just hope I can watch some of them. I couldn't watch last night's game, because it was on NFL network, which I don't have.
I saw one headline earlier:
"The Biggest Game No One Got To Watch"
Well, the Pats survived a major scare. And, unlike their nailbiter against Philadelphia, I think they actually got outplayed this time. Hats off to Raven defense. Boo to the Raven offense, which played three strong quarters and then disappeared. And (as a Steeler fan, I can't believe I'm saying this): my sympathies to the Raven fans, who were great last night, and must be pretty miserable this morning.
By my count, there must have been at least half a dozen plays that, if they'd gone a little differently, would have resulted in a Baltimore victory. And not plays that can be chalked up to New England's skill and execution, but rather, plays that fell apart because of a) Baltimore's sporadic incompetence and b) sheer happenstance.
Most notable, of course, would be the fumble on the INT return. Difference in the game, easily. Even after that, there were maybe three different third downs that Baltimore probably could have iced the game with had they converted. Despite blowing all of those, too, the defense kept coming up with big plays. The bizarre 4th-down-stuff-that-wasn't, the timeout, another stop on 4th down called back because NE was offsides, and then a penalty on 4th later. It was all by the skin of their teeth. Even the winning touchdown catch was reviewed.
Of course, since New England won, everyone else is going to be subjected to stories about how Brady pulled together "when it mattered most" yet again. I think anyone who watched the game knows better, though. He had a very poor game and even on the game-winning drive, he was only 4-for-10, and Baltimore gave them another 10 yards in penalties. That ain't Elway-level stuff, and I don't think the "found a way to win" line does games like this much justice, either.
The real issue, of course, is whether or not the last couple of games give some hope to the rest of the league. I think they do. We've seen that the New England offense cannot be stopped altogether, to be sure, but they've been held under 30 points for consecutive games by defenses ranked 12th and 18th in PPG allowed, respectively. Next Sunday, they go against the #1 defense in Pittsburgh.
We've also seen that their defense is occasionally quite ordinary, and that good backs can run on them at will.
Smart money's still on the Pats in any given game, but as a whole, I don't think they're running the table. Pittsburgh's definitely the type of team built to play the Pats, but it doesn't take a great team to knock off an unbeaten; just look at the last two weeks. You never know when an underachieving team is going to regain its focus.
Most importantly, however, is that even if New England keeps winning, they'll have to rest their starters in the last game, if not the last two games. It's hard to imagine them beating a fairly solid Giants team fighting for playoff position if Brady and Moss end up sitting out 2 or 3 quarters.
A bit more concerning the Pats/Steelers matchup (I figured some of it should be in its own post)...
This is a very interesting game. We're not only talking about the NFL's #1 offense against the NFL's #1 defense, but when you measure each ranking by YPG gained and YPG allowed, respectively, they're both at historic levels.
The Steeler defense is giving up just 230 yards per game; that's 17 fewer YPG than the 2000 Baltimore defense often hailed as the greatest of all time, and 28 fewer YPG than the vaunted '85 Bears. They're on pace to give up the fewest yards by any team since 1991. That team, Philadelphia, is a bit of an oddity, as they finished 5th in points allowed. After that, you've got to go another 15 years to find the next team; the 1977 Dallas Cowboys, who gave up just 1.3 YPG less than the 2007 Steelers have.
New England doesn't fare quite as well when it comes to YPG; even at their current pace, they're set to edge the 1998 San Francisco 49ers for third on the all-time list.
Of course, when you go by points instead of yards, things switch a bit, with Pittsburgh's defense being very good rather than historic, and New England's offense likely being the best ever assembled.
Any way you slice it, though, you're talking about a defense and an offense that aren't just the best of the year, but the best of the last several years, at the very least. It might not get the hype of the DAL/NE and NE/IND clashes of unbeaten teams, but it's a far more statistically significant matchup, and should feature an intriguing contrast in styles.
Shame the game isn't in Pittsburgh, because I'm pretty sure the decibel level would break the threshold of pain. But these are two teams accustomed to the same type of weather, and Steeler fans are well-traveled, so it should be quite a game.
You have to give Harrison some credit for some excellent defense in the final quarter. He had some key plays at just the right time against McGahee and crew. We talk about Baltimore falling apart offensively in the fourth quarter, but they had a few chances, all of which were stopped by the NE D. That said, the NE D looked pretty bad the rest of the game.
Yeah, there were definitely some good stops. It can be hard to tell how much is offensive incompetence and how much is defensive prowess, but there was definitely some of each on display over those last few drives. Some very good open-field tackles.
For sure. The Ravens nailed Watson in a tremendous open field stop, and the guy was half his size. This is the Raven Defense I thought we would see all year. Last year, these guys were SCARY. Tons of energy, talent, and power. The Ravens look like they are starting to gel, too bad it's a little too late. Aside from one massive flub, Boller looked good, too.
Yeah, Boller's INT was pretty goofy. I forgot to mention that as another play that could be called the difference in the game.
And I agree, the Raven defense has been in a bit of a slumber this year, and last night, they definitely woke up. They played way over their heads in going 13-3 last year, but they're certainly better than a 4-8 team. Really, they'd be a perennial contender if they'd been able to get their hands on one decent, reliable quarterback.
Back to the Pats for a second; someone on ESPN pointed out awhile ago that they're essentially the 2005 Colts, down to the high-flying offense, somewhat passable running game, and ho-hum defense. I think they're better than the 2005 Colts, for sure, but it was an interesting angle I hadn't considered, especially seeing as how that Colts team was often criticized for being a "regular season" team, rather than a playoff one. The idea being, as usual, that defense is particularly important in the playoffs.
