NFL Thread

[LegoDoom 0]

The first three quarters could have used more excitement, the ending was the only decent part.

First off, I don't consider a defensive football game boring, but I might be different from a lot of other people that way. And second, he was talking about a play that happened midway through the 4th. From that point on, it was all excitement.

[DarkStar50 679]

My point about Jacksonville was about how they were able to drive the ball into the red zone but couldn't punch it home for TDs. They had to settle for field goals. Jacksonville was able to move the ball on the Patriot D. The Patriot D never had to be great all season when the offence was scoring 500 points. In the playoffs, you have to play great on both sides of the ball. The Giants scored 35 against the Patriots in Week 17. The Patriot D just wasn't as strong as they had been in previous seasons under Belicheat. I didn't mean to start the old "what if" bs.

When a team that scored 500 points during the regular season and broke a ton of offensive records is being held to 7 points in the first half, I think that a very good performance by the defence on the field is exciting. The defence has to be making some great plays to do that. Offence sells tickets, defence wins championships.

[Jason Harris 31]

Peter, I think you misread what I wrote.

Were there 30-some-odd extra seconds in the game? Yes. Amazing to me that the official timekeeper could have botched it so badly in arguably the NFL's biggest game in 40 years.

Is there holding on every play? Yes.

Was Eli Manning's scramble a fantastic play? Yes.

Was the holding crucial to his being able to make this play? Yes. Manning was about to run into Richard Seymour, but Chris Snee essentially choked Seymour from behind, pulling him just enough so that Seymour could only grab jersey.

Was David Tyree's catch one of the best ever in a SB? Yes. Ironically, I think he was helped by Rodney trying to essentially climb him to swat the ball, since Rodney effectively cushioned his fall and prevented the ball from hitting the ground jarringly.

Did all of these things cause the Pats to lose? No.

As I had written, once the sting wore off, I could admit that if the Pats had played better offensively, the game never should have been that close, so worrying about the Giants scoring their seventeenth point would have been irrelevant. The Giants' rush was outstanding Sunday night and the Pats couldn't figure how to contain it until the fourth quarter, which makes me wonder whether Josh McDaniels was overwhelmed by the big stage.

As I've also written earlier, I think Brady was more hurt than anyone let on, because the Pats didn't call any of the plays they would during the regular season to counter aggressive defenses. No draws, one screen attempt (I think), no no-huddle, and only one rolling pocket (on the second-to-last play of the game), It seemed all the play calling was designed to keep Brady squarely in the pocket, which doesn't work when there is no pocket! (Brady's QB coach he uses in the offseason said similar things on Monday, although he was referring to Brady's lack of accuracy.)

So, again, if the greatest offense in league history could have scored more than twice in nine possessions, would any of the above really mattered? No.

Regarding the team being gassed, I agree. Being perfect would have been such an incredible accomplishment but, in the end, I think the pursuit may have hurt the team. It's a little akin to Cal Ripken's career stats, which I'm confident would have been better if he had rested occasionally. Among other things, the Patriots essentially played eight straight playoff games, when factoring in the intensity that other teams played with, yet they seldom worked any of their younger players into the mix. I was shocked when Pierre Woods fell on the fumble in the second quarter, because the only time he played during the regular season was with five minutes left.

There's no doubt there were seams in that defense due to the age of the LB's. I even stated that was a worry of mine with my buddy Warren on our podcast. But it took the Giants 59:25 or 60:04 (depending how you look at it :D ) to score their seventeenth point, so I think the defense did their job.

It was the offense that cost the Pats the SB, and I stated that earlier. Just not Sunday night earlier.....

[DarkStar50 679]

Peace, buddy. Your thoughts are now clear for me. I still say it's the best Super Bowl I have ever watched. BTW, I have watched them all, right back to Lombardi's Packers vs Stram's Chiefs. I was also the only kid in northern NJ rooting for the Colts in SB III because I was a Colts/Johnny U fan. I could really pick'em back then!

[Downz 0]

There has been all this talk about Brady being hurt and thats why they may have executed different play calling for him. My question is, and I can't remember exactly, but I don't recall him limping once during that whole game. Not even after being knocked down 18+ times. So I'm not buying any real injury to him. Also as for the phantom time thats being discussed. The Giants had all 3 timeouts and the 2 min. warning at the start of that drive. As much as the Pats fans are looking for an excuse, it would have never been an issue. So lets put that one to rest.

