| RotoGuru Football Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Playoff Action Posted by: Electroman - [44651412] Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 17:47 Peyton is doing his annual playoff choke job, but KC is doing worse. How did they get in the playoffs? This is a terrible game. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 119 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 311151718 Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 09:22 |
I'm not particluarly interested in this discussion but I have to point out that measuring strength of sched by looking at opponents' final records will not tell you the whole story. For example, the Jets finished 10-6 compared to the Jags 8-8 but in weeks 3 & 4 (when Indy played and beat both), the Jags were a much better team than the Jets. And the Jags were much better than a team projected to go 8-8. Two weeks after losing to the Colts by 1 score, they romped the Jets 44-0. Before their late season collapse, they were 8-5. Including losses to KC and NE in that collapse, they were 5-3 against playoff opponents. The Jaguars, until week 15, anyway, were certainly not creampuffs and were definitely favored over the Jets to make the playoffs all season long. I'd hardly call the week 13 Titans creampuffs, either. Perhaps you noticed that they beat the Colts in the middle of a 6-game winning streak in the second half. They played (and beat) Indy coming off wins against the Eagles and Giants. They were doing something right that made them very tough down the stretch. The week 15 Bengals also went into Indy on the heels of their best streak of the season, coming off a 4 game winning streak that included victories at NO and against Balt. I'm not interested in a thorough disection of Indy's 2006 regular season schedule and how tough it was. My only point is that if you're going to attempt finer arguments about a team by breaking down strength of schedule, you won't get anywhere if you simply rely on the final records of its opponents. With only 16 games and all the parity in this league, some very tough teams will finish with a .500 record. That (or even 7-9) is not a reason to dismiss them outright as a creampuff or wannabe opponent in a particular week. | ||||||
| 120 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:51 |
Congrats Ref, it took a storybook comeback to get that 800 lbs. gorilla off their back. As for the Bears, has there every been a worse quarterback to win a conference championship? Seriously, Rex makes Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer look like Zeus and Odin. Vince Ferragamo is Aku  to Rex's retched cockroach act. | ||||||
| 121 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 311151718 Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 23:12 | What happened to Tree's script? | ||||||
| 122 | Sludge ID: 45541422 Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 23:27 | It's alive and well, MITH. It's the year of the black coach. Tree just had the scripts confused. | ||||||
| 123 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 00:21 |
My favorite and 2nd favorite team are playing each other in the Super Bowl. WOW! The Bears have shown some vulnarability as of late, but not today--that was impressive. The Colts...what can you say. Never gave up and kept chipping away. Probably the two of the best QBs in the game today facing off and coming down to the last two minute. There will still be naysayers against Manning. This week it will be that he's never won the big one. If he wins that, well he only won once until they won't be able to hide the stupidity anymore. I also hate the cracks about Peyton being another ARod if he lost today. Get a life, dude. This is a team sport and it takes a lot more than one person to lead you to victory. Go cover some singles Tennis or something. | ||||||
| 124 | ivan ID: 534552418 Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 07:47 |
The Colts...what can you say. Never gave up and kept chipping away. Probably the two of the best QBs in the game today facing off and coming down to the last two minute. colts looked very impressive yesterday, congrats. the bears - which bear team is gonna show up? i don't have a dog in this fight so all i can hope for is a good game and some funny commercials. | ||||||
| 125 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 14:14 | Edge leaves and the Colts go the Super Bowl. But he got paid mad cash and I think that's really what he's about moreso than the Super Bowl. | ||||||
| 126 | Kyle ID: 52753312 Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 15:40 |
Ref as a Colts fan who was in Arizona (watching the White Sox spring training) when Edge was signed I was upset to see him go. Then the draft came and Addai was picked and I felt good again. I have never been a fan of Rhodes but he's been serviceable as Edge's backup. I honestly thing we couldn't have done this with Edge though. Every year come playoff time Edge has had 360 or some odd carries and was a tired horse. Joe comes in with 100 less and looks like Edge did toward the end of the regular season. There is something to be said about the 2 back system if all 4 championship teams are using it. The grizzled vet and the young gun running side by side carrying the load. | ||||||
