NFL Week 13 Thread

[Honolulu_Blue]

Seattle is great at home and New Orleans is very ordinary on the road, especially outside.

[RedKingGold]

I really, really, really don't like the Seahawks.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You are kicking the team during their toughest stretch of the season. Playing the Broncos twice in 3 weeks with a difficult sandwich game in between would not be easy for any team. They actually put up almost 500 yards on the Broncos yesterday which either says the Chiefs have a lot of fight in them or the Broncos defense is paper mache. I see the Chiefs exactly the same way as I do 3 weeks ago. A team that will be in the playoffs.

The Chiefs last four games:

@ Buffalo (were outgained 470-210 by Jeff Teul, 0 sacks, 0 hits, Fully healthy on D. Won with 2 defensive TD's.
bye week
@ Denver (were outgained 427-344, game was 27-10 in the fourth quarter, 0 sacks, 0 qb hits, D fully healthy)
San Diego (Outgained 491-395, they did have 1 sack and 4 hits, injuries started in the middle of this game)
Denver (were outgained 535 to 452, 0 sacks, 3 hits, 1 pass rusher out)


I'm not kicking a team that's down, I kicked them when they were up. They aren't that good, period. As for the Denver D, I think it's pretty obvious now they suck. I really thought Miller returning would make a difference, but he has only played well in spurts. I thought they played very good against SD a few weeks ago. They were good for the first half and OT against the Pats, but kind of forgot about the other two quarters. Their poor D, may very well be their demise in the playoffs and it is why I stated above that I would give the Pats an edge in a Broncos/Pats matchup.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I really, really, really don't like the Seahawks.

I really don't either. The cheap shot Sherman took should have been an ejection. They are seriously the most classless team in the league at this point. It's why I still laugh about King Pete telling the WR a few weeks ago that "we don't do that here" Ummm, yeah, you do. Your players are asses and act like it all the time. Dirtbags to the extreme. I haven't even started with all of the suspensions.

[Travis]

Troy, I disagree with a lot of what you say about Seattle, but I doubt either of us would change the others mind on any of them. That said, if you can't enjoy watching Wilson and Thomas play, I'm not sure what you're wanting to see in a football player. Baldwin, Okung and most of their front 7 on D to a lesser degree as well.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's exactly what the close games stat you quoted shows - it's clearly not a coin flip or a slight tilt towards Brady/Belichick. Brady and Belichick are now 61-26 in close games - a large enough sample size it's not luck or statistical noise at this point. 6-3 this year has actually lowered that winning %. You know who else is 78-40 in 1-score games (since his rookie year)? Peyton Manning (and that's even with his 2-7 playoff mark). Elite, HoF QB's seem to put your winning % somewhere around 67% in close games.

It also amuses me how you also continually change your definition of a close/lucky win depending on if the Patriots or Broncos are involved. The Patriots win by 10 in Foxboro last year? The Broncos were in it the whole time and only lost because of a momentum-killing fumble. The Pats win by 10 over the Dolphins? It's because of one (lucky) game-changing play in the 3rd quarter. Pats win this year over the Broncos? It's because they got the lucky bounce for a fumble - ignoring the multiple fumbles that were returned for a TD and inside the 10 by Denver in the first 7 minutes, or that the only reason we were punting was the refs deciding to ignore an obvious mauling on our 3rd down pass attempt. Brady throws a pick vs. the Saints with 2:16 on the clock and a timeout, so they needed a 1st-down to run out the clock? It was game over, man - no team could come back from that situation. Luckily Drew Brees dropped the ball on a kneel-down attempt. Or, I looked at the clock and did the math and realized that while that drastically reduced our chances we could still get the ball back just over a minute left, then we stopped them on 3 runs, got the ball back with over a minute left and Brady led a TD drive culminating in a perfect throw to Thompkins for the winning TD. (That Saints game is actually a great example of how Belichick is willing to use unconventional, bold calls to give his team a better chance to win. Not anything on the final drive, and something that didn't actually work, but going for it on 4th and 6 from our own 24 with 3 minutes left down 1, knowing that the Saints would likely settle for a FG and a 4-point lead and still giving us the chance to win with a TD. Similar to going for that infamous AFC title game 4th down, or kicking off and taking the wind in OT, there are some things the numbers bear out that only Belichick has the gravitas (and job security) to actually attempt.)

