NFL Week 13 Thread

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Haha, you would be right

I guess I feel the same way about passing the football as you do about running the ball in pop warner. I see all of these large, fast, and athletic wide recievers and I cant figure out how the NFL expects these corners to have any chance against them with the current rules. I dont see passing as being a tactic as much as I see "my guy is bigger, faster, and stronger than your guy so Im gonna chuck it his way". I guess I like to watch games where I feel the offense can actually be stopped by the defense and not only by penalties and turnovers. A lot of these games arent that way anymore. If Denver went full throttle without penalties and turnovers bogging them down they would put up 50 per game. I dont like when refs have this much control because they arent consistent.

And yes, fantasy football is also more fun when you can actually count on some consistent production from a back every once in awhile

I feel as though things have evened out a little. You never used to see offensive pass interference called. Ever. Now at least they make an effort to call that. Also, jamming at the line seems to be ok again after the Polian rule from last decade basically made it illegal for several years.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I think the unfortunate flaw in your argument is that Luck has no one to pick them apart with.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

With no running game, protection issues and a thin receiving corps, I think Kansas City would steamroll Indy wherever they play.

This actually doesn't change the end result for me. it simply changes the teams playing the parts. If KC rolls Indy in the wild card I think they use that momentum to beat Denver the following week. Its REALLY hard to beat a team 3x in one season.

[Lathum]

Indy has shown nothing since Wayne went down and certainly not enough to show they can get to the AFC title game.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This actually doesn't change the end result for me. it simply changes the teams playing the parts. If KC rolls Indy in the wild card I think they use that momentum to beat Denver the following week. Its REALLY hard to beat a team 3x in one season.

I just don't see Cincinnati making it to the Super Bowl. I think they'll have issues slowing down either Denver or New England.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Indy has shown nothing since Wayne went down and certainly not enough to show they can get to the AFC title game.

I wonder if Indy is wishing they'd gambled that first-round pick on Josh Gordon instead?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Unless you're one of these backs (highly unlikely, no offense ), related to them, an agent, or a bitter fantasy football owner I don't see what's to dislike about the trend. I'd much rather watch a tactical battle where all 22 players have a role on each play than a glorified pop warner game where the coaches hand it off to their best athlete 30-40 times and hope he's better than the opponent.

Which is still far better than a single QB trying to make every play himself, relegating the rest of the team to be only blockers and decoys. I love big fast WRs (and TEs) but also love to see a good RB as well. Players like TD, Faulk and Alstott weren't that long ago. That's assuming you have a QB that can actually read defenses, check down receivers and throw the ball smartly. That seems to be trending the other way as well.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If you told me preseason we would be missing all the Pats that are injured and somehow we'd be in position to clinch the division in Week 14 (with four games left to play).. I would'be said you're nuts.

I don't expect them to go far in the playoffs, there's just too many holes in the D, but, this actually might have been Bill Belichick's best coaching job.

Oh, and speaking of BB... there's a reason the Texans are 2-10.

Antonio Smith of Houston Texans 'very suspicious' of New England Patriots - ESPN

You have players saying "The other team must have cheated", because they made halftime adjustments that worked. If so, then it's a grand conspiracy against the Texans, because EVERYONE seems to be playing better in the second half against them. When the Colts came back against them, was THAT cheating? (although at least part of that the coach collapsed at halftime)

Unless there's more then this, it's rationalizing by a mentally weak team desperate to rationalize why when things start to go bad against them, they don't find a way to win.

Just one question here, why?

Look, you, me, the rest of the known universe knows there are only two Patriots that REALLY matter right now. One of them is a coach, the other is Tom Brady. It isn't like they haven't been beat to oblivion before. This seems to be a yearly thing. As long as Brady is ok, they find a way to win close games and move on. 5 wins this year by 3 points or less. Another one by a TD. One where they won by 10 and had to come back with a second half rally to do it on their home field.