| 127 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 11:17 |
RE: 101 Tree, if the NFL had scripted NO to win the Super Bowl, how do you explain that they didn't even make the Super Bowl? I think I'm gonna nickname you Mel Gibson for your conspiracy theories. I don't venture to the Politics Forum, but I bet you post a lot over there! ;) Interestingly enough, Rex Grossman grew up south of Indy and was a lifelong Colts fan. | ||||||
| 128 | Tree ID: 29082512 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:17 |
Tree, if the NFL had scripted NO to win the Super Bowl, how do you explain that they didn't even make the Super Bowl? in 1986, Lex Luger and Bruiser Brody had a steel cage match in Florida. Luger got too big for his britches, Brody stopped cooperating, and threatened to legitimately pummel the young upstart Luger. this is called a shoot. they happen sometimes in wrestling, and they happen sometimes in football. that's what happen in the NO-Chicago game. The Saints were poised to win, then Chicago got a safety on a play that was clearly supposed to be part of the go-ahead drive for New Orleans. the Bears continued their refusal to cooperate and adhere to the script, and as a result, they won, despite the fact the Saints were on the book to take the contest 1-2-3. | ||||||
| 129 | Boxman ID: 47922511 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:31 |
Tree, I am finding myself hard pressed to disagree with you on this one. How can anyone who watched this game and listened to the Aikman/Buck commentary not see a bias towards NO? How many times did we see the Reggie Bush TD reception? Aikman and Buck just glowed over the Saints "#1" offense for the entire game. A little factoid however shows that the Bears as a team scored more points. Since football is actually a team sport, they could have brought it up in a fair way. The broadcasters clearly wanted NO to win. NO was an easy sympathetic favorite. I understand that just because the broadcasters themselves were biased does not imply a league mandate for NO to win. However, the broadcasters prepare for these games some time in advance. Even the s#itty ones like Buck probably. Maybe Aikman and Buck were winked at and told to gloat about NO. After all, they'd look like even bigger asses if they touted Chicago and NO wound up winning. I add a log to Tree's fire. It's my understanding that Prince is doing the halftime show correct? What's been a relatively popular Prince song lately? This one. "S.S.T." is a song by Prince which was recorded and released directly after the impact of Hurricane Katrina. It was officially released as a digital download by the NPG Music Club on September 3, 2005 and reached #1 on the iTunes R&B chart. It was later made available as a CD single through commercial outlets. All proceeds from the recording went to hurricane relief. The song's title alludes to Sade's "Sweetest Taboo", which is namechecked more than once in the lyrics. "S.S.T." also refers to Sea Surface Temperature, which is used to monitor the threat of hurricanes. The B-side of the single is the instrumental "Brand New Orleans". I would be interested in knowing when Prince was booked as the half time performer versus when NO clinched a playoff spot or was headed that way. | ||||||
| 130 | Perm Dude ID: 39012259 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:37 | Guys, you can't argue with a wrestling fan that all sports isn't scripted. They already believe wrestling is "sport" and just can't help themselves... | ||||||
| 131 | boikin ID: 59831214 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:49 | Am i reading this correctly are we comparing the NFL to the WWE, i could buy the argument maybe if it was the series is scripted to got to go game 6 or 7 but this is ludicris. And using the announcers as your bases is non-sense in what games are the anouncers not biased. | ||||||
| 132 | leggestand Leader ID: 451036518 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:58 |
"The playoffs are scripted," and because someone (the Bears) doesn't adhere to the script, this is justification??? What the heck kind of backwards logic is this??? The Bears winning means it wasn't scripted, especially with them winning so convincingly at 39-14. The Bears didn't adhere to the script and it would of been different with no intentional grounding call??? Couldn't the ref not called the intentional grounding, assuming the "NFL is in on it?" I have seen worse non-calls, so, if that drive is truly "meant to be," the ref simply wouldn't of called it. this is called a shoot. they happen sometimes in wrestling, and they happen sometimes in football. What the heck??? You proved it happens in wrestling, and that makes it "happen sometimes in football"??? Show me a "shoot" happening in football. Comparing a sport that is scripted to one that isn't, doesn't make it comparable. This is insanity! As for your points Box, the Bush TD was as good a TD you will see; and I expect to watch the replay more than a 5 yd plunge by Thomas Jones. It was an 87 yd wheel route for a TD against a top defense. How many times did they show the Berrian TD...I remember seeing it quite a few times, as it was an impressive TD as well. And for the announcers, they can't affect the game, so, how is this a conspiracy theory? Everyone that wasn't a Bears fan was rooting for the Saints anyhow, so, I am not surprised the amount of coverage they got. Again, how anyone can say it was scripted, even though it didn't work out, is beyond me. That is the opposite definition of scripted. | ||||||
