NFL

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Were Baltimore robbed or was that pass interference call correct?

[Macca 16,922]

Were Baltimore robbed or was that pass interference call correct?

Tom Jackson & Trent Dilfer both reckon it was the correct call but I'm not sure they're able to get all those calls right anyway - it's such a grey area ... there were 13 penalties called in the whole game so maybe they were being consistent. Didn't see much in it to be perfectly honest.

Dallas are 9.5 favourites tomorrow but I reckon that line is a little high considering it's (A) a divisional game and (B) this has 'trap' game written all over it for Dallas. Washington have been less than impressive though and it's hard to see them winning, all the same.

[DeeSpencer 25,463]

All teams get injuries ... it's not the only reason you're 3 & 5. Your QB just can't get it done on a consistent basis - and, you're stuck with him by the looks of it.

You may as well tank the rest of the season now

The Saints have been far too good today ... the Packers haven't really looked like it. Rodgers has looked a little incapacitated but we've been outplayed in nearly all areas. No excuses.

If New Orleans get their act together, they'll win the NFC South in a canter - trouble is, they're not much chop on the road.

Watched your game this morning and whilst Foles numbers looked quite good, he couldn't get it done in crunch time.

We've been through this before. I'm not saying the injuries are an excuse. Our defense just has zero depth and hence our defense covered us early in the year and now can't. I can take Cutler being inconsistent, I'm staggered at how consistently unproductive he's been this year though. It doesn't make much sense. I think Trestman has been caught out as a play caller and between the two of them they aren't making adjustments. Cutler is like a lifetime of Daniher era teams. Good enough to get somewhere but nowhere at the same time. His contract is structured so we have him for this year and 2 more and then can cut him (or keep him for 4 more years of misery). I'd be inclined to cut or trade him after the 2 years and take a chance in the draft. In fact if we have the pick and the QB is there I'd do a GB and grab the QB to ride the pine. However it would be a dramatic riding of the pine!

I still Carolina are more physical than NO, just a matter of whether Newton finds his straps soon. Thursday night is a huge game for that division.

You guys had the better of the saints in the first half. I feel the saints were lucky with some calls to be level at half time. Then the Rodgers hammy seemed to take the wind out of the game and I have big fears on your run defense. It's the missing link that gives another team too much momentum on offense. It's completely un-GB to make a big trade for a DT or DE (or dominate inside LB) but if you had the cap space I'd do it. The NFC is wide open.

Philly v Cardinals was a great finish. Thought Foles did pretty well on his 3 throws in the end zone. Didn't waste the clock. Gave 3 different receivers a chance to make a play. Fantastic plays made by the 2 rookie safeties to bat down balls and push the receiver out of bounds. Oh how I wish the Bears hired Bruce Arians. He was runner up for our job and would have Cutler dropping long bombs to receivers and would've hired a better defensive coordinator.

[DeeSpencer 25,463]

Tom Jackson & Trent Dilfer both reckon it was the correct call but I'm not sure they're able to get all those calls right anyway - it's such a grey area ... there were 13 penalties called in the whole game so maybe they were being consistent. Didn't see much in it to be perfectly honest.

Dallas are 9.5 favourites tomorrow but I reckon that line is a little high considering it's (A) a divisional game and (B) this has 'trap' game written all over it for Dallas. Washington have been less than impressive though and it's hard to see them winning, all the same.

They won last week and had reasonable performances against Arizona (10), Seattle (10) and Philly (3) points before that. So I agree. It's the blowout by the Giants that made them look silly. If Dallas win by 10 or more I think it might say more about them. At the same time it's 3rd string QB time for Wash which spells disaster!

I'm not sure about the call either but I can see why they called it. It looks like he grabs the DB and pushes him down so he can get the catch. But then in slow mo on replay it looks like a dive by the DB. Guess it's one that if Smith keeps his hands to himself it's a catch. They would certainly call in defensive PI if it were reversed so I understand why they want to be more consistent this year.

It comes down to whether you favour black and white rules and calling every breach or if you like a bit of incidental contact and want the game to be contested. I'd say just like the AFL it's a better game if not every single minor breach of the rules is called. Unfortunately you can't win either way as we saw this year with the AFL where they didn't pay anything and everyone was happy until the media revolted.