I wouldn't equate the two, but I thought it was an intriguing point.
It's such an absurdly interesting situation, really, no matter what happens. If they run the table in the regular season, the angle is obvious: can they do it? Definitely interesting. If they lose a meaningless game or two by resting their starters, the angle is almost as interesting, because no one will have beaten the "real" Patriots team. If Pittsburgh beats them, it's intriguing because their invincibility will be definitively gone (rather than a bit shaken), but they'll still be the odds-on favorites. It will remove the feeling that any of it is a foregone conclusion, though, and rachet up the excitement in the playoffs even further.
Of course, there's always the possibility of the Pats going 16-0 and losing in the playoffs, which is just all sorts of confusing from an historical perspective. Even crazier: they knock off a couple teams, including the Steelers or Colts, and then lose to either Dallas or Green Bay in the Super Bowl, finishing 18-1. How surreal would that be?
My oh my. This is one hell of an NFL season, isn't it?
I have become such a rabid football fan this year. Fantasy has a lot to do with it, I'm sure. Still, The more I watch, the more addicted I become, and I love juggling player stats with my friends and fellow fantasy dorks. We MUST do a MoFo league next year!
OK Yods...today is the day we see what your Steelers are made of.
Actually, I think you have a good chance. It's my belief that Donte Stallworth can be phased out with single coverage which in turn allows teams to double Moss. The only thing, it gives Welker one-on-one and then he trashes the opposing team. But that's because most stick a speed guy on him. Pittsburgh will probably throw Bryant McFadden at him, and McFadden is hella violent for a corner. He beats the crap out of the opposing receiver and even though he won't be able to keep up with Welker if he runs all over the field, it won't matter, because Welker won't get the opportunity to run everywhere if McFadden does what he does best and keeps Welker's face in the dirt all game.
I think Pittsburgh could win.
Anyway, before the Pats/Steelers game, everyone be sure to check out the guaranteed massacre in Detroit. Dallas is mad as hell at that team and every weakness of Detroit's plays to Dallas' strengths. It's gonna get ugly.
I think we have a chance, too. I wouldn't go as far as to say that we find out what we're made of today, though. In 2005 we lost to Indianapolis in the regular season before knocking them off in the playoffs. But I definitely agree that we'll learn a lot about them today.
I think your observations are all good ones. I think you pretty much need to let Welker wrack up some big numbers against you if you want to win. He'll do it with lots of slants and hooks, though, so the damage will be far more acceptable than the alternatives.
Losing Polamalu hurts pretty badly, but getting Santonio Holmes back is a pretty big deal. We haven't had much in the way of deep threats with him gone.
The most important player on the field, in my mind, is Willie Parker. He should have good playing conditions and he's up against a defense that has been pretty spotty against the run. And not only spotty, but notoriously slow. Put a guy as fast as Parker next to some of those aging linebackers, and you might see some fireworks. Of course, this is all moot if NE totally stacks the line.
I'll go out on a limb and say that Pittsburgh will come up with a couple of picks, Aaron Smith will do a pretty good job of getting to Brady, and Heath Miller will have a pretty strong day.
And since I'm already out on a limb, I'll let wishful thinking get the better of me and say: Pittsburgh 31, New England 24. But either way, I expect a very exciting game. Good practice for the level of competition each team can expect another month from now.
Powdered Water
12-09-07, 01:58 PM
I think Pittsburgh could win.
Anyway, before the Pats/Steelers game, everyone be sure to check out the guaranteed massacre in Detroit. Dallas is mad as hell at that team and every weakness of Detroit's plays to Dallas' strengths. It's gonna get ugly.
I think the Steelers have got a real shot as well, if they don't knock them off who will?
I live in Seattle and heard that interview live when Kitna came on here. I've got to say I think its a little laughable if that's what it takes to get Dallas ready for a game. The interview is almost a year old. Dallas will probably win but c'mon seems a little over the top.
I think we have a chance, too. I wouldn't go as far as to say that we find out what we're made of today, though. In 2005 we lost to Indianapolis in the regular season before knocking them off in the playoffs. But I definitely agree that we'll learn a lot about them today.
And since I'm already out on a limb, I'll let wishful thinking get the better of me and say: Pittsburgh 31, New England 24. But either way, I expect a very exciting game. Good practice for the level of competition each team can expect another month from now.
Oh yeah, you definitely have a chance it sure sets up to be one those types of games they have no business winning, Safeties out, on the road. I hope it's a good game, not sure if I get to see it here though. Is this the SNF game? And besides someone has to knock the Pats off don't they? Seems like they've been coming back to the pack just a little the lat two weeks, so good luck.
Uggggg... Romo might be having one of his days today.... First drive he looked lost...
ACK!!! Folk just shanked it... I need him to score many FGs today!
I'm up for a live football chat if anyone else is...
Powdered Water
12-09-07, 03:45 PM
I'm up for a live football chat if anyone else is...
You talkin Shout Box? or like IM or something.
I don't have the NFL package though so I'm stuck with Green Bay/ Oakland, but I'll talk with ya if you like.
I suppose it would be to much to ask for Oakland to knock off Green Bay today wouldn't it?
Well, the Steelers fell to 9-4 with a 34-13 loss to New England. Hats off to the Patriots for a fine game.
I'll now make excuses for my team, by insisting that it was more competitive than the final score would indicate. Two very strong Pittsburgh drives ended up in field goals, and they lost the ball on downs at the New England 1.
