NFL Week 12 Thread

[stevew]

The damage that Suh did to the Packer guy was so horrendous that I don't even think he grabbed his arm after getting up off of the ground. And this was an indoor game, so unless football cleats have dramatically changed, he would be wearing a shoe with a limited amount of studs on it.

It was bad behavior, but lets not pretend that he inflicted any sort of long term damage on the guy. I think deliberate Ryan Clark type headhunting has the ability to trigger longer term injuries and should be dealt with more seriously than a couple kicks.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Really? The rest of the regular season? I don't think 2 games is enough, but the rest of the season is a bit excessive don't you think?

Excessive and HiFi go hand in hand.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

It's just following precedent instead of lowering the punishment for a guy who is on his way to being the dirtiest player in the NFL. With the fines for ripping off helmets and the like, there's no defense of Suh getting less than Haynesworth did for a similar incident.

2 games is half as much as he should at best.

I think there is a significant difference between stomping a guy's head and gashing it open and stomping at a guy's arm.

For example, in the NHL, if, during a stoppage in player, Player A took a two-hand slash to another player's head with his stick and Player B took a two-hand slash to another player's arm, Player A would get suspended for many more games than Player B.

[spleen1015]

Colts fired the Defensive Coordinator today. Too bad Caldwell won't fire himself.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Colts fired the Defensive Coordinator today. Too bad Caldwell won't fire himself.

Look for Peyton to give Caldwell the boot sometime after the season but before the draft!

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Colts fired the Defensive Coordinator today. Too bad Caldwell won't fire himself.

Perry Fewell should be available soon for them.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Keep them losses coming Norv...keep 'em coming.

Oh and there's no award at the end of the season for 'Fewest Time Outs Used'.

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/trd/2724073126.html

[spleen1015]

Dan Orlovsky in at QB for the Colts! It is about time!!!!

I just hope the Colts don't get backed up to the 1 and Orlovsky has to scramble.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Excessive and HiFi go hand in hand.

The HiFi highlight for me this week is still the "retarded 2-year old" thing about NFL referees. I think he's gearing up for big run down the stretch.

[jbergey22]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5nlEA8BUTQ

Albert Haynesworth stomp.

[bronconick]

According to a Schefter tweet, the NFLPA & Roger Goodell have both encouraged Suh to appeal his suspension.

I'm just going to assume it's because Goodell wants Suh on the field for SNF this week, because otherwise, I'm totally lost by the second part of that statement.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by bronconick

According to a Schefter tweet, the NFLPA & Roger Goodell have both encouraged Suh to appeal his suspension.

I'm just going to assume it's because Goodell wants Suh on the field for SNF this week, because otherwise, I'm totally lost by the second part of that statement.

Ummm....isn't Goodell the one who suspended him? I am as confused as you are......

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by bronconick

According to a Schefter tweet, the NFLPA & Roger Goodell have both encouraged Suh to appeal his suspension.

I would guess he fully intended on appealing. Why Goodell would have to suggest this is stunning. Even more stunning to let it become public info.

[BillJasper]

So Norv gets to coach another week?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So Norv gets to coach another season?

fixed

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I'm just going to assume it's because Goodell wants Suh on the field for SNF this week, because otherwise, I'm totally lost by the second part of that statement.

That's not the case. I believe the league has already stated that any appeal process would be expedited in time for Sunday's game. So, even if Suh's suspension is reduced to one game, he'll still miss the Sunday night game.

[Logan]

Do you think Goodell told Suh, "I need to suspend you for two games, but our partners would be pissed if you miss this week so appeal it and we'll get you playing Sunday" or do you think along with a suspension comes standard language like "You may pursue the grievance process that was collectively bargained between the league and the NFLPA".

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Logan

Do you think Goodell told Suh, "I need to suspend you for two games, but our partners would be pissed if you miss this week so appeal it and we'll get you playing Sunday" or do you think along with a suspension comes standard language like "You may pursue the grievance process that was collectively bargained between the league and the NFLPA".

I would be greatly surprised if the presence or lack of presence of Suh in Sunday's had any impact at all on TV ratings. Yes, he's a popular player, but I don't think he's that popular by any means.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I would be greatly surprised if the presence or lack of presence of Suh in Sunday's had any impact at all on TV ratings. Yes, he's a popular player, but I don't think he's that popular by any means.

It could affect whether viewers turn off the game in the 1st or 2nd quarter?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I would be greatly surprised if the presence or lack of presence of Suh in Sunday's had any impact at all on TV ratings. Yes, he's a popular player, but I don't think he's that popular by any means.

