NFL 2011 Regular Season Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Ockeghem]

I went 1-1 this weekend (winning with New England and losing with San Francisco), so I'm now 7-3 overall. I'm not picking the Super Bowl game just yet.

 

[dmiller68]

I went 1-1 as well... Making me 6-4 for the playoffs. I'm picking the Giants to win it all.

 

[Sam Posten]

I've been watching stubhub for deals Anyone ever been toa SuperBowl?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Who would have thought that Baltimore would get the better QB play and the Pats defense would make the big plays? Holy role reversal, Batman! The Giants - Niners game was an excellent example of why I hate college football's overtime system, which takes field position and special teams out of the equation. Those two aspects were crucial in deciding this game. I went 2-0 on my picks, and am now 6-4 for the playoffs. I haven't made up my mind yet on a pick for the Super Bowl. What's the early line? Never been to a Super Bowl, Sam -- even when they had the two here in Michigan. Those prices are too steep for me to spend on a sporting event.

 

[Ockeghem]

Sam, My father went to the first Patriots Super Bowl win. He said it was a fabulous time, what with all of the festivities and other things to do and see leading up to a few days before the game. The only drawback for him was that he was seated behind one of the end zones, and didn't think that that was a very good view. He said that a 50-yard line (or thereabouts) seat would have been much better. Scott, I think I'm beginning to come around to liking the overtime rules. I just wish that the same rules applied to all of the regular season games as well. I don't yet know the line. This will be interesting, because New England (15-3) will probably be favored against New York (12-7), although I can easily see how the Patriots could lose this game given recent play by the Giants. Four years ago, there was no way that New England could lose, right? And look what happened. This time around, there is no pressure of a 19-0 season on New England, so that may work in their favor. I'm thinking that the Giants will win it all, though. That's not my pick yet, but I'm leaning in that direction at this point. My guess is that the Patriots will be favored by 2.5 points come game time.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Scott, I think I'm beginning to come around to liking the overtime rules. I just wish that the same rules applied to all of the regular season games as well.

I agree, Scott. I think the NFL has finally created about as fair an overtime system for the playoffs as they can. Between the "field goal cannot win on the first possession" and the kickoff being moved forward 5 yards, most of the luck of the coin flip has been removed from the equation. A team needs to earn good field position now. For the regular season, I personally believe they should just get rid of the OT completely and let the game end in a tie. That will never happen, though. The college system isn't real football, and reminds me of the NHL's shootouts to decide regular season hockey games. At least the NHL is smart enough to not let that decide a playoff game, unlike NCAA football.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The opening line is New England giving 3 points. I'll go ahead and pick the Pats to win, barely. It'll all come down to turnovers, and who has the ball last.

 

[Ockeghem]

"For the regular season, I personally believe they should just get rid of the OT completely and let the game end in a tie. That will never happen, though. Scott, I hadn't considered that option. I agree to let the game end in a tie for the regular season. I remember the days when teams tied games in the NFL -- it certainly made the standings a bit more interesting in a few cases. "It'll all come down to turnovers, and who has the ball last." Patrick, I think you're right on both counts here.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I have a couple of thoughts about the pat/ravens game. One, on that run where the ravens rb has caught a pass and runs down the sideline (with only a molecule or two of space keeping him in bounds), he stiff arms the receiver. In the act of the stiff arm, he grabs on to the defender's face mask. He's still holding on to it when the defender is behind him and even appears to be pulling the defender along. I saw it live, I saw it on the replays. It was not flagged and no announcer made any reference to it. This morning on espn, no commentator has made any comment on it. Isn't grabbing the face mask illegal for any player, defense or offense? Shouldn't this have been flagged? Why no comments on TV about it? I find it weird. Two: On the Ravens pass into the end zone very late in the game, I had the impression the receiver was already starting to relax with the ball. I think he thought the play was over. I think he might have taken one step with possession. I think there's something in the rules about having to make a "football move" to demonstrate possession. My gut feel is the receiver didn't do it in this case, but what else did he have to do? Ok, i've got some more. On espn this morning, one commentator said the pats were more game plan specific than any other team. They are more wiling to customize their game plan to fit the game at hand than any other team and I have to agree. Bellichick is the "mad scientist" in his laboratory when contracting the game plan. He pushes this part here. Pours a little of this into that test tube, adds a little WTF to another test tube. And he comes up with a win. If you would have told me Flaco would have a significantly better day than Brady, that the ravens would win the turnover battle, I'd have put my money down on the ravens. Sure, they needed a missed field goal to avoid overtime, but there the pats were, winners at the end.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The chargers know who they're going to play next year, only there's a twist. From the SD Union:

I have received a lot of questions about why the Chargers play at Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans and Tampa Bay in 2012 when the NFL's long-in-place schedule rotation would seem to call for those teams to come to San Diego. In fact, a calendar distributed by the Chargers at their Dec. 11 home game said those four teams would be at Qualcomm in 2012. But as I detailed in this story a few days later, the NFL changed its rotation so that teams from the East Coast would not have to visit two far West teams in the same season. So, rest assured, the Chargers in 2012 will host the AFC West teams, Carolina, Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Tennessee. They play at the AFC West teams, New Orleans, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and the New York Jets.