I was extremely pleased with the first half; the Steelers had a good game plan and were executing it well. Given the difference in time of possession and such, New England was extremely fortunate to be leading at the half.
It all fell apart in the third quarter, though, as the Pats put two more touchdowns on the board. I think it's safe to say that they officially "pulled away" with the quasi flea-flicker from Brady to Moss, and back to Brady. As a Steeler fan, it was a frustrating play, because the Pats executed it very poorly, and yet it still worked. It's also hard to comprehend how any team's safeties would ever give up the deep ball so easily against New England.
Equally as frustrating were the game's random bounces. I'm thinking mostly of the punt the Pats recovered. Essentially, they punted poorly, but were rewarded for it when the ball nicked a blocker running downfield. This was a major turning point in the game, as Pittburgh had stopped the NE offense again and was about to take over down by just 4 points.
So, it was definitely upsetting to see Pittsburgh hang with the Pats so effectively in the first half, only to watch it fall apart in such improbable ways in the second. It really wasn't until the fourth quarter that New England really started to drive at will, when the game was basically in hand.
It's also tempting to wonder whether either (or both) of NE's long pass plays would have been prevented with Troy Polamalu in the game, as both involved a lack of discipline on the part of the safeties.
Of course, this game was mostly a barometer; regardless of the outcome, it's likely New England wil be the #1 seed, and Pittsburgh will be the #3 seed. Hopefully they'll meet again next month, and hopefully the Steelers will be able to execute their gameplan for a full 60 minutes then.
The Steelers played a better game, I mean they really did. The 4th down conversions in the first half and the solid running showed me what the terrible towel team thinks it takes to win. T.O.P. in the 1st half was embarrassing for N.E. If the Steelers do not beat the Pat's in the big one then the Colts will.
The Steelers played a better game, I mean they really did. The 4th down conversions in the first half and the solid running showed me what the terrible towel team thinks it takes to win. T.O.P. in the 1st half was embarrassing for N.E. If the Steelers do not beat the Pat's in the big one then the Colts will.
I think this is mostly true, but New England was just so much more disciplined in the second half. They were definitely outplayed in the first, though. It really comes down to the big plays, and Pittsburgh falling just short and settling for field goals. And that goofy punt. But most people are just going to look at the score and chalk it up as another dominant win, which it wasn't.
I agree that New England still looks quite beatable. A few journalists have noted the striking reversal between the Pats and the Colts. A few years ago, it was Indianapolis that had the high-flying offense and dominant regular season, only to fall in the playoffs because they couldn't play reliable defense or run the ball. Now, NE fits that bill, and the Colts can do both those things. Will it matter, given how high-flying they are? We'll see.
Oh, also, I didn't realize until after the game that Ryan Clark, another safety, was out for Pittsburgh. Up against with New England with two safeties out...yikes. :eek: Perhaps I should be thankful we hung in there for even two quarters.
Powdered Water
12-10-07, 11:14 AM
Well, I like your optimism Yoda, I'm not sure, time will tell but I think we may be watching history this year. It was bound to happen at some point. Tom Brady is just an unbelievable Quarterback. He only needs 4 more T.D's to break Peyton 's record. I'm certainly not gonna feel to sorry for the Steelers, I'm a Seattle fan so it doesn't hurt my feelings any when they lose.
Anyway say what you want about our division and the schedule but hats off to the Seahawks for their 4th straight division title. I don't care what division you're in that's a good thing.
The Steelers played a better game, I mean they really did. The 4th down conversions in the first half and the solid running showed me what the terrible towel team thinks it takes to win. T.O.P. in the 1st half was embarrassing for N.E. If the Steelers do not beat the Pat's in the big one then the Colts will.
I disagree. The Steelers clearly played well, but not well enough to win the game. The Steelers having to settle for field goals has at least a little top do with the NE defense playing tighter than they have the past few weeks. The Steelers had a first and goal at the 7, and didn't punch it through. Add to that the fact that Moss read and beat the coverage they had assigned him, and the Pats offense eventually found a weakness in the underneath coverage, allowing Welker to catch something like 6 balls IN A ROW. I don't care who you are, if the same wideout catches six passes in a row one after the other, your coverage isn't tight.
The Steelers didn't play the better game, or they would have won... I thought they did a lot right, but ultimately, have a lot to improve on. Two different men named Smith had comments after the game, with Smith #1, the older, wiser coach for the Steelers commenting on the fact that the Steelers have a lot to work on if they are to reach the level the Pats are playing on right now, and... a much younger, clearly unexperienced safety for the Steelers named Smith...and this is just gold, folks... went on record that he wanted to re-state his guarantee that the Steelers would win for sure...after they had just lost the game.
Dear big-mouthed clown type person: In case you may have missed it, you LOST the game you were guaranteeing you would win. Maybe shut your big yapper, and get back to practicing coverage on that guy that totally smoked you during the game. Yeah, that guy.
He said that? Can you link me up?
Regarding the Smith "guarantee": it was largely a misquote. He prefaced it by saying "if we do this, if we do that," etc. Regardless, I think the whole thing is a non-story. Even if it had not been taken somewhat out of context, this wasn't Parker or Ben, and it wasn't a put-down. The fact that it got so much coverage says more about how desperate journalists are to fill column inches than anything else.