[Macca 16,922]

We've been through this before. I'm not saying the injuries are an excuse. Our defense just has zero depth and hence our defense covered us early in the year and now can't. I can take Cutler being inconsistent, I'm staggered at how consistently unproductive he's been this year though. It doesn't make much sense. I think Trestman has been caught out as a play caller and between the two of them they aren't making adjustments. Cutler is like a lifetime of Daniher era teams. Good enough to get somewhere but nowhere at the same time. His contract is structured so we have him for this year and 2 more and then can cut him (or keep him for 4 more years of misery). I'd be inclined to cut or trade him after the 2 years and take a chance in the draft. In fact if we have the pick and the QB is there I'd do a GB and grab the QB to ride the pine. However it would be a dramatic riding of the pine!

I still Carolina are more physical than NO, just a matter of whether Newton finds his straps soon. Thursday night is a huge game for that division.

You guys had the better of the saints in the first half. I feel the saints were lucky with some calls to be level at half time. Then the Rodgers hammy seemed to take the wind out of the game and I have big fears on your run defense. It's the missing link that gives another team too much momentum on offense. It's completely un-GB to make a big trade for a DT or DE (or dominate inside LB) but if you had the cap space I'd do it. The NFC is wide open.

Philly v Cardinals was a great finish. Thought Foles did pretty well on his 3 throws in the end zone. Didn't waste the clock. Gave 3 different receivers a chance to make a play. Fantastic plays made by the 2 rookie safeties to bat down balls and push the receiver out of bounds. Oh how I wish the Bears hired Bruce Arians. He was runner up for our job and would have Cutler dropping long bombs to receivers and would've hired a better defensive coordinator.

We have been through this before but I'm baffled why you even mention injuries when you must know that many other teams have the same issues or worse ... it kinda goes without saying.

About the only time I've made mention of an injury on this thread is when Rodgers went down - mainly because without him, we're a 6/10 team at best. Other injuries to many other starters can be covered.

If anyone has a right to moan it's probably me about the Packers injuries but ... I don't like making excuses as a general rule.

Here's an interesting article ...

Packers Injury Luck Among Worst in NFL In Recent Years ... scroll down to the NFC North section for some eye-opening details

I disagree with you about the first half in the GB/NO game ... we had 3 rock solid chances for TD's in the first half and could only turn them into field goals ... our way of winning against good teams or on the road is to turn our redzone chances into TD's.

The Saints had our measure from the early going and were far too good ... our run defense is woeful and again, I offer no excuses. New Orleans strength is their passing game game so they smashed us in both forms of offense. 44 points is just too many points to allow if we're going to contend.

Re Foles ... go back (if you can) and have a look at those last 3 throws again ... not one of them could have been caught inbounds with both feet in. He was trying to thread the eye of the needle and was offline on each occasion. He should have been under instruction to at least make sure a TD could have occurred.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Macca

[DeeSpencer 25,463]

We have been through this before but I'm baffled why you even mention injuries when you must know that many other teams have the same issues or worse ... it kinda goes without saying.

About the only time I've made mention of an injury on this thread is when Rodgers went down - mainly because without him, we're a 6/10 team at best. Other injuries to many other starters can be covered.

If anyone has a right to moan it's probably me about the Packers injuries but ... I don't like making excuses as a general rule.

Here's an interesting articles ...

Packers Injury Luck Among Worst in NFL In Recent Years ... scroll down to the NFC North section for some eye-opening details

I disagree with you about the first half in the GB/NO game ... we had 3 rock solid chances for TD's in the first half and could only turn them into field goals ... our way of winning against good teams or on the road is to turn our redzone chances into TD's.

The Saints had our measure from the early going and were far too good ... our run defense is woeful and again, I offer no excuses. New Orleans strength is their passing game game so they smashed us in both forms of offense. 44 points is just too many points to allow if we're going to contend.

Re Foles ... go back (if you can) and have a look at those last 3 throws again ... not one of them could have been caught inbounds with both feet in. He was trying to thread the eye of the needle and was offline on each occasion. He should have been under instruction to at least make sure a TD could have occurred.

I'll say one last thing about the injuries and if you don't understand it I'll agree to disagree. It's not an excuse for us losing. It's just a reason for why I think we threw a game in round 1 and then won the next 2 and have been horrible since and the reason is lack of depth. The injuries are the mechanism that exposes that. It's the lack of depth that is my comment on the Bears. And it comes from years of poor drafting, development and over reliance on free agency. There's no woe is me about the injuries. I do think discussion of injuries is fair regarding the NFL because if you lose a bunch of players from similar positions you can be exploited in ways or in particular games. I agree they are in no way an excuse for how your team finishes a season though with the exception of QB. In every other position it's about having depth on the roster.