[Jason Harris 31]

Maybe the ankle hurt more when he tried to push off hard, such as when throwing, so it wasn't as noticeable when walking. That said, he appeared to be limping slightly while walking out of the locker room prior to the game.

You would have had to have watched him the whole season to be able to tell something was off -- with either him or the resultant play calling. Think of the chronology. He had the greatest season by a quarterback ever, then went 26 for 28 in his first playoff game, then is assumed to have hurt his plant ankle in the first quarter of the second playoff game. Since that point, a great number of his passes were uncharacteristically way off. There's no doubt he was hurried by the Giants' D, but that leads into the point I made that the Pats never called the type of plays they had during the season to counter aggressive defenses, including moving the pocket.

Actually, a more important question about the extra time in the game is what if Randy Moss had caught the 70 yard bomb and either scored a TD or stepped out of bounds and set up a tying FG? Mike Tirico apparently has discussed the extra time in the game on his radio show, so what kind of controversy would we have had if the Patriots won the game because of 30 extra seconds? Take it a step further. What if, while investigating that controversy, they discovered there had been 40 extra seconds.

In other words, what if it turned out that neither of the last two scores should have counted (assuming the Pats had scored)? Talk about a huge embarrassment that would have been for the league. I have no idea how they would be able to come up with a satisfactory solution.

[mack 44]

I thought about it affecting arm strength but he was still able to reel off a couple ~70 yard bombs at the end there. It was just a good defence they played, injured or not they wouldn't have done much better.

[Jason Harris 31]

it was a great defense they played in that game, but that second-to-last pass illustrates that the game plan of trying to keep him protected inside the pocket didn't work because the OL couldn't hold. That pass was the only play of the game in which Brady left the pocket and he threw his best pass of the day. Of course, we have no idea how much it hurt him to make those last couple of throws.

I don't have a problem with him being injured and can accept that maybe it hurt him to do too much lateral moving in the pocket. But I read somewhere that he hit the grass 23 times, so the common lament among Pats fans has been, "Why didn't they make the adjustments they normally would to slow a pass rush earlier than eight minutes left?" No draws, screens (one attempt, maybe), no-huddle or moving the pocket. They didn't go five-wide much until the last drive.

The true matchup of the game was Spagnuolo versus McDaniels, and it was clear the Giants added plays to the game plan, while the Pats shrunk the playbook. Given his age, it makes one wonder whether McDaniels was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the game, regardless if Brady wasn't 100%.

The one I feel for is Junior Seau. Pats fans realize this is still a great team and have next year to look forward to, but he's now 39, so that may have been his only true shot. I'd love to see the Pats integrate two younger LB's into the mix, then use Junior in a situational/player-coach role if he feels up to it.

[Patrick67 1]

I felt really bad for Seau after the game, it was so evident how much it meant to him when the pats took the lead 14-10 and Bruschi ran ever and hugged him.

He looked like a nervous reck at there on there on the sideline, and alas didn't play a good game either.

[Jason Harris 31]

Michael Strahan deserved the championship too. In some ways, unless the guy's a real jerk, you'd like to see Hall Of Fame players hoist the trophy. I'm guessing both of those players will be enshrined.

[Dean_ 0]

Michael Strahan deserved the championship too. In some ways, unless the guy's a real jerk, you'd like to see Hall Of Fame players hoist the trophy. I'm guessing both of those players will be enshrined.

I agree, after all of those years in the nfl without a super bowl victory, its good to see him get one, and even if you hate Strahan, he still definatly deserves to be in the hall of fame.

[NoAngleDangler 0]

Skins hire Jim Zorn as new head coach

[Jason Harris 31]

Roger Goodell is to meet Sen. Arlen Specter today, ostensibly to discuss why Goodell destroyed the six videotapes given by the Pats, since Specter suggests that it might have proven that the Pats videotaped during the SB against his beloved Eagles.

However, there are two factors to suggest all is not as it seems. The biggest is Specter's two largest campaign contributors are Comcast and the lobbying firm for Comcast. The NFL sued Comcast in October for removing the NFL network from the basic package and placing it on a premium sports tier. That's why so many people had to go to bars to watch the Packers-Cowboys game. Specter's timing of two days in front of the SB was unusual, since the original story had broken five months earlier, but as a means of negotiations it becomes apparent it's an attempt to embarrass/extort the NFL Network from the league.