You can find lucky breaks in any game for both teams if you want to cherry-pick and fit a narrative. Some games we've had breaks go against us and lost, some games we've had breaks go for us and won, most games we've had breaks go for and against us. Long answer short, no, I don't think we are any more lucky to have W's next to us for the New Orleans, Denver, and certainly Miami games than we are unlucky to have L's next to us for the Carolina and Jets games.

There are two types of "lucky breaks" Those earned and those given. The Pats have had plenty of "given" breaks this year. The mauling of the receiver you speak of? That didn't happen to Denver receivers? Or how about the catch in the end zone where Gronk shoved off when extended elbows? The Patriots as a team did nothing to cause the Broncos to touch the ball on a punt and give them the game winning FG.

But I think you are missing my point a little here. You are dead on, keep a game close and it becomes a coin flip where we can talk about one or two or three plays. Slaughter teams and that doesn't come up. Elite teams usually have 4 or 5 games of +17. The Pats this year have two of those games.

My point was Denver hadn't been blown out by anyone and that's a compliment. I've said it about 200 times the last few years on this board that the Patriots are massive in this regard. You cannot blow them out so they are in every game. Even with that, the Pats are taking it a bit far this year with their close shaves.

Headiing into this year, I think Brady averaged about 3 to 4 close games a season to compile that record. This year you have had 9 in 12 weeks. It is fortunate they've won 2/3 of those games. A fluke bounce, a goofy call. . . they are 7-5 right now and everyone is wondering what's wrong with the Patriots. (I wouldn't for the record, Tom Brady gives them a chance come playoff time no matter what has happened the last few years)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Travis

Troy, I disagree with a lot of what you say about Seattle, but I doubt either of us would change the others mind on any of them. That said, if you can't enjoy watching Wilson and Thomas play, I'm not sure what you're wanting to see in a football player. Baldwin, Okung and most of their front 7 on D to a lesser degree as well.

I LOVE watching Russell Wilson play. Love it, love it, love it. Love watching Lynch play as well.

The consistent classlessness of the team? No, I don't enjoy watching defenseless receivers get drilled in the back of the end zone for no apparent reason. To see the defender in question then bitch about it to the ref? To see the coach see this behavior EVERY week and not do anything about it? Yeah, sorry, I can live without it.

I can't stand it when "my" players pull that garbage either. The SS of the Broncos yesterday should have been tossed with a cheap ass face mask near the goal line. It was a dirty play and I will not support guys who play the game that way.

The Seahawks are full of guys like that. Sorry, but they are. It's sad, because I would love nothing more than to cheer Wilson win Super Bowls, but as long as the rest of his teammates act the way they do, I have no interest in it. None at all.

Were I a fan of the Seahawks, I would cheer for my team, but be disgusted by certain players. The only part of the Broncos/Packers Super Bowl celebration that disgusted me was watching Romanowski hold the trophy. I wanted to vomit.

[SnowMan]

One way to know your team has made it is people hate them. See: Pats, Yanks, Sox, etc

[HeavyReign]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Were I a fan of the Seahawks, I would cheer for my team, but be disgusted by certain players. The only part of the Broncos/Packers Super Bowl celebration that disgusted me was watching Romanowski hold the trophy. I wanted to vomit.

This matches how I feel as a Seattle fan. I don't care about the talking but the cheap shots need to stop. There are a few repeat offenders.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by TroyF

They aren't that good, period.

They are a playoff team. Seriously, I have no idea what this even means. People havent been hyping them as Super Bowl favs or anything like that. So what do you mean "they arent that good"? In comparison to what? The Broncos? The Cowboys? The Vikings? What does "arent that good" even mean? Cant they just be what they are, a playoff team?