Love them, hate them, call them fortunate (which they have been, there are no ways around it), etc. These guys do not get blown out. They fight and claw and find a way to have a chance at the end. This isn't some new, one year thing. While I'm complaining of the Broncos injuries, the same thing applies here. Manning just doesn't allow his team to lose much. Good team, bad team, average team, his team will win 10-14 games. Period.

Both have had their struggles in the playoffs the last six years (and I think both are overblown), but both are going to get to the playoffs to have those struggles. No matter what happens around them.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I just don't see Cincinnati making it to the Super Bowl. I think they'll have issues slowing down either Denver or New England.

Denver obviously is an unknown but I think everyone is forgetting this:

Watch New England Patriots vs. Cincinnati Bengals [10/06/2013] - NFL.com

I keep hearing "They haven't shown me anything" and I keep saying "You're not flipping looking then are you."

[JPhillips]

I'm less worried about stopping Denver or NE than I am about scoring on a competent defense. If they play like the first half yesterday they'll lose in the first round.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

In that earlier game the Pats were playing without 2 of their top 3 playmakers so far this season IMO. Vereen and Gronk have unsurprisingly made this a different offense from that previous game.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Watch New England Patriots vs. Cincinnati Bengals [10/06/2013] - NFL.com

I keep hearing "They haven't shown me anything" and I keep saying "You're not flipping looking then are you."

I haven't forgotten about anything including the fact that the Patriots were still without Gronkowski for that game. I also haven't forgotten that the Cincinnati offense was only able to put up 13 points themselves.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm less worried about stopping Denver or NE than I am about scoring on a competent defense. If they play like the first half yesterday they'll lose in the first round.

Dalton has looked horrible for weeks now. The only reason Dalton had the one TD pass was a busted coverage down the middle of the field.

So, either he wakes up and starts playing better, or this is another first round and out appearance.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I just don't see Cincinnati making it to the Super Bowl. I think they'll have issues slowing down either Denver or New England.

Yep. Just like every AFC contender they're not the same team due to injuries. Losing Hall and Atkins will do that to any defense.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Which is still far better than a single QB trying to make every play himself, relegating the rest of the team to be only blockers and decoys. I love big fast WRs (and TEs) but also love to see a good RB as well. Players like TD, Faulk and Alstott weren't that long ago. That's assuming you have a QB that can actually read defenses, check down receivers and throw the ball smartly. That seems to be trending the other way as well.

Alstott? The guy who averaged 4+ ypc and had more than 35 receptions once in 11 seasons?

Fwiw, here's the Broncos team rushing totals in 1996-1998 (Davis's 3 great seasons) and 2011-2013.

525-2362
520-2378
525-2468

546-2632
481-1832
495-1951 (prorated)

So they actually had more carries, yards, and ypc in the 2011 season (with Tebow at QB for most of the season) than any of the years Davis was playing great - the carries were just more spread out. Even now with Manning at QB they're only averaging 2 fewer carries per game, but again those carries are spread out most weeks and you rarely see a RB these days get fed 37 carries like Moreno was last week vs. New England.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Just one question here, why?

Look, you, me, the rest of the known universe knows there are only two Patriots that REALLY matter right now. One of them is a coach, the other is Tom Brady. It isn't like they haven't been beat to oblivion before. This seems to be a yearly thing. As long as Brady is ok, they find a way to win close games and move on. 5 wins this year by 3 points or less. Another one by a TD. One where they won by 10 and had to come back with a second half rally to do it on their home field.

Love them, hate them, call them fortunate (which they have been, there are no ways around it), etc. These guys do not get blown out. They fight and claw and find a way to have a chance at the end. This isn't some new, one year thing. While I'm complaining of the Broncos injuries, the same thing applies here. Manning just doesn't allow his team to lose much. Good team, bad team, average team, his team will win 10-14 games. Period.

Both have had their struggles in the playoffs the last six years (and I think both are overblown), but both are going to get to the playoffs to have those struggles. No matter what happens around them.