I think we are coming at the GB/NO game the same way you are just seeing it from a fans point of view as you blow chances. Personally I thought you went for an ambitious onside kick and still easily kept holding serve by putting up points and NO could only struggle to match you. Maybe that's the case that if you waste chances on the road they come back to bite you, I get that. But I felt to half time GB had their noses in front in terms of how easily Rodgers was working. You had a drop catch and a big penalty wipe away your chances of TD's. Where are the saints after the first drive seemed to be scrambling to get their FG's. Anyway all a bit irrelevant. But that flukey interception certainly changed the game.

On Foles - I remember the 3rd last play. The 5 foot something honey badger jumps up and swats away a pass over the head of a 6'3 rookie WR.

The new two are in the NFL highlights package. Second play was definitely catchable. He gave the defense a fair chance but it was a fast and safe throw to get a third play if needed. On the final play WR jumps through the air and takes what we'd call a chest mark and is then pushed out whilst airborne. The pass is landing in bounds. If he trails his feet and leans through the air he can catch that. I think CC said it's hard but possible to catch after the game. And that pass was after back pedaling when the Cards sent a 7 man blitz at him. Foles makes inconsistent mistakes with accuracy and occasionally bad decisions and missing receivers. I just thought he did a decent job on that last drive.

[Macca 16,922]

I'll say one last thing about the injuries and if you don't understand it I'll agree to disagree. It's not an excuse for us losing. It's just a reason for why I think we threw a game in round 1 and then won the next 2 and have been horrible since and the reason is lack of depth. The injuries are the mechanism that exposes that. It's the lack of depth that is my comment on the Bears. And it comes from years of poor drafting, development and over reliance on free agency. There's no woe is me about the injuries. I do think discussion of injuries is fair regarding the NFL because if you lose a bunch of players from similar positions you can be exploited in ways or in particular games. I agree they are in no way an excuse for how your team finishes a season though with the exception of QB. In every other position it's about having depth on the roster.

I think we are coming at the GB/NO game the same way you are just seeing it from a fans point of view as you blow chances. Personally I thought you went for an ambitious onside kick and still easily kept holding serve by putting up points and NO could only struggle to match you. Maybe that's the case that if you waste chances on the road they come back to bite you, I get that. But I felt to half time GB had their noses in front in terms of how easily Rodgers was working. You had a drop catch and a big penalty wipe away your chances of TD's. Where are the saints after the first drive seemed to be scrambling to get their FG's. Anyway all a bit irrelevant. But that flukey interception certainly changed the game.

On Foles - I remember the 3rd last play. The 5 foot something honey badger jumps up and swats away a pass over the head of a 6'3 rookie WR.

The new two are in the NFL highlights package. Second play was definitely catchable. He gave the defense a fair chance but it was a fast and safe throw to get a third play if needed. On the final play WR jumps through the air and takes what we'd call a chest mark and is then pushed out whilst airborne. The pass is landing in bounds. If he trails his feet and leans through the air he can catch that. I think CC said it's hard but possible to catch after the game. And that pass was after back pedaling when the Cards sent a 7 man blitz at him. Foles makes inconsistent mistakes with accuracy and occasionally bad decisions and missing receivers. I just thought he did a decent job on that last drive.

Any team with a rash of injuries can create a lack of depth in various positions ... and, there are a stack of teams who have a rash of injuries. So, your issue is the same issue that many other teams have. Therefore, it goes without saying in my opinion. I could offer the same reasoning behind our loss to the Saints today but I don't see the point.

All teams should be able to cover for injuries as a matter of course ... the difference being if a Brady or a Peyton goes down - these type of players in no way can be covered for.

Foles should have been instructed to throw the ball in those last 3 plays so that the throws were well inbounds (say, a couple of yards in) ... he's not an elite QB so therefore he needs to play within his limitations (like Smith @ KC) I still maintain that none of those 3 throws could have been caught inbounds with a degree of certainty.

"Jordan came down with a great catch," Foles said, "but I've got to make sure I keep him inbounds."

The 'final drive' was excellent work by Foles but I was specifically referencing the last 13 seconds when I referred to "crunch time" ... I actually think he's got a bright future but even the best QB's have a degree of conservatism about themselves. It's one of the reasons why elite QB's generally have a low percentage of interceptions.

Re the Saints game ... I'm looking at my team to blow the other mob out of the water and get the quick kill. We leak points as a matter of course so we nearly always need to score heavily in order to beat the better teams. Therefore, keeping pace or doing "ok" just isn't going to cut it. The expectations are to win and win well but I'm more annoyed than disappointed with today's result. We're a lot better than what we displayed today.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Macca

[Gorgoroth 12,924]

Did you watch it? I don't have game pass and I was up at 4am this morning (with a newborn) watching the Bengals game and following our game on twitter and gamecast. Despite the final scoreline, those deflating things early in sporting games like mussed field goals can completely change the direction of a contest. Smith's numbers were very efficient. He plays within his limitations, which I like.