Anyway, I don't agree that if the Steelers had played better, they'd have won. Baltimore played a better game last week, I'd say, and still lost. Teams get outplayed and win every week. But I do agree that New England played a better game. I think Pittsburgh outplayed them (significantly) in the first half, and a mixture of bad luck (the punt recovery) and an inability to punch it home kept them from going into the half with a substantial lead.
But, of course, it all fell apart in the second half; some, again, due to bad luck (the gadget play. Let's face it; it was badly executed and they were fortunate it worked), and simply being outplayed on that 89-yard drive (the one where Welker caught all those passes). Perhaps the Steelers had thrown in the towel at that point, but either way, the Pats drove impressively there, and they deserve credit.
I'm a little miffed to see a number of media outlets charactertizing this as a "beatdown." The Steelers were fantastic in the first half, and this with Holmes barely playing, and both of our starting safeties out against the best passing team of all-time. I mean, sheesh. Credit to Tomlin and Co. for putting together a gameplan that kept Pittsburgh in it as long as they did, because that's one helluva hurdle.
None of this is meant to take anything away from New England; they're an amazing football team, and they played a great second half yesterday. However, I'm still excited about the possibility of playing them again, given what transpired in the first half.
So, helmets off and all that. Here's hoping these two meet again.
I disagree. The Steelers clearly played well, but not well enough to win the game. The Steelers having to settle for field goals has at least a little top do with the NE defense playing tighter than they have the past few weeks. The Steelers had a first and goal at the 7, and didn't punch it through. Add to that the fact that Moss read and beat the coverage they had assigned him, and the Pats offense eventually found a weakness in the underneath coverage, allowing Welker to catch something like 6 balls IN A ROW. I don't care who you are, if the same wideout catches six passes in a row one after the other, your coverage isn't tight.
The Steelers didn't play the better game, or they would have won... I thought they did a lot right, but ultimately, have a lot to improve on. Two different men named Smith had comments after the game, with Smith #1, the older, wiser coach for the Steelers commenting on the fact that the Steelers have a lot to work on if they are to reach the level the Pats are playing on right now, and... a much younger, clearly unexperienced safety for the Steelers named Smith...and this is just gold, folks... went on record that he wanted to re-state his guarantee that the Steelers would win for sure...after they had just lost the game.
I should say they played a better game in the first half, if one looks at what it takes to play a good game. I am not knocking N.E. at all they took over the last half, but it was a different game altogether. Pitt held the ball a lot longer than N.E. and they were moving the chains, it just did not show up on the scoreboard. No excuses the Steelers lost but I still like how they looked in the first half of the game.
chet seven
12-10-07, 06:00 PM
I just bet my dad 5 dollars that the dolphins will beat the pats. haha i'm a risk taker i know. but it'd be such a sweet story, the undefeated pats get beat by the defeated dolphins, (the only team to go undefeated, the 73' dolphins? i think it was, correct me if i'm wrong)
but yeah my favorite team, being from wisconsin, is naturally the Green Bay Packers! And I am proud to say I am road trippin to St. Louis with my old man to see Favre for the first time! Oh it will be awesome!
I should say they played a better game in the first half, if one looks at what it takes to play a good game. I am not knocking N.E. at all they took over the last half, but it was a different game altogether. Pitt held the ball a lot longer than N.E. and they were moving the chains, it just did not show up on the scoreboard. No excuses the Steelers lost but I still like how they looked in the first half of the game.
Absolutely. I still think they are the team that can beat The Pats. Not someone like, say...The Dolphins! ;)
Here is the link, Chris, but, I warn you, it's in the Times, and I think Smith was talking about the next time they meet, which would make more sense, but, would still be a silly and unprofessional call on his part...
Pats article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/sports/football/10pats.html?em&ex=1197435600&en=12c644a82dc2e287&ei=5087%0A)
diamondgeeza
12-16-07, 09:14 AM
Dammit!! Thought this thread was about proper football!!
Gooner 'til i die!!
(If you don't know what a Gooner is, google it!!)
John McClane
02-03-08, 10:57 PM
F*** yes!!! Take that Patriots!!!!
Monkeypunch
02-03-08, 11:49 PM
Tom Petty was awesome.
I love how McCLane is suddenly a Giants fan
*YAWNS*
John McClane
02-04-08, 12:04 AM
I love how McCLane is suddenly a Giants fanNo, I'm an underdog fan.
If I EVER see Eli Manning walking down the street, I'm going to kick him in the nuts.
I hate the Giants. I REALLY hate the Giants. Always have. And now the player I hate most in the world (Smug, little, whiny, bitch Eli Manning) will go down in history as the man that took down the greatest team ever. And I'll have to see his dumb smile on highlight reels for years to come after that stupid freaking scramble he made.
Geez...
As you can tell, I really hate the Giants...
John McClane
02-04-08, 12:57 AM
And I'll have to see his dumb smile on highlight reels for years to come after that stupid freaking scramble he made.Gotta admit, he was on his A game on that play. :D
meatwadsprite
02-04-08, 01:25 AM
Packers would have won.
Eli played great on those last few drives and deserves a ton of credit.
(Smug, little, whiny, bitch Eli Manning)
Well, he's far from little, and I didn't see him whining. And if you dislike smugness, you'd have a hard time rooting for the Pats.
Anyway, back-to-back Manning Super Bowls; pretty amazing. I'll have some of whatever Archie Manning's serving.
Swedish Chef
02-04-08, 02:49 AM
Yup, congrats to the whole Giants organization. That third down play when Eli broke like four 300 pound linemen and hit Tyree might just be the greatest play (on both ends - the pass & the catch) i've ever seen.
