2011 NFL thread

Comments

  • darkwinterbeast8darkwinterbeast8 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    The Bad News: The Seattle Seahawks lost in heartbreaking fashion at the end thanks to Tavaris Jackson's pathetic excuse to a 2 minute drive.

    The Good News: .... (Give me a while, I can't think of any positive things to say about this)
  • clashcityrocker10clashcityrocker10 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    darkwinterbeast8;4512000 said:
    The Good News: ....

    They played a tight game against a team that was expected to roll over the Seahawks?
  • CubecubedCubecubed Washed Up
    edited October 2011
    Ed reed: The best defensive player in football.
  • clashcityrocker10clashcityrocker10 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    *sigh*

    At least it's still early.

    JOE MCKNIGHT
  • HairyManHairyMan Always Rock On The Bright Side Of Life
    edited October 2011
    Lawdog1521;4509004 said:
    I agree. It's frustrating. I think we have one of the best offense's in the NFL right now but every game turns into a shootout because our D can't stop anyone from scoring.

    As a pessimist, I guess I can say I'm happy since I stated earlier today's game would happen. Oakland Defense just couldn't stop New England and Campbell on Offense made one of the most horrific throw-aways on the planet when he threw the INT right to Chung. Oakland keeps showing so much promise, yet, they can't seem to get over that hump. Being a Raiders and Yankees fan, I always thought that Al Davis and George Steinbrenner were the same people. George learned what to do. As long as Al Davis is alive, Oakland will never win. :( Thankfully, in my weekly football pool I bet in favor of the Pats as I knew they'd win. Oakland has no defense. Statistically, the Pats Defense was apparently worse, but I still think that Oakland's D is the worst in the NFL. They can't stop anybody. Oakland is rebuilding, but they still need to show that they are better. They "should" be playoff bound in the next few years, but some stupid decisions they've made will prevent that. Uggh this sucks. Hurts even more that in their ONE Superbowl appearance in my life, their team decide that a night of booze and cocaine would be a good idea the night before. Worse that Jon Gruden (my favorite Raiders' head coach EVER) beat them. That was the last time Oakland was any worry. Sure they can beat the AFC West (hell, who cant?), but the rest of the league owns them.

    I think the Lions are a legitimate team this year. Be scared of them. They may surprise a LOT of people this year.
  • bmanincbmaninc Wetter of Fine Pants
    edited October 2011
    The Patriots are very mediocre. I like the 49'ers playoff chances over theirs.
  • Lawdog1521Lawdog1521 Squirrel Chasing Expert
    edited October 2011
    bmaninc;4512325 said:
    The Patriots are very mediocre. I like the 49'ers playoff chances over theirs.

    Alex Smith can't handle pressure. He's the Tony Romo of the West. (The more West than Texas anyway.)
  • bmanincbmaninc Wetter of Fine Pants
    edited October 2011
    Lawdog1521;4512331 said:
    Alex Smith can't handle pressure. He's the Tony Romo of the West. (The more West than Texas anyway.)

    You overestimate the Patriots. They smell of one and done. They haven't given up less than 350 yards to an opponent yet.
  • macamaticmacamatic Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    bmaninc;4512339 said:
    You overestimate the Patriots. They smell of one and done. They haven't given up less than 350 yards to an opponent yet.
    Exactly what "one" are you referring to? The only achievement they've reached only once with Brady is an undefeated regular season and last I checked that wasn't the bar for legitimacy.
  • CJHobbesCJHobbes Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    I assume he's referring to the Pats making the playoffs and losing their first game, whereas the 9ers make the playoffs and win their first game. Of which both statements I disagree; especially considering the 9ers are still lead by Smith and the Pats are lead by Brady.

    What a weird weekend of games. The league is holding true to the phrase "any given Sunday."
  • bmanincbmaninc Wetter of Fine Pants
    edited October 2011
    If I had to pick between the 49'ers and the Patriots, I would take the 49'ers. They'll get a home playoff game, and they have some semblance of a defense.

    The Patriots look like the Colts of old. All pass, barely any run, no defense to speak of. Losing Mayo is going to have no effect on the defense. The reason? They're already the worst, can't get any worse than that.

    I've read macamatic's post three times and it still makes no sense to me. I guess there's always next post, sunshine. :)
  • FloodOneFloodOne Headliner
    edited October 2011
    bmaninc;4512339 said:
    You overestimate the Patriots. They smell of one and done. They haven't given up less than 350 yards to an opponent yet.
    Colts East!
    bmaninc;4512420 said:
    If I had to pick between the 49'ers and the Patriots, I would take the 49'ers. They'll get a home playoff game, and they have some semblance of a defense.

    The Patriots look like the Colts of old. All pass, barely any run, no defense to speak of. Losing Mayo is going to have no effect on the defense. The reason? They're already the worst, can't get any worse than that.