The Pats D is horrendous right now. You realize they dressed 5 rookies in their starting 11 last night (and in some of their sub packages it was even more than that no doubt) and have now lost what...their top 3 or 4 choices for signal-caller on defense? And one of their regular corners is Kyle Arrington, who couldn't cover an 85 year old in a wheelchair?

Clearly B&B are a huge positive for this team, and put them in position to win, but to pretend that their defense hasn't been massively degraded, almost to the point where it's laughable, isn't taking the facts into account.

[Coffee Warlord]

Chicago media already having a field day with Trestman.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Arrington is a slot corner. He's great at it.

[RendeR]

As noted by many above. The weakness in both the Pats and Denver is Defense. Both teams have pretty swiss cheese units.


Championships are won by the Defense.

[Buccaneer]

Bishop, I had throw in Alstott because he was from that time and besides, he was one of my favorites.

Troy: well said about competitiveness of the Pats.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

As long as Brady is ok, they find a way to win close games and move on. 5 wins this year by 3 points or less. Another one by a TD. One where they won by 10 and had to come back with a second half rally to do it on their home field.

Love them, hate them, call them fortunate (which they have been, there are no ways around it), etc. These guys do not get blown out.

How do you reconcile these two statements? Are we fortunate just because we've won a number of close games? The Patriots are 6-3 in close games this year vs. 55-23 in Brady's other years as a starter. Manning's numbers are probably pretty close to that in close games too. Having an all-time great QB helps you win close games.

I'm fine with saying the Patriots injury problems aren't a unique thing (Denver, Cincy, Indy have all also lost star players for the year), or that the 2 calls that produced a ton of angst (NYJ fg call, Carolina non-PI) didn't actually cost us those games, but I don't see how you can look at the season as a whole and say we've been fortunate. Belichick has done a masterful job coaching because he started the year winning close games with a borderline elite defense and a struggling offense missing its projected top 4 playmakers. Then as the defense lost 3 front 7 studs and multiple members of the secondary for a few games, the offense got a couple players back from injury and he's winning close games in shootouts.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Arrington is a slot corner. He's great at it.

Yeah - I could have made that distinction I suppose. I tried to find a clever way to get that into my putdown of him - Kyle "Please abuse me if I'm outside the hashmarks" Arrington or something like that. But it just seemed kinda klutzy.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Championships are won by the Defense.

Maybe if you're the New York Giants. Other than them, you've got Indianapolis beating Chicago 29-17, the Steelers giving up 23 to the Cardinals while winning, New Orleans scoring 31 to beat Indy, GB beating the Steelers 31-25, and Baltimore beating SF in a 34-31 shootout. Being an above-average team that makes the playoffs, and then getting lucky once you're there wins you championships these days.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The Pats D is horrendous right now. You realize they dressed 5 rookies in their starting 11 last night (and in some of their sub packages it was even more than that no doubt) and have now lost what...their top 3 or 4 choices for signal-caller on defense? And one of their regular corners is Kyle Arrington, who couldn't cover an 85 year old in a wheelchair?

Clearly B&B are a huge positive for this team, and put them in position to win, but to pretend that their defense hasn't been massively degraded, almost to the point where it's laughable, isn't taking the facts into account.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Arrington is a slot corner. He's great at it.

This. Plus as much as I've hated him in past years I actually think he's played as well as I've ever seen him the past few weeks - people like to continue blaming him but it's like when McCourty was at CB and the scapegoat for any secondary breakdown even when it was clear he wasn't getting any of the help he should have been from the safeties. And now that Logan Ryan appears to have officially passed Arrington as an outside CB as well (54 snaps for Ryan vs. the Texans, a season-low 18 for Arrington) we should only see him play in the slot unless 2 of Ryan/Talib/Dennard are injured at the same time (again). Now, when Marquice Cole sees the field....