I hate the Giants. I REALLY hate the Giants. Always have. And now the player I hate most in the world (Smug, little, whiny, bitch Eli Manning) will go down in history as the man that took down the greatest team ever. And I'll have to see his dumb smile on highlight reels for years to come after that stupid freaking scramble he made
Eli Manning is by far the most unassuming and modest professional athlete i have ever seen come through the city of New York. I hate the Giants, but it sure ain't because of Eli (it's their obnoxious fans).
By the by, how can you call Eli flippin Manning a "smug little whiny bitch" when the guy in your avatar is the smuggest little bitch in the league?
Holden Pike
02-04-08, 02:51 AM
By the by, how can you call Eli flippin Manning a "smug little whiny bitch" when the guy in your avatar is the smuggest little bitch in the league?
I wish you could give + rep points in the shout box. :yup:
I've despised Eli since he cried about going to San Diego because he didn't want to get hit.
Then every time he throws an interception he looks like he was just told Santa Claus isn't real.
He is always groaning and crying and I hate him.
Plus...I hate the Giants and he's their quarterback :yup:
Holden Pike
02-04-08, 03:15 AM
I'd say you're giving Cowboy fans a bad name, but you can't damage a reputation that's already complete *****.
Holden Pike
02-04-08, 03:17 AM
But that Eli Manning, he's no Tony Romo. You know, because Eli's actually a winner.
Eli is no winner...he just happened to be at the helm of a team with a dominant defense.
I'm not saying Romo's a winner (He hasn't proven to be one yet) but Romo's more talented than Eli is.
Either way, Eli Manning is never allowed on my television screen again.
Swedish Chef
02-04-08, 03:36 AM
My roommate (who is a huge Giants fan) laughed his spleen out whenever a Romo commercial popped up during the game.
Then every time he throws an interception he looks like he was just told Santa Claus isn't real.
:yup: The Bill Simmons coined "Eli Manning Face" is indeed very high comedy.
I am a broken man :(
We (as in, we here in New England) will NEVER hear the end of this, like, ever.
Let the floggings begin!
:yup: The Bill Simmons coined "Eli Manning Face" is indeed very high comedy.
Yeah, I dig Simmons, and the faces the Manning Bros. make are funny. But it's pretty clear to me that people have extrapolated that into entire personas. The fact that Tom Brady berates his linemen (apparently) rather than scrunches his face up doesn't make him a more gracious loser.
I, for one, am very glad to see those arrogant Pats get a dose of their own medicine with a last minute score... I'm not specifically a fan of the Giants, but I really dislike the Pats, so the game was all good in my book :)
Austruck
02-04-08, 01:10 PM
Either way, Eli Manning is never allowed on my television screen again.
Yeah, good luck wit' dat.
Arrogant Pats? That shows a clear lack of knowledge about the Pats, who have been anything but arrogant this entire season. Aside from the last two minutes of the super bowl, when they were indeed acting arrogant, they have been quite humble all season, considering.
They provided virtually NO bulletin material all season, while plenty of other teams spewed bullshit all over the place.
I mean, if you have lot's of printed or video evidence of all this arrogance, let's see it.
If this is about the alleged "running up the score", which plenty of NFL teams who have lost to the Pats have called nonsense, you are dead wrong, period.
Arrogant Pats? That shows a clear lack of knowledge about the Pats, who have been anything but arrogant this entire season. Aside from the last two minutes of the super bowl, when they were indeed acting arrogant, they have been quite humble all season, considering.
They provided virtually NO bulletin material all season, while plenty of other teams spewed ******** all over the place.
I mean, if you have lot's of printed or video evidence of all this arrogance, let's see it.
If this is about the alleged "running up the score", which plenty of NFL teams who have lost to the Pats have called nonsense, you are dead wrong, period.
wow... for someone who said "let the floggings begin" you sure are being touchy...
could that be because you are all hurt (awwwww) cuz your Pats lost?
have I goaded Sedai enough? should I let someone else do it for a bit, or shall I go on?
Passions running high -- very understandable. :) I'm going to respectfully disagree with a couple things, though...
Arrogant Pats? That shows a clear lack of knowledge about the Pats, who have been anything but arrogant this entire season. Aside from the last two minutes of the super bowl, when they were indeed acting arrogant, they have been quite humble all season, considering.
They provided virtually NO bulletin material all season, while plenty of other teams spewed ******** all over the place.
I mean, if you have lot's of printed or video evidence of all this arrogance, let's see it.
You're right about "bulletin material." They didn't do too much trash-talking...at least, not directly. But like any team, they had a few lapses. Bruschi calling the win over San Diego the "most satisfying win of [his] career" was pretty clearly a swipe at anyone who doubted their past success in the wake of Spygate. I'd say that qualifies as (some) arrogance.
It's a fine line, though. Is Belicheck's constant stonewalling and icy demeanor arrogant, for example? Seems somewhat smug, at the very least. Was Brady arrogant for his response to Burress' own arrogance when he said he expected to score more than 17 points?
Hard to say. When a team is as good as New England was, a lot of swagger is justified. How and when that crosses over arrogance is hard to say.
If this is about the alleged "running up the score", which plenty of NFL teams who have lost to the Pats have called nonsense, you are dead wrong, period.
Well, plenty of losing teams said they didn't mind. They refused to make excuses and put the responsibility on themselves to stop them, but that's not quite the same thing.
There's really two issues here: 1) did they run up the score, and 2) if so, is that a problem? I'm not sure about #2, but I think #1 is pretty clear-cut. If I'm not mistaken (I might be), at one point they ran a score in with 17 seconds left. If they take a knee, the game's over, so I'd say that qualifies as running up the score.