Yeah I'm with you. I think there are plenty of times to be curious about decisions like this but this isn't one of them.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It could affect whether viewers turn off the game in the 1st or 2nd quarter?

It could, but I don't think even with Suh playing the Lions have a chance against the Saints, especially given how banged up their secondary is at the moment and how Stafford has been turning the ball over.

The only silver lining in Sunday's game is that I have Drew Brees in a fantasy league and a great performance by him could be a $160 swing for H_B.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I would be greatly surprised if the presence or lack of presence of Suh in Sunday's had any impact at all on TV ratings. Yes, he's a popular player, but I don't think he's that popular by any means.

I think this may have been true pre-Thanksgiving, but after the attention he has been receiving for that ridiculous behavior last week, his popularity has probably gone way up. Is it enough to warrant an appeal? *shurg*

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I think this may have been true pre-Thanksgiving, but after the attention he has been receiving for that ridiculous behavior last week, his popularity has probably gone way up. Is it enough to warrant an appeal? *shurg*

I disagree. If anything, based on the reaction to what he did Thanksgiving, more people might be apt NOT to watch the game if this "monster" played out of some moral highground than to tune in to see him play. Isn't that the rationale for people calling for Subway and Chrysler to drop him as a spokes person?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So Norv gets to coach another week?

That's AJ Smith's boy. Can't get rid of Norv and admit that you made a mistake if you're AJ Smith. Remember, he's the Lord of No Rings and the LONR can not be made to look like a fool. Never mind he let Brees, Michael Turner & Daren Sproles go for zero in return. Never mind he passed up on Troy Polamalu, Clay Mathews and James Harrison, in past drafts. Never mind that he refuses to pick up any impact players during free agency. Never mind that he let Wade Philips and Cam Cameron leave as defensive and offensive coordinators after having one of the best seasons in team history. He is...the Lord of No Rings and is never wrong.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I disagree. If anything, based on the reaction to what he did Thanksgiving, more people might be apt NOT to watch the game if this "monster" played out of some moral highground than to tune in to see him play. Isn't that the rationale for people calling for Subway and Chrysler to drop him as a spokes person?

Meh, the public in general will complain about anything but we all know they will tune in to see what crazy antics Suh performs on Sunday night. Ratings are ratings, after all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Meh, the public in general will complain about anything but we all know they will tune in to see what crazy antics Suh performs on Sunday night. Ratings are ratings, after all.

I will "meh" your "meh". Any such uptick in interest would be de minimis at best. I find it a silly argument to make and a wholly irrelevant one if the NFL sticks true to its statement that the appeals process will be expeidted and resloved prior to Sunday.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

They were in this same position last season with Green Bay & had a must win game. What did they do? Lay down & give up 40+ points. I'm sorry, people talk about the injury problems in the secondary but our A-squad does nearly the same thing out there. It isn't the injuries either.

Its this silly notion Coughlin has that "we line up & beat them 1-on-1 & if not, its the players' fault". Maybe its higher up the ladder in the organization as well or something as its been this way even in the Fassell era when they ran him out because players weren't playing hard for him. This game doesn't look any different than a Fassell-era game to me, with the exception that Eli was able to put up a few scores rather than get blanked. Wow...great consolation.

Regardless of what the organization "thinks" the right approach to defense is...Coughlin is the guy that has to step in and correct the craziness. And guess what Tommy? The d-line can't bailout the bad defensive coverage schemes EVERY game. Sometimes they just_cant_get to the QB consistently...so what is plan B? The thing Spags did so well was mix in some confusion for blitzing & coverage which was usually just enough to make a QB hesitate & feel pressure coming on. That hasn't been happening so when the Giants find an O-line they can't manhandle, they get absolutely torched like that.

I'm looking at the stats on pro-football-reference, and it's pretty strange. Most of he last several years, including the 2007 Super Bowl season, the Giants have done well when it comes to giving up yards, but have always done worse on defense when giving up points.