| 133 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 13:58 |
This is so laughable. The Bears' "refusal to cooperate" shows you right there it isn't scripted. Baloney. And I guarantee you the NFL makes a lot more money with the Chicago market than the depleted NO Market--no matter how much of a feel-ggod story it may be. It all comes down to the all-mighty dollar. The WWE doesn't even have a Sports License, it has a Theater License. | ||||||
| 134 | Boxman ID: 47922511 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 14:35 |
leg: You ignored my point about Prince. Everyone that wasn't a Bears fan was rooting for the Saints anyhow So that gives the broadcasters license to go out and be biased? | ||||||
| 135 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 14:52 |
LOL! The Saints were poised to win, then Chicago got a safety on a play that was clearly supposed to be part of the go-ahead drive for New Orleans. Good thing that happened right as the 4th quarter ended, or else NOR would have had a chance! Oh, wait... LOL! Boxman, put down the Kool-aid. Please. The broadcasters clearly wanted NO to win. NO was an easy sympathetic favorite. And that right there is the reason for 99% of what you pointed out. Is this the first time you've ever seen an easy sympathetic favorite get all the attention? If so, watch the Olympics some time. :) I would be interested in knowing when Prince was booked as the half time performer versus when NO clinched a playoff spot or was headed that way. Saints Clinch: December 17, 2006 Prince Rumored: July 28, 2006 Prince Officially Announced: December 10, 2006 You can bet negotiations were taking place a LONG time before that December 10th announcement, so any relation to the New Orleans clinch a week later is purely coincidental. And a non-factor now that the Saints lost. | ||||||
| 136 | Perm Dude ID: 39012259 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 14:56 | So they are now free to help Prince out in his halftime show, which was the way it was scripted all along! | ||||||
| 137 | Seward Norse ID: 317472810 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 15:12 | Just wait until Manning wins the game and rips off his jersey to reveal the NO jersey underneath. | ||||||
| 138 | leggestand Leader ID: 451036518 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 15:24 |
leg: You ignored my point about Prince. I ignored it because I didn't want to dig up the info and I didn't think my belief would be as helpful as facts...KKB did show facts, though, and I will just say: "See post 135." But, on a more general basis, I bet a ton of singers did something for New Orleans after Katrina, and that we could draw some kind of connection for nearly anyone who was going to perform at halftime. So that gives the broadcasters license to go out and be biased? Broadcasters have license to talk about whatever they want, unless it's racist, sexist, or some other kind of -ist. Look at what Madden talks about half the time, or even Dennis Miller when he was on: it doesn't even pertain to football sometimes. Whether you choose to believe it or not, announcers have bias when they announce a game, this isn't breaking news for the Saints. Sometimes it's for a team, and sometimes announcers won't get off being sooo enamored with a specific player. Heck, I think you were one of many who said that Musberger was all about USC when they played Notre Dame this year and that he was showing serious bias to that team; that right there should tell you what Simms and Buck did was not out of the ordinary. | ||||||
| 139 | boikin ID: 59831214 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 16:40 | RE: 137, don't you mean wait till the whole saints team is sitting in stands and right before kick off rush out onto the field taking their rightful place in the game. | ||||||
| 140 | Perm Dude ID: 39012259 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 16:43 |
Yes, at the halftime show, just like I said... :) | ||||||
| 141 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 18:02 |
Just wait until Manning wins the game and rips off his jersey to reveal the NO jersey underneath. ROFLMAO | ||||||
| 142 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Thu, Jan 25, 2007, 18:29 |
Tree What's absurd is not the possibility or even liklihood that the NFL playoffs and regular season were fixed but the certainty with which you insist on this claim. You say you've known this "all along". How long is that? Since the flood? | ||||||
| 143 | ¤ Mario LeMoose ¤ ID: 280122619 Fri, Jan 26, 2007, 20:28 |