Ditto for the many instances in which they kept airing it out with big leads in the 4th quarter. I'm not suggesting they should really let up, but this wasn't a guard against comebacks. Just the opposite; common sense dictates that those comebacks are far less likely if you run the ball and burn as much clock as possible.
So, I dunno if it's a problem when a team runs up the score, but I do think that's what they were doing. And it's understandable why other fans could find it "arrogant" to keep scoring when a knee ends the game.
And, of course, it could be perceived as somewhat arrogant to keep playing your starters in several meaningless games with the only conceivable benefit being a) breaking records and b) going undefeated. They had home field advantage locked up, and they had numerous games locked up, but they kept trotting guys out there
I won't even get into the Stetson ads. :D
Powdered Water
02-04-08, 02:09 PM
Arrogant Pats? That shows a clear lack of knowledge about the Pats, who have been anything but arrogant this entire season. Aside from the last two minutes of the super bowl, when they were indeed acting arrogant, they have been quite humble all season, considering.
They provided virtually NO bulletin material all season, while plenty of other teams spewed ******** all over the place.
I mean, if you have lot's of printed or video evidence of all this arrogance, let's see it.
If this is about the alleged "running up the score", which plenty of NFL teams who have lost to the Pats have called nonsense, you are dead wrong, period.
I'd have to agree with you there Mike, if more teams stayed out of the police blotter as well as the Pats did, maybe some peoples attitudes would change in general about professional athletes.
And the whole bit about running up the score is just silly, this is the NFL we're talking about here not College. It's Not an NFL teams job to keep the score down its the other teams job.
Partimus
02-04-08, 02:10 PM
Now, now, let's give all the poor brooding Pats fans a little grieving time. It must be hard to see your team fold like the proverbial house of cards when it really counts. Ok, so that wasn't helpful at all, but hey, us Steelers fans need to twist the knife while we can ;)
Honestly though... my comment about them being arrogant was more from a personal point of view... I've never liked them, and that probably affects how I see things from them. Its more of a feeling I get any time I ever see video of them.
And the whole bit about running up the score is just silly, this is the NFL we're talking about here not College. It's Not an NFL teams job to keep the score down its the other teams job.
Isn't this kind of beside the point, though? No one disputes that it's the defense's job to keep the score down. The question is whether or not the Pats enjoy scoring for its own sake, rather than simply as a means to winning. That's what I'd understood "running up the score" to be about. The implication being that the winning team is either chasing records, or actively seeking to humiliate.
I wish you could give + rep points in the shout box. :yup:
I guess now you have your chance. :yup:
Awww, no hard feelings folks! I am just whining because my team totally blew it.
After the Steelers and the Colts blew their chance to make the big game I have to say I really was not interested. However it was an amazing game, and was it me or should the Giants have actually blown out the Pats? I mean they get the ball back after a pissant 12 men on the field challenge. They could have opted to get a few more yards early on in the game and gone for the field goal, but they always have to try for the big one. Well the big one did not come this time.
I am certainly not a Giants fan, although it was nice to see big brother so happy. I must admit that I was certain the Pats would win when thet got that 2nd touchdown later in the game. I even told my son on third down of that drive: Watch, they are going to score now, easily...and they did. Cheers to Manning and cheers to the Giants, and Cheers to the Pats for such a great season, they did earn the right to be there and if they had not already won the big one so many times I might have been a bit sad for 'em.
Powdered Water
02-04-08, 03:00 PM
Isn't this kind of beside the point, though? No one disputes that it's the defense's job to keep the score down. The question is whether or not the Pats enjoy scoring for its own sake, rather than simply as a means to winning. That's what I'd understood "running up the score" to be about. The implication being that the winning team is either chasing records, or actively seeking to humiliate.
I guess I'm somewhat confused by your argument here, what difference does it make if they enjoy scoring for scorings sake? That is the way the game is played. They were in pursuit of perfection, that much is obvious is it not? Otherwise, perhaps they would have rested some of their players when they had the division locked up. Even if you were somehow able to get some of the members of the team to admit that they were running up the score in order to achieve records or humiliate the other team, again I would say, what difference does it make? We're talking about a war like game. If they had won the Superbowl they would have gone down as one of the greatest teams ever, period. If you're looking at this from primarily a good sportsmanship view I think we're talking about the wrong game. This is a game where a majority of the people that play it are trying to physically destroy the man on the other side by hitting them as hard as they can. I don't know if that makes it right, but it is what it is.
I guess I'm somewhat confused by your argument here, what difference does it make if they enjoy scoring for scorings sake? That is the way the game is played.
I don't think it's how the game is played at all. We can see this by observing what every other team does when they have a massive lead late in the game; they try to run out the clock. And they always take a knee when doing so will end the game. I can't remember even one non-Patriot exception to this in the last decade.
It can be right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but I don't think it can be the way the game is played when they're basically the only ones playing that way.
They were in pursuit of perfection, that much is obvious is it not? Otherwise, perhaps they would have rested some of their players when they had the division locked up. Even if you were somehow able to get some of the members of the team to admit that they were running up the score in order to achieve records or humiliate the other team, again I would say, what difference does it make? We're talking about a war like game. If they had won the Superbowl they would have gone down as one of the greatest teams ever, period.
Well, they'd have gone down as one of the greatest teams ever regardless of whether or not they won some games by 14 instead of 21 or 35. I don't see that as enhancing their legacy; to the contrary, I think it could diminish it.