[Carman Bulldog]

He means they're not "elite." Which I thought we established was totally meaningless weeks ago. But apparently TroyF still uses it to define teams (because we all know only top seeds make it to and/or win the Super Bowl).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by SnowMan

One way to know your team has made it is people hate them. See: Pats, Yanks, Sox, etc

The Seahawks need a Super Bowl to be truly hateable

[Bigsmooth]

Get used to it, the Hawks are the most talented team in the league and that's not changing anytime soon. Great front office, great QB, great future. The Swag is along for the ride.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Seattle is a tough team to figure out. Trying to be objective (I'm a 49er fan, I hate them and think they're overrated), you look at what they've done this season:

Pros:
-11-1, with an effective 3 game lead for home field advantage in the playoffs.
-6-0 at home
-2nd in the NFL with 340 points scored
-2nd in the NFL with 186 points allowed

Cons:
-Barely beat Houston in OT (23-20)
-Barely beat Tennessee at home (20-13)
-Barely beat St. Louis (14-9)
-Had to stage an incredible comeback to beat Tampa Bay at home (27-24)

The important thing is they're winning those games...but how in the world can you explain the Tampa game? Or their inability to put away teams like St. Louis and Tennessee? Three of those wins are purely luck, and against vastly inferior competition.

[Suicane75]

Maybe there is no rhyme or reason? Maybe it was just 4 close football games against teams, who while not as good as Seattle, are all pros who play hard every week at a top level and just gave them tough games. Maybe the Seahawks just play down sometimes, or play up sometimes or both. Maybe it is just what is and no team will dominate all 16 games they play no matter how much talent they have. After further review, the football is existential, it's just a prop in our collective unconsciousness. First down Princeton.

[Suicane75]

And the thing about the hawks is that they celebrate like douchebags over everything they do right and then throw these silly ass tantrums when calls go against them. It's unbecoming.

[Jon]

"Get used to it, the Hawks are the most talented team in the league and that's not changing anytime soon. Great front office, great QB, great future. The Swag is along for the ride."

Great future? They have a narrow window before their rookie contracts balloon and they lose players.

[HeavyReign]

How many of those games were played missing 2-3 starting OL? That kind of kills the offense.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Jon

"Get used to it, the Hawks are the most talented team in the league and that's not changing anytime soon. Great front office, great QB, great future. The Swag is along for the ride."

Great future? They have a narrow window before their rookie contracts balloon and they lose players.

Hence the great front office. They'll pay Russ, Sherm, and Earl and replace the rest with draft picks. The point is they have a franchise QB. Russ will carry them similar to how Brady, Manning and Brees have carried franchises.

Did you make the same argument about the Rodgers led Pack? Etc. The Hawks are 11-1 without key offensive lineman, a starting middle linebacker, blah blah, injury arguments bore me so I'll stop. They have the deepest, most talented roster in the NFL (not to mention players they've cut who are now starters in the league) and there is no reason to think John Schneider will stop being good at his job.

Also, I'll admit the celebrating over every play is annoying. Definition of dudes you love if they are on your side but hate otherwise.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Seattle is a tough team to figure out. Trying to be objective (I'm a 49er fan, I hate them and think they're overrated), you look at what they've done this season:

Pros:
-11-1, with an effective 3 game lead for home field advantage in the playoffs.
-6-0 at home
-2nd in the NFL with 340 points scored
-2nd in the NFL with 186 points allowed

Cons:
-Barely beat Houston in OT (23-20)
-Barely beat Tennessee at home (20-13)
-Barely beat St. Louis (14-9)
-Had to stage an incredible comeback to beat Tampa Bay at home (27-24)

The important thing is they're winning those games...but how in the world can you explain the Tampa game? Or their inability to put away teams like St. Louis and Tennessee? Three of those wins are purely luck, and against vastly inferior competition.