(And fwiw, they only really lost 2 signal-callers in Mayo and then Gregory, who's now back. The other one after Mayo went down - Hightower - just lost that job because he sucked during his one game doing it. As great as watching Chandler Jones make the 2nd-year leap from competent rookie starter with flashes of greatness to potential Pro Bowler, it's been equally frustrating to see no growth out of Hightower despite all his chances. Was hoping to see him become more of an all-around LB, but he's really just Brandon Spikes 2.0 with the same plusses (size, coming up to fill gaps in run support) and minusses (poor in coverage, fairly weak recognition).)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The Pats D is horrendous right now. You realize they dressed 5 rookies in their starting 11 last night (and in some of their sub packages it was even more than that no doubt) and have now lost what...their top 3 or 4 choices for signal-caller on defense? And one of their regular corners is Kyle Arrington, who couldn't cover an 85 year old in a wheelchair?

Clearly B&B are a huge positive for this team, and put them in position to win, but to pretend that their defense hasn't been massively degraded, almost to the point where it's laughable, isn't taking the facts into account.

You act as though this is the first time this has ever happened to the Patriots. Because they have bombed in the draft so badly, they haven't actually been deep in years. We seem to have this conversation about their DB's on a yearly basis now. (When is Edelman or Troy Brown going to play corner?)

It's a credit to the organization as a whole we keep having these conversations.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Championships are won by the Defense.

I think this use to be the case. But any more? I'm not so sure. The rules are simply weighted too much in the offenses favor.

Everyone thought KC's defense was going to carry them, but they've given up 27, 41 and 35 points in their last three games. You want to go anywhere now, you better have an offense that can score points and hope your defense can just give you a few three-and-outs and a turnover or two.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You act as though this is the first time this has ever happened to the Patriots. Because they have bombed in the draft so badly, they haven't actually been deep in years. We seem to have this conversation about their DB's on a yearly basis now. (When is Edelman or Troy Brown going to play corner?)

It's a credit to the organization as a whole we keep having these conversations.

I agree. They've been dogshit at drafting CB's for years now. It's frigging frustrating.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

This. Plus as much as I've hated him in past years I actually think he's played as well as I've ever seen him the past few weeks - people like to continue blaming him but it's like when McCourty was at CB and the scapegoat for any secondary breakdown even when it was clear he wasn't getting any of the help he should have been from the safeties. And now that Logan Ryan appears to have officially passed Arrington as an outside CB as well (54 snaps for Ryan vs. the Texans, a season-low 18 for Arrington) we should only see him play in the slot unless 2 of Ryan/Talib/Dennard are injured at the same time (again). Now, when Marquice Cole sees the field....

(And fwiw, they only really lost 2 signal-callers in Mayo and then Gregory, who's now back. The other one after Mayo went down - Hightower - just lost that job because he sucked during his one game doing it. As great as watching Chandler Jones make the 2nd-year leap from competent rookie starter with flashes of greatness to potential Pro Bowler, it's been equally frustrating to see no growth out of Hightower despite all his chances. Was hoping to see him become more of an all-around LB, but he's really just Brandon Spikes 2.0 with the same plusses (size, coming up to fill gaps in run support) and minusses (poor in coverage, fairly weak recognition).)

Yeah - Hightower hasn't had that same jump that Mayo had as far as turning into a complete player. One of either Spikes or him is disposable at some point I'd have to imagine.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

How do you reconcile these two statements? Are we fortunate just because we've won a number of close games? The Patriots are 6-3 in close games this year vs. 55-23 in Brady's other years as a starter. Manning's numbers are probably pretty close to that in close games too. Having an all-time great QB helps you win close games.

I'm fine with saying the Patriots injury problems aren't a unique thing (Denver, Cincy, Indy have all also lost star players for the year), or that the 2 calls that produced a ton of angst (NYJ fg call, Carolina non-PI) didn't actually cost us those games, but I don't see how you can look at the season as a whole and say we've been fortunate. Belichick has done a masterful job coaching because he started the year winning close games with a borderline elite defense and a struggling offense missing its projected top 4 playmakers. Then as the defense lost 3 front 7 studs and multiple members of the secondary for a few games, the offense got a couple players back from injury and he's winning close games in shootouts.