2004: 13th in the league in Yards Allowed; 17th in the league in Points Allowed (Tim Lewis as DC)
2005: 24th in the league in Yards Allowed; 14th in the league in Points Allowed (Tim Lewis as DC)
2006: 25th in the league in Yards Allowed; 24th in the league in Points Allowed (Tim Lewis' last year as DC)
2007: 7th in the league in Yards Allowed; 17th in the league in Points Allowed (Spags first year as DC)
2008: 5th in the league in Yards Allowed; 5th in the league in Points Allowed (Spags last year as DC)
2009: 13th in the league in Yards Allowed; 30th in the league in Points Allowed (Sheridan's only year as DC)
2010: 7th in the league in Yards Allowed; 17th in the league in Points Allowed (Perry Fewell's first year as DC)
2011 so far: 28th in the league in Yards Allowed; 27th in the league in Points Allowed (Fewell as DC)

I'm not sure exactly what Sheridan's defensive philosophy is. It seemed like he tried to keep a lot of what Spags did in place, but they really pulled back the aggression in his year as DC. Tim Lewis and Perry Fewell are Zone cover guys. Spags is an aggressive, blitzing guy. And going back further, Johnnie Lynn was DC for 2002-2003 after Fox left (some googling and I can't really find much in his overall defensive philosophy).

Also, another interesting thing. The Giants, from 1994-2004, only had an offense rank higher than 20th once (in terms of points scored). That was 2000, the year they went to the Super Bowl. In 2001 and 2002, they had a top 10 offense in yards, but below 20th in points scored. Since Eli became their full time starter in 2005, Coughlin's second year as head coach, they've had a Top 10 offense 4 times (in both yards and points), and twice they had an offense in the top half of the league in points and yardage (2007: 16th in yardage is their lowest offensive rank since 2005). So far this year, they are 16th in points and 11th in yards.

The two years they've gone 8-8 since 2005 are the two years the defense did not keep pace with the offense. The years they've had winning records are the years the defense did.

Perhaps the problem is a disconnect between the guys Coughlin keeps hiring to coach the defense and the players the GMs bring in. When the Giants had a man-to-man, blitzing DC, they did great. With everyone else, bend-don't-break DCs, they do badly.

You're right, people talk about the injuries, but the Giants are going along according to the script we've seen play out a few times already over the last decade. Do OK their first year with a new DC, and then do shitty the years after. Spags is the only exception. Maybe that was a fluke, but it seems to me that there is a disconnect between defensive scheme and the personnel that they have. When I see this team try to play zone coverage....it's just sad. Either they don't have the personnel for the scheme, or the guys they hire just suck at teaching how to play zone coverage.

Perry Fewell should be available soon for them.

Heh. I said earlier in the thread that I didn't see the Giants firing Fewell. After what happened against the Saints, if the Giants repeat that against the Packers, it very well may happen.

And if the defense collapses in the last 4 games after that, which I could easily see happening, he'll definitely be gone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Isn't it sad that all Giants fans know this will happen? I mean, coming into last night's game I told my brother (a Jets fan) that my prediction was 41-24 or possibly worse. This happens anytime we play a good-to-elite QB who isn't Tom Brady (really...Brady did have a good game in 2007 regular season). See Peyton a few years ago, Brees the last time we played them, and Rodgers last year (and next week...you watch). You can't surrender 40+ points to ANY team and think you have a good scheme in place. You don't...it sucks.

They were in this same position last season with Green Bay & had a must win game. What did they do? Lay down & give up 40+ points. I'm sorry, people talk about the injury problems in the secondary but our A-squad does nearly the same thing out there. It isn't the injuries either.

Its this silly notion Coughlin has that "we line up & beat them 1-on-1 & if not, its the players' fault". Maybe its higher up the ladder in the organization as well or something as its been this way even in the Fassell era when they ran him out because players weren't playing hard for him. This game doesn't look any different than a Fassell-era game to me, with the exception that Eli was able to put up a few scores rather than get blanked. Wow...great consolation.

Regardless of what the organization "thinks" the right approach to defense is...Coughlin is the guy that has to step in and correct the craziness. And guess what Tommy? The d-line can't bailout the bad defensive coverage schemes EVERY game. Sometimes they just_cant_get to the QB consistently...so what is plan B? The thing Spags did so well was mix in some confusion for blitzing & coverage which was usually just enough to make a QB hesitate & feel pressure coming on. That hasn't been happening so when the Giants find an O-line they can't manhandle, they get absolutely torched like that.

I'm so tired of hearing his bullshit press conferences. "We didn't cover...did you see the game?" Yeah...we all the saw the game. We also see that somehow, someway...teams like Tampa & St Louis can manage to play the Saints without giving up 500+ yds of offense & look like a practice squad out there. W_T_F?!

I still think it's easier said than done playing an elite QB. You aren't really allowed to play much defense and these guys are good. There is a reason they consistently are at the top of the league record wise.