The answer is that there simply is not that much difference between the best teams in the league and the bad teams these days. You don't have a Montana led 49ers team that likely was going to blow out everyone each week in the league. These days with the salary cap and attrition due to injuries, even the best teams in the league are mortal any given sunday.

The Patriots had to come from behind to beat the Texans. The Broncos looked pretty bad for at least one half vs the Jaguars. The Colts lost to the Rams and Cards , and lost bad. The Saints lost to the Jets, etc..

I think the teams that win the super bowl these days are simply the ones that get hot at the right time, do not suffer some key or critical injury during the postseason and then probably after all of that talent/coaching is the final deciding factor.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RendeR

In EVERY SINGLE one of the games you use as examples the turning point and/or difference in the points at games end was due DIRECTLY to a defensive turnover or defensive score.

My point stands firm, defended by you.

Causing turnovers isn't a fluke (although returning them for scores is), but it's basically unpredictable game to game. The Patriots caused an absurd 41 turnovers and were a whopping +25 in turnover margin in the regular season last year, (lost the battle 3-0 to the Ravens in the AFC title game) - were we a great defense? We're +8 this season, and have the 2nd most turnovers caused in the league this season - are we a great defense? Individual turnover margins clearly play a huge role in the outcome of games, but for any one game it falls more under luck than "being a great defense".

If anything, the reason why opportunistic defenses are more likely to win a Super Bowl now is that offenses are so much more likely to score on a given possession that one extra possession swung to your team is so much more important than it was in the days of 3 and outs.

Originally Posted by TroyF

But I think you are missing my point a little here. You are dead on, keep a game close and it becomes a coin flip where we can talk about one or two or three plays. Slaughter teams and that doesn't come up. Elite teams usually have 4 or 5 games of +17. The Pats this year have two of those games.
...
the Pats are taking it a bit far this year with their close shaves.

Heading into this year, I think Brady averaged about 3 to 4 close games a season to compile that record. This year you have had 9 in 12 weeks. It is fortunate they've won 2/3 of those games.

Our SB team in 2003 was 10-1 in close games and had 2 wins of 17+. 2001 was 7-1 with 4 17+ wins (and would not be called elite by anyone). 2004 was 5-1 with 5 17+ wins. Yeah, this isn't the 2007 team that opened the year with a ridiculous 8 straight blowouts, but nobody is - if that's your standard for an elite team, you'll be waiting around awhile (plus, they were still 4-0 in close games). I couldn't care less about whether we fit your definition of elite - I want to win games and Super Bowls, and when we do that we tend to win a lot of close games, but that's in large part because we win a high percentage of every kind of game - close game, blowout, home, road, etc.

Originally Posted by TroyF

As for the Denver D, I think it's pretty obvious now they suck. I really thought Miller returning would make a difference, but he has only played well in spurts. I thought they played very good against SD a few weeks ago. They were good for the first half and OT against the Pats, but kind of forgot about the other two quarters. Their poor D, may very well be their demise in the playoffs and it is why I stated above that I would give the Pats an edge in a Broncos/Pats matchup.

The numbers don't really back that up. Again according to FO, the Broncos D went from 29th to 7th since Miller's return (albeit will probably fall a little after that Chiefs game). The problem is that the offense fell from all-time great to 8th in the league (and solidly behind the Pats offense since Gronk returned) and the special teams fell from #1 in the league to #23.

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

Hence the great front office. They'll pay Russ, Sherm, and Earl and replace the rest with draft picks. The point is they have a franchise QB. Russ will carry them similar to how Brady, Manning and Brees have carried franchises.

Did you make the same argument about the Rodgers led Pack? Etc. The Hawks are 11-1 without key offensive lineman, a starting middle linebacker, blah blah, injury arguments bore me so I'll stop. They have the deepest, most talented roster in the NFL (not to mention players they've cut who are now starters in the league) and there is no reason to think John Schneider will stop being good at his job.