According to the normal rotation, Pitt, Clev, NO, and TB should play in SD next season. But the NFL changes it so that East Coast teams don't have to go out West two times. So that makes it ok for SD to travel East 4 times instead? How is this fair? If ever there's a case of East Coast bias, here it is. Here's another case of same ol, same ol for the Chargers. Nick Kaeding, the charger place kicker who was injured on the opening kickoff of the season and out for the year will probably be the chargers kicker the coming season. True, his 86.5% success rate in the regular season is the highest in NFL history. Also true is his success rate in the playoffs is 53.3%. Of his 7 misses out of 15 attempts, 5 of the misses have been in 3 different 3 point play-off losses. He's a post season chocker. Yeah, why not keep him, the bolts won't be in the playoffs anyway :f

 

[Johnny Angell]

The college system isn't real football, and reminds me of the NHL's shootouts to decide regular season hockey games. At least the NHL is smart enough to not let that decide a playoff game, unlike NCAA football.

i like the college system. It gives each team, not only a fair chance, but a nearly identical chance. The only difference being that one team has a chance to score first and apply some pressure to the other team. Even then, if there's a 2nd overtime, the team that went 2nd, then goes first. To me, it's extremely fair and exciting. The NFL changes for OT in the playoffs are an improvement, now that an opening field goal no longer ends the game. Ironic though that the first OT to use the rules only lasted for one play from scrimmage.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

i like the college system. It gives each team, not only a fair chance, but a nearly identical chance. The only difference being that one team has a chance to score first and apply some pressure to the other team. Even then, if there's a 2nd overtime, the team that went 2nd, then goes first. To me, it's extremely fair and exciting. The NFL changes for OT in the playoffs are an improvement, now that an opening field goal no longer ends the game. Ironic though that the first OT to use the rules only lasted for one play from scrimmage.

The college OT system may be fair and exciting, but it's not football. Football includes special teams plays, a battle for field position, and clock management. None of these items are part of the college system. It's more like a video game than real football. Penalty shot shootouts in the NHL are exciting, too, but it's not hockey. I had no problem with the way the Denver - Pittsburgh OT game ended from a fairness standpoint. The Steelers defense blew coverage to allow the TD. It wasn't the OT system that cost Pittsburgh the game -- it was their defensive breakdown. Regarding the missed face mask call on the Ravens running back, while I do not recall seeing it happen, I have read other fans complaining about the missed call. If he did in fact grab the face mask while issuing a stiff arm, then it should have been a penalty. On the Ravens dropped TD pass by Evans near the end of the game, I did think it was the correct call, but was surprised that the play was not reviewed. I thought it was at least worth a look, considering the importance of the call.

 

[Jacinto]

The call on Evans' catch was correct under the current rules. The sad part for Evans is that it would have been a touchdown just a couple of years ago before the NFL changed their rules on what constitutes possession after a reception. On slow motion replay, his second foot is touching the ground just before the ball starts to come loose in his hands, that would have been good enough for a TD by the old rules. I seem to remember a game years ago when Tony Gonzales (if memory serves) had both tiptoes on the ground in the endzone before getting leveled by a Broncos defender and dropping the ball. That tenth of a second that he had the ball in his hands with both toes on the ground was enough to be ruled a touchdown and the Chiefs won. By today's rules that would have been an incomplete pass. Let me just say as a fan with no horse in the race yesterday, what a terrific pair of games to watch! Without anything at stake emotionally, those were two great games to just sit back and enjoy for football's sake. I'm definitely looking forward to the Super Bowl. I'll be rooting for the Giants, only because my 7 year old son decided the Giants were his favorite team back when he was 3. I think it was because he conceptually knew what giants were back then, so that connected with him. I told him before the game yesterday that if the Giants beat the 49rs, I would buy him a Giants hat, so needless to say, he's thrilled. So for one day, I'll be a Giants fan. It's funny the things kids hold onto...

 

[Patrick_S]

I've been watching stubhub for deals Anyone ever been toa SuperBowl?