Yeah I watched it, a big problem for us is we do stupid mistakes and then we fall to pieces. I mean a ball tumbling along, jump on it don't try and pick it up as you are running only to fumble it and allow smith to re gather.

Got called on a personal foul that was a terrible call and then gave one when we had you pinned inside your own ten.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Watched your game this morning and whilst Foles numbers looked quite good, he couldn't get it done in crunch time.

Foles is [censored]. He's just not a superbowl QB. Watch the Eagles trade everything this offseason for Mariotta.

[Macca 16,922]

Foles is [censored]. He's just not a superbowl QB. Watch the Eagles trade everything this offseason for Mariotta.

He's still quite young but you watch your games so I'm tempted to take your word for it.

Interesting that Alex Smith went 24/28 with a total of 226 yards for KC - lots of short sharp throws and he plays within his limitations - or at least it seems Reid instructs him to do so.

[JV7 2,350]

You called it macca.. Good win by redskins. Interesting to see romo come back on after the hit he took, he looked out of sorts when he came back on

Edited October 28, 2014 by JV7

[Macca 16,922]

You called it macca.. Good win by redskins. Interesting to see romo come back on after the hit he took, he looked out of sorts when he came back on

I still wasn't game to pick 'em outright though JV

Definite trap game wasn't it? Washington came to play and Dallas didn't deal with that very well.

The doubts remain with the Cowboys - the big thing about this sport is the immediate exposed form. All the other teams would have been watching tonight, especially their upcoming opponents. Dallas are at the Jags in a fortnight but surrounding that game they are vs Arizona, @ Giants and then vs the Eagles.

Trent Dilfer just described the league as the "Update league" and I reckon he's right on the money.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Saints, Colts... And my boys Eagles for probably my first pick of them this year.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

He's still quite young but you watch your games so I'm tempted to take your word for it.

Yeah, he's not absolutely terrible. And is certainly the guy for the rest of 2014.... But he's never going to be all that good. His deep balls are loopy monstrosities. He's not a quick mover. He throws poorly when on the move. He's basically just another mid-round QB. He plays as advertised. With a great OC as your coach, and an OL like he had last season, with a RB taking up the defense's time... It should come as no surprise how he's done. But if you want a good QB, you need someone who does well in all situations, like Rivers and Rogers, who play the same with good OL or not. And he's shown he's not really very clutch. He's ok, but not great. Wouldn't crack anyone's top 10 QBs, now or into the future.

You called it macca.. Good win by redskins. Interesting to see romo come back on after the hit he took, he looked out of sorts when he came back on

Weeden looked better than Romo in his one drive, except for a nearly-pick. Watching the footage there seemed to be a lot of Jerry in on that sideline conversation.

Trent Dilfer just described the league as the "Update league" and I reckon he's right on the money.

What's that mean?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Dappa Dan

[JV7 2,350]

Eagles, colts & chargers this week

Edited October 28, 2014 by JV7

[Macca 16,922]

What's that mean?

In reference to Dilfer's "The Update League" I took him as meaning that things can change from week to week in the league (sometimes dramatically so) He was in a discussion surrounding the loss by Dallas and I'm supposing that he maybe now has doubts (again) about the Cowboys.

Them losing does keep your blokes within striking distance and Dallas have 3 tough games in their next 4. Romo hurt his back again and may have done some damage - apparently the x-rays came back negative but he's had major back issues previously.

Anyway, trying to come up with the AFC & NFC conference championship game contenders is a bit of a task ... I could only go with Denver right now and any number of teams could fill the other 3 spots. Tipping the last 8 for the divisional weekend is even tougher

Should we have a dash at it at this early stage, Dappa?

[pantaloons 2,019]

Week 9:

San Diego

New Orleans

Indy

Probably should have picked Denver but I just can't pick Manning to beat Brady. San Diego is pretty banged up and that's probably a foolish pick. I should just pick them out of a hat.

[titan_uranus 24,974]

If the season ended now neither Seattle nor SF would be in the playoffs. 2 games back in the division just short of halfway through. It's going to be a wild ride to the end but right now I'd put Arizona first for the division and I'd put Detroit/GB ahead of both Seattle and SF in the fight for WC1.

Meanwhile Cleveland, last in its division (4-3), has a better record than Carolina (3-3-1) who is first in its division. Who'd have thought NFC South would be this weak this year? Tampa Bay seemed to be the popular choice in the pre-season, and Atlanta started the season very strongly. Coupled with two 2013 playoff sides and it promised so much more than it has delivered so far.