He won't magically stop being good at his job, but he'll probably also never have a stretch like this again where he hits so big on so many picks at once. Look at GB with Ted Thompson or the Patriots with Belichick etc - both had great stretches, then droughts, and in the Patriots case have cycled back to having a few pretty good drafts in a row. Picking 3 Pro Bowlers in 2010 was unbelievable (albeit helped by having 2 top 14 picks), and 2 borderline starters too. Since then he's had a couple huge hits in later rounds (Wilson 3rd, Wright 4th, Sherman 5th, Sweezy 7th) a solid 2nd round pick in Bobby Wilson, 1 starting O-Lineman combined between Carpenter and Bowie, and a whole lot of guys who are unknown or not on the Seahawks anymore.

You have a great situation right now, but yeah, you're already the highest spending team this year due to past salary cap rollover, and you've got some huge decisions to make once Percy Harvin gets his $9 million bump this offseason, Richard Sherman gets an extension that puts him around $10m/y and Russell Wilson $15m/y (at least). Wilson is looking like a great bet to carry even a weak roster to the playoffs, but this is likely the strongest the roster will ever be around him. Side note - that Harvin gamble is looking terrible right now. Would you rather have Harvin and his contract going forward or DeAndre Hopkins/Cordarrelle Patterson (the 2 WR's picked just after #25) and the 2015 3rd round pick right now?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think the teams that win the super bowl these days are simply the ones that get hot at the right time, do not suffer some key or critical injury during the postseason and then probably after all of that talent/coaching is the final deciding factor.

I do think homefield advantage helps a ton, although the Broncos and Patriots last year showed it's not infallible (in the Pats case, Gronk's injury was clearly important as well). Stats show about 68% win percentage by home teams in the Divisional Round/Conference Championship games. The last 5 seasons the Seahawks are 15-26 on the road, 28-11 at home - 14-0 last 2 seasons with huge blowout wins over the 49ers (2x) and Saints. And that's not that unusual a disparity - Pats are 38-6 at home in that span, 23-16 on the road in that time, Broncos w/Peyton are 13-1 at home, 10-4 on the road. So, really, the Seahawks are the prohibitive NFC favorite barring a Wilson injury and the AFC favorite will likely come down to whether the Pats can win in Miami and Baltimore, and Denver in Houston/Oakland.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Jon

"Get used to it, the Hawks are the most talented team in the league and that's not changing anytime soon. Great front office, great QB, great future. The Swag is along for the ride."

Great future? They have a narrow window before their rookie contracts balloon and they lose players.

Plus they'll have to stop using PEDs at some point if the NFL ever gets serious about it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

And the thing about the hawks is that they celebrate like douchebags over everything they do right and then throw these silly ass tantrums when calls go against them. It's Unprofessional.

Fixed that for you.

[Desnudo]

It's unbeloved

[Buccaneer]

It's one of the big reasons I refuse to watch them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Headiing into this year, I think Brady averaged about 3 to 4 close games a season to compile that record. This year you have had 9 in 12 weeks. It is fortunate they've won 2/3 of those games.

What % of close games should an elite team, a very good team, a good team, etc, win? Is it always 50%, and anything that deviates from that is luck?

[albionmoonlight]

If my team is going to lose, I prefer a total butt-kicking like last night. I will stew over a close loss (especially a "we should have won" close loss) for days. But when it is clear by the end of the second quarter that the other team is just flat-out better than my team, I tend to get through the stages of grief by the end of the game.

Good job by the Hawks, and I hope that the Saints can turn that loss into something positive.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Plus they'll have to stop using PEDs at some point if the NFL ever gets serious about it.

The latest suspensions are for weed, not PEDS. Pretty sure PED use isn't restricted to Seattle, anyway.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

The latest suspensions are for weed, not PEDS. Pretty sure PED use isn't restricted to Seattle, anyway.

It is for whatever the players say it is since the league isn't allowed to say what they actually tested positive for. Weed is likely a bullshit answer, just like all the Adderall suspensions.

