NFL weekly chatter thread

Burz · Post by **Burz** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:33 pm

7 sacks on Warner..ouch..

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:46 pm

Flaten wrote:Don't know who's more overrated the Giants or the Seahawks. Must be time to /random 1 2.

Overrated? Y'know what overrated is?

Bill Parcells and the Cowboys, especially Vnny Testa.

Giants are winning football games they should lose and lose ones they should win. That's football. Seahawks same thing.

Never call someone overrated. They usually bite you in the ass. People thought Pittsburgh was overrated, and some are clinging desperately to that hope. Those people, btw, are all fans of AFC North teams.

Barrin · Post by **Barrin** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:47 pm

My picks were ass this week but the bengals win 26-3 with classy ORANGE jerseys. Tuna is not pleased.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:42 am

Since you and I had about the same picks, Barin, mine are turning out as assly as yours.

Makes me wonder for tomorrow night's game. "Any Given Sunday" is turning out to be damned annoying.

I notice that there is a decided lack of Croinc coming in here and praising my Seahawks for winning a football game. OH no wait, he wont show up until my team loses so he can troll. Silly me.

Flaten · Post by **Flaten** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:50 am

Exactly how many teams have the Seahawks beaten with a winning record?

Burz · Post by **Burz** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:17 am

Barrin wrote:My picks were ass this week but the bengals win 26-3 with classy ORANGE jerseys. Tuna is not pleased.

I liked those jerseys...prolly only cause you like never see something that boldly orange.

Croinc · Post by **Croinc** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:22 pm

ZanypherCocoapuffs wrote: Giants are winning football games they should lose and lose ones they should win. That's football.

Nope, that's New Orleans Saints style football.

BTW, Cock-Sucker, SEAHWAKS STILL SUCK DICK K THKS.

--Cro

Burz · Post by **Burz** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:24 pm

HAHAHAHA...N.O. Saints....Hey Brooks throw the ball backwards 20 yards again.

Worst.Play.Of.Season.

Croinc · Post by **Croinc** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:46 pm

The Chargers might just creep up on everyone this year. Brees having a good year and L.T. is the best player in the NFL right now.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:54 pm

Flaten wrote:Exactly how many teams have the Seahawks beaten with a winning record?

Y'know, this is one of the stupidest things I hear out of people. Who gives a fuck? The Patriots beat the crap out of a ton of teams without winning records on their lovely little streak. The Steelers victories have been bourne upon the backs of people without winning records. The Eagles. The Vikings.

Jesus... everybody fucking beats up on the non wnining record having teams! That's what they're supposed to fucking do! But even that's a misnomer. Good teams with winning records lose to teams with losing records. It's been happening quite a bit this year.

"Any Given Sunday" fuckers. And besides, what matters isn't the record of the opponent, unless you want to say that beating the Chiefs has no meaning anymore. Or beating the Packers. Or beating the Bucs.

The team you play at the time, if they're a good team and you beat them, then you just beat a good team. You wont know what their fucking record is until the season is over. Hell, everybody the Seahawks beat could come back and have winning records, would it fucking matter then? No, it wouldn't.

I'll never buy into the "it only matters if they beat people with winning records AT THE TIME" bullshit. Hell, that's the only reason the Steelers are getting so much attention, they busted people's undefeated records twice in two weeks. A marvelous accomplishment to be sure.

If you want more overanalyzation of people's schedules and records to determine if they're a good team or not, the Steelers only loss came to the Baltimore Ravens who were, AT THE TIME, an 0-1 team. Does that mean the Steelers suck because their only loss came to a non-winning record having team?

Look, if you want to overanalyze records and shit, go hug the BCS. That's basically what it does. I know the Seahawks are a good team, and I know they can be beaten by any team at any time. I also know they can beat any team at any time.

Croinc wrote:BTW, Cock-Sucker, SEAHWAKS STILL SUCK DICK K THKS.

5-3, top of their division.. yeah, suckage. Total. =)

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:33 pm

Flaten wrote:Exactly how many teams have the Seahawks beaten with a winning record?