It is sort of weird but the way the rules and league has changed over the last few years, it's led to much less parity and a much larger gap between the top teams and everyone else. We practically have a team going for 16-0 every season now.

[Grover]

Fun stat... Giants 8 game splits....

2004: 5-3 <>*1-7 (Eli's rookies year, goes 1-6 to finish year)
2005: 6-2 <> 5-3 (1st round loss to Panthers)
2006: 6-2 <> 2-6 (1st round loss to Eagles)
2007: 6-2 <> 4-4 (Won Superbowl)
2008: 7-1 <> 5-3 (started 11-1, then 1-3, 1st round loss to Eagles)
2009: 5-3 <> 3-5 (Started 5-0, then 3-8)
2010: 6-2 <> 4-4 (lost 2 of last 3 to miss playoffs)

[sabotai]

How the Giants defense has performed vs. their opponent's average so far

Week 1 vs. Redskins (Loss): Gave up 28 points (16.6 per game, +11.4), 332 yards (322 per game, +10)
Week 2 vs. Rams (Win): Gave up 16 points (12.7 per game, +3.3), 367 yards (295 per game, +72)
Week 3 vs. Eagles (Win): Gave up 16 points (23.4 per game, -7.4), 376 yards (420 per game, -44)
Week 4 vs. Cardinals (Win): Gave up 27 points (19.4 per game, +7.6), 368 yards (315 per game, +53)
Week 5 vs. Seahawks (Loss): Gave up 36 points (16.8 per game, +19.2), 424 yards (294 per game, +130)
Week 6 vs. Bills (Win): Gave up 24 points (23.7 per game, +0.3), 374 yards (345 per game, +29)
Week 8 vs. Dolphins (Win): Gave up 17 points (19.3 per game, -2.3), 246 yards (316 per game, -70)
Week 9 vs. Patriots (Win): Gave up 20 points (30.1 per game, -10.1), 438 yards (429 per game, +9)
Week 10 vs. 49ers (Loss): Gave up 27 points (23.8 per game, +3.2), 305 yards (308 per game, -3)
Week 11 vs. Eagles (Loss): Gave up 17 points (23.4 per game, -6.4), 391 yards (420 per game, -29)
Week 12 vs. Saints (Loss): Gave up 49 points (32.9 per game, +16.1), 577 yards (449 per game, +128)


I know points aren't all on the defense due to points scored on special teams and turnovers, but only 4 of 11 games where they held their opponents to under their average points scored, and 4 of 11 games where they held their opponents to under their average for yardage gained, and 2 of them were against the Eagles.

Despite holding the Patriots to just 20 points, they still gave up what the Patriots average on the year for yardage.

In terms of points and yards given up vs. a team's average, the Saints wasn't their worst game. It was the Seahawks. Yeah, I know 9 of the points the Seahawks scored were on the offense, so that "only" puts 27 (and they average 16.8) on the defense.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I know points aren't all on the defense due to points scored on special teams and turnovers, but only 4 of 11 games where they held their opponents to under their average points scored, and 4 of 11 games where they held their opponents to under their average for yardage gained, and 2 of them were against the Eagles.

Despite holding the Patriots to just 20 points, they still gave up what the Patriots average on the year for yardage.

In terms of points and yards given up vs. a team's average, the Saints wasn't their worst game. It was the Seahawks. Yeah, I know 9 of the points the Seahawks scored were on the offense, so that "only" puts 27 (and they average 16.8) on the defense.

Yeah, the Pats moved the ball well enough when Brady wasn't getting hit but we just came up big when it counted in that game. Mainly because our d-line was able to overpower their o-line. Give Brady 1 more second in the pocket (i.e. just a slightly better o-line, or at least LT) and he likely makes us pay like the great Charlie Whitehurst or the legendary Rex Grossman did.

Speaking of which...maybe its because I'm more focused on the Giants...but I swear it seems nobody else makes mediocre or even bad QBs look better than the Giants. So long as the team has a reasonable o-line, we don't seem to be very difficult to find holes in our coverage.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still think it's easier said than done playing an elite QB. You aren't really allowed to play much defense and these guys are good. There is a reason they consistently are at the top of the league record wise.

It is sort of weird but the way the rules and league has changed over the last few years, it's led to much less parity and a much larger gap between the top teams and everyone else. We practically have a team going for 16-0 every season now.