A second consideration is an article in the Boston Herald a while ago claimed there were no images from the SB's (although there were notes suggesting the taping was going on earlier than 2006 as shown in the tapes). That makes sense, because there's no way the Pats would have handed over evidence to show their SB wins had questions. Instead, the article said that the Pats were rumored to have taken the opposite tact and included images of 6-7 other teams engaging in videotaping. The article said that after consulting with two owners (including Rooney of the Steelers) it was decided the wisest course was to impose the fines, then destroy the evidence to keep the story from becoming bigger.

One last rumor that may affect today's meeting is there are rumors on the Web that Belichick implied to Goodell that he would expose all the cheating he’s aware about in the NFL... if Goodell continued to push the issue. That also makes sense, given all the words we’ve heard from former coaches and players suggesting that pushing the envelope in the NFL has been going on since Paul Brown. Indeed, when asked about Spygate II before the SB, Bob Kraft said something about the whole story not being told. I'm quite confident the NFL made Kraft and Belichick sign non-disclosures when they graciously accepted the fines, but I think those were purposefully vague words for Goodell's ears that the story could be made bigger.

Think about all the infractions that could be exposed. Teams spying on walk throughs, taping offensive and defensive signals, whispering sweet nothings to potential free agent coaches and players, former coaches admitting that they videotaped signals or that particular coaches were renowned for stealing signals, steroids and HGH rampant, piping in crowd noise, fields being maintained poorly, stealing laptops and playbooks, signing players who were cut to pick their brains. It’s obvious that the NFL wants to keep all those transgressions buried, along with some others we can't conceive of. But if the Pats felt Spygate II further hurts their image and team value, it wouldn’t surprise me if they leaked out information on every team they have. At that point, fans and the media (and maybe even gamblers) would have to decide how severe each infraction was on the 1-10 scale.

That would obviously be incredibly embarrassing for the league, so here’s my prediction. Goodell meets with Arlen Specter today, who says afterward that he is satisfied with Goodell's reasoning for destroying the tapes. The two of them agree there will be no need to subpoena Mike Walsh, because they realize he has no credible evidence, so Spygate II is dead.

Finally, the NFL and Comcast come to an agreement shortly thereafter over the NFL Network -- at terms that are far more favorable to Comcast.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

Classy - not a big fan of the gaudy rings *cough PATRIOTS cough* lately.

[RadioGaGa 162]

[RING]

Classy - not a big fan of the gaudy rings *cough PATRIOTS cough* lately.

Is that actual size?

[mack 44]

A couple of rules changes just got voted in:

- No more force-out completions, you must now get both feet in bounds.

- Teams may now defer their coin toss decision to the second half (stupid, why not just elect to kick off?)

- Instant replay can now be used to review field goals.

- If a snap is not touched by a second player, it is no longer a false start but rather a live ball.

- Muffed forward handoffs are now fumbles rather than incomplete passes.

- Incidental 5-yard facemask is no longer a penalty (thank God).

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

[RING]

Classy - not a big fan of the gaudy rings *cough PATRIOTS cough* lately.

Is that actual size?

I'd say just about. I saw Anaheim's ring while I was in Vegas (Mark O'Neill was their EQM and now he's a Fury rep) and his ring was pretty big. Keep in mind football players have really big hands so it is proportioned to them.

I used to know some dudes at UMiami who won in 89 and 91 and their rings were absolutely massive.

Has a field goal ever come under question?

[RadioGaGa 162]

[RING]

Classy - not a big fan of the gaudy rings *cough PATRIOTS cough* lately.

Is that actual size?

I'd say just about. I saw Anaheim's ring while I was in Vegas (Mark O'Neill was their EQM and now he's a Fury rep) and his ring was pretty big. Keep in mind football players have really big hands so it is proportioned to them.

I used to know some dudes at UMiami who won in 89 and 91 and their rings were absolutely massive.

Has a field goal ever come under question?

Yeah there was one late this year...can't remember the teams...but it hit JUST inside the bottom bar, where the syupport bar and the cross bar meet and bounced back onto the field. One ref waved it off, and one waved it good. After conferring they agreed (rightfully) that it was a good FG.

[BreakingParadigms 0]

[RING]

Has a field goal ever come under question?

Ask Baltimore fans :P ...

http://sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/recap...0071118_CLE@BAL

Sorry for the messed up quote, still figuring this out.

[Patrick67 1]

I think removing the force out rule is a joke...