OT: Todays NFL games

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:47 pm

touche'

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:51 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:Why? To prove that I like to waste my time
4,610

Lol!!

Over!

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:54 pm

I don't even bother making predictions because I am usually wrong. I hope I am wrong this time because all the evidence points to a NE win. If I didn't like the Steelers there's no way I'd think they will win vs. NE. I just hope they go out and have fun. The should relish the underdog roll and say WTF. If they develop a gameplan to have Ben not lose the game, they are going to lose for sure. They need to just play smart...not scared.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:00 pm

Oh the Steelers definitely have a shot. Two things can ensure them a victory. Pressure Brady and run the ball 35-40 times. I would throw Bettis at them 20 times and Staley at them another 20 times. Keep Ben in short, makeable situations and they can beat the Patriots. The Patriots have shown a weakness in stopping the run and that's a big reason the Steelers beat them in the regular season. I don't think the Patriots could handle 40 rushing plays on defense so the key for the Steelers is not to get down quick to them. The longer the Steelers can use their running game in this one the better their chances are for beating the Patriots.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:12 pm

Oh, yeah. The Steelers do have a good shot just because they are one of the few teams that can physically match up with NE. It's tough to argue against NE's postseason success though. I'm hoping that it's the Patriots that have the hangover this time. In 2001, the Steelers had just come off a trash-talking victory against a bitter rival (Baltimore). I think NE is too experienced to fall into that trap though and should bounce back from an emotional win vs. the Colts.

If the Steelers win, I think the rivalry between NE and Pittsburgh could become a classic one like what the Steelers used to have vs. the Raiders. If NE wins, then Pittsburgh will be more like the Houston Oilers of the late 70s.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:32 pm

You know, for a rather blah season of football, especially for people who root for NFC fans, the playoffs have been pretty exciting. Should be a pair of great games next week.

I would definitely favor NE. They shut down the best offense in the league, they ran the ball with authority, and they just did not make mistakes. But Pittsburgh's defense is good enough that they should keep the game close. If they can force a big TO or special teams play, they can win. Rothlisberger will have to step up, though, because you know the Pats are going to stack against the run.

You can't pin the Colts loss on Manning yesterday. His receivers couldn't get open, and those two fumbles in the second half just killed Indy. Their defense actually did pretty okay except they clearly got worn down because those turnovers kept them on the field.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:54 pm

Brando70 wrote: You can't pin the Colts loss on Manning yesterday. His receivers couldn't get open, and those two fumbles in the second half just killed Indy. Their defense actually did pretty okay except they clearly got worn down because those turnovers kept them on the field.

Agreed. That game was a testament to the bankruptcy of the idea that a great QB has to win Super Bowls. Sorry, I'd still take Marino over Elway, and I'll still take Manning over Tom Brady.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:06 pm

Pittsburgh had a big turnover advantage in the regular season game didn't it?

But yeah, the Pats have shown weakness against the run at times. The Colts really didn't try the power running game that much. They like to spread the defense out and try little draws or that stretch run. That running game didn't work against the Pats yesterday. They even tried to run from the double TE formation without much success.

Steelers seem to run the power running game with the lead fullback while the Colts are usually in single back. If the Steelers can run, it will open up a lot of things, including attacking the weak CBs of the Pats, who were able to keep safeties back and still stuff the run.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:19 pm

RobVarak wrote:
Brando70 wrote: You can't pin the Colts loss on Manning yesterday. His receivers couldn't get open, and those two fumbles in the second half just killed Indy. Their defense actually did pretty okay except they clearly got worn down because those turnovers kept them on the field.
Agreed. That game was a testament to the bankruptcy of the idea that a great QB has to win Super Bowls. Sorry, I'd still take Marino over Elway, and I'll still take Manning over Tom Brady.

Except some would argue that Manning's cap number makes it difficult to improve the overall team so his overall value to the team is mitigated somewhat. People can say Peyton doesn't have a good defense which allows Brady to have a conservative, high-percetage offensive game plan. But his cap number makes it hard to improve that defense.

As for Elway and Marino, they both played mostly before the cap was instituted so there was no excuse for the Dolphins not building up a better overall team. Same for Elway, who took some flawed teams to the SB early in his career but it was in the cap era that he finally broke through and won those rings.

But both players were so crucial to those franchises. If not for their exploits, beginning early in their careers, those teams would have had a lot of gloomy seasons. NFL teams aren't in such financial straits that a franchise player makes the difference between financial viability and a team being forced to move or disband, like Garnett did for Minnesota.

Even though neither Elway nor Marino won SBs in those years, they both filled seats for those franchises.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:26 pm

Same for Elway, who took some flawed teams to the SB early in his career but it was in the cap era that he finally broke through and won those rings.

Didn't the Broncos basically get caught cheating on the cap and get fined by the NFL

No wonder he was finally able to get a ring

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:19 pm

Not to mention, Elway didn't get his rings until he got Terrell Davis. Marino didn't have anything even close Terrell Davis in his backfields. Had he had someone like Ricky Williams when he was there, I have a feeling he'd have a ring or two.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Manning has his Terrel Davis....what he doesnt have is a defense.

Football is a team sport....No any 1, 2, 3 , or 4 guys are worth a s*** without the other 40 guys on the team....

The Rams offense was just fine this year...what sucked was the rest of the team...Indy had the #29 ranked defense.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:07 pm

XXXIV wrote:The Rams offense was just fine this year...what sucked was the rest of the team...

Well, that and their coach.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:59 am

But the idea that the Colts defense is terrible is a myth. Yes, they do give up a lot of yards, but that has to do with TOP issues because their offense scores so damn fast. I think they actually led the league in turnovers forced. To me, that's much more important. They do give up a fair amount of points, but in many of their games, they will build a huge lead and then give up some garbage time scores. That's not unusual.

