2011 NFL Playoff Race

[TheMatrix31]

Quote: Originally Posted by Quique987987

Nothing you said proved anything, except for the Ravens played a better game. So the Ravens' defense stopped Houston's offense and Houston had players injured. I guess missing players on the Ravens didn't matter. How does Ray Rice having a good 4th quarter (the best time to play good) relate at all to Tate and Foster? They left points on the field at the end of the game when they were just running the clock out. You're just making excuses, the Ravens have ended up the crap-side of penalties so many times now that it's not even funny. Also, please remind me when the Raiders became an elite team. I'd rather lose on the road to 2 bad teams (one because David Reed must have been going through withdrawl or something) than a home loss to Oakland.

I clearly explained how Foster and Tate facing a stacked box (because Andre was out) led to Rice exploding in the fourth. In case you didn't understand the first time, the reason it matters is that the Texans' success is predicated on spacing and ball control. If the best wide receiver in football is out and the two RBs face stacked boxes and they can't have longer drives, the defense has to get back out on the field. If the defense is continually tired, then the offense will wear the defense down. That's why Rice did damage in the fourth, and not the first, second, or third.

And your thoughts about the Raiders are so far off the mark that I'm not even sure if it's worth responding to. But I will because I like to explain how wrong people are when they are wrong. If you think the Raiders are still an awful team and that losing to two really bad teams is better than losing BY ONE to the Raiders, then, well, I 'm not quite sure what to say. This isn't 2006. The Raiders had up to that point Darren McFadden who we completely shut down. McFadden, as you may or may not know (probably not if you think the Raiders are a bad team) was a top two or three RB performer up that point in the year. They also have a big DL that crowds the line and forces passes to be tipped, deflected, or harder to complete otherwise. The Texans D, much like against the Ravens, forced Oakland to kick multiple long range FGs. Three out of four attempts over 50 actually. Add to that a critical error by Lawrence Vickers dropping a gimme TD and Matt Schaub not running in a TD to win on the last play of the game, and you have a situation where the Texans losing to the Raiders isn't nearly as bad as you think or are making it seem. Oh by the way, it's week 14, and the Raiders are tied for first in their division.

The Ravens, one the other hand, lost to the Seahawks. Jaguars, and Titans, and barely beat the Cardinals. The Titans are a good team but not as good as Oakland. The Texans lost to the Saints by 7 on the road (without Arian Foster) and again that was a fourth quarter story, the Raiders, and the Ravens.

[Quique987987]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheMatrix31

I clearly explained how Foster and Tate facing a stacked box (because Andre was out) led to Rice exploding in the fourth. In case you didn't understand the first time, the reason it matters is that the Texans' success is predicated on spacing and ball control. If the best wide receiver in football is out and the two RBs face stacked boxes and they can't have longer drives, the defense has to get back out on the field. If the defense is continually tired, then the offense will wear the defense down. That's why Rice did damage in the fourth, and not the first, second, or third. And your thoughts about the Raiders are so far off the mark that I'm not even sure if it's worth responding to. But I will because I like to explain how wrong people are when they are wrong. If you think the Raiders are still an awful team and that losing to two really bad teams is better than losing BY ONE to the Raiders, then, well, I 'm not quite sure what to say. This isn't 2006. The Raiders had up to that point Darren McFadden who we completely shut down. McFadden, as you may or may not know (probably not if you think the Raiders are a bad team) was a top two or three RB performer up that point in the year. They also have a big DL that crowds the line and forces passes to be tipped, deflected, or harder to complete otherwise. The Texans D, much like against the Ravens, forced Oakland to kick multiple long range FGs. Three out of four attempts over 50 actually. Add to that a critical error by Lawrence Vickers dropping a gimme TD and Matt Schaub not running in a TD to win on the last play of the game, and you have a situation where the Texans losing to the Raiders isn't nearly as bad as you think or are making it seem. Oh by the way, it's week 14, and the Raiders are tied for first in their division. The Ravens, one the other hand, lost to the Seahawks. Jaguars, and Titans, and barely beat the Cardinals. The Titans are a good team but not as good as Oakland. The Texans lost to the Saints by 7 on the road (without Arian Foster) and again that was a fourth quarter story, the Raiders, and the Ravens.