Yes I have been to four Super Bowls. Of course in those days the face value of the ticket was not 1k. They are ok but as I get older I enjoy the game more on TV then in person.

 

[Ockeghem]

"The sad part for Evans is that it would have been a touchdown just a couple of years ago before the NFL changed their rules on what constitutes possession after a reception." Jacinto, Agreed. And I agree that the call with regard to the Evans' play was correct under the current rules. Otherwise, Calvin Johnson's catch against Chicago two seasons ago would have to have been ruled a catch. BTW, if the Giants win the Super Bowl, your son's joy will be the only reason that I will probably be happy for the Giants. I would not have minded if the play had been reviewed. That being said, the first-half catch of Gronkowski inside the five-yard line -- the one where two feet are down, but whether or not the ball was in his hands during the landing of the first foot -- ought IMO to have been challenged by the Patriots. I say this, because had that play been a catch, I'm fairly confident that the Patriots would have had taken it in for a touchdown (first and goal) on that particular drive, making a close game a bit less so at half time.

 

[Ockeghem]

Here's an interesting analysis of the AFC and NFC Championship games. Among other things, it gives some interesting insight into why teams ought to be less conservative early on in games. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7492327/bill-barnwell-breaks-afc-nfc-title-games

 

[Jeremiah]

Talk about compounding problems. First, I think Lee Evans being lazy catching the game winning TD was just a pathetic display of effort. No WR should ever get stripped like that in that situation. Then Harbaugh not using his final TO to get his FG unit ready for one of the biggest kicks in franchise history was an awful coaching desicion; coaches hold onto that final TO so they don't have to rush the FG unit out there. Then Cundiff just shanking that short kick about as bad as a kick can be shanked. I thought Brady throwing the deep ball after the int was an awful pass, you like to attack after a TO especially after such a huge turnover, but Brady should of saw that it was not a good spot and checked down and started over. I definantly think NFL HC's are too nitty, they should be going for it more on 4th down more and that would also set of a better 3rd down call in some spots. I definantly thought the Ravens should of went for it on 4th down earlier.

 

[Ockeghem]

"I thought Brady throwing the deep ball after the int was an awful pass, you like to attack after a TO especially after such a huge turnover, but Brady should of saw that it was not a good spot and checked down and started over." I definitely agree. I know Brady was taking his marching orders from O'Brien, but still -- I wanted New England to grind it out. I think there was about 7:30 (give or take) left in the game. The way the Law Firm had been running, I thought he (Brady) was going to try to chew up some of the clock. Of course, had Slater somehow caught the ball, it would have been all but over at that point. I don't feel comfortable second-guessing Brady, but that pass sure seemed to me to be way too hurried, especially since it occurred directly after a turnover.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

"I thought Brady throwing the deep ball after the int was an awful pass, you like to attack after a TO especially after such a huge turnover, but Brady should of saw that it was not a good spot and checked down and started over." I definitely agree. I know Brady was taking his marching orders from O'Brien, but still -- I wanted New England to grind it out. I think there was about 7:30 (give or take) left in the game. The way the Law Firm had been running, I thought he (Brady) was going to try to chew up some of the clock. Of course, had Slater somehow caught the ball, it would have been all but over at that point. I don't feel comfortable second-guessing Brady, but that pass sure seemed to me to be way too hurried, especially since it occurred directly after a turnover.

There were three Patriots plays I can remember that I thought were very poor decisions. The above is one. The second was in the 3rd quarter on 3rd and short inside the Baltimore 10 yard line when they ran Law Firm in a bizarre off tackle play where he ran parallel to the line of scrimmage. That's not going to work against a penetrating Ravens defense playing short yardage, and the call should have been a pass. The 3rd play was the last one before the 2 minute warning. Why call a run play there? They had just thrown on first down successfully, and the clock was going to stop on the play regardless whether it was complete or not with the 2 minute warning timeout. A completed pass would have been a first down and effectively ended the game. Instead, the Pats ended up punting and set up Baltimore's last drive that should have at least tied the game -- except for Cundiff's shank. I will give Bellichik credit for resisting the temptation to freeze the kicker on that FG attempt, though. You could see that the Ravens were disorganized and rushing to get the kick off before the play clock expired. As Jeremiah said, Harbaugh really should have called timeout there to get things organized. I guess he was afraid of freezing his own kicker, ala Jason Garrett. Still, it was a pretty frantic scene, and I thought the Ravens needed to stop and compose themselves.

 

[Jeremiah]

I agree on both play calls, the Pats should of called a pass play on 2nd down just before the 2 minute warning, and I definantly didn't like the 3rd down run call earlier.