So much for the "elite officiating crews" in the NFL playoffs ... Posted at jaguars.com (and linked there from other sites): Join jaguars.com senior editor Vic Ketchman as he tackles the fans' tough questions. Jacob from Weymouth, MA: "He was face-guarding. You’re not permitted to do that. It’s been that way forever. You can’t shadow a receiver for the purpose of blocking his vision of the ball. That’s what Hobbs was doing. It was an easy call." Vic, you should check your NFL rules book. Face-guarding was made legal in the NFL six or seven years ago. Learn the rules before you make blatantly wrong claims. Vic: I bow to your superior intellect. I checked out what you are saying and you are absolutely correct. Face-guarding was discontinued several years ago and I completely missed it. I talked to Dean Blandino in the league office and he confirmed what you’re saying. Blandino, by the way, was in the replay booth at the Patriots-Colts game. Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn’t make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne’s ability to catch the pass. Blandino confirmed that the incorrect call was made. It advanced the ball from the Patriots’ 19-yard line to the one-yard line and was the big play in a touchdown drive that led to a two-point conversion and a tie game at 21-21. Referee Bill Carollo made no reference to face-guarding in his explanation, but CBS analyst Phil Simms did. Apparently, he, too, doesn’t know the rule no longer exists. The next time you hear a TV analyst say, "he wasn’t playing the ball," think of the Hobbs play, then turn down the sound. | ||||||
| 144 | Trip Leader ID: 13961611 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 00:00 |
I realize your attack wasn't on the outcome of the game, but did think that this was an interesting counterpoint to any accusations that the Patriots got hosed in the game: From ESPN.com's TMQ Resisting the urge to panic helped the Colts' comeback. Taking the second half kickoff and trailing 21-6, Indianapolis coaches called eight rushing plays on the 76-yard touchdown drive that turned the game into a tense, close contest. Then on the next possession came the play that Colts players, coaches and front office people, especially Bill Polian, have been waiting for since the 2004 AFC Championship. In that game, New England was never called for defensive pass interference, despite numerous obvious muggings of Colts' receivers. Bill Belichick, knowing officials tend to call defensive pass interference and offensive holding (the two most damaging penalties) less as the postseason progresses, had instructed his defensive backs to interfere with Colts receivers mercilessly until such time as a flag was thrown -- and a flag was never thrown. Polian complained bitterly after that game, and should have; the league changed its officiating procedures, instructing zebras to end the traditional practice of switching to "let the boys play" in the postseason. Then in 2005, New England beat Indianapolis again in the playoffs, and again was never flagged for defensive pass interference. Now it's the third quarter of the 2007 AFC Championship, and once again New England has not been flagged for defensive interference. Eleven consecutive postseason quarters between the Pats and Colts and we're supposed to believe New England has never once interfered with an Indianapolis receiver? Finally the yellow flies -- Ellis Hobbs called for pass interception in the end zone. Polian must have yelled, "Finally, FINALLY!" Ball spotted on the 1, and on the next play, Peyton Manning threw a touchdown pass to defensive tackle Dan Klecko, lined up as a blocking back. Putting a big defender in as a blocking back at the goal line, then throwing to him, is one of Bill Belichick's favorite tricks. How the football gods must have chortled to see Belichick's own trick used against him. | ||||||
| 145 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 00:10 |
Well, the Patriots might not have gotten hosed for the game, but if that play went down the way it was described above (I don't remember it at all), they clearly got screwed on the play. And I don't think it's relevant to the accuracy of the call in the least to point out that the Patriots' secondary hadn't been called for DPI in 11 quarters of playoff action against Indy prior to that. Not really a 'counterpoint' to me at all. An observation, sure. But completely irrelevant. Bad calls happen every game. Occasionally they affect the outcome of the game. The law of averages caught up with New England. Even if the Colts didn't get a TD there, and had settled for a FG, the game likely would have gone into OT. It's not as if the Patriots were robbed. They certainly had a chance to put the thing away when it was 21-3. | ||||||
| 146 | TB Sherpa ID: 031811922 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 00:14 |
"The law of averages caught up with New England." I still think the *tuck-rule champions are due another 40-50 holding calls from their offensive linemen to get their law of averages correct. | ||||||
| 147 | Trip Leader ID: 13961611 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 00:17 | I was definitely rooting for Peyton and only felt disappointed that they chose that point to call a DPI, I didn't want NE to have any excuses for losing that game, especially at a point when I thought that IND was already on their way to turn things around. NE had plenty of other opportunities to stop them. I really do see it as a moot point, but wanted to offer that up to argue moot points :) | ||||||
