NFL 2009

[Sander]

Inevitably, it's football, everyone is injured all the time to a certain degree - the question is would it keep him out. Like him or not, he is by a long stretch, the NFL's all-time Ironman QB. Probably his most impressive and untouchable QB record.

Remember the injury last year, the one they kept him on the field for which really impacted his performance?

He's an old man who has been playing FOOTBALL at the highest level for many, many years. His body is bound to break down in one way or another, and while it might not keep him off the field, it's going to impact his performance as we go further into the season.

Until he does go down, I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

Add to that he's playing like someone's grandma who just had hip surgery - watch those feeble tackle attempts vs. the Steelers, he's not throwing his body out there like the old days, very cautious. He knows he's old and brittle, and he knows he's more important to his team on his feet than saving a lost cause. He's crafty (seeing why he skipped the rigours of training camp), and barring a blown knee or shoulder, I'd expect to him to start every game.

That's really wishful thinking right there. Favre isn't MAGIC enough to not get hit a bunch of times a game, and really how often does he need to make a tackle per game himself? That's not going to be a key component to remaining healthy.

And I'd favor them over the Saints at this point in a playoff game.
For the same reason, Saints don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to playoff success.

That's just weird. The Saints have one of the best defenses in the game, probably the best offense in the game, most certainly the most balanced offense in the game. The Vikings are good, but they aren't that good. The Saints have also shown they can come back from great distance in this season, something the Vikes haven't done.

Moreover, the Vikings' wins were all pretty close, 5 of them were won with a touchdown or even less difference. They also lost a game.
The Saints, on the other hand, won all of their games by a margin greater than a touchdown. The closest game was last week's game, which they won by a difference of 8.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Here's what I know to be hard, indisputable fact.
The Steelers are the reigning champions.
Brett Favre has the most consecutive starts ever.
The Saints have 2 playoff wins in 40 years.
This remains to be the case until proven otherwise.

You can talk about potential, probability and hypothetical, but until it manifests itself in reality, it's worthless prognostication. Until the potential manifests itself in reality, I reserve the right to give Favre and the Steelers the benefit of the doubt, and not the Saints.

I'll give them credit when they actually show up for a NFCC game, but until then, they haven't.
It's up to them to prove they can, not us to postulate why they would/could/should.

Same for Farve, there's more reasons for why he shouldn't have been able to start 277 or whatever consecutive starts than there are skeptical reasons for why he shouldn't continue to.
He is all the bad shit we say about him, but he deserves his due in this area until proven otherwise.

I believe the philosopher Ric Flair articulated this sentiment best when laying out his "to be the man..." postulate.
Woo indeed Ric.

 

[Sander]

Here's what I know to be hard, indisputable fact.
The Steelers are the reigning champions.
Brett Favre has the most consecutive starts ever.
The Saints have 2 playoff wins in 40 years.
This remains to be the case until proven otherwise.

You really think that the performance of teams and players 20 years ago is in any way relevant for the teams and players on the field now?
That's just silly. Those trivia are by and large meaningless when it comes to individual performances nowadays, and predicting games doesn't come down to "they've never done it before so they won't do it now!"

Hell, by that logic: the Saints haven't shown they can lose a game, the Vikings have. So I'm not going to give the Vikings the credit for winning that game.

You can talk about potential, probability and hypothetical, but until it manifests itself in reality, it's worthless prognostication. Until the potential manifests itself in reality, I reserve the right to give Favre and the Steelers the benefit of the doubt, and not the Saints.

I'll give them credit when they actually show up for a NFCC game, but until then, they haven't.
It's up to them to prove they can, not us to postulate why they would/could/should.

Really? Your point on these predictions is "it's just useless prognostication"?
Please tell me, why is predicting the exact same thing for the Vikings not useless prognostication? You weighed historical facts and decided that the Vikings would be more likely to win. Fine. I don't agree, but whatever. But to maintain that your decision *isn't* useless prognostication because entirely different Vikings teams have won championships? That's ridiculous.

Same for Farve, there's more reasons for why he shouldn't have been able to start 277 or whatever consecutive starts than there are skeptical reasons for why he shouldn't continue to.