When I say fortunate, I say it because they really have been and I'm not sure how any Patriots fan could say otherwise. A huge play in the comeback against the Dolphins was a play where a Dolphins defensive lineman tried to sweep the ball into him only to see it hit backwards. A huge turning point in the game ended up being called a 15 yard penalty and gave the Patriots a first down near the 20. Brady threw an INT against the Saints that ended the game. I mean, ended it. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. The Saints fell apart.

Against Denver, Brady faltered and the game was headed for a Denver win or a tie game. A punted ball hit off a Broncos leg.

Close games, by their very nature are coin flips. Yeah, Brady tilts the coin ever so slightly, but playing in 9 games decided by a TD or less (and that isn't counting the Dolphins game), you have to consider yourself pretty fortunate to be 9-3 overall.

As good as Brady and Bili are, they have had some breaks this year. And again, before anyone goes off on me, while I think the Broncos record is a better reflection of how they have played, another NE/Denver game is a coin flip that would tilt slightly to the Pats if I'm honest. Unless Von Miller plays like he did last year, I think the coaching of the Pats wins the game. But we'll see how all of that plays out down the road.

All of the AFC teams are flawed. I see only three who can win it. (Broncos, Bengals, Pats) Injuries may still play a role in who moves on from the three. Obviously, Brady or Manning hurt would wipe out the Broncos or Patriots in a second.

[Sun Tzu]

Should be a pretty good game tonight, though because this game is in Seattle I fully expect the refs to turn a typical blind-eye to the 'Hawks "mug the wideouts 20 yards down the field" CenturyLink Field game plan. What's the deal with that, anyway? Is there a reason the refs just out and out don't like calling defensive PI against the 'Hawks when they play at home? This year has been a little better (4 total calls at home in 5 games), especially compared to last year (3 total calls in 8 games).

Nevertheless, there's a clear homefield advantage with the boys in stripes when the 'Hawks play at home. 4 PI calls at home this year compared to 7 on the road. 0 Personal foul penalties at home, 2 on the road. 0 taunting calls at home, 2 on the road. 0 Offensive PI calls at home, 2 on the road. 1 Defensive holding call at home, 4 on the road.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just checking in. It appears the Chiefs suck this week.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just checking in. It appears the Chiefs suck this week.

Suck? Nah. The Chiefs are what they are. A slightly above average football team. They consistently get out gained and had a huge streak to get to where they are. They are closer to an 8-8 team than an elite team. Nothing wrong with that, they won 2 freaking games last year.In a one game situation, they can be dangerous for somebody.

For a top team in the power rankings? Ummmm, nope. One thing I think should be painfully obvious now is that the Chiefs vaunted D was the result of the QB's they faced over that 5 week stretch. The 4 best QB's they have faced this year (P Manning x2, Romo, Rivers) have went for 1,416 yards, 10 TD and 2 INT on them in four games. Three of those games were in KC.

They stayed in all of those games (winning one), but they are not elite and it's a stretch to say they are even all that good. I know the KC receivers are dropping passes, but that is part of the game, no? And Tony Gonzales or Otis Taylor are not walking through the door this year, correct?

Still a dangerous team in a one game setting. But their offense isn't good enough to score 30 points and that's what they'll need to beat the Pats and Donkies back to back in the playoffs, assuming they win one on the road to get there.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You act as though this is the first time this has ever happened to the Patriots. Because they have bombed in the draft so badly, they haven't actually been deep in years. We seem to have this conversation about their DB's on a yearly basis now. (When is Edelman or Troy Brown going to play corner?)

It's a credit to the organization as a whole we keep having these conversations.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I agree. They've been dogshit at drafting CB's for years now. It's frigging frustrating.

DB's are fine, they've just been injured. With 53 man rosters no team in the NFL has enough depth to survive injuries to 2+ players at any single position, and the Pats have had that happen at both CB (for long stretches) and DT. It's a credit to the coaching staff's flexibility that they've been able to adjust and patch together a competent defense that fits with the old bend but don't break (too quickly) and occasionally cause a turnover style.