| 148 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 14:05 |
TB, that "law of averages" comment was strategically placed to draw you into the conversation. I often awe at my own brilliance. | ||||||
| 149 | TB Sherpa ID: 031811922 Sun, Jan 28, 2007, 04:33 | I only commented because I knew you wanted to let me know that you knew I would comment. I too know the pressure of being brilliant. | ||||||
| 150 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 15:40 | Funny how the Colts went from little chance to win any of their playoff games to suddenly the favorite to win it all. | ||||||
| 151 | Perm Dude ID: 2914028 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 15:45 | That happens when you stop playing AFC teams, Ref. | ||||||
| 152 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 16:07 | I don't even know why they are playing the game. It is so clear that the Colts are going to win. Why waste everyones time. CBS should pull out and have a "Everybody Loves Raymond" marathon. | ||||||
| 153 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 17:36 | The only Super Bowl that I remember that I was 100% sure that a team was going to win was the '85 Bears. The Bears have a lot of ways hey can win this game. I think (and hope) the Colts will win though. | ||||||
| 154 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 17:56 | Just heard on PTI that it is supposed to rain. That should make it interesting. | ||||||
| 155 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 17:59 | That definitely helps the Bears if that occurs. Colts are based on speed. | ||||||
| 156 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 18:10 |
The Super Bowl I remember being a 100% sure of was the Broncos vs Falcons. Situations like this, the chance of rain, make me wonder why teams build domes. Your team is built generally on where you play. Inside, there are no elements, so if they face them, they clearly have a disadvantage. It might help you to get to the SB, but then you just have to hope that the weather is good, or that it is played in a dome. This is a personal opinion, if I were an owner, I would make sure my team played outside. | ||||||
| 157 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 18:25 |
It might help you to get to the SB... You said it. And for that reason, I'd have a dome team. (ie...you gotta get there, to win it.) | ||||||
| 158 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 18:27 | one other comment along that line.....being an outdoor team, didnt help Buff to win it a few years back. (lost 4 straight it seems to me.) | ||||||
| 159 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 20:09 | This is only the 4th appearance by a Dome team, if I scanned correctly, and they are 1-2. The Rams did it twice and the Falcons. So it doesn't really give an advantage in making the SB. | ||||||
| 160 | Perm Dude ID: 2914028 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 20:13 |
There weren't any domed teams early on, of course, and many of those that came along were expansion teams. Plenty of sucky non-dome teams (Cleveland?) out there that aren't playing... | ||||||
| 161 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 20:23 | The point got side-tracked. If it does rain on Sunday, the Colts are at a disadvantage because of playing in a dome, and the subsequent style of play. That is why if I had a team, I would have them outside. | ||||||
| 162 | Perm Dude ID: 2914028 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 20:29 | Ah, that makes sense. | ||||||
| 163 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Fri, Feb 02, 2007, 21:11 |
The only Super Bowl that I remember that I was 100% sure that a team was going to win was the 2001 game (Ravens v. Giants). Baltimore dismantled every team in their path to get to the game, and I knew the Giants had no prayer. I actually bet money on that game. I never do that. | ||||||
| 164 | Perm Dude ID: 2914028 Sat, Feb 03, 2007, 01:37 | Breaking news from The Onion... | ||||||
| 165 | Boxman ID: 211139621 Sat, Feb 03, 2007, 09:38 |
The only Super Bowl that I remember that I was 100% sure that a team was going to win was the 2001 game (Ravens v. Giants). I'd have to say the Bears in '85, the 49ers the year they played the Chargers, and the 2001 Ravens. | ||||||
| 166 | Electroman ID: 44651412 Sat, Feb 03, 2007, 10:16 |
"prissy indoor-team members" That's no way to talk about Peyton:) | ||||||
| 167 | TB Sherpa ID: 031811922 Sat, Feb 03, 2007, 16:34 |
The only Super Bowl that I remember that I was 100% sure that a team was going to win was the 2001 game (Ravens v. Giants). I knew Oakland was going to beat Tampa Bay in 2003. Somehow, I am still trapped in this alternate future. | ||||||
| 168 | Ref Donor ID: 539581218 Sun, Feb 04, 2007, 00:37 |
Including playoffs contests, the two Super Bowl XLI franchises had five common opponents (Patriots, Jets, Giants, Bills and Dolphins) in 2006. The Indianapolis Colts, who played New England both during the regular season and in the AFC Championship Game, posted a 6-0 record against common opponents. The Chicago Bears fashioned a 3-2 mark. | ||||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||