[Dr. Sak]

I can't believe Pete Carroll would condone such antics. He ran such a tight ship of upstanding citizens while at USC. One would think he would do the same when he (conveniently) left for the pros.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I really don't either. The cheap shot Sherman took should have been an ejection. They are seriously the most classless team in the league at this point. It's why I still laugh about King Pete telling the WR a few weeks ago that "we don't do that here" Ummm, yeah, you do. Your players are asses and act like it all the time. Dirtbags to the extreme. I haven't even started with all of the suspensions.

Wait, what? Cheatey Petey somehow runs a team that exhibits a complete lack of class and cheats with PEDs?

The hell you say! But he's such a nice, fun loving guy!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is for whatever the players say it is since the league isn't allowed to say what they actually tested positive for. Weed is likely a bullshit answer, just like all the Adderall suspensions.

There's two separate suspension programs... these two were for non-PED's, so while it's not certain it was weed, it definitely wasn't steroids or HGH in the Browner/Thurmond cases.

Originally Posted by bigsmooth

Pretty sure PED use isn't restricted to Seattle, anyway.

No, but they do lead the NFL in it the past few seasons, so combined with your success you're gonna have people latching on to any tangible evidence of cheating. Seahawks' lead in PED bans under Pete Carroll - ESPN

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I can't believe Pete Carroll would condone such antics. He ran such a tight ship of upstanding citizens while at USC. One would think he would do the same when he (conveniently) left for the pros.

lol... I should have read to the end of the thread before posting.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I really don't either. The cheap shot Sherman took should have been an ejection. They are seriously the most classless team in the league at this point.

For the record, I think the Rams have them beat, but nobody watches them so they don't really count.

[Chief Rum]

It's funny, but circumstance has made me a bit of a Cards fan when it comes to the NFC West.

Seahawks--see above posts, ad nauseum. Hard to like them.
Niners--I am a former Rams fan. I still hate the Niners and their smug fanbase.
Rams-- I am a former Rams fan. Fuck them.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There's two separate suspension programs... these two were for non-PED's, so while it's not certain it was weed, it definitely wasn't steroids or HGH in the Browner/Thurmond cases.
No, but they do lead the NFL in it the past few seasons, so combined with your success you're gonna have people latching on to any tangible evidence of cheating. Seahawks' lead in PED bans under Pete Carroll - ESPN

A reader wrote into Bill Simmons' mailbag last week suggesting only referring to the team as the Seadderal Seahawks. I agreed that it was pretty much the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There's two separate suspension programs... these two were for non-PED's, so while it's not certain it was weed, it definitely wasn't steroids or HGH in the Browner/Thurmond cases.
No, but they do lead the NFL in it the past few seasons, so combined with your success you're gonna have people latching on to any tangible evidence of cheating. Seahawks' lead in PED bans under Pete Carroll - ESPN

The redskins and rams aren't getting much return on their investment

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

And the thing about the hawks is that they celebrate like douchebags over everything they do right and then throw these silly ass tantrums when calls go against them. It's unbecoming.

Have you not watched any NFL game for the past 10 years? That described about 90% of the teams.

[EagleFan]

Oh, and Go Hawks!

(unless they are playing the Eagles)

[path12]

I get how you could hate them as a fan of another team but from here I haven't had so much fun watching a team probably since the UW teams of 1990-91. Hard hitting, confident and not afraid to take it right to the opposition.

Hated the Carroll signing when it happened but was so so wrong. He and Schneider have done a helluva job.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Have you not watched any NFL game for the past 10 years? That described about 90% of the teams.

In fact I have, and nobody even comes close to acting like the Seahawks act. And I like them.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It's funny, but circumstance has made me a bit of a Cards fan when it comes to the NFC West.

Seahawks--see above posts, ad nauseum. Hard to like them.
Niners--I am a former Rams fan. I still hate the Niners and their smug fanbase.
Rams-- I am a former Rams fan. Fuck them.

Welcome to the Light side.