DB's in the last 4 drafts (all picks except Ras-I in the later part of each round)

Devin McCourty (1)
Ras-I Dowling (2)
Malcolm Williams (7)
Tavon Wilson (2)
Nate Ebner (6)
Alfonzo Dennard (7)
Logan Ryan (3)
Duron Harmon (3)

As long as Ryan and Harmon develop some and don't fall off the map like Darius Butler did after his rookie year, if anything they've gotten surplus value out of those picks. The Wilson pick was always a highly questionable reach, but just flip the rounds Ras-I and Dennard were drafted in and it looks great.

Poor overall drafting is another fallacy. They were atrocious in 2006-2008 outside of 3 players (Gostkowski, Mayo, Slater), and 2009 was kind of weird with Vollmer and Edelman being good players and Chung/Butler ok but for other teams. 2010-2012 though they've actually done well (like Denver) - a few elite players in McCourty, Gronk, Solder and Jones, a number of good starters in Spikes, Hernandez (I know, but still huge on-field value for a 4th round pick), the Vereen/Ridley RB combo, Hightower and Dennard, and a few more depth guys from late rounds like Mesko (5) Deaderick (7) Cannon (5) Ebner (6). Yeah, there's a couple misses in the 2nd/3rd rounds in Jermaine Cunningham, Taylor Price, Tavon Wilson and Jake Bequette, and I never loved picking Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round even if it was a "value", but that's still a very good ratio of hitting on picks. Jury's out on the 2013 draft, but the only 2 players who haven't contributed much are a 7th round pick at LB and a 4th round WR (Boyce) who still seems like he could be good, but just got passed by a UDFA (Thompkins).

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah - Hightower hasn't had that same jump that Mayo had as far as turning into a complete player. One of either Spikes or him is disposable at some point I'd have to imagine.

I actually prefer Spikes right now, although acknowledge that Hightower can mayyybe still develop. Unfortunately, Spikes will almost certainly be departing as a UFA this offseason - just too much overlapping skillset to be worth the money he'd cost against the cap (especially if Edelman actually has a large market and we still re-sign him - I am assuming we will re-sign Talib, although that's not a certainty either).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And Tony Gonzales or Otis Taylor are not walking through the door this year, correct?

If not for the immortal Sean McGrath, Gonzalez very well could have!

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Suck? Nah. The Chiefs are what they are. A slightly above average football team. They consistently get out gained and had a huge streak to get to where they are. They are closer to an 8-8 team than an elite team. Nothing wrong with that, they won 2 freaking games last year.In a one game situation, they can be dangerous for somebody.

For a top team in the power rankings? Ummmm, nope. One thing I think should be painfully obvious now is that the Chiefs vaunted D was the result of the QB's they faced over that 5 week stretch. The 4 best QB's they have faced this year (P Manning x2, Romo, Rivers) have went for 1,416 yards, 10 TD and 2 INT on them in four games. Three of those games were in KC.

They stayed in all of those games (winning one), but they are not elite and it's a stretch to say they are even all that good. I know the KC receivers are dropping passes, but that is part of the game, no? And Tony Gonzales or Otis Taylor are not walking through the door this year, correct?

Still a dangerous team in a one game setting. But their offense isn't good enough to score 30 points and that's what they'll need to beat the Pats and Donkies back to back in the playoffs, assuming they win one on the road to get there.

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.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maybe if you're the New York Giants. Other than them, you've got Indianapolis beating Chicago 29-17, the Steelers giving up 23 to the Cardinals while winning, New Orleans scoring 31 to beat Indy, GB beating the Steelers 31-25, and Baltimore beating SF in a 34-31 shootout. Being an above-average team that makes the playoffs, and then getting lucky once you're there wins you championships these days.