Bunny bashing is a needed part of success. Which is why losing to Miami should earn your team plenty of ridicule.

rajavengerGIA · Post by **rajavengerGIA** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:36 pm

Barrin wrote: New England at St. Louis - X-Factor here is Martz and if he can manage to fuck it up.
quote]

[quote="zanyperson] New England @ St. Louis: Oh sure, the Rams get the Pats at home. What fucking luck. Anyway, Rams are tough at home and off a bye week. New England is going to be looking hard at reestablishing dominance after being beaten by the Steelers. I have a feeling this'll be a long day for Marc Bulger as the Patriots blitz the crap out of him. However, New England is NOT THAT GOOD A TEAM... and the Rams may show that. This should be the game of the week, if not the for Pennsylvania Civil War. Patriots 28, Rams 30.

yep what a ass beating the rams gave to the pats. yep thats right pats suck. lets see one bad play and they won bye a shit load do u guys still have to splurt out of your mouth uselss sentences. is it true that people always down play the good teams. truthfully the eagles finally got beat and by a team that is good no matter what their record says. they arent a super great team and the steelers showed it. my prediciton is that it will be pats over steelers by maybe 3 points in the AFC champion chip becuase truthfully the pats will not make those mistakes twice.

Tasnus · Post by **Tasnus** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:49 pm

lets see one bad play and they won bye a shit load do u guys still have to splurt out of your mouth uselss sentences

WHAZ

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:54 pm

rajavengerGIA wrote:yep what a ass beating the rams gave to the pats. yep thats right pats suck. lets see one bad play and they won bye a shit load do u guys still have to splurt out of your mouth uselss sentences. is it true that people always down play the good teams. truthfully the eagles finally got beat and by a team that is good no matter what their record says. they arent a super great team and the steelers showed it. my prediciton is that it will be pats over steelers by maybe 3 points in the AFC champion chip becuase truthfully the pats will not make those mistakes twice.

The Pats can make the same mistakes twice. Everybody can.

However, I stand by what I said about the Pats. I think they're an overrated team that has gotten really lucky. The Rams were in this ballgame until that Field Goal trick play. I have no idea why a Ram didn't notice that and call time out immediately.

The only thing that torks me off about the Patriots is their unconventional playing style. They prefer trick plays and gimmicks to solid football tactics. What REALLY pisses me off about that, though, is how often their trick plays WORK.

You'd think the Football Gods would smite them for being so preumptuous all the time, but I suppose not. Skill has a lot to do with it. Luck has the rest.

/shrug... I think if given another chance, my Seahawks could beat the Pats. But they didn't when they had their chance, so it's a moot point. I just have no idea how this team manages to win, seeing as how they're right now down to their last Defensive Backs, a running game that still isn't that good (or just isn't USED all that often), and a gaggle of wide outs, none of which are the "Go To" guy.

However, all those weaknesses are also their advantages. I just wonder how long they can hold up is all.

rajavengerGIA · Post by **rajavengerGIA** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:00 pm

tell me this isnt genious

vrabel scored a touchdown ON OFFESNE
vinitari throws a td off a fake

how often does this happen???

Flaten · Post by **Flaten** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:07 pm

The only thing that torks me off about the Patriots is their unconventional playing style. They prefer trick plays and gimmicks to solid football tactics. What REALLY pisses me off about that, though, is how often their trick plays WORK.

That was the first trick play I've seen them run this year. The Patriots play to their opponent's weaknesses and do nothing that they expect on gameday. The have the best coaching staff in football so why do what you're expected to do. They run when you expect them to pass and run the no-huddle when you expect them to puound Dillion.

The Seahawks have now beaten SF x2, No, TB, and Carolina while getting beaten by the Cardinals. The Seahawks have a below average defense, a good running game and a decent passing game. You sound just like the players on tv who always state they should have beaten the Patriots. Well 2 Super Bowls in 3 years isn't too bad, guess alot of people can keep on wishing they could beat the Pats.