    I've read macamatic's post three times and it still makes no sense to me. I guess there's always next post, sunshine. :)

    There's one thing the Colts of days past had that the 2011 Pats don't. A pass rush.
  • CubecubedCubecubed Washed Up
    edited October 2011
    Its fair to say I am looking forward to next Monday night's game more than any Lions game ever.
  • macamaticmacamatic Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    bmaninc;4512420 said:
    I've read macamatic's post three times and it still makes no sense to me. I guess there's always next post, sunshine. :)
    I'm saying "one and done" makes no sense. "One and done" implies that they're like the 07 Giants, achieving something great once and never being able to pull it off again. They've won three Super Bowls in four years and went to another to cap off an otherwise undefeated season. And with respect to this season, since 2004 was admittedly a pretty long time ago, they've already beat down three teams by double digits. To be "one and done" you need to have done something once. I'm not sure what that is for a team that, save for a terrible showing in Buffalo, is an absolute juggernaut on offense (by the way, Brady still threw four touchdowns).

    Will the Pats win the Super Bowl? Maybe not. Hell, only one team can so the odds are pretty rough. But from what I've seen, they're for real. If they keep losing, then I'll buy it, but when I see a team that is winning by an average of two TDs per game, it's going to be tough to convince me they're not actually that good, at least until we see them play some more. Honestly it's way too early in the season to be determining who's a true contender anyway. Oh, and they're 9th in rushing - not what I would call "barely any".
  • Dante1847Dante1847 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    we all cherish our crystal balls....I think bmans comparison of the Pats to the older Colts is fair. but I also think the Pats for many years have never been associated with good defense or running anyways. So...what have we really learned here
  • HeyRilesHeyRiles Besse's Girl
    edited October 2011
    macamatic;4512979 said:
    I'm saying "one and done" makes no sense. "One and done" implies that they're like the 07 Giants, achieving something great once and never being able to pull it off again.

    One game, done in the playoffs

    That's what he meant and I didn't realize there was any other way to interpret that
  • bmanincbmaninc Wetter of Fine Pants
    edited October 2011
    macamatic;4512979 said:
    I'm saying "one and done" makes no sense. "One and done" implies that they're like the 07 Giants, achieving something great once and never being able to pull it off again. They've won three Super Bowls in four years and went to another to cap off an otherwise undefeated season. And with respect to this season, since 2004 was admittedly a pretty long time ago, they've already beat down three teams by double digits. To be "one and done" you need to have done something once. I'm not sure what that is for a team that, save for a terrible showing in Buffalo, is an absolute juggernaut on offense (by the way, Brady still threw four touchdowns).

    Will the Pats win the Super Bowl? Maybe not. Hell, only one team can so the odds are pretty rough. But from what I've seen, they're for real. If they keep losing, then I'll buy it, but when I see a team that is winning by an average of two TDs per game, it's going to be tough to convince me they're not actually that good, at least until we see them play some more. Honestly it's way too early in the season to be determining who's a true contender anyway. Oh, and they're 9th in rushing - not what I would call "barely any".
    9th in rushing because they run at the end of games because they have a lead.

    I'm gonna start calling you Vanderjerk. You're missing the point, and it makes me smile.

    You're basically telling me what I am supposed to mean when I say one and done. I've never seen it said in the context you're using. You're just making yourself look like a tool.
  • CJHobbesCJHobbes Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    bmaninc;4513105 said:
    9th in rushing because they run at the end of games because they have a lead.

    I wouldn't go that far. The Pats still run a regular offense until the last drive or two; and even then, they're always a threat to throw. They only average 12 more rushing attempts/game than their opponents, but they're averaging as many yards/rush as they're giving up (4.8). They're 9th in the league in rushing attempts, which goes along with their place for rushing yardage, so it's not like they run the ball more than everyone else. Heck, they're 224 attempts behind #1 on that list (the Raiders).

    And from what I've seen of the Brady/Belichick era the Pats don't necessarily run because they have a lead; they run when they see it works. They're more than happy to throw it on 3rd and 3 as much as 1st and 10 in the 4th. Plus, with how terrible their defense traditionally is, they can't sit on a lead since they'll more than likely give it up as the game goes on.

    Of course, this is the first season in a long while that training camp and practices were cut short, so it'll be a few more weeks until the stats settle.

    But in the end we all know it'll be a GREAT LAKES Super Bowl! Detroit vs. Buffalo, PRIME TIME! :D
  • macamaticmacamatic Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    HeyRiles;4513081 said:
    One game, done in the playoffs

    That's what he meant and I didn't realize there was any other way to interpret that
    bmaninc;4513105 said:
    I'm gonna start calling you Vanderjerk. You're missing the point, and it makes me smile.

    You're basically telling me what I am supposed to mean when I say one and done. I've never seen it said in the context you're using. You're just making yourself look like a tool.
    That's not my understanding of the term. I don't care enough to look it up, but if it's what Riles said, it makes even less sense. Prognosticating playoff performance from four weeks of play? I guess that's why the Saints went to the SB last season. Wait...