Having a great QB gets you in the mix more than any other factor. Flacco playing off the charts is how Baltimore made it last year.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Close games, by their very nature are coin flips. Yeah, Brady tilts the coin ever so slightly, but playing in 9 games decided by a TD or less (and that isn't counting the Dolphins game), you have to consider yourself pretty fortunate to be 9-3 overall.

As good as Brady and Bili are, they have had some breaks this year.

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.

One last point - that Denver punt is another example of where Belichick is pushing for an advantage very little people give him credit for. That was a miscommunication between a guy who isn't the regular Punt returner in Welker and a DB who hadn't played Special Teams all season in Tony Carter (and from what I've heard most NFL teams coach, should have been peeling off to the sideline once he passed the 20 regardless of whether Welker was yelling Peter). Most of the DB's I criticize (Marquice Cole, Tavon Wilson, Nate Ebner) and players who "hurt our depth" because they really can't play their position at an NFL level (Matthew Slater at WR, Tracy White at LB) are "3-unit" or "4-unit" guys meaning they play on 3 or 4 of the special teams units (punting, punt returns, kickoff coverage, kick returns.) Letting Vinatieri go and picking Gostkowski was more about the disparity on leg strength on kickoffs than actually kicking FG's. Using FO's database, the Pats are again a top 5 team in Special Teams for the 4th straight season, and we've been above-average every single year under Belichick, and I'm sure part of that is the roster construction.

Originally Posted by TroyF

For a top team in the power rankings? Ummmm, nope. One thing I think should be painfully obvious now is that the Chiefs vaunted D was the result of the QB's they faced over that 5 week stretch. The 4 best QB's they have faced this year (P Manning x2, Romo, Rivers) have went for 1,416 yards, 10 TD and 2 INT on them in four games. Three of those games were in KC.

I think we're all in agreement that the Chiefs have fallen back to about where they should be - a definite playoff team, but a clear underdog vs. the true AFC contenders (Pats, Broncos, maybe the Bengals). I do disagree a little on the defense - they were playing bad QB's there, but they've also been missing Houston/Hali for much of the stretch vs. good QB's. Look at Denver's Pass D with/without Von Miller (or the Pats run D with/without Wilfork) - you don't just lose elite pass rushers and play at the same level. FootballOutsiders had their D at 11th going into this week, and that seems about right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

or the Broncos defense is paper mache.

This.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Having a great QB gets you in the mix more than any other factor. Flacco playing off the charts is how Baltimore made it last year.

Having a great QB is the easiest way to be an above-average team and make the playoffs, so it helps in that sense, but I don't think it's necessary once you get to the playoffs. I don't think Flacco, Roethlisberger or Eli Manning are great QB's, but they've shown you only have to be great for a stretch of games (and that most people will start calling you great once you win a Super Bowl). You're not winning with a Blaine Gabbert or Brandon Weeden, but you're also not sniffing the playoffs with them either.

This year? I could easily see a Romo, Stafford, Kaepernick, hell even Nick Foles or Flacco/Rivers if they get that 6 seed making a run. The only likely playoff QB's that look demonstrably worse than Flacco are Alex Smith (who I think could win in the right circumstance - say, Seattle in Russell Wilson's place or even SF in Kaep's place), Andy Dalton (and AJ Green might just be good enough to have a couple of those games where he covers for Dalton), and honestly Andrew Luck at this point even if he could be great sooner rather than later.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just checking in. It appears the Chiefs suck this week.

I don't think they suck, they hung pretty well with the Broncos for two weeks. But that defense they were leaning on early in the year isn't as good as many people thought they were.

[Honolulu_Blue]

If the Lions do manage to hang on and win the NFC North, which is still far from a certainty given the Lions inconsistent play and propensity to turn the ball over, I would have to think they wouldn't stand much of a chance against any of the three possible Wild Card teams: Carolina, New Orleans or San Fran.

Still, I guess it will be nice for the Lions to host their first playoff game since 1993.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Chicago media already having a field day with Trestman.

He kicked a 47 yard field goal on 2nd down.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He kicked a 47 yard field goal on 2nd down.