[JV7 2,350]

If the season ended now neither Seattle nor SF would be in the playoffs. 2 games back in the division just short of halfway through. It's going to be a wild ride to the end but right now I'd put Arizona first for the division and I'd put Detroit/GB ahead of both Seattle and SF in the fight for WC1.

Meanwhile Cleveland, last in its division (4-3), has a better record than Carolina (3-3-1) who is first in its division. Who'd have thought NFC South would be this weak this year? Tampa Bay seemed to be the popular choice in the pre-season, and Atlanta started the season very strongly. Coupled with two 2013 playoff sides and it promised so much more than it has delivered so far.

Does beg the question wether the divison winners should automatically advance to the playoffs.. The saints could go 7-9 or 8-8 or the panthers 7-8-1 or 8-7-1 and make it... While other sides could go 9-7 or 10-6 in a strong divison but not make it... Seem stupid

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

In reference to Dilfer's "The Update League" I took him as meaning that things can change from week to week in the league (sometimes dramatically so) He was in a discussion surrounding the loss by Dallas and I'm supposing that he maybe now has doubts (again) about the Cowboys.

Should we have a dash at it at this early stage, Dappa?

Ah. Yeah makes sense. Although no, I don't agree on his take on the cowboys. Weeden looked good on one drive. Their OL isn't leaking players to injury, so you could put Tebow in there and they'd look good.

And yeah, I'm always up for it... Stakes?

[Macca 16,922]

Ah. Yeah makes sense. Although no, I don't agree on his take on the cowboys. Weeden looked good on one drive. Their OL isn't leaking players to injury, so you could put Tebow in there and they'd look good.

And yeah, I'm always up for it... Stakes?

lol ... maybe like the tipping comp - bragging rights and kudos only

I'll need a day or so to come up with my final 8 (or 12 if we want to add in the wild-card teams)

This year is the most wide open for a long time - I'm not even convinced with Denver yet. There's literally about 20 teams that could make it ... the half way mark of the season seems the right time to have a go at it.

Closest to the pin wins hey?

If we do the whole 12, I'll be trying to fit Buffalo & Pittsburgh in the AFC & there's gonna be at least 2 decent sides miss out in the NFC.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Macca

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Does beg the question wether the divison winners should automatically advance to the playoffs.. The saints could go 7-9 or 8-8 or the panthers 7-8-1 or 8-7-1 and make it... While other sides could go 9-7 or 10-6 in a strong divison but not make it... Seem stupid

I think I read that they're very close, next season or the one after, to fixing this... Another NFL vs AFL thing where the NFL embarrass us. When there's inequity, they fix it relatively quickly. Meanwhile the AFL overlooks things for an entire lifetime of a fan.

Them losing does keep your blokes within striking distance and Dallas have 3 tough games in their next 4. Romo hurt his back again and may have done some damage - apparently the x-rays came back negative but he's had major back issues previously.

Yeah, 3 tough in next 4, plus a slightly banged up Romo and a LB out for the year... Also Eagles are a fit squad down the stretch under Kelly. But to be perfectly honest how I read it is like this. When the Eagles got done by the Cards, I was resigned to fighting for a wild card. But since they lost to Washington, I think basically it'll come down to the same thing it does every year. Division matches at the end of the season. Cowboys go 2-0, Eagles miss playoffs. Eagles go 2-0 or if they go 1-1 both teams make playoffs. That's about it.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Closest to the pin wins hey?

Well.... why not do a top 4, then division winners, then 12... However many you get right you get a point. So, let's say you pick Denver as a top 4 team and they make it, you get a point each for being right in top 12, division winner and 4. If you pick the correct division winners, you'd get 2, and wild cards just 1... Agree week 8 or 9 makes sense for timing...

[Macca 16,922]

Well.... why not do a top 4, then division winners, then 12... However many you get right you get a point. So, let's say you pick Denver as a top 4 team and they make it, you get a point each for being right in top 12, division winner and 4. If you pick the correct division winners, you'd get 2, and wild cards just 1... Agree week 8 or 9 makes sense for timing...

Sounds good to me, Dappa

I'll have a go in the next few days whilst it's on my mind. Maybe after Fridays game - that Saints @ Panthers game shapes up as a season definer for that division.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Sounds good to me, Dappa

I'll have a go in the next few days whilst it's on my mind. Maybe after Fridays game - that Saints @ Panthers game shapes up as a season definer for that division.

I just had a look. It's tough. Might have to wait one more week. lol