Flaten · Post by **Flaten** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:14 pm

Also Zany the reason the Pats can win which apparantly you and most of the people don't seem to understand is depth. The Pats actually rotate offensive lineman which is kinda unheard of. With the exception of a few stars the Pats really don't have alot of high priced players. They'd rather have their 53rd player better than your 53rd which always them to compensate for injuries. I believe last year they led the league in games missed to injuries and yet still led the league in wins. Hopefully the NFL never catches on to their theory.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:48 am

Flaten wrote:That was the first trick play I've seen them run this year. The Patriots play to their opponent's weaknesses and do nothing that they expect on gameday. The have the best coaching staff in football so why do what you're expected to do. They run when you expect them to pass and run the no-huddle when you expect them to puound Dillion.

I have no problem with doing the unexpected. That's 90 percent of football success. But I am just waiting for it to bite them in the ass. It hasn't yet, but it will. As an example, and let's use my Seahawks because that's the only game that my area has managed to cover regarding the Pats this year (I have no idea why.), that last 3rd and 9 that was a 43 yard bomb? What happens if that screws up? I know it DIDN'T, but Tom Brady threw the pass too far to the left and it took an absolutely exceptional play to haul that in. Absolutely exceptional plays happen, but you can't rely on them. If they screw that up, it's 4th and 9, probably in field goal range, with a lot of time left. The game could go another way.

In the general scheme of things, you really don't want to do that. To me, that was a stupid coaching decision. That was putting things out on the line unnecessarily. You have a great back in Corey Dillon. You went out and GOT HIM so you could pound the run when you need to. And they throw a long bomb instead. Hey, that's what he wants to do, that's fine. I still say it's dumb. It was even dumber when they passed on first down and it went incomplete. The world would have questioned that move by Bellichek if it hadn't worked. But it did, so he's a genius instead.

That's the part that bugs me. You go for ballsy tactics, pull them off, and you're a genius. Jeezus, it's only because they're the Pats that he gets away with that. Now, I am not saying the Field Goal touchdown pass wasn't genius, because that's just flat catching the Rams completely stupified. Like I said, SOMEONE on the Rams needs to notice that and call time out. I saw two of the Rams field goal defense unit point at him well before the ball was snapped and they started to move over there, but nobody thought it might be a better idea to call time out.

Sometimes I think Bellichek does all this just to see what he can and can't get way with. But again, "Any Given Sunday." For every gutsy, ballsy, caught them off guard play, there's Aaron Brooks throwing a 20 yard fumble lateral. Sheeesh.

The Seahawks have now beaten SF x2, No, TB, and Carolina while getting beaten by the Cardinals. The Seahawks have a below average defense, a good running game and a decent passing game. You sound just like the players on tv who always state they should have beaten the Patriots. Well 2 Super Bowls in 3 years isn't too bad, guess alot of people can keep on wishing they could beat the Pats.

Steelers won a ton of Superbowls in the 70s. Dolphins too, and are the only undefeated team ever. 49ers won a lot in the 80s and 90s.

What you do this year is what's important, now what you did 2 of the last three Superbowls. And you did have stars on your team when you won the first one. Year after that, they vacated. Now you're down to a handful of "stars" but by no means a lack of "talent." I did not know about the O-Line substitution ring, but they must practice that quite a bit. I could never fathom something like that working just because they rotate guys in. They obviously have a good system to it. Shuffling in O-linemen is not exactly a good thing to do, normally. But if it works, more power to 'em.

BTW, you seem to fail to understand the Seahawks Below average defense?... Well, whatever. They haven't been at their best the last few weeks, but they were #1 for the first three. It's what they do each week that's important.

But let me give you an objective look at the Patriots.

Passing game - The only reason this works is that they don't have any offensive stars. They have a plethera of people who can get open and Brady makes accurate throws. Brady also gets a lot of time from his O-Line. That leads to a great deal of success.