I didn't say they were unjustified.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He kicked a 47 yard field goal on 2nd down.

Did he explain why did chose to kick it on 2nd down and not try to gain some more yards and try it on 3rd or 4th down?

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Did he explain why did chose to kick it on 2nd down and not try to gain some more yards and try it on 3rd or 4th down?

He said the staff had agreed once they got it to the 30 they'd kick the field goal.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Broncos only missing 4 starters??

Geez that must be nice.

I think Green Bay only had 4 starters on the field against Detroit

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Did he explain why did chose to kick it on 2nd down and not try to gain some more yards and try it on 3rd or 4th down?

He added he wanted to rule out any chance of penalties/turnovers at that point, too.

Which is mildly valid (particularly penalties - especially since the refs were calling a very bizarre game). But still a bad decision.

Full quote from Trestman.

“It’s very simple,” the Bears coach said. “Once we got inside the 30-yard line, we were going to kick it. We were well within Robbie’s range. We ran the ball on first down and got three (yards). We’re sitting there on second-and-7 and the ball’s in the middle of the field well within Robbie’s range. And with all the things that had happened throughout the game, including Minnesota’s failure to make a field goal when they went back with penalties (earlier in overtime), we were in a great position to kick it, finish the game. And that’s the decision I made in the best interest of the team. And it didn’t work out.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think Green Bay only had 4 starters on the field against Detroit

Yeah - GB (especially their offensive skill positions) has been hit really really hard this year too.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah - GB (especially their offensive skill positions) has been hit really really hard this year too.

Just for fun, here's the starting team going into the season:

OL: Bulaga - Sitton - Dietrick-Smith - Lang - Sherrod
Skill: WR Nelson - QB Rodgers - RB Harris - WR Cobb - TE Finley
DL: Worthy - Raji - D Jones
LB: Neal - Hawk - B Jones - Matthews
CB: Shields - Williams - Hayward
S: Burnett - McMillian

Here's who played the most against Det (bolded for same)

OL: Bakhtieri (R) - Sitton - Lang - Barclay - Newhouse
Skill: WR Nelson - QB Flynn - RB Lacy (R) - WR Boykin - TE Bostick (R)
DL: Raji- Pickett - Jolly
LB: Perry - Hawk - B Jones - Matthews
CB: Shields - Williams - Hyde (R)
S: Burnett - Jennings

So, 2 starters on offense and 7 on D were the same. Plus, Matthews was playing with a cast on his right hand and Burnett prob shouldn't have played with his hammy. It was also Shields first game back in 3 weeks. This team has just had a dumpster fire's worth of injuries. Going into the season, I would have tabbed Rodgers, Matthews, Cobb, Nelson, Finley, Shields, Hayward and Bulaga as their top 8 guys on the team. 4 are on IR, Rodgers is out, one missed a month and is playing with a cast (Clay) and Shields just missed 3 games. Only Nelson has stayed healthy out of our top 8. The fact that we were 5-2 before Rodgers got hurt shows just how great he is.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maybe if you're the New York Giants. Other than them, you've got Indianapolis beating Chicago 29-17, the Steelers giving up 23 to the Cardinals while winning, New Orleans scoring 31 to beat Indy, GB beating the Steelers 31-25, and Baltimore beating SF in a 34-31 shootout. Being an above-average team that makes the playoffs, and then getting lucky once you're there wins you championships these days.

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.

[larrymcg421]

Last 10 Superbowl Champions

Avg Offensive Rank: 9.1
Avg Defensive Rank: 10.6

And using the Colts-Bears Superbowl as an example of defense being more important than offense is one of the most hilarious things I've read here.

[B & B]

New Orleans makes a statement about tonight.

They win and establish the #1 seed, at least for a week.

[Travis]

Big game for the Seahawks tonight. Offensive line back together but down their top 2 WR and their #2 and 3 corners.

Ah, who am I kidding, it all comes down to Wilson. Here's hoping he can at least match Brees.