Ehe.
Yeah.
Except that's not how probabilities work.

He is all the bad shit we say about him, but he deserves his due in this area until proven otherwise.

Again, I cite his injury last year that greatly diminished his play and probably should have kept him on the sidelines, as he himself admitted. Yes, he started all those games. But his play got much worse.
So, proven fact: Favre can get injured and play much worse because of it.


In other news, apparently the Jags are shifting blame to Garrard for MJD's lack of carries. They claim he keeps audibling to pass plays, and they stripped him of those rights.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I'm not saying Favre is made of titanium or the Saints can't go all the way. What I'm saying is quite simple. Until it becomes reality, the facts remain what they are, and potential remains only that - unrealized. Favre's streak continues, the Steelers are still the champs and the Saints are a 7 win team. What does 7 wins get you? Jack shit.

You really think that the performance of teams and players 20 years ago is in any way relevant for the teams and players on the field now?

Of course not, but inept, maladroit ownership throughout surely is.

You weighed historical facts and decided that the Vikings would be more likely to win.

That would be shortsighted. I think the Vikes D and special teams are better. Best RB in the game. Most destructive defensive player in the game. Tougher division. Multiple MVP winner under center. That the Vikes have lost a game and the Saints haven't is more a testament to strength of schedule than anything else. The Vikes are more of a known commodity because they have and will face more tests.

Again the Saints remaining strength of schedule is .359. Winning those games won't prove anything.

So, proven fact: Favre can get injured and play much worse because of it.

I'm not disputing that, but he doesn't need to be Favre '95 with the team the Vikes have now.

In other news, apparently the Jags are shifting blame to Garrard for MJD's lack of carries. They claim he keeps audibling to pass plays, and they stripped him of those rights.

Public scapegoating, the mark of a franchise going somewhere.

 

[Sander]

Of course not, but inept, maladroit ownership throughout surely is.

Sure. But that hardly applies to either franchise. They don't have Dan Snyder.

That would be shortsighted. I think the Vikes D and special teams are better. Best RB in the game. Most destructive defensive player in the game. Tougher division. Multiple MVP winner under center. That the Vikes have lost a game and the Saints haven't is more a testament to strength of schedule than anything else. The Vikes are more of a known commodity because they have and will face more tests.

Again the Saints remaining strength of schedule is .359. Winning those games won't prove anything.

But the margin by which they win them will. In fact, it already has. I mentioned the margin of wins for a reason, the Vikes have played their games a lot closer, including the easy ones.

Look at what the Saints did so far against toughter teams: crushed the Jets, 24-10. Crushed the Giants, 48-27. Beat the Dolphins with a huge comeback, 46-34. Beat the Falcons, 35-27. They also beat the Eagles soundly, but the Eagles were still missing McNabb at that point.

The Vikings, on the other hand, only barely managed to beat the 49ers, played two pretty close games against the Packers, lost to the Steelers and managed to beat the Ravens because the Ravens missed a last second field goal.

The Saints look more impressive, and while no one can deny the talent of Purple Jesus and Jared Allen, their team has not shown the same level of play the Saints have.

Something you might not have known: the Saints have the most balanced offense in the league calling almost the same number of pass and run plays. This is skewed by running down the clock somewhat, but their running plays do open up a lot of play action for Brees. Watching him play, there's a lot of play action and a lot of running to set that up or exploit the blitzes and pass coverage.


In any case: go Bucs! Winning may not be realistic, but hopefully Freeman can show some glimpses of being a franchise QB.

EDIT: Wow, Bucs win. What a great game. Special teams really saved us, but the D finally stepped up although it's still inconsistent, and Freeman looks like he has a lot of potential even though he's making the typical rookie mistakes.
Go Bucs!

 

[Maphusio]

Ehk gawd. Seattle owns so hard... 1st two posessions they give the ball to the lions. I'm betting the lions win more games this season. Fml

 

[UniversalWolf]

Congrats to the Pack.