Yeah, but the G-men have a real nasty habit of getting absolutely smoked by the elite QBs rather than just "beat". And this is a team that isn't 3-13 either. This is a team that won 10 games last year, and has an outside shot at the division still (and perhaps 10 wins if that happens). If it were 31 points & 400 yds passing I'd say "sure, its hard to stop that guy". The fact that they get torched for 40+ points against these guys routinely is just completely unacceptable...or at least it should be unacceptable to Giants management.

I do agree that it is really difficult to play defense any more. But I see the Ravens & Steelers still doing it. Sure, they both give up some wtf plays once in a while but I just don't see anybody dropping a 40 spot on them. I don't see play after play of just wide open, blown coverage plays with nobody around. Whatever the Giants are doing in their zone scheme...it just isn't very smart as nobody has problems reading it & completing passes if they have just a little time in the pocket.

I guess its just frustration for me. The defense has (imho) too much talent to get lit up like that. Hell...ANY defense should be too good for that showing (excepting the Colts of course). Couple that with an offense that is...well, certainly capable of scoring "some" points...not explosive enough to score "that" many points.

[RainMaker]

But those are a couple of elite defenses. And despite having some of the best defenses in the league, they aren't locks to stop anyone. Rodgers still torched that Steelers team in the Super Bowl. Even my team the Bears has a solid defense and can't stop Brees, Rodgers or Brady. Even the Lions have a good defense and you saw what happened to them penalty wise when they tried to play defense on Thanksgiving.

I think it's just a different era of football then we're used to. You just aren't going to put together a defense that is regularly going to shut down teams. You're best hope is to get some turnovers and control the clock on offense. Sort of like Arena Football where it's more about outscoring the other team than stopping them.

[Jas_lov]

The Giants are finished unless they come up with the impossible victory vs GB. They won't win their last 4 and sweep Dallas. Their only hope is Detroit and Chicago don't get to 10 wins.

Atlanta seems like a lock for 10 wins if they can win this Sunday and the Texans game just became a lot more winnable for them. Detroit won't win this week so will need 3/4 to get to 10 and one of those is at GB. Chicago actually has 3 games it can win without Cutler- KC, Sea, and at Minny. They might not even have to win at GB or Denver. I'd bet on Chicago and Atlanta for the WCs at this point.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That's AJ Smith's boy. Can't get rid of Norv and admit that you made a mistake if you're AJ Smith. Remember, he's the Lord of No Rings and the LONR can not be made to look like a fool. Never mind he let Brees, Michael Turner & Daren Sproles go for zero in return. Never mind he passed up on Troy Polamalu, Clay Mathews and James Harrison, in past drafts. Never mind that he refuses to pick up any impact players during free agency. Never mind that he let Wade Philips and Cam Cameron leave as defensive and offensive coordinators after having one of the best seasons in team history. He is...the Lord of No Rings and is never wrong.

I don't watch many Chargers games, but seeing Norv bent over at the waist (while they were still in the game!) like he was in a Tums commercial is all you need to see.

[SteveMax58]

Yeah, barring some miracle to beat GB...I don't see the Giants doing any better than 9-7. I just cant see them sweeping Dallas & I'm not really sure how they'll matchup with the Jets. I do think they will beat WAS, though.

Dallas seems likely to win 3 out of 5. 1 vs NYG, ARI, & either PHI or TB as the 3rd (if not 4th). They could very likely end up 11-5 or 10-6 barring a NYG sweep.

[molson]

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but just catching up on some stuff on NFL Game Rewind (a really awesome low-cost alternative to Sunday Ticket), and seeing Norv Turner run the ball on 3rd and 6 from the Bronco 32 with a couple of minutes left in OT was just fantastic. I mean really great stuff, up there with that 70+ yard Janikowski FG try.

[DougW]

Apparantly, Ndamukong Suh was pretty justified for the headslam & stomp. I just read on Yahoo that the guy kept untying his shoes after plays.

Did the Packers untying Ndamukong Suh’s shoes set him off? - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports

I'm not sure why, but, the image of these battle hardened professional athletes untying shoes at the bottom of piles is friggin hilarious to me. Not to say I believe, or don't believe - frankly, I'm laughing to hard to pick a side haha.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DougW

Apparantly, Ndamukong Suh was pretty justified for the headslam & stomp. I just read on Yahoo that the guy kept untying his shoes after plays.

Well, your second sentence does not match your first.

[Autumn]

I didn't know the Three Stooges played for the Packers.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, your second sentence does not match your first.

You are correct sir .

Originally Posted by Autumn

I didn't know the Three Stooges played for the Packers.

Lol, funny stuff.