The Titans were a much different team with Kenny Britt, and the Ravens clearly couldn't stop him. David Reed totally blew the game, his fumbles turned into 6 points and they lost by 5. That Jacksonville game was just pathetic and they absolutely deserved to lose. I must be stupid because I'm still not seeing how Ray Rice's performance is related at all to Foster and Tate's. From what I understand, you're saying that the Ravens outplayed Houston and thus, beat them. If that's your argument, I'm pretty sure that's how football works. The Raiders had a good couple of weeks, but that doesn't make a good team. They beat a bad Denver team, lost to a Buffalo team that has all but fallen off the face of the Earth, beat a much overrated Jets team when they were horrible, lost to England, beat Houston in a game that they were of course going to win, beat Cleveland, got DESTROYED by Kansas City, lost to a much improved Denver team, beat a free-falling San Diego team, beat Minnesota, beat a Chicago team that is going to struggle to make the playoffs, and then got beaten handidly by Miami. Out of their 7 wins, only 2 are quality. I know they're better than before but they're not good just yet. Maybe they would be if Campbell and McFadden were healthy, but they're not. Regardless, Baltimore beat Houston handidly.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by Quique987987

The Raiders had a good couple of weeks, but that doesn't make a good team. They beat a bad Denver team, lost to a Buffalo team that has all but fallen off the face of the Earth, beat a much overrated Jets team when they were horrible, lost to England, beat Houston in a game that they were of course going to win, beat Cleveland, got DESTROYED by Kansas City, lost to a much improved Denver team, beat a free-falling San Diego team, beat Minnesota, beat a Chicago team that is going to struggle to make the playoffs, and then got beaten handidly by Miami. Out of their 7 wins, only 2 are quality. I know they're better than before but they're not good just yet. Maybe they would be if Campbell and McFadden were healthy, but they're not. Regardless, Baltimore beat Houston handidly.

Not to throw things off course but, of course just ignore the fact that the Raiders have been missing their best player for the past 6 weeks or so, and have battled injuries to their top receivers (Moore and Ford) all season long. And of course losing your starting QB and bringing a guy in off the couch doesn't help matters either, which explains the KC loss FWIW. All that being said, 7-5 and tied for the division lead ISN'T a bad team. Certainly much better than Seattle, Arizona, and Jacksonville, and right there at the very least with Tennessee.

On topic, I'm not sure who's better between Houston and Baltimore. Right now I'd say Balt b/c of Houston being down to their 3rd string QB, which has to count for something once the playoffs start. But using a loss to Oakland of all teams when Balt has lost to the teams mentioned, seems misguided IMO. Balt's peak seems higher, but their valley also seems lower than Houston FWIW.

[TheMatrix31]

Quote: Originally Posted by Quique987987

The Titans were a much different team with Kenny Britt, and the Ravens clearly couldn't stop him. David Reed totally blew the game, his fumbles turned into 6 points and they lost by 5. That Jacksonville game was just pathetic and they absolutely deserved to lose. I must be stupid because I'm still not seeing how Ray Rice's performance is related at all to Foster and Tate's. From what I understand, you're saying that the Ravens outplayed Houston and thus, beat them. If that's your argument, I'm pretty sure that's how football works. The Raiders had a good couple of weeks, but that doesn't make a good team. They beat a bad Denver team, lost to a Buffalo team that has all but fallen off the face of the Earth, beat a much overrated Jets team when they were horrible, lost to England, beat Houston in a game that they were of course going to win, beat Cleveland, got DESTROYED by Kansas City, lost to a much improved Denver team, beat a free-falling San Diego team, beat Minnesota, beat a Chicago team that is going to struggle to make the playoffs, and then got beaten handidly by Miami. Out of their 7 wins, only 2 are quality. I know they're better than before but they're not good just yet. Maybe they would be if Campbell and McFadden were healthy, but they're not. Regardless, Baltimore beat Houston handidly.

OK cool bro.

[ProfessaPackMan]

OP has been updated as Houston clinched the AFC South, New Orleans clinched at least a playoff spot and Green Bay has clinched a first round bye.

[Quique987987]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheMatrix31

OK cool bro.

Houston didn't look too hot today. I know it was against the Colts, but the Ravens rolled. That good Bills got crushed. I'm not even sure if that was the Raiders on the field today. Cardinals, who the Ravens barely beat, beat a 10-2 team. Tennessee had a chance to beat New Orleans at the end. Jacksonville rolled over Tampa Bay, who actually beat the Saints. Pretty much everything I said was right, good thing you proved me wrong. Houston's a good team, but the Ravens are better.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by Quique987987

Houston didn't look too hot today. I know it was against the Colts, but the Ravens rolled. That good Bills got crushed. I'm not even sure if that was the Raiders on the field today. Cardinals, who the Ravens barely beat, beat a 10-2 team. Tennessee had a chance to beat New Orleans at the end. Jacksonville rolled over Tampa Bay, who actually beat the Saints. Pretty much everything I said was right, good thing you proved me wrong. Houston's a good team, but the Ravens are better.

Gotta love gloating about winning by 14 pts over a 0-12 team.

[ProfessaPackMan]

The hell is this?

Did the BCS make it's way into the NFL or something?