I can't remember the last time they had a game that bad. Playing a first-time starting QB, having the lead and the game in control and then completely collapsing at the end. Ugly. That's a coaching-staff-gets-fired kind of loss.

I thought Freeman looked pretty good, though. He made some rookie mistakes, but he also made some great clutch plays. Seems like a nice kid, so hopefully he'll be able to keep it up when teams have a chance to study his game film.

Oh, and the creamsicle uniforms are awesome!

The only consolation is that the Bears got killed again.

 

[Sander]

Congrats to the Pack.

I can't remember the last time they had a game that bad. Playing a first-time starting QB, having the lead and the game in control and then completely collapsing at the end. Ugly. That's a coaching-staff-gets-fired kind of loss.

I thought Freeman looked pretty good, though. He made some rookie mistakes, but he also made some great clutch plays. Seems like a nice kid, so hopefully he'll be able to keep it up when teams have a chance to study his game film.

Hope so. He'll have some ugly games and plays, he is a rookie of course, but he looked like he had a lot of potential. He made some really good plays, was hard to bring down, got the ball away in time to avoid sacks as well. Big guy, but mobile. Add to that that he was critical of his own play in the post-game conference, and he'll be great in the future.

99.53 QB rating, 14/31 for 205 yards, 3TDs and 1 INT(should be 2, though, one got called back due to a really dubious holding call) on your first game as a starter is a damned solid statline.

But hey, real hero of this win? Clifton 'peanut' Smith and his kick returns giving us great field position all day. That was critical, especially his 85 yard return right after the Pack got their last touchdown.

Defense was really up and down, though. Some brilliant interceptions and at times great plays, but at other times some huge gaffes. Like allowing the huge passes to Driver and Jones, and the 12-yard TD run by Rodgers.

Oh, and the creamsicle uniforms are awesome!

Yeah, I change my mind, they're pretty cool.

There's even a decent chance they'll keep them for more games, as the players have been claiming they wanted to keep the uniforms if they won vs Green Bay.


Also, what's up with NO being completely incapable of stopping the run?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

not since i was a little kid have i seen such a fucking embarrassing pile of shit from the Packers. i don't even have one iota of interest in watching the remainder of their fucking downfall.

i almost want them to lose every single game until the end of the season in hopes that some major fucking personnel changes take place starting with McCarthy's head on a fucking stick.

 

[Sander]

To quote some guy on FootballOutsiders' open discussion thread:

HELL YEAH!
HELL YEAH!
HELL YEAH!
I could never have imagined being so excited about being 1-7, but seriously, this is the best I've felt as a Bucs fan in years. WE'RE NOT GOING WINLESS! DETROIT'S STILL THE BENCHMARK FOR SUCKING! YEAH!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: So apparently, this is the first time ever (at least since the 1970 merger) that a rookie QB threw 3 TD passes in his first game.

 

[Brother None]

Ehk gawd. Seattle owns so hard... 1st two posessions they give the ball to the lions. I'm betting the lions win more games this season. Fml

Heh. I know it's a tired cliche, but I do like poking fun at people giving up the game in the first Q/H. So *poke*

A quarter of the worst conceivable balling (two turnovers on two offensive plays? Nice) followed by the thorough domination you'd expect against the Lions. Odd game.

A lot of those INTs were clearly more on Stafford than our D. I'm getting a bit tired of our lack of pass rush, especially considering how good a lot of our young players look in rushing situations (Tapp, Jackson, Curry and Hill all look like good rushers). I like the trick plays and all (lining up four defensive ends was pretty lulz), but some consistent pressure would be nice.

Dig some of the showing of toughness again. Giving up is not in the gamebook. It's good to see Burleson race downfield for a key block, and even better to see Houshyomomma literally toss down a defender.

---

Man, I can't believe that TB-GB game. Hadn't yet realised GB was that bad this year.

And this v Chargers-Giants is a good example of what Cimm was talking about earlier regarding A-Rod. Compare his 4th quarter to Philip Rivers'.

 

[Sander]

Man, I can't believe that TB-GB game. Hadn't yet realised GB was that bad this year.