Running game - Inconsistent. When he knew he wouldn't have anybody backing up Dillon, Bellichek decided to barely use him for the first game. Last week he ran a grand total of 6 times, and lost to the Steelers. If you want to have a good running back, use him. If you want to be Andy Reid, then be Andy Reid. You still need a consistent running game to win ballgames. Brady's a good quarterback, but like Vinny Testa can attest, throwing the ball a lot only helps if you can push it down field. If you're just making short dunker passes, you don't get very far. In the game against the Hawks, except for that one deep ball, the Pats didn't get anything beyond 15 yards. In their loss to the Steelers, they couldn't get any deep balls thrown, and their running game was shut down. Pay attention to the Colts, the Chiefs, the Chargers, and the Vikings. They all have the best offenses in the game right now, and they all have great running backs who gash yards in defenses which sets up the play action deep pass.

Bellichek doesn't have to acknowledge that if he doesn't want to, but he's going to lose a lot more often if he doesn't.

Defense (Rushing) - Inconsistent. One week they stuff the run, the next week they give up 130 yards on the ground. /shrug. Rushing defense is about average.

Defense (Passing) - Decent. Even though they have lost all their starting and backup corners, the front 4 still give a good push to create uncertainty in the backfield. They don't get a ton of sacks, but they do get pressure, which is all you need. The Cowboys had the worst sack totals in the league last year, but the best defense. Why? Pressure. Not necessarily sacks, but pressure. This is one of the Pats' strengths. Their coverage guys are physical too, but now that they've lost starters, I will wonder if they don't give up more yards through the air. We'll see. Troy Brown can only play both sides for so long.

BTW, The Pats aren't the only people who have various players capable of playing various positions to fill in needed depth. Everybody does that. It just never becomes necessary. I guarantee you that every Cornerback and Safety can run passing routes if needs be, and every receiver can play coverage if necessary. Fullbacks can play tight end and defensive end if needs be. Tight ends can shift to linebackers. Olinemen can play D-line. Etc. The only reason Troy Brown got press is because it was absolutely necessary. I am rather interested as to why he didn't pick that ball off tho. You're a receiver boy, if it hits you in the hands you have to catch it.

Also, depth is another part you're taking way too much to heart with your Pats. Everybody has depth. That's why you start spring training with 75 - 80 guys and make cuts down to the 53 man roster, with the 7 man practice squad. You fill your depth. If you can't find it out of the pre-season invitees, you go and snag someone from someone else's cut list who just happens to be strong at a particular depth position. Let's also not forget that while there is only one Randy Moss, there are 200 Deion Branch's who can play. Having a pack of mediocre / good players just means that nobody is really better then anybody else. Not a bad idea, but not necessarily good either. Jury is still out on that one.

Anyway, the Pats are not invincible. When they run into good defenses, like anybody else, they flounder. They scored 20 points on my 'Hawks in the first half, but only 3 in the second half + 1 touchdown that didn't matter at that point. So yeah, 10 points, but only 3 really made a difference. Seahawks still lost, regardless.

I would think that the measure of a team's offensive capabilities should only be measured against the best defenses and how they perform. Likewise, a defense has to be measured against a good offense in order to be gauged. So far, the Pats are winning, but a flip of a coin here and there and they lose a lot of these games.

So tread carefully on your adoration for your team, or you will eventually suffer the same kind of shock and disbelief I felt at the hands of the Rams.

Flaten · Post by **Flaten** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:05 am

So what should the Patriot's record be then? Sounds like they suck in all aspects of the game, I guess they should be like 1 - 7 then. If the formula for winning is so simple then why don't all the teams in the NFL do it? If it's so easy for linebackers to play tight end why don't other teams do it? I'll just take win after win from a bunch of nobodies who couldn't start on any other team.

rajavengerGIA · Post by **rajavengerGIA** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:28 am

we suck and your seahawks are better how???? last i check we beat the seasucks and only lsot 1 game howe bout them sea hawks. it doesnt take alot of star to win all it takes are peple who are good or above good but noty great. find me one sb par player on the pats. god damn even brady runs with his urnning backs and lifts w ith his linemen. what does that tell u