Re: why it matters. I'm not sure how to explain why wanting to humiliate rather than simply win is distasteful. It strikes me as an intuitive truth. But part of the reason is that it was potentially done not in addition to winning, but at the expense of winning. That is to say, there is a not-insignificant amount of risk in playing most of your starters all the way through blowouts, or in meaningless late-season games after home-field advantage has been secured.
So, it's one thing to want to win big; it's another to potentially put future winning in jeopardy by doing so. I don't see the purpose of this, unless the team's goal is to break records, or extract some sort of vengeance, rather than simply to win.
If you're looking at this from primarily a good sportsmanship view I think we're talking about the wrong game. This is a game where a majority of the people that play it are trying to physically destroy the man on the other side by hitting them as hard as they can. I don't know if that makes it right, but it is what it is.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Every team goes out there trying to destroy the other team, but every team takes a knee when they've actually done so, too. Despite its nature, there's plenty of sportsmanship in football; from players patting each other on the helment after a tackle, to offering congratulations in the wake of a difficult defeat. The phrase "give them credit" pops up in virtually every postgame interview.
Regardless, there are 31 other teams in the NFL other than the Patriots, and I think we can agree they, too, want to destroy their opponents. But, as far as I can recall, none of them ran up the score. So I don't think anyone can make the case that this particular kind of cutthroat mentality is inherent to the game; if it were, we'd see more teams doing what the Pats are doing, even though most have fewer opportunities to do so.
I guess I'm somewhat confused by your argument here, what difference does it make if they enjoy scoring for scorings sake? That is the way the game is played. They were in pursuit of perfection, that much is obvious is it not? Otherwise, perhaps they would have rested some of their players when they had the division locked up. Even if you were somehow able to get some of the members of the team to admit that they were running up the score in order to achieve records or humiliate the other team, again I would say, what difference does it make? We're talking about a war like game. If they had won the Superbowl they would have gone down as one of the greatest teams ever, period. If you're looking at this from primarily a good sportsmanship view I think we're talking about the wrong game. This is a game where a majority of the people that play it are trying to physically destroy the man on the other side by hitting them as hard as they can. I don't know if that makes it right, but it is what it is.
The discussion had to do with arrogance actually, so the idea of running up the score to humiliate the other team does fit in with that in my mind.
Powdered Water
02-04-08, 04:18 PM
I don't think it's how the game is played at all. We can see this by observing what every other team does when they have a massive lead late in the game; they try to run out the clock. And they always take a knee when doing so will end the game. I can't remember even one non-Patriot exception to this in the last decade.
Well, perhaps you're right, I tend to disagree with you. But if we all believed the same thing I guess that wouldn't be much fun now would it? If I weren't inherently lazy I would go and lookup some examples to the contrary. Mostly though I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of Patriots apologist and so I would rather drop it than do that.
Re: why it matters. I'm not sure how to explain why wanting to humiliate rather than simply win is distasteful. It strikes me as an intuitive truth. But part of the reason is that it was potentially done not in addition to winning, but at the expense of winning. That is to say, there is a not-insignificant amount of risk in playing most of your starters all the way through blowouts, or in meaningless late-season games after home-field advantage has been secured.
So, it's one thing to want to win big; it's another to potentially put future winning in jeopardy by doing so. I don't see the purpose of this, unless the team's goal is to break records, or extract some sort of vengeance, rather than simply to win.
Again, we are just going to have to disagree here, and I think most of the Patriots team would disagree with you as well. I tend to think that they were trying to prove a point and break records at the same time, and I just don't have a problem with it.
So I don't think anyone can make the case that this particular kind of cutthroat mentality is inherent to the game; if it were, we'd see more teams doing what the Pats are doing, even though most have fewer opportunities to do so.
Well again that's if we were all to agree that that is what they were doing in the first place wouldn't it? Now I'm not trying to take a shot at you here but to me that just sounds a little like a Die-Hard fan of another team making a statement that is based more on feeling than actual fact.
Well, perhaps you're right, I tend to disagree with you. But if we all believed the same thing I guess that wouldn't be much fun now would it? If I weren't inherently lazy I would go and lookup some examples to the contrary. Mostly though I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of Patriots apologist and so I would rather drop it than do that.
Fair enough. :) And don't get me wrong; I'm sure there are some examples to the contrary. But they're obviously rare, which makes the same point, I think.
Again, we are just going to have to disagree here, and I think most of the Patriots team would disagree with you as well. I tend to think that they were trying to prove a point and break records at the same time, and I just don't have a problem with it.
That part, admittedly, has a strong subjective aspect to it. Either you think it's unsportsmanlike, or not. I think it is, but can accept that others feel otherwise.
That said, there were instances this season where the Patriots not only tried to break records, but did so in a way that pretty clearly risked (not massively, but not insigificantly) their chances of winning. I'm referring mainly to the injury risks inherent in running your best players out there more than you have to. Putting sportsmanship aside, doesn't this indicate that ego or record-chasing may have overwhelmed reason, and that as a result winning may not have always been the #1 priority? And if so, isn't that undesirable in a sports team?
Well again that's if we were all to agree that that is what they were doing in the first place wouldn't it? Now I'm not trying to take a shot at you here but to me that just sounds a little like a Die-Hard fan of another team making a statement that is based more on feeling than actual fact.
Well, I'm not a Giants fan, nor am I fan of any of the Pats' division rivals. I'm a Steelers fan; we don't have any love lost with New England, to be sure, but I never had any sort of personal feelings towards them until this season.