And this v Chargers-Giants is a good example of what Cimm was talking about earlier regarding A-Rod. Compare his 4th quarter to Philip Rivers'.

A-Rod didn't look that good all game, those picks were pretty damned ugly. But he has fixed his sack problem, kind of. He threw the ball out of bounds a bunch of times instead of getting sacked throughout the game, although he may have done better going for checkdowns more, especially given our abysmal tackling last game vs the Pats.

Somehow, though, that all disappeared in the 4th quarter, and although it's defensible on that last drive when he has to get them downfield quickly (although even there incompletes are valuable as they stop the clock), it's indefensible throughout the rest of the quarter.



Also, funny how almost no one's mentioned Tanard Jackson running it in for a TD at the end of the Bucs game, instead of going down and securing the win. A bad decision, but it may be the kind of play the team needs to get out of the hole.

 

[UniversalWolf]

So are the Bucs your team for good now, Sander?

 

[Sander]

So are the Bucs your team for good now, Sander?

I don't waffle back and forth on teams. I choose a team and stick with it. So yes.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It's OK, it's the Bucs, we'll give you a mulligan.
I respect that you stick to your guns, any douchebag can root for the front runners. :looks out window at everyone wearing brand new Yankees gear: Bucs are an interesting choice, given that the blip of success they had during the Dungee era has slowly worn off to the point that they have settled back into their milieu.

Packers fans - what's worse, losing to Favre at home or the Bucs in the creamsicles? GB at TB in those unis, old NFC central matchup, good times.

And this v Chargers-Giants is a good example of what Cimm was talking about earlier regarding A-Rod. Compare his 4th quarter to Philip Rivers'.

Have to give Rodgers his due in the Red Zone though, he's money.

I was more interested in the Rivers/Eli showdown since it's one of those "nyaa nyaa here's what you traded away" performances. Nice finish by Rivers. I don't like how Eli (through his father?) was able to manipulate the draft process to go where he wanted.
Not that Eli needs to validate his career at this point.

I like River's fiery drive. He's a gamer.


So rumor is Holmgren to CLE in a GM/VP of Ops Parcells type role.
And Gruden to Notre Dame???

So, can we please have Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennell back as coordinators in NE now?


I'm wondering if I should get my hopes up for this Indy/Pats game or not. Sanders is all done, on a D that already couldn't stop the run to save it's life. But Indy is nasty at home, Manning having another MVP season and Pats D is still gelling together. Pats have to bring the pain or get runover.
Best rivalry in the NFL, these two always go ball to the wall when they meet.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Packers fans - what's worse, losing to Favre at home or the Bucs in the creamsicles? GB at TB in those unis, old NFC central matchup, good times.

This is much worse than losing to Favre, because Favre is, you know...good. It doesn't bother me so much when my team loses as long as they play well.

The Tampa game was a case-study in doing things wrong. The o-line was terrible and got worse after Tauscher got hurt again; Rodgers held the ball too long; the play calling was bad - even though Grant and Ahman Green(!) were running effectively, the Packers kept trying to make long passes, completely forgetting about short passes and slants to combat the pass rush; they had the lead and control of the game and collapsed at the end; the defense didn't blitz enough, and when they did it wasn't effective; Kampman spent way too much time dropping back in coverage; finally, the special teams were bad.

I'm not sure there's anything else you could do to make it worse, and I think McCarthy and Thompson are both on the hot seat now. I never would have said that before, but this was the kind of loss that destabilizes the team.

And Gruden to Notre Dame???

It's funny how Notre Dame still thinks they matter. Keep losing to Navy, please.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Kampman spent way too much time dropping back in coverage

You know, there's mistakes, there's failing to make adjustments, and then there's just stubbornly sticking to the formula. I can see doing this once or twice on a TE matchup and sending the SS on a stunt. But what the fuck is Dom Capers smoking? Why would you ever not want Kampman rushing on a pass play?

I'm not sure there's anything else you could do to make it worse, and I think McCarthy and Thompson are both on the hot seat now.

Not that I'm an insider, but I never heard of McCarthy before he became HC. What made them pick him?