Their defense actually played well in both playoff games. Like I said earlier, they just got worn down when those turnovers kept them out on the field for so long against the Pats.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:47 pm

4.6 yards per rush attempt and an opponent’s QB rating of almost 90 is no myth. The Colts on average had the ball for only 2:40 less a game and they only had 43 plays less then their opponents. That’s 2.7 less plays a game. That's almost the same ratio as the Eagles, but the Eagles give up 4.3 per carry and a QB rating of 76.

The Colts defense is poor. They are still soft against the run and their linebackers are blocked fairly easy by FBs and TEs. They get some sacks and that causes the turnovers. They make no commitment to stop the run by playing good gap defense though and many times the lineman take themselves out of the play on the way to the QB. That’s OK if you have Ray Lewis.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:49 pm

I never understood this overused statement about "the defense getting tired". The other teams offense is on the field just as much, but no one ever says how they are getting tired.

In today's game you have DL, LBs and DBs all being substituted regularly, so they should not be any more tired than the OL who are on the field for every play. The Wrs are running around just as much as the DBs. The OL are pushing just as hard as the DL, and the DL are being rotated in for most teams nowadays.

I thinnk this is just a myth that gets overused by announcers during games. The defense is not giving up yards because they are tired from being on the field all day, they are givig up yards because that's what they've usually been doing the whole game, which is why they are on the field all day!!!

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:18 pm

matthewk wrote:I never understood this overused statement about "the defense getting tired". The other teams offense is on the field just as much, but no one ever says how they are getting tired.

I guarantee that if you ran around for an hour with someone chasing you (given you are both in good shape), the guy chasing will be more tired. If you switch sides, you will be the tired one. Go ahead...try it out someday.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:53 pm

DB, can you make 1 comment without coming off as an arrogant ass? Go ahead, try it someday.

Let's take the DBs/WRs as example 1. If the DBs are playing zone, who's doing more running around? The WRs. In man they are both running around together (or should be if the DBs are doing their job).

Example 2. A RB is getting hit by at least one guy per carry. Don't you think he'd be just as tired as the 11 guys hitting him? True, they sub backs in and out, but they do the same for DBs. LBs and DL.

The QB is the most resting guy on the field, even for playing every play.

As for the lines, run blocking is just as tiring as run defnse. Both sides trying to puch the other out of the way. Pass blocking may be less tiring than pass rushing, but again substitutions come into play.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:08 pm

matthewk wrote:Example 2. A RB is getting hit by at least one guy per carry. Don't you think he'd be just as tired as the 11 guys hitting him?

Well, the defensive players usually have to fight through a block or two and then get hit by the RB. I never played organized football, but I probably played hundreds of tackle football pickup games in high school and college. My friends in college nicknamed me "Riggins" and I usually played RB and LB. We used to play on a field with lines and 20 yards was a first down so we would run the ball a lot. It was much easier to run the ball than try to fight blocks and then tackle someone IMO. I usually had a 7-10 yard head start when running and could lower my shoulder.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:16 pm

Signs of physical exhaustion can also be attributed to mental exhaustion. When an offense is on the field for an 8-minute drive they are in a much better frame of mind than the defense that hasn't stopped them for 8 minutes. Likewise, a defense that stops a drive in a minute is in a much better frame of mind than the offense who couldn't do sh!t. How long your defense is on the field is huge in football.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:45 pm

matthewk wrote:DB, can you make 1 comment without coming off as an arrogant ass? Go ahead, try it someday.

It's not about being an arrogant ass, it's about someone who obviously has NEVER played a down of organized football in his life, commenting on something he has absolutely NO idea about. Stick to things you know about patna...which I admit is rather limiting for you, I know.

RallyMonkey · Post by **RallyMonkey** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:51 pm

As a coach of both football and hockey, the issue here is that you are all addressing only the physical aspect (meaning the running around and hitting part of the game). Your body is affected negatively by being beaten for first down after first down and subsequently wondering why it is that you can't stop the opposing offense. That in and of itself is a HUGE factor in tiring out a defense. Add to that a situation when a stop is made, your offense goes three and out and you have to return to the field within a few minutes, and you would be shocked at how "tired" your body feels.

Also, an offense is ALWAYS in control of the situation. In other words, all 11 guys on the offensive side KNOW what is about to be run. Defenses have to read, react, adjust, etc. and THEN move into the right spots. And that is taxing, especially when you fail. Feeling beaten affects a body physically more than actually being beaten.

Having said all of this, the opposite can hold true. Offense that continue to go three and out will begin to look more beaten and tired. Look at Manning and the Colts. Once the Pats scored the first TD that team nearly deflated. Guys were finishing routes and thus were dropping passes, Manning himself looked out of sorts. The taxation is not only in being winded, but mentally it is arguably even worse.

Just $.02

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:51 pm

I didn't think you could do it DB

BTW, I HAVE played plenty of REAL football. You obviusly just can't accept the fact that someone may have a different opinion than you and not be totally wrong.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:55 pm

RallyMonkey wrote:As a coach of both football and hockey, the issue here is that you are all addressing only the physical aspect (meaning the running around and hitting part of the game).

Read 2 posts above yours. I agree totally.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:58 pm

I agree with what Scoop and Rally are saying about the mental aspect. I know long drives make the defense mentally lose focus and confidence. Still, that does not mean they are phyically more tired. Especially today with all the substitutions on the defensive side.

People should just stop saying the D is getting tired, like they are simply so much more physically worn out then the offense. Not today. Not when you have defensive lines rotating players in and out regularly.

I do not think that physically they are any more winded than the offense. They may LOOK tired because they are getting their a$$es handed to them, but that does not make them any less physically able to run around the field.