So, while I probably wouldn't go out of my way to make these points if I liked the Pats more, I don't think I've made any points contingent on how anyone feels about them. IE: other teams play hard without resorting to running up the score, and the Patriots lessen their chances of winning by risking injury to their starters. You don't have to have any feelings one way or another about the team to come to these conclusions.
Cloverfield_33
02-11-08, 10:31 AM
I take it this is the yankies football and not the real (English) football?
chet seven
03-06-08, 06:36 PM
Well its been a sad week here in Wisconsin...
Brett Favre retires after 17 seasons
Statement by Favre (http://www.nfl.com/videos;jsessionid=67E99283D0D698BD4DD8F288CD4605C1?videoId=09000d5d80711189)
(click if you only want to cry)
I grew up watching Favre and it's going to be really strange with him not in the NFL. He is the Best there is.
I Will Miss You Brett and Thanks
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii124/chet7_bucket/brett_favre.jpg
Swedish Chef
03-06-08, 06:46 PM
Well its been a sad week here in Wisconsin...
Brett Favre retires after 17 seasons
Statement by Favre (http://www.nfl.com/videos;jsessionid=67E99283D0D698BD4DD8F288CD4605C1?videoId=09000d5d80711189)
(click if you only want to cry)
I grew up watching Favre and it's going to be really strange with him not in the NFL. He is the Best there is.
I Will Miss You Brett and Thanks
I loved Favre. But he's gotta be the most overrated professional athlete I've ever seen. He's got a ring, sure. And he's got those 440 TD's. He was also wildly inconsistent, decidedly un-clutch and more than willing to sacrifice the interests of the Packers to meet his own needs.
Still, he was fun as all hell to watch. And he seems like a pretty nice guy, too. Thanks for the memories, Mr. Favre. Sunday's not gonna be the same without ya.
"What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?"
chet seven
03-06-08, 07:21 PM
he's gotta be the most overrated professional athlete I've ever seen.
are you joking?
i'm to crushed to jaw with you right now
tom brady gets my vote for most overrated, he is just a system quarterback if i've ever seen one.
Swedish Chef
03-06-08, 07:28 PM
tom brady gets my vote for most overrated, he is just a system quarterback if i've ever seen one.
:nope:
I don't like Brady half as much as I do Favre. In fact, I flat-out dislike the guy. But if my season's on the line and I need to win one game, I take Brady over Favre in a second.
In a second.
chet seven
03-06-08, 07:58 PM
:nope:
I don't like Brady half as much as I do Favre. In fact, I flat-out dislike the guy. But if my season's on the line and I need to win one game, I take Brady over Favre in a second.
In a second.
Atleast we are both on the same page of disliking Brady but as far as choosing him over Favre, one of the best two minute drill QBs, is, as Kramer would put it "Cookey Talk"
you pick Brady? Or you pick the Patriots?
Swedish Chef
03-06-08, 08:03 PM
you pick Brady? Or you pick the Patriots?
I pick Brady. On any team.
Unless I wanted to lose in a crushingly disappointing way. Then I'd pick Favre.
Okay, I may live in Australia - but I do go for the Patriots.
And I haven't just jumped on the bandwagon.
And I was shattered when the Superbowl was lost - I was on the phone to my dad (I was at school day of) asking him to check updates every hour or so.
But; did anyone see/hear about the Australian bloke that supports the Packers - who went to.. I think, every regular season game & the finals?
Wayne Scullino.
Sold his house, quit his job, and moved his family to the United States, so he could watch the Packers play.
http://www.wisn.com/sports/14444079/detail.html
The family doesn't have tickets lined up for every game. They said they're living week-to-week, finding some tickets online, and some through their new Packer fan-friends.
There was a video on SportsCenter, of him at the Packers - Giants Conference game, I think. Showed his devastation when the Packers lost - but what a guy.
And also, the generosity of Americans - gave him and his family a furnished apartment at a bargain price, a car to use while he was there, and also if he needed tickets, they helped out as well:
"We went to the Washington game with a couple we'd never met," Wayne Scullino said. "But they e-mailed us, saying 'We've got four tickets. We normally take people from work, but you must come with us.'"
Ever seen someone with that level of dedication?
Oh, but they got one bit wrong in that article. Australia isn't a country dominated by rugby league - it's a country dominated by cricket all over, Australian Football (don't worry if you don't know) in the south & rugby league in NSW & Queensland.
Dastardly_Bastard
12-15-12, 09:37 PM
Looks like I am a masterful bumper of ancient threads...
Do we have no football fans here currently? I know we do, I see the fantasy football threads, but I am not into fantasy football (My idea of fantasy football = a Madden tournament), so let's discuss the awesome sport here!
Houston Texans fan here.... Can't believe we lost to the damn Pats and crybaby Brady! -__- I hate the damn Pats!
Oh well, 11-2, we are still the best team in the league right now! :P
I still say Schaub, Foster, and Johnson are a nearly unbeatable threesome!
Unfortunately, I am not 100% confident Houston will make it through the playoffs, I see it playing out similar to last post season for them. They are getting better and better with each passing year, coming into their own, and I will obviously be rooting for them to make it all the way, but a Superbowl victory this year? I dunno.... Their loss to the Pats showed they have their work cut out for them and they did have somewhat of a cake walk of a schedule this year tbh...
They are good, but not the best, by far, overall.
Those two helmets getting stuck together in the Eagles/Bengals game was hilarious! XD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbcPRURyrDg
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.