And Gruden to Notre Dame???

It's funny how Notre Dame still thinks they matter. Keep losing to Navy, please.

They're the Bermuda Triangle of irrelevancy. I'm sure recruiting has nothing to do with it.


Can ESPN not hire some fuckable sideline whores? I don't give a fuck what Suzy Kolber has to say about anything. She needs to go away.

 

[Sander]

It's OK, it's the Bucs, we'll give you a mulligan.
I respect that you stick to your guns, any douchebag can root for the front runners. :looks out window at everyone wearing brand new Yankees gear: Bucs are an interesting choice, given that the blip of success they had during the Dungee era has slowly worn off to the point that they have settled back into their milieu.

Any Given Sunday!
We're rebuilding, we'll be back up in a while. We just need to be patient, and fire Jim Bates.

And really, rooting for a losing team is more fun than I expected. I think I said it before, but when you root for a winning team, any win is standard, a non-win is horrible. When you root for a losing team, a loss is to be expected, and wins are awesome.
I'm used to rooting for my hometown club of PSV Eindhoven, who have been the most dominant team in Dutch football for years.

Have to give Rodgers his due in the Red Zone though, he's money.

I was more interested in the Rivers/Eli showdown since it's one of those "nyaa nyaa here's what you traded away" performances. Nice finish by Rivers. I don't like how Eli (through his father?) was able to manipulate the draft process to go where he wanted.
Not that Eli needs to validate his career at this point.

Eh, didn't he just go "Fuck you San Diego I hate you guys, you can draft me but I'll never play for you!"

And then San Diego drafted him just to trade him to the Giants?

So rumor is Holmgren to CLE in a GM/VP of Ops Parcells type role.
And Gruden to Notre Dame???

That'll give the Bucs some room to get some new coaching personnel. Gruden's salary is still on our payroll. And it'll get Gruden off of the air.
So go Gruden, get shipped off to Notre Dame!

I'm wondering if I should get my hopes up for this Indy/Pats game or not. Sanders is all done, on a D that already couldn't stop the run to save it's life. But Indy is nasty at home, Manning having another MVP season and Pats D is still gelling together. Pats have to bring the pain or get runover.
Best rivalry in the NFL, these two always go ball to the wall when they meet.

Battle of two evils right there.

You know, there's mistakes, there's failing to make adjustments, and then there's just stubbornly sticking to the formula.

Interestingly, that's exactly what people in Tampa are complaining about when talking about Jim Bates as a defensive coordinator. Apparently stubborn as a mule, and using his personnel in the wrong way.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Any Given Sunday!

Or decade in the Bucs case.

And really, rooting for a losing team is more fun than I expected.

Most exciting football for me was post 1-15 Pats (1993?). They got Parcells (1st post Giants gig) and drafted Bledsoe 1st round and threw it 50 times a game, smashed every rookie QB record, totally antithetical to the Parcells Doctrine. That was the building blocks of a dynasty.

Eh, didn't he just go "Fuck you San Diego I hate you guys, you can draft me but I'll never play for you!"

And what would be the purpose of the draft if everyone did that? Clearly there was some backdoor dealing because an arrangement was in place before SD even picked him. Elway is the only other player to demand this.
Bad precedence to set IMO. Undermines the draft.

Battle of two evils right there.

One is diabolical, the other just poseurs.


I think Mike Smith is my new favorite coach, way to stick up for your QB! And Deangelo Hall has no balls to snitch him out to the media like that. Gutless.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Not that I'm an insider, but I never heard of McCarthy before he became HC. What made them pick him?

I really don't know, and I'm not sure anyone knows who wasn't on the inside. There was some grumbling when he was hired (and of course Favre wanted Steve Mariucci) but for the most part he's been good up to this point. Good enough that he silenced all the complaints and I haven't heard any until now. If the team ends up 8-8 or better I think he'll be fine.

Ted's the one who's got a legion of haters who have been bitching about him for the past three years. He's much more likely to get canned than McCarthy, I would say.


Here's a stat for you: Chris Johnson is averaging 6.7 yards per carry so far this year.