    Seriously, I look like a tool? NE hasn't had a dominant defense since Belichick took over. Guess what? Three SBs in four years, and I don't think I have to go into 07. They're currently shredding offenses and would be 4-0 if it weren't for some costly picks against Buffalo. Considering he had four all last season, I'm going to go ahead and say that isn't terribly indicative of his level of play.

    In other words, you're trying to make playoff predictions a quarter of the way into the season. I'm telling you that that's ******ed. Remind me again how I look like a tool?

    Oh, and considering you're the one talking about how the Pats are going to lose, "Vanderjerk" is a really stupid thing for you to call me.
  • HeyRilesHeyRiles Besse's Girl
    edited October 2011
    macamatic;4516414 said:
    That's not my understanding of the term. I don't care enough to look it up, but if it's what Riles said, it makes even less sense. Prognosticating playoff performance from four weeks of play? I guess that's why the Saints went to the SB last season. Wait...

    The Saints last year were one and done. They played one playoff game and lost, they were done. How are you not understanding this?
  • broncosfan06broncosfan06 Debbie Downer
    edited October 2011
    darkwinterbeast8;4512000 said:
    The Bad News: The Seattle Seahawks lost in heartbreaking fashion at the end thanks to Tavaris Jackson's pathetic excuse to a 2 minute drive.

    The Good News: .... (Give me a while, I can't think of any positive things to say about this)

    Andrew Luck?

    except my Broncos are gonna sneak up on everyone and snag him...after watching them last weekend i can feel it
  • RESERVERRESERVER Unsigned
    edited October 2011
    broncosfan06;4516636 said:
    Andrew Luck?

    except my Broncos are gonna sneak up on everyone and snag him...after watching them last weekend i can feel it

    They have Tebow. Y in the world would they get luck with Tebow on your team.:cool:
  • broncosfan06broncosfan06 Debbie Downer
    edited October 2011
    RESERVER;4517160 said:
    They have Tebow. Y in the world would they get luck with Tebow on your team.:cool:

    I hope youre joking, if so i agree...if not...

    Fun fact: Tim Tebow sucks....in fact in reality hes the #4 QB on our roster, hes only #3 so he can be at games and please fans but our 4th string practice squad QB Adam Weber is far superior to Tebow and nearly as good as Quinn

    Also let it be known I like Kyle Orton, hes vastly underrated and is doing the best he can with such a lackluster supporting cast, but hes no Peyton Manning...so he cant single handedly save the team, so we either need Manning or to suck for Luck or to have Elway to come out of the office and put on some pads.

    On a different topic: how important to the Colts is Manning...they are just horrific without him...ive never seen the loss of one player affect a team so severely.
  • CJHobbesCJHobbes Road Warrior
    edited October 2011
    broncosfan06;4517210 said:
    On a different topic: how important to the Colts is Manning...they are just horrific without him...ive never seen the loss of one player affect a team so severely.

    Brings a whole new meaning to the term "MVP", doesn't it? :D

    As far as Tebow is concerned, I was in the pre-draft group that said he won't do much as an NFL QB; I never saw the whole hype surrounding him. Maybe he's a good guy and a leader, but that doesn't mean much when you can't effectively play your position.
  • clashcityrocker10clashcityrocker10 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    This is... surprising. At least, as much as it could be for an 82-year old. RIP.
  • Lawdog1521Lawdog1521 Squirrel Chasing Expert
    edited October 2011
    clashcityrocker10;4518379 said:
    This is... surprising. At least, as much as it could be for an 82-year old. RIP.

    One can say what they want about Al in his old age (Most of it's true) but he really was an innovator. Thanks for the contributions that you made to the sport and society in general. (Al was the first owner to require his team to stay together, no separate hotels for white and black players.) RIP Al.
  • edited October 2011
    I'm a little late but... LMFAO EAGLES :D
  • clashcityrocker10clashcityrocker10 Headliner
    edited October 2011
    Lawdog1521;4518515 said:
    One can say what they want about Al in his old age (Most of it's true) but he really was an innovator. Thanks for the contributions that you made to the sport and society in general. (Al was the first owner to require his team to stay together, no separate hotels for white and black players.) RIP Al.

    You're completely right. I think he was also the first owner to hire women for front-office positions in the league.
  • edited October 2011
    I can't say enough about Navorro Bowman, kid's a stud.
  • broncosfan06broncosfan06 Debbie Downer
    edited October 2011
    clashcityrocker10;4518379 said:
    This is... surprising. At least, as much as it could be for an 82-year old. RIP.

    I dont know whos more saddened by this, his family/friends/fans or the fastest guy in next years draft.

    In all seriousness without him we wouldnt have the NFL as we know it today, and my Broncos wouldnt have the huge rivalry that we have today. Kooky, crazy, slightly insane? Yes. But he was a true innovator of the game. RIP Mr. Davis.
